Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-1

APPENDIX O—RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Table of Contents

PLANNING ISSUES AND CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................................4

NEPA...........................................................................................................................................................................13

FLPMA........................................................................................................................................................................54

OTHER LAWS................................................................................................................................................................67

NATIONAL SAGE-GROUSE STRATEGY...........................................................................................................................80

ACECS.......................................................................................................................................................................112

AIR RESOURCES .........................................................................................................................................................123

CLIMATE CHANGE......................................................................................................................................................126

CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES.....................................................................................................................128

FIRE AND FUELS .........................................................................................................................................................134

FISH AND WILDLIFE-BIG GAME..................................................................................................................................142

FISH AND WILDLIFE-ESA CONSULTATION.................................................................................................................150

FISH AND WILDLIFE-FISH...........................................................................................................................................151

FISH AND WILDLIFE-NON-GAME................................................................................................................................152

FISH AND WILDLIFE-OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ..............................................................................................155

SAGE-GROUSE ............................................................................................................................................................172

LANDS AND REALTY ..................................................................................................................................................520

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................................................................556

LEASABLE MINERALS.................................................................................................................................................567

LIVESTOCK GRAZING .................................................................................................................................................751

LOCATABLE MINERALS..............................................................................................................................................846

NATIONAL TRAILS......................................................................................................................................................863

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................863

RECREATION ..............................................................................................................................................................865

SALEABLE MINERALS.................................................................................................................................................872

SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................................................................................873

SOIL ...........................................................................................................................................................................897

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT..............................................................................................................................................903

VEGETATION-OTHER..................................................................................................................................................919

VEGETATION-RIPARIAN .............................................................................................................................................945

VEGETATION-SAGEBRUSH .........................................................................................................................................948

VISUAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................951

WATER.......................................................................................................................................................................952

WILD HORSES ............................................................................................................................................................967

OTHER......................................................................................................................................................................1009
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-2 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Introduction

This appendix includes public comments on the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) 

Amendments/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) along with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and U.S Forest Service (Forest Service) responses. The BLM and Forest Service provided the public with 

90 days from the date of publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS to review the document and submit comments. The NOA was 

published in the Federal Register on December 27, 2013. The 90-day public comment period officially 

ended on March 27, 2014. Any letters received after the closing date were accepted and also addressed 

during preparation of the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. 

A total of 22,877 letters were received: 22,869 were sent by e-mail and 14 were submitted in hardcopy 

format or sent by mail. Of the total letters received, 22,624 of them were identified as being form letters. 

Form letters are described as letters containing identical text submitted by more than five individuals. 

According to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BLM and Forest Service are required to 

identify and formally respond to all substantive public comments. A substantive comment does one or more 

of the following: 

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the environmental impact 

statement

• Questions, with a reasonable basis, the adequacy of environmental analysis as presented 

• Presents reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the draft EIS that meet the purpose 

and need of the proposed action and addresses significant issues 

• Causes changes or revisions in the proposal 

Nonsubstantive comments simply state a position in favor of, or against, an alternative; merely agree or 

disagree with BLM or Forest Service policy; or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or 

opinion. 

The BLM and Forest Service are required to respond only to substantive comments to fully inform the 

public of concerns raised. For this appendix, the BLM and Forest Service have provided responses to all 

substantive public concerns identified during comment analysis. Responses to substantive comments are 

more extensive, complete, and often offer an explanation of why a comment may or may not have resulted 

in a change to the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. 

The BLM and Forest Service read all public response letters in their entirety and identified comments that 

related to a particular concern or resource consideration or that proposed management actions. Every effort 

was made to keep each comment within a letter as a stand-alone comment. The BLM and Forest Service 

looked not only for each action or change requested by the public, but also for any supporting information 

to capture the comment in its entirety. In doing so, paragraphs within a comment letter may have been 

divided into several comments because of multiple comments being presented or, alternatively, sections of 

a letter may have been combined to form one coherent statement. These comment excerpts are shown in 

this appendix along with their specific comment number, the commenter name, and organization, where 

applicable. 

Once a comment was identified, the BLM assigned it to a category associated with the overall premise of 

the comment. A coding structure served as a tool to sort comments into logical groups by topics. In this 

case, the coding structure was organized based on an outline developed by the national sage-grouse 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-3

planning effort; some additional sub-categories were added to include topics unique to the Wyoming sagegrouse planning effort. 

A database was used to organize and compile the large number of comments received on the Wyoming 

Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Comments that were received via e-mail were 

automatically entered into the database. The coding of these letters was also conducted within the database. 

Comments identified in hardcopy letters were entered verbatim into the project database. The content 

analysis process also involved identifying all form letters. The initial course of action in this step was 

conducted using the database to filter all web-based and e-mail comments to identify all letters containing 

identical text. Once a form letter was identified, it was given an identification number, copied, and coded. 

If a form letter included any original comments, the comments were treated as a unique comment, coded, 

and entered into the database. 

It is important to note that during the process of identifying concerns, all comments were treated equally. 

The comments were not weighted by organizational affiliation or status of respondents, and the number of 

duplicate comments did not add more bias to one comment than another. The process was not one of 

counting votes and no effort was made to tabulate the exact number of people for, or against, any given 

aspect of the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Rather, emphasis was 

placed on the content of a comment. 

Response to Comments

The BLM and Forest Service received multiple comments that shared similar issues and content. These 

similar comments were identified and combined into comment summaries, which represent the issues raised 

in the verbatim comment excerpts. The responses presented in this appendix apply to the comment 

summaries.

This appendix is organized with the verbatim comment excerpts at the beginning of each section, which are 

shown by comment ID, organization, and commenter name (where provided). Following the verbatim 

comment excerpts are the summary comment and response to the summary comment. 

Because the comments within this appendix were made in reference to the Draft EIS, “Alternative E” was 

used in both the comments and responses. In the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS, “Alternative E” is 

now called the “Proposed LUP Amendments.” Where “Alternative E” is used in this appendix, it is used 

interchangeably for “Alternative E” in the Draft EIS and for the “Proposed LUP Amendments” in the Final 

EIS.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-4 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Planning Issues and Criteria

BLM cannot expand state authority

Comment ID: 137 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: This strategy “in no way expands the review authority of any state agency”. Significant new 

requirements will be required before projects are approved and no timelines are given to these agencies. 

Timelines for review need to be clearly established and followed if this document is to be accepted. This 

document seems to have expanded authority in order to accomplish its directive. We oppose any expansion 

of that authority. 

Summary: BLM cannot expand their authority to accomplish conservation objectives. Significant new 

project requirements give no timeline for approval. Timelines for review need to be clearly established and 

followed if this document is to be accepted. 

Response: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS contains only planning actions and does not include 

any implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis, including timelines, would 

be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may 

affect the area come under consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include 

site-specific project and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed 

environmental descriptions would be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this 

EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the 

opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Chapter 1 consistency with 2.2.1

Comment ID: 3024 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Section 1.6, page 1-10, paragraph 8, beginning on line 1: This last statement is unclear if on FS 

lands there will be amendments to existing plans and documents. Applicability under 2.2.1 Alternatives 

Development Process page 2-2 statements should apply. 

Summary: Section 1.6, page 1-10, paragraph 8, beginning on line 1: This last statement is unclear if there 

will be amendments to existing plans and documents on Forest Service lands. Applicability under 2.2.1 

Alternatives Development Process page 2-2 statements should apply. 

Response: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments and EIS is intended to amend nine 

planning documents, including three Forest Service LRMPs for the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), 

Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG). 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Funding and personnel issues

Comment ID: 2584 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-5

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-3 Text: • Sufficient funding and personnel will be available to implement the RMP and 

LRMP amendments. Comment: BLM makes the bold assumption that sufficient funding and personnel will 

be available to implement the RMP and LRMP amendments when the BLM already lacks personnel and 

funding to adequately accomplish existing management obligations. For example, wild horses have a 

significant and disproportionate adverse effect on GRSG habitat and horse numbers continue to increase 

by more than 18% annually yet BLM has repeatedly stated funding and personnel shortages to decrease 

horse gathers throughout Wyoming. “Conclusory assurances, without support, do not substitute for the 

analysis provided by an EIS.” Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 352 F. Supp. 2d 909, 927 (D. Minn. 2005); 

Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir.1998)(reasoning 

that if Forest Service does not present quantified or detailed information, courts and public cannot be 

assured that it provided requisite “hard look”); see League of Wilderness Defenders–Blue Mountains 

Biodiversity Project v. Zielinski, 187 F.Supp.2d 1263, 1271 (D.Or.2002). 

Summary: BLM makes the bold assumption that sufficient funding and personnel will be available to 

implement the Draft LUP Amendments when the BLM already lacks personnel and funding to adequately 

accomplish existing management obligations. “Conclusory assurances, without support, do not substitute 

for the analysis provided by an EIS,” Sierra Club v. Bosworth. 

Response: As a landscape level planning effort, none of the alternatives prescribe project-level or sitespecific activities on BLM or Forest Service managed lands. Furthermore, the agencies’ selection of an 

alternative does not authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor does it directly tie into the 

agencies’ budgets as appropriated annually through the federal budget process. As a consequence, agencies’ 

costs and differences in program costs across alternatives have not been quantified. Information has been 

presented in several resource impact sections on the types of costs that might be associated with various 

sage-grouse conservation measures. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Goals and objectives issues

Comment ID: 1155 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: While the proposed RMP provides goals, the objectives have been noticeably missing. Those 

few that are written without quantifiable and measurable outcomes and are written in such a way as to be 

unenforceable and are therefore not regulatory mechanisms which can be relied upon to recover sage 

grouse. 

Comment ID: 2148 

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter 

Name: Connie Wilbert 

Comment: This planning amendment is general in nature and gives little insight into how land management 

will change. BLM land use planning is guided by their handbook H-16012- 1, which requires plans to 

"guide future land use management decisions." These plan decisions are based on achieving goals and 

measurable objectives. At first glance, many of the key measurable tools and standards needed in sagegrouse conservation are present. Unfortunately, these proposed amendments offer few measurable 

objectives and the standards described are not applied uniformly, often missing the management activity or 

area where they are most needed. Objectives should be quantifiable with an established time frame for 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-6 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

achievement (H-1601-1), but these attributes are generally lacking in the objectives in the DEIS. As just 

one example, BLM does not establish sage grouse population objectives for any management area. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments document is general in nature and gives little insight into how land 

management will change. BLM land use planning is guided by their handbook H-16012- 1, which requires 

plans to "guide future land use management decisions." These plan decisions are based on achieving goals 

and measurable objectives. At first glance, many of the key measurable tools and standards needed in sagegrouse conservation are present. Unfortunately, these proposed amendments offer few measurable 

objectives and the standards described are not applied uniformly, often missing the management activity or 

area where they are most needed. Objectives should be quantifiable with an established time frame for 

achievement (H-1601-1), but these attributes are generally lacking in the objectives in the Draft EIS. Goals 

are provided, but objectives are missing or inadequate. They are not quantifiable with no measurable 

outcomes and are unenforceable and therefore not regulatory mechanisms which can be relied upon to 

recover sagegrouse. 

Response: As the decisions under consideration by the BLM and the Forest Service are programmatic in 

nature and would not result in on-the-ground planning decision or actions, the scope of the management 

actions were considered at a broad, programmatic level. The BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 updated in 

January 2008 does not indicate that the goals and objectives must be quantifiably measureable. These goals 

and objectives have been designed to comply with existing laws and regulations, in addition to 

incorporating the new sage-grouse science. The monitoring framework found in Appendix D, the habitat 

objectives in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 and the adaptive management and monitoring strategy found in Section 

2.3.2 provide the science-based hard and soft adaptive management triggers that will indicate the ability to 

meet the sage-grouse conservation objectives. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Implementation objectives are not clear

Comment ID: 1505 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The DEIS also does not meet the PECE Policy standards for ensuring that conservation measures 

are certain to be effective when implemented. First, the DEIS states that an implementation plan on 

management plans and monitoring as well as mitigation efforts will be developed after approval of the 

Record of Decision for the Land Use Plan, without providing any certainty regarding when the 

implementation plan would be completed. DEIS at 2-5. In addition, many of the alternatives in the DEIS 

do not state explicit incremental objectives and dates for the conservation effort, and does not describe the 

steps necessary for implementing the conservation effort. 

Comment ID: 2443 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Page 2-12: 2.5.4 Management Objectives Common to All Action Alternatives We believe that 

the BLM and Forest Service provide the reader of the Final EIS and ROD a compilation of the management 

goals, objectives and actions the Forest Service is not going to take or specifically what they plan to do 

otherwise in the implementation of the ROD and their LRMP. 

Summary: The Draft EIS also does not meet the Policy for Evaluating for Conservation Efforts (PECE) 

standards for ensuring that conservation measures are certain to be effective when implemented. First, the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-7

Draft EIS states that an implementation plan on management plans and monitoring as well as mitigation 

efforts will be developed after approval of the Record of Decision for the Land Use Plan, without providing 

any certainty regarding when the implementation plan would be completed. In addition, many of the 

alternatives in the Draft EIS do not state explicit incremental objectives and dates for the conservation 

effort, and do not describe the steps necessary for implementing the conservation effort. 

Response: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), not BLM, will evaluate the adequacy of the plans 

to conserve the Greater Sage-Grouse. The LUP goals and objectives, management actions to meet the goals 

and objectives, and the application of adaptive management help address uncertainity. The adaptive 

management and monitoring strategy found in Section 2.3.2 provide the hard and soft adaptive management 

triggers that will indicate the ability to meet the sage-grouse conservation objectives and provides the 

avenue for change, which addresses regulatory certainty. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Monitoring objectives are not established

Comment ID: 1339 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Page 2-5 states that FLPMA and NFMA "require that land-use plans established intervals and 

standards for monitoring based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions". It further states that PECE 

criteria evaluates whether monitoring and reporting of implementation are provided. But no information 

whatsoever is provided within the document on these issues. The BLM states that it will do it at some point 

and to just trust them. 

Summary: Page 2-5 states that the Federal Land Policy and Mangement Act (FLPMA) and National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) “require that land-use plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring 

based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions.” It further states that Policy for Evaluating for 

Conservation Efforts criteria evaluates whether monitoring and reporting of implementation are provided, 

but no information whatsoever is provided within the document on these issues. 

Response: The Monitoring Framework in Appendix D outlines the methods that the BLM and Forest 

Service will use to monitor and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the plan to conserve the 

species and their habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the Forest Service (36 CFR 

219.12) require that land use plans establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and 

evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource to the decisions involved. Implementation monitoring 

results will provide information to allow the BLM/Forest Service to evaluate the implementation of 

decisions from the BLM resource management plans (RMPs) and Forest Service land and resource 

management plans (LRMPs) to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat. Effectiveness monitoring 

will provide the information to evaluate whether BLM and Forest Service actions achieve the objective of 

the planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044), which is to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse populations and their 

habitats. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Planning issues unrelated to sage-grouse should not be considered

Comment ID: 2550 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-8 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: As a general comment and as highlighted by specific, although by no means all-inclusive, 

examples below, in the Draft LUPA/EIS BLM often strays from its stated purpose and need by providing 

analysis of individual sage-grouse and proposing development stipulations unrelated to managing 

sagegrouse habitat. BLM should not analyze impacts on individual sage-grouse until first establishing a 

link between the impacts to individuals and sage-grouse habitat. Furthermore, BLM may not propose 

management actions unrelated to management of sage-grouse habitat because such actions are outside the 

scope of this LUPA/EIS. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments and EIS often strays from its stated purpose and need by providing 

analysis of individual sage-grouse and proposing development stipulations unrelated to managing sagegrouse habitat. BLM should not analyze impacts on individual sage-grouse until first establishing a link 

between the impacts to individuals and sage-grouse habitat. Furthermore, BLM may not propose 

management actions unrelated to management of sage-grouse habitat because such actions are outside the 

scope of this plan. 

Response: All of the planning issues listed in Section 1.7 of the Draft LUP Amendments and Draft EIS 

could have impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse or their habitat or could be impacted as a result of conservation 

measures designed to protect Greater Sage-Grouse or their habitat. The Draft LUP Amendments and Draft 

EIS provided sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the Preferred 

Alternative or to make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public 

could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Private property rights concerns

Comment ID: 2078 

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson 

Comment: The document also does not clearly differentiate public and private land areas. The terminology 

is alarming, particularly in Action Number 40 where it reads “BLM/USFS would retain public ownership 

of core habitat”, with only narrow exceptions defined in Alternative E. This is very concerning to us. 

Notwithstanding the unrecognized fact that protection and enhancement of sage-grouse habitat is often 

accomplished on private lands (and sometimes more effectively than on federal lands), the statement 

implies an increase in federal land ownership under the guise of sage grouse protection. 

Comment ID: 971 

Organization: 4W Ranch 

Name: Robert Harshbarger 

Comment: Study Nonfederal land/federal mineral “Where the land surface is privately owned and the 

minerals are federally owned i.e. ʻsplit‐ estateʼ, the RMP decisions would apply to BLM‐ administrated 

federal mineral estate and, to varying degrees, the surface estate.” This is a very profound and disturbing 

statement. In other words, if the BLM so decides, our deeded lands are subject to the whims of the BLM to 

fit the agencies needs to protect the sage grouse, making our Property Rights meaningless. 

Summary: The document also does not clearly differentiate public and private land areas. The document 

states “[w]here the land surface is privately owned and the minerals are federally owned, i.e. ʻsplit‐ estateʼ, 

the LUP decisions would apply to BLM-administrated federal mineral estate and, to varying degrees, the 

surface estate.” This sounds like private property rights are subject to the whims of the BLM to fit the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-9

agencies needs to protect the sage-grouse. Action 40 reads “BLM/Forest Service would retain public 

ownership of core habitat,” with only narrow exceptions defined in Alternative E. This statement implies 

an increase in federal land ownership under the guise of sage-grouse protection. 

Response: As stated in Section 1.2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, "The planning area for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments consists of lands managed by the Wyoming BLM Casper, 

Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices, and the Forest Service BTNF, 

MBNF, and TBNG Planning Units (Map 1-1), and includes all lands and federal mineral estate managed 

by the BLM and the Forest Service within these areas." Table 1-1 footnote 4 further states, "Where the land 

surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming and the minerals are federally owned (i.e., 

split estate), the LUP decisions would apply to BLM-administered federal mineral estate and, to varying 

degrees, the surface estate. LUP decisions would only pertain to the state owned and privately owned land 

surface to the extent allowed by law and to the extent that the impacts were the result of the federal action. 

BLM would work with the private/state surface owners to honor their wishes to the extent allowed by law." 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Specify what lands decisions affect

Comment ID: 2816 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: On page vii of the Executive Summary the document states that "Any decisions on the LUP 

amendments will apply only to Federal lands administered by either the BLM or the Forest Service." We 

feel the document should also add "federal minerals" since the BLM administers minerals underlying 

private surface estates and their actions have a direct effect on these private surface lands as mentioned 

under footnote 1 on page 2 of Chapter 1. 

Summary: On page vii of the Executive Summary the document states that "Any decisions on the LUP 

amendments will apply only to Federal lands administered by either the BLM or the Forest Service." The 

document should also add "federal minerals" since the BLM administers minerals underlying private 

surface estates and their actions have a direct effect on these private surface lands as mentioned under 

footnote 1 on page 2 of Chapter 1. 

Response: As stated in Section 1.2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, "The planning area for the 

Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments consists of lands managed by the Wyoming BLM Casper, 

Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices, and the Forest Service BTNF, 

MBNF, and TBNG Planning Units (Map 1-1), and includes all lands and federal mineral estate managed 

by the BLM and the Forest Service within these areas." Table 1-1 footnote 4 further states, "Where the land 

surface is privately owned or owned by the State of Wyoming and the minerals are federally owned (i.e., 

split estate), the LUP Amendments decisions would apply to BLM-administered federal mineral estate and, 

to varying degrees, the surface estate. The LUP Amendments decisions would only pertain to the state 

owned and privately owned land surface to the extent allowed by law and to the extent that the impacts 

were the result of the federal action. BLM would work with the private/state surface owners to honor their 

wishes to the extent allowed by law. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Stated objectives are not met

Comment ID: 1410 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-10 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: The DEIS identified several key planning issues for consideration with three primary planning 

objectives as follows; 1. Consistency with the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05; 2. Consistency of sagegrouse policy with the other Land Use Plan resources decision and the need to revise the Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) to address inconsistencies; 3. Consider the adverse economic impacts from the 

Wyoming sage-grouse management policy and the need for socioeconomic analysis of the impacts from 

the policy. These primary planning objectives were considered in detail throughout the DEIS, however, the 

objectives were lost in the overwhelming detail of the DEIS. As an example, the Wyoming Governor’s 

Executive Order 2011-05 (EO) provides the necessary framework for habitat protection in all of 18 pages, 

whereas the DEIS is nearly 2,000 pages, as such the actual proposed habitat protections in the DEIS are 

difficult to surmise. The DEIS will be filtered and reduced into the various RMPs, and while this could be

an opportunity for the BLM to say more with less text, following the EO as an example, we think this has 

the potential to create inconsistencies across the BLM Districts and Field Offices. Regarding planning 

objective #2, consistency amongst the LUPs, RMPs, and Field Office application of new requirements is 

paramount in the USFWS’s ability to use the results to understand habitat conditions and restrictions on all 

BLM (and Forest Service) lands. Chapter 2, Alternatives, provides a glimpse at the multitude of differences 

across the RMPs, which the BLM should continue to standardize to the extent possible so that requirements 

are consistent at least across Wyoming, as the EO accomplishes. Lastly, objective #3, the socioeconomic 

analysis does not adequately address all of the impacts from the LUP as detailed in specific comments 

below. As stated in the DEIS, GIS and metadata information meet Federal Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC) standards, as required by Presidential Executive Order 12906. The BLM likely met this standards 

in the DEIS, however, the large scale of the maps presented makes it difficult at best to interpret LUP 

requirements at a useful scale. 

Summary: The Draft EIS identified several key planning issues for consideration with three primary 

planning objectives as follows: 1. Consistency with the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 2. Consistency 

of sage-grouse policy with the other Land Use Plan resources decisions and the need to revise the Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) to address inconsistencies 3. Consider the adverse economic impacts from the 

Wyoming sage-grouse management policy and the need for socioeconomic analysis of the impacts from 

the policy. These primary planning objectives are lost in the overwhelming detail of the Draft EIS. The 

Draft EIS will be filtered and reduced into the various RMPs, and while this could be an opportunity for 

the BLM to say more with less text, following the EO as an example, we think this has the potential to 

create inconsistencies across the BLM Districts and Field Offices. Regarding planning objective #2, 

consistency is paramount in the USFWS ability to use the results to understand habitat conditions and 

restrictions on all BLM (and Forest Service) lands. Chapter 2, Alternatives, provides a glimpse at the 

multitude of differences across the RMPs, which the BLM should continue to standardize to the extent 

possible so that requirements are consistent at least across Wyoming, as the EO accomplishes. Lastly, 

objective #3, the socioeconomic analysis does not adequately address all of the impacts from the LUP [as 

detailed in specific comments below]. 

Response: The implementation of the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 has been carefully vetted through 

the State of Wyoming to ensure the interpretation and implementation are satisfactory. The management 

actions in all of the Wyoming BLM/Forest Service plans have been carefully articulated and scrutinized to 

ensure consistent implementation across Wyoming. The socioeconomic analysis addresses economic inputs 

that had consistent datasets across the planning area. The size of the planning area made it difficult to 

incorporate additional data that may only be present in certain counties or certain field offices in the State 

of Wyoming. The data analyzed in the socioeconomic section reflects the consistent datasets found 

throughout the planning area, and therefore may not analyze every facet of impacts that may occur due to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-11

this plan. Qualitative discussions on potential economic impacts are included when quantified data was

unavailable. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

The document does not comply with Appendix C of the Planning Handbook

Comment ID: 1157 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Appendix C of the Handbook provides the heart of the planning process. Given its importance 

to complying with FLPMA, we are providing it, with highlights, in its entirety. For example, Appendix C 

requires the following directly applicable to the Sage Grouse Amendments: B. Soil and Water; C. 

Vegetation; D. Special Status Species; E. Fish and Wildlife; B. Livestock Grazing. The DEIS and proposed 

action does not comply with these requirements. 

Summary: Appendix C of the Handbook provides the heart of the planning process. Appendix C of the 

Handbook requires the following, directly applicable to the Sage Grouse Amendments: B. Soil and Water; 

C. Vegetation; D. Special Status Species; E. Fish and Wildlife; B. Livestock Grazing. The Draft EIS and 

proposed action do not comply with these requirements. 

Response: The Monitoring Framework in Appendix D outlines the methods that the BLM and Forest 

Service will use to monitor and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the plan to conserve the 

species and their habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the Forest Service (36 CFR 

219.12) require that land use plans establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and 

evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource to the decisions involved. Implementation monitoring 

results will provide information to allow the BLM/Forest Service to evaluate the implementation of 

decisions from the BLM resource management plans (RMPs) and Forest Service land and resource 

management plans (LRMPs) to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat. Effectiveness monitoring 

will provide the information to evaluate whether BLM and Forest Service actions achieve the objective of 

the planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044), which is to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse populations and their 

habitats. 

Planning Issues and Criteria

Why didn't the Forest Service use latest planning regulations?

Comment ID: 651 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Section 3.13 - Special Designation in Management Areas The BLM suggests that the Forest 

Service is required to identify inventoried roadless areas during the Forest Plan Development Process. SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 3-223. As support for this claim, the BLM cites 36 C.F.R. § 219.17. As discussed 

earlier, however, that requirement was found in the 2000 Planning Regulations which were abrogated by 

the Forest Service during 2012. As such, this regulation is no longer in effect and there is no requirement 

to inventory potential roadless areas as part of the forest planning process. The BLM should correct or 

explain while they are still utilizing the 2000 regulations despite their abrogation. 

Comment ID: 580 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-12 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: The Sage-Grouse DLUPA indicates that the United States Forest Service ("Forest Service") 

utilized the 1982 Planning Regulations (36 C.F.R. part 219). New Forest Service planning regulations were, 

however, promulgated in April 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 21260 (Apr. 9, 2012). The Forest Service should explain 

why it did not utilize the 2012 Planning Regulations. The Forest Service should also explain why the agency 

used the 1982 Regulations instead of the 2000 Regulations that were in effect prior to the new regulations 

in 2012. 

Comment ID: 736 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon applauds the BLM's recognition that LUPs are not the appropriate place to make 

sitespecific decisions. Nonetheless, in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM proposes several site-specific 

COAs contained in Appendix B that will be applied to all site-specific projects. The BLM should recognize 

the contradiction in its decision making and remove any attempts to make site-specific decisions in the 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA. This error should be corrected. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA indicates that the United 

States Forest Service ("Forest Service") utilized the 1982 Planning Regulations (36 C.F.R. part 219). New 

Forest Service planning regulations were, however, promulgated in April 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 21260 (Apr. 

9, 2012). The Forest Service should explain why it did not utilize the 2012 Planning Regulations. The Forest 

Service should also explain why the agency used the 1982 Regulations instead of the 2000 Regulations that 

were in effect prior to the new regulations in 2012. 

Comment ID: 1278 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: The Sage-Grouse DLUPA indicates that the United States Forest Service ("Forest Service") 

utilized the 1982 Planning Regulations (36 C.F.R. part 219). New Forest Service planning regulations were, 

however, promulgated in April 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 21260 (Apr. 9, 2012). The Forest Service should explain 

why it did not utilize the 2012 Planning Regulations. The Forest Service should also explain why the agency 

used the 1982 Regulations instead of the 2000 Regulations that were in effect prior to the new regulations 

in 2012. 

Comment ID: 1551 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: The BLM suggests that the Forest Service is required to identify inventoried roadless areas 

during the Forest Plan Development Process. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-223. As support for this claim, 

the BLM cites 36 C.F.R. § 219.17. As discussed earlier, however, that requirement was found in the 2000 

Planning Regulations which were abrogated by the Forest Service during 2012. As such, this regulation is 

no longer in effect and there is no requirement to inventory potential roadless areas as part of the forest 

planning process. The BLM should correct or explain why they are still utilizing the 2000 regulations 

despite their abrogation. 

Comment ID: 2282 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-13

Comment: The BLM suggests that the Forest Service is required to identify inventoried roadless areas 

during the Forest Plan Development Process. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-223. As support for this claim, 

the BLM cites 36 C.F.R. § 219.17. As discussed earlier, however, that requirement was found in the 2000 

Planning Regulations which were abrogated by the Forest Service during 2012. As such, this regulation is 

no longer in effect and there is no requirement to inventory potential roadless areas as part of the forest 

planning process. The BLM should correct or explain while they are still utilizing the 2000 regulations 

despite their abrogation.

Comment ID: 2164 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: The Sage-Grouse DLUPA indicates that the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) 

utilized the 1982 Planning Regulations. New Forest Service planning regulations were, however, 

promulgated in April 2012. The Forest Service should explain why it did not utilize the 2012 Planning 

Regulations. The Forest Service should also explain why the agency used the 1982 Regulations instead of 

the 2000 Regulations that were in effect prior to the new regulations in 2012. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments document utilized the 1982 Planning Regulations for the U.S. 

Forest Service. New Forest Service planning regulations were promulgated in April 2012. The Forest 

Service should explain why it did not utilize the 2012 Planning Regulations. The Forest Service should also 

explain why the agency used the 1982 regulations instead of the 2000 regulations that were in effect prior 

to the new regulations in 2012. The BLM suggests that the Forest Service is required to identify inventoried 

roadless areas during the Forest Plan Development Process. That requirement was found in the 2000 

Planning Regulations which were abrogated by the Forest Service during 2012. As such, this regulation is 

no longer in effect and there is no requirement to inventory potential roadless areas as part of the forest 

planning process. The BLM should correct or explain while they are still utilizing the 2000 regulations 

despite their abrogation. 

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service began working together to address conservation of the Greater 

Sage- Grouse and its habitat in 2010. At that time, the Forest Service’s 2012 Planning Rule was not final; 

it became final May 9, 2012. For plan amendments initiated before May 9, 2012, the Forest Service may 

complete and approve the amendments under the prior planning regulations, including its transition 

provisions (36 CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). Land use 

plan amendments associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse conservation effort are using the 1982 planning 

rule procedures that are allowed under the transition procedures of the prior planning rule. The 1982 

planning rule procedures may be found in 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000 or at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html. Regardless of which planning rule is used, 

requirements under the 2001 Roadless Rule must still be followed. 

NEPA

EO 2013-3 is not consistently referenced throughout document

Comment ID: 2836 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: Table 2-1 beginning on page 15 under action number 3 utilizes the EO 2013-3 for analysis which 

indicates the Agencies utilized the latest EO for consideration and comparison of alternatives in this table, 

but did not do so earlier in the document. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-14 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2821 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: Chapter 1 page 1 of the document references the Governor's Executive Order 2011-5. Yet on 

page 14 of Chapter 2 it identifies EO 2013-3 in the comparison of alternatives. We suggest that EO 2013-

3 which supplements 2011-5 be added to the final document in all places. Furthermore, we are somewhat 

concerned that the analysis is flawed with some areas of the draft LUPA and EIS utilizing one EO, while 

in other areas a different one is used. 

Summary: Chapter 1 page 1 of the document references the Governor's Executive Order 2011-5. Yet on 

page 14 of Chapter 2 it identifies EO 2013-3 in the comparison of alternatives. Page 2-15, Action 3 utilizes 

the EO 2013-3 for analysis which indicates the agencies utilized the latest EO for consideration and 

comparison of alternatives in this table, but did not do so earlier in the document. Add EO 2013-3, which 

supplements 2011-5, throughout the final document. 

Response: Executive Order 2011-5 addresses Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection while Executive 

Order 2013-3 addresses Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area - Grazing Adjustments. Both Executive Orders are 

applicable and both executive orders were used and considered in development of the Proposed LUP 

Amendements/Final EIS and during analysis. 

NEPA

Plain language requirement not met

Comment ID: 954 

Organization: 4W Ranch 

Name: Robert Harshbarger 

Comment: this document in not written in plain language that is readily understandable. The Draft EIS is 

by far too lengthy and for the most part, it is incomprehensible. Not all statements on Livestock Grazing 

are scientifically justified and there is a definite lack of scientific integrity in this draft. The Human 

Environment is alluded too, but not protected throughout draft while the Greater Sage Grouse environment 

is. Community Stability is not addressed, a NEPA requirement. These are a sampling of items that are 

required by Law to be done and to be addressed in this Draft EIS. In our view this as yet, has not been 

accomplished. 

Comment ID: 2898 

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: To fully meet its obligations of public disclosure under NEPA, and to meet the Department of 

the Interior's plain language promise (http ://www.doi.gov/open/Plain-Writing.cfm), it would be helpful to 

more clearly outline and explain to the ranch family audience exactly what impacts that Alternative E, the 

Preferred Alternative, would have on their family ranch operations. The document is extremely difficult to 

navigate and to follow the BLM's logic from section to section, and data points are missing and frequently 

inconsistent throughout. ...we suggest the BLM rewrite the LUPA/EIS document to specifically ensure that 

the average ranch family is able to easily understand the ramifications and impacts of what the BLM is 

suggesting in this plan, and how it will affect their family ranching business including the use of public 

lands for grazing. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-15

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments are not written in plain language that is readily understandable. 

The Draft EIS is too lengthy and for the most part, incomprehensible. Not all statements are scientifically 

justified and there is a lack of scientific integrity. The Human Environment is alluded to, but not protected 

throughout draft. Community stability is not addressed, which is another NEPA requirement. 

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service used the most recent and best information available that was 

relevant to a land-use planning-level analysis including the Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier 

et al. 2013), NTT report (NTT 2011), and COT report (USFWS 2013). Additionally, the BLM and the 

Forest Service consulted with, collected, and incorporated data from other agencies and sources, including 

but not limited to the USFWS, the State of Wyoming, WGFD, scientific literature, field and district office 

data, and sources provided during scoping. The language is appropriate given the complexity and the scope 

of the analysis. 

NEPA

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management plan too vague

Comment ID: 1815 

Organization: 

Name: Marybeth Devlin 

Comment: On pdf-page 7 of the Executive Summary, it states: "The LUP amendments will be based on the 

principles of Adaptive Management." Yet, in recent years, BLM-Wyoming was viewed as having generated 

the demise of the Pinedale Anticline Working Group (PAWG), a citizens' advisory board that originally 

formed per the Adaptive Management plan. Demoralized by BLM's having unilaterally eliminated the 

PAWG's task-forces, the group voted to cease operations and to let their charter expire in 2014. • 

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/citizen-oversight-fizzles-in-wyoming-gaspatch? 

utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email So here we are, once again, being told to believe that BLM is 

basing the LUPA per Adaptive Management. I urge BLM-Wyoming to prove to us -- by your actions --

that this is so. 

Comment ID: 1465 

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Name: Siva Sundaresan 

Comment: We are glad to see the BLM 9-plan DEIS is committed to using an adaptive management 

framework with soft and hard triggers to manage sage grouse. However, we believe that as presently stated 

in the 9-plan DEIS lacks the necessary details to provide necessary guidance for such a complex adaptive 

plan. We strongly urge for greater detail explicitly detailing what the adaptive plan will do, how triggers 

will be identified and how the public will be involved in the development of these adaptive plans. We refer 

the BLM to comments provided by The Wyoming Outdoor Council which contain more detailed 

suggestions on developing an adaptive plan. 

Comment ID: 2817 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: On page vii of the Executive Summary it also states that the LUP amendments will be based on 

"principles of Adaptive Management." The Department of Interior's Technical Guide on Adaptive 

Management clearly states that in order to utilize adaptive management you must have a model which 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-16 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

represents the resource relationships and management impacts (Technical Guide page iv). However in 

reviewing the draft LUP and EIS we do not find any mention of any models which will be utilized by the 

Agencies in their adaptive management strategies. This is a significant shortcoming of the draft LUP and 

EIS. Furthermore, without this information; which must be utilized by managers, the public cannot review 

this important tool necessary for one of the lynch pins in the LUP. 

Comment ID: 3027 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: In order for Adaptive Management to be effective the objectives must be specific, measurable, 

achievable, results-oriented, and time-fixed. Adequate monitoring and data collection must be 

implemented. To function as a regulatory mechanism, Adaptive Management must identify biological 

thresholds and soft and hard trigger points must be established based on threshold levels. Monitoring of 

population trends and sagebrush ecosystem health must occur on a repeatable schedule; continued data 

collection must be conducted, analyzed, and compared to both threshold levels and target population 

numbers; and management actions must be strictly and effectively monitored and implemented properly. 

Below, we have provided recommendations for identifying biological thresholds, determining how soft and 

hard trigger points can be established. We have also provided recommendations to strengthen monitoring 

protocols, and we offer a model for public participation. The Adaptive Management strategy implemented 

for sage-grouse management should follow the guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Interior 

Technical Guide to Adaptive Management (Williams, et al. 2009), specifically identifying a set-up phase 

and an iterative phase. Section 2.3.2 Adaptive Management in the 9-Plan DEIS (p. 2-7 and 2-8) outlines a 

very preliminary and skeletal view of how the Adaptive Management planning will operate. The Wyoming 

Outdoor Council believes the level of detail in the 9-Plan DEIS can be strengthened to provide a more 

robust and effective guide for implementing such a complex management plan. Measurable goals and 

objectives should be expanded, as well as guidelines for monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment within the 

Adaptive Management process. Specifically, it is our position the Adaptive Management plan would be 

significantly improved by a much greater level of detail regarding proposed actions and protocols, as well 

as a more in-depth analysis of how soft and hard triggers will be delineated. Additionally, the Adaptive 

Management plan, as outlined in the 9-Plan DEIS, does not meet the requirements of the Adaptive 

Management Implementation Policy (522 DM 1) and the Forest Service Adaptive Planning Process in 

Forest Service Handbook 1901.12_20. To meet these requirements, the action would require more specific 

planning, measurable objectives, and stakeholder involvement. Initially, we believe the set-up phase will 

be most effective if it includes a transparent and stakeholder-informed process, and fully addresses all 

potential objectives and alternatives for implementation plans and guidelines for monitoring. Once 

monitoring begins, assessment must continually occur to determine if the management is meeting the 

objectives. See Figure 1 for a visual representation. 

Summary: The adaptive management framework plan is not sufficiently explained or outlined. The LUP 

should explicitly detail what the adaptive plan will do, how both soft and hard triggers will be identified, 

and how the public will be involved in the development of adaptive plans. BLM has not previously shown 

enough commitment to adaptive management, as exemplified by the failure of the Pinedale Anticline 

Working Group (PAWG). Page vii of the Executive Summary states that the LUP amendments will be 

based on "principles of Adaptive Management." The Department of Interior's Technical Guide on Adaptive 

Management clearly states that in order to utilize adaptive management you must have a model which 

represents the resource relationships and management impacts (Technical Guide page iv). However, the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS does not make any mention of models which will be utilized by the 

agencies in their adaptive management strategies. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-17

Response: The Final EIS has been modified in response to these comments (see Appendix D and 

Management Action 137 in the Proposed LUP Amendments. Adaptive management promotes flexible 

decision making and provides a systematic approach for improving resource management by adjusting 

management actions and other events as outcomes become better understood. An adaptive approach 

involves exploring alternative ways to meet management objectives, anticipating the likely outcomes of 

alternatives based on the current state of knowledge, implementing one or more of these alternatives, 

monitoring to learn about the impacts of management actions, and then using the results to update 

knowledge and adjust management actions accordingly. Incorporating adaptive management into the 

Proposed LUP Amendments will ensure a degree of certainty that the decisions in the plan will effectively 

contribute to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the Greater Sage-Grouse and 

its habitat. The adaptive management approach incorporates a set of triggers in the plan: a soft and hard 

trigger. The adaptive management portions of the LUP Amendments were modified to include these triggers 

to inform the BLM/Forest Service as to when the federal agency needs to respond (take action) to address 

a declining trend in sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat figures. Soft triggers represent an intermediate 

threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the project/implementation level to address 

habitat and population losses. Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is 

necessary to stop a severe deviation from Greater Sage- Grouse conservation goals and objectives as set 

forth in the BLM/Forest Service plans. The adaptive management soft and hard triggers and land use 

planning responses to these triggers are described fully in the Final EIS in modified Section 2.7. The 

agencies will use the data collected from monitoring (Appendix D) to identify any changes in habitat 

conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan. The BLM/Forest Service will use the information 

collected through monitoring to determine when adaptive management triggers are met. Adaptive 

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

benefits. 

NEPA

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management should include local cooperators

Comment ID: 2441 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Page 2-7 et al, 2.3.2 Adaptive Management The CCCD is supportive of Adaptive Management 

and Monitoring, however, as above ask the decision maker to include state, local and tribal governments in 

the development and implementation of the plan, and represented on the adaptive management working 

group. The example wording can be found in 2.3.3 Mitigation on page 2-9 first paragraph after the bulleted 

statements. 

Summary: BLM should include state, local, and tribal governments in the development and implementation 

of the LUP Amendments, and should be represented on the adaptive management working group. 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service recognize their responsibility to ensure that meaningful 

consultation and coordination with other agencies and Tribes concerning Greater Sage-Grouse planning 

and the application of adaptive management as described in Appendix D. Oversight ensures that the 

appropriate parameters are being monitored for the desired outcome and allows for performance tracking 

which is necessary to ensure adaptive management success. Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS, section 5.1, 

contained information on which entities have been engaged in consultation and coordination efforts. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-18 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

NEPA

Adaptive Management

Use minimum tool first for adaptive management

Comment ID: 2515 

Organization: Converse County 

Name: Richard C. Grant 

Comment: We realize that many possible courses of action within Alternative E, if implemented, could 

have detrimental impacts to the custom, culture, and socioeconomic makeup of Converse County. For 

example, in its current form the Preferred Alternative may adversely affect livestock grazing, oil and gas 

development, coal mining, renewable energy development and the additional infrastructure required to get 

any associated power to grid. Moreover, basic infrastructure requirements such as the ability to maintain 

county roads, and the gravel pits on which a component of their upkeep relies, as well as ensuring the 

continued development of water resources and related distribution network, also have the potential of being 

encumbered by the current language or existing ambiguities in the Preferred Alternative. For the 

aforementioned impacts, Converse County recommends that the least detrimental impact be implemented 

first and done so in accordance with an adaptive management strategy that adheres to collaboratively 

developed protocols. 

Summary: Sage-grouse conservation should use management tools with the least detrimental impact first, 

then adapting as needed using an adaptive management strategy that adheres to collaboratively developed 

protocols. 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the planning 

process, including one (Alternative D) similar to the suggested alternative. The agencies will use the data 

collected from monitoring (Appendix D) to identify any changes in habitat conditions related to the goals 

and objectives of the plan. 

NEPA

Best available information-baseline data

Add language for updating latest science

Comment ID: 1878 

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Name: Mark Konishi 

Comment: Throughout the document there are several references to the Density Disturbance Calculation 

Tool, Wyoming Game and Fish Habitat Treatment Protocols, Sage Grouse Executive Order 2011-5, and 

several BLM IMs. Because the science related to sage-grouse is evolving and new updates to several of 

these documents are expected, language allowing for the use of updated references should be 

acknowledged. (Examples: Page 2-17, (General Management Direction #20 & #23), Page 2-34, (General 

Management Direction #44) Page 2-134, MA 126 and 127 DDCT. 

Summary: Throughout the document there are several references to the Density Disturbance Calculation 

Tool, Wyoming Game and Fish Habitat Treatment Protocols, Sage-Grouse Executive Order 2011-5, and 

several BLM IMs. Because the science related to sage-grouse is evolving and new updates to several of 

these documents are expected, language allowing for the use of updated references should be 

acknowledged. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-19

Response: The agencies will take into account and consider updated science, executive orders, etc. when 

making future decisions. 

NEPA

Best available information-baseline data

Need to define the "decision area"

Comment ID: 2912 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: The document says, "The decision area, which is a smaller area within the planning area 

boundary, consists of Greater sage-grouse occupied habitat." However, the "decision area" is not adequately 

defined, and it would be helpful to provide more in-depth clarification on the difference between the 

document planning area and the document decision area. In addition, this appears to equate sagegrouse 

occupied habitat with "core population area," and the difference between the two should be outlined here. 

Finally, the document should make it clear that the decision area is only sage-grouse occupied habitat 

managed by the Forest Service and BLM within the planning area boundary. In Table 1-1, Land and Mineral 

Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the Planning Area, Footnotes 2-5 should be fully 

presented in the text, and management actions for each land/mineral situation should be fully disclosed. 

These are important points that deserve more attention than a footnote in a table, and the checkerboard land 

pattern across much of the Planning Area also must be acknowledged. It would be helpful to include the 

decision area acreage within the planning area table - or as a separate table - as this level of data is lacking. 

Summary: The document says, "The decision area, which is a smaller area within the planning area 

boundary, consists of Greater Sage-Grouse occupied habitat." However, the "decision area" is not 

adequately defined, and it would be helpful to provide more in-depth clarification on the difference between 

the "planning area" and the "decision area". 

Response: The statement is confusing and has been removed from the Proposed LUP Amendment/Final 

EIS. 

NEPA

Best available information-baseline data

The baseline is inadequate

Comment ID: 518 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: BLM, then, must provide an accurate representation of the environment as it currently exists in 

chapter 3 in order to form the basis for the BLM’s analysis of the impacts of the alternatives in chapter 4. 

The DEIS has not accurately described the current environment in several key respects. First, the BLM does 

not describe with any reliable accuracy the number of acres of GRSG core habitat within livestock grazing 

allotments. See DEIS at 3-74 – 3-83. The Forest Service, however, has not only described the number of 

core acres in the relevant allotments, but has described general and connectivity habitat as well. 

Comment ID: 520 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-20 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The BLM also fails to fully disclose economic conditions related to energy development such 

as actual dollar amounts in revenue produced in each county in the project area (3.8), omits predation and 

drought as detrimental to GRSG populations and habitat (3-239), and fails to even generally describe the 

existing travel and transportation matrix in Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Carbon Counties (3-337). 

Comment ID: 519 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The BLM also uses stale data throughout chapter 3 but ignores the consequences of using such 

data. For example, the BLM uses a Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report from 2004 (3-

100), Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission production records from 2002 (3-101), and 

regurgitated data from resource management plans that has been cut and pasted without any additional 

research or analysis (3-105). 

Comment ID: 2314 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: The CEQ regulations require agencies to use the best available science when preparing EIS 

documents 40 C.F.R §1502.24.17 Fundamental flaws in the science and study methodologies used in 

development of the DLUPA’s impact analysis (See Chapter 4) and a review of the NTT Report suggest that 

neither the DLUPA nor NTT Report use the "Best Available Science." Rather they rely on studies that have 

been criticized for: 

Comment ID: 2150 

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter 

Name: Connie Wilbert 

Comment: Amendments to BLM and Forest Service land use plans require adequate baseline information. 

In reporting on the affected environment, BLM fails to describe which lands now meet healthy sagebrush 

rangeland requirements and which do not. Such a baseline is necessary to determine which lands are 

currently impaired and need to be restored. This information is simply missing from this DEIS. Similarly 

for riparian areas, BLM fails to identify those streams, springs, and meadows that meet sage grouse needs 

and those that are degraded. Few streams in sage grouse habitat have been assessed for water quality. The 

lack of adequate baseline information on water quality should be highlighted in the DEIS. If and where 

surveys have been completed, results should be reported. In some cases, the conclusions BLM presents 

conflict with actual field data. The DEIS fails to note that most areas show a continued long-term decline 

in sage grouse populations associated with degraded habitat. It seems obvious that areas with sage grouse 

numbers in decline might benefit from a change in management, but the DEIS fails to assemble key baseline 

information on population trends (even though in many areas this information is available.) 

Summary: The Draft EIS has not accurately described the current environment in several key respects. First, 

the BLM does not describe with any reliable accuracy the number of acres of Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat within livestock grazing allotments. Also, BLM uses a Mineral Occurrence and Development 

Potential Report from 2004 (3-100), Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission production records 

from 2002 (3-101), and regurgitated data from resource management plans that has been cut and pasted 

without any additional research or analysis (3-105). The BLM also fails to fully disclose economic 

conditions related to energy development such as actual dollar amounts in revenue produced in each county 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-21

in the project area (Section 3.8), omits predation and drought as detrimental to Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and habitat (3-239), and fails to even generally describe the existing travel and transportation 

matrix in Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Carbon Counties (3-337). The CEQ regulations require 

agencies to use the best available science when preparing EIS documents 40 C.F.R §1502.24.17. 

Fundamental flaws in the science and study methodologies used in development of the impact analysis and 

a review of the NTT Report suggest that neither the Draft LUP Amendments nor NTT Report use the "Best 

Available Science." Rather they rely on studies that have been criticized for significant mischaracterization 

of previous research; substantial errors and omissions; lack of independent authorship and peer review; 

methodological bias; a lack of reproducibility; and invalid assumptions and analysis. In reporting on the 

affected environment, BLM fails to describe which lands now meet healthy sagebrush rangeland 

requirements and which do not. Such a baseline is necessary to determine which lands are currently 

impaired and need to be restored. Similarly for riparian areas, BLM fails to identify those streams, springs, 

and meadows that meet sage-grouse needs and those that are degraded. Few streams in sage-grouse habitat 

have been assessed for water quality. The lack of adequate baseline information on water quality should be 

highlighted in the Draft EIS. If and where surveys have been completed, results should be reported. In some 

cases, the conclusions BLM presents conflict with actual field data. The Draft EIS fails to note that most 

areas show a continued long-term decline in sage-grouse populations associated with degraded habitat. It 

seems obvious that areas with sage-grouse numbers in decline might benefit from a change in management, 

but the Draft EIS fails to assemble key baseline information on population trends (even though in many 

areas this information is available). 

Response: The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to "succinctly describe the 

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The description 

shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a 

statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall 

concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR 1502.15). Additionally, the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat across a broad geographic area. As such, the BLM and the Forest Service described the current 

conditions and trends in the affected environment broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate to 

program-level land use planning actions. The BLM and the Forest Service complied with these regulations 

in describing the affected environment. The requisite level of information necessary to make a reasoned 

choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope and nature of the proposed decision. The 

affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various appendices in the plan is sufficient to support at 

the general LUP-level of analysis, the environmental impact analysis resulting from management actions 

presented in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. For example, listing the rangeland health assessment 

of every allotment would not provide useful information at this broad-scale analysis. However, 

understanding the percentage of rangelands rated as impaired, as presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.7, is 

useful in establish baseline by which the BLM may analyze the relative effects of each alternative’s broadbased approach. 

NEPA

Consultation requirements

Agencies should consult with historic ranching operations

Comment ID: 2824 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-22 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: On page 12 of Chapter 1 the document states that the Agencies consulted with Indian tribes on 

sites important to their culture. However, given that many agricultural operations are 3 to 5 generations on 

the same ground, it would seem somewhat reasonable that the Agencies would also consult with those 

individuals about what is important to their culture as well. Especially since the utilization of some of the 

federal lands can be an important part of their operations and loss of these lands could lead to the cessation 

of grazing or ranching. 

Summary: On page 12 of Chapter 1 the document states that the agencies consulted with Indian Tribes on 

sites important to their culture. However, given that many agricultural operations are 3 to 5 generations on 

the same ground, it would seem somewhat reasonable that the agencies would also consult with those 

individuals about what is important to their culture as well. Especially since the utilization of some of the 

federal lands can be an important part of their operations and loss of these lands could lead to the cessation 

of grazing or ranching. 

Response: Private livestock operators have participated in public scoping as valued stakeholders and have 

contributed data and comments throughout the planning process. Both the CEQ and BLM planning 

regulations define cooperating agency status, including what it is, who is eligible to become a cooperating 

agency, and how the lead agency should invite participation as a cooperating agency (40 CFR 1501 and 

1508; 43 CFR 1601.0-5). Cooperating relationships are limited to government entities, state agencies, local 

governments, tribal governments, and other federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise. Additionally, per the regulations and BLM policy, there is no coordinating agency status (BLM 

Desk Guide to Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners, pages 

21 and 31, respectively). To be a cooperating agency, the local agency must meet the eligibility criteria set 

out in the regulations and policies. The specific role of each cooperating agency is based on jurisdiction by 

law or special expertise, which is determined on an agency-by-agency basis and identified in the 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

NEPA

Cooperating Agency relationships

Agency cooperation needs to be highlighted or increased

Comment ID: 1488 

Organization: 

Name: Denise Langley 

Comment: Adaptive Management and monitoring are essential. Page2-9: "It is important to note that any 

mitigation strategy must include the cooperation and coordination of appropriate and pertinent federal, state 

and local land and resource management agencies across the landscape." This should be bold faced and a 

very important part of any management within any borders. Soil Conservation Districts, Weed and Pest 

Districts and County Commissioners can be your best avenue for success or they can be a very large point 

of dissent. Work with them frequently and as required by NEPA. No EIS is legally sound and approved 

without coordination between all the entities of concern. This means more than just federal agencies 

working together. 

Comment ID: 1545 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: In the context of the land use planning process, each State Director is responsible for "[e]nsuring 

that when BLM enages in the planning process, land use plans and subsequent implementation-level plans 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-23

identify appropriate outcomes, strategies, restoration opportunities, use restrictions, and management 

actions necessary to conserve and/or recover listed species, as well as provisions for the conservation of 

Bureau sensitive species. In particular, such plans should address any approved recovery plans and 

conservation agreements." 

Comment ID: 2958 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: The LUP says the BLM will work with the State of Wyoming in various ways to implement the 

requirements of the LUP. In the Final EIS, please clarify how the agencies will work together to prevent 

dual oversight and review of projects. For example, when reviewing a Permit to Mine Application (and 

associated Plan of Operations) for a locatable mineral, which agency will take the lead to ensure compliance 

with the Governor's 2011-0S Executive Order on sage grouse? The Council on Environmental Quality has 

promulgated NEP A regulations which call for reduction of paper work and cooperation with other agencies 

(see 40 CFR ISOO.2(c), lS00.4(k and n), ISOO.S(b and n) as well as other CEQ regulations pertaining to 

NEPA efficiency). BLM has not adequately identified, as required under FLPMA, NEPA, and BLM's own 

purpose and need statement for this LUP exercise, how the alternatives work or conflict with these 

important state standards. 

Summary: The LUP Amendments state that the BLM will work with the State of Wyoming in various ways 

to implement the requirements of the LUP Amendments. In the Final EIS, please clarify how the agencies 

will work together to prevent dual oversight and review of projects. State and local agency cooperation is 

necessary to achieve successful mitigation conservation objectives and is required as per FLPMA, NEPA, 

and other laws, regulations, and policies. 

Response: As the decisions under consideration by the BLM and the Forest Service are programmatic in 

nature and would not result in on-the-ground planning decision or actions, the scope of the management 

actions were considered at a broad, programmatic level. As specific actions come under consideration, such 

as future local management actions to implement the broad objectives and goals presented here, the BLM 

and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that may include future coordination with 

local cooperating agencies. 

NEPA

Cooperating agency relationships

Implementation teams

Comment ID: 2169 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Name: Graham McGaffin 

Comment: If Mitigation Implementation Teams are established for each of the WAFWA Management 

Zones, we recommend that individuals representing each Team engage with the Wyoming SGIT to ensure 

consistency between implementation of MS 1794 and the Wyoming Executive Order. Additionally, the 

Conservancy recommends the BLM and USFS assemble a team of experts for individual off-site mitigation 

projects, with the understanding that such a team would coordinate closely with SGIT and report to the 

Mitigation Implementation Team for their respective WAFWA Management Zone, but would have the 

knowledge and capacity to operate with a more specialized focus on the project area. 

Comment ID: 3005 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-24 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

Name: Marion Loomis 

Comment: Flexibility is an essential prerequisite for any proposed reclamation and habitat improvement 

which allows for adaptable implementation, including consideration of private mitigation banking options 

and credit exchanges. Flexibility should not be used by BLM or Forest Service as an excuse to allow agency 

field offices to require arbitrary practices beyond established levels on individual projects. Unlike the 

LUPA, CCAA/CCA conservation strategies provide an adaptive management platform to implement sitespecific sage-grouse habitat enhancement. 

Comment ID: 2168

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Name: Graham McGaffin 

Comment: The Conservancy recommends the BLM and USFS continue to engage with the Wyoming Sage 

Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT). The Conservancy supports implementation of BLM/USFS 

compensatory mitigation programs that are compatible with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05). 

Comment ID: 2170 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Name: Graham McGaffin 

Comment: The Conservancy supports Alternative E in the DEIS for its inclusion of guidance from the 

Wyoming Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and BLM IM WY-2010-012. We believe BLM and USFS 

compensatory mitigation plans should be structured consistently with the Wyoming Executive Order. The 

Conservancy encourages the BLM and USFS to continue working with the SGIT, and others, on how 

compensatory mitigation programs dovetail with the structure of the Executive Order. 

Summary: BLM and Forest Service should continue to engage with the Wyoming Sage Grouse 

Implementation Team (SGIT). If Mitigation Implementation Teams are established for each of the 

WAFWA Management Zones, individuals representing each Team should engage with the Wyoming SGIT 

to ensure consistency between implementation of MS 1794 and the Wyoming Executive Orders. The BLM 

and Forest Service should assemble a team of experts for individual off-site mitigation projects, with the 

understanding that such a team would coordinate closely with SGIT and report to the Mitigation 

Implementation Team for their respective WAFWA Management Zone, but would have the knowledge and 

capacity to operate with a more specialized focus on the project area. Flexibility is an essential prerequisite 

for any proposed reclamation and habitat improvement which allows for adaptable implementation, 

including consideration of private mitigation banking options and credit exchanges. Flexibility should not 

be used by BLM or Forest Service as an excuse to allow agency field offices to require arbitrary practices 

beyond established levels on individual projects. Unlike the LUP Amendments, CCAA/CCA conservation 

strategies provide an adaptive management platform to implement site-specific sage-grouse habitat 

enhancement. 

Response: CCAs and CCAAs are not a land management action, but rather a programmatic agreement 

between the BLM, USFWS, NRCS, private landowners, and other local, state, and federal agencies. As 

such, they cannot be included in the action alternatives. As specific actions come under consideration, such 

as future local management actions to implement the broad objectives and goals presented here, the BLM 

and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that may include future coordination with 

local cooperating agencies. Implementation teams and adaptive management will continue to be utilized. 

Action 3 of the Proposed Plan specifically states "Utilize the Wyoming Sagegrouse Implementation Team 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-25

(SGIT) and Local Working Group plans or other state or cooperativelydeveloped plans, analyses, and other 

sources of information to guide development of conservation objectives for local management of sagegrouse habitats. The BLM and Forest Service will collaborate with appropriate Federal agencies, and the 

State of Wyoming as contemplated under the Governor's Executive Order 2013-3, to: (1 ) develop 

appropriate conservation objectives; (2) define a framework for evaluating situations where Greater SageGrouse conservation objectives are not being achieved on Federal land, to determine if a causal relationship 

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

conservation objectives; and (3) identify appropriate site-based action to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives within the framework." 

NEPA

Cooperating agency relationships

Stakeholder working group

Comment ID: 3057 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: The Outdoor Council recommends the BLM incorporate a stakeholder working group under the 

Adaptive Management process of managing sage-grouse habitats. This working group can add value by 

allowing for a greater range of public input from impacted stakeholders, creating more agility for 

responding to new data and scientific research, allow flexibility for evolving on-the-ground conditions, and 

create oversight for monitoring and mitigation. These groups create value through collaboratively 

addressing possible conflicts before they arise, bringing together and negotiating between diverse interests, 

and allowing quicker response times than the usual administrative process. A stakeholder working group 

for sage-grouse habitat management would necessarily need to be chartered under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App) and the attached administrative guidelines of the General Services 

Administration (41 CFR Part 102-3). The State of Wyoming currently has a similar working group, the 

Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT), which had been convened by the Governor's Office and, as of 

July 1, 2014, will be included in state statute. Federal agency representatives are members of this team, but 

because it does not report to a federal agency and makes recommendations to the state of Wyoming, not a 

federal entity, it is not chartered under FACA. We do not intend for the BLM to create a redundant working 

group, recognizing that many of the stakeholders from the SGIT would need to be involved in the BLM's 

group, yet Wyoming's SGIT, by reporting to state government and being focused on Executive Order 2011-

5, does not adequately address the needs of federal sage-grouse adaptive management. Rather than having 

two redundant groups, we believe this proposed working group and the state's implementation team could 

be complementary. Their missions, guiding policies, responsibilities, and landscapes are different with only 

slight overlap. The Outdoor Council suggests that this adaptive management working group could be 

incorporated as an official subcommittee into the Wyoming Resource Advisory Council (RAC), an existing 

functional and FACA-chartered working group. Incorporating this working group under the RAC's 

umbrella eases the burden of several of the FACA charter process (for example, a time-consuming 

nomination process) while retaining the benefits afforded by a FACA charter. The Wyoming Resource 

Advisory Council currently meets four times a year, and consistently deals with land-use issues that are 

intimately related to sage-grouse habitats. The RAC could also benefit from housing a sagegrouse working 

group as the RAC currently lacks an authoritative voice on sage-grouse species or habitat management. The 

Wyoming Resource Advisory Council is still a relatively young working group. The Outdoor Council 

recommends the BLM seek input on effective RACs that have subcommittees to structure this working 

group. Alternatively, if the Wyoming Resource Advisory Council does not wish to be the umbrella group 

and clearinghouse for this sage-grouse adaptive management process, the agency should very seriously 

consider structuring a parallel FACA-charted working group focused on sagegrouse habitat management-
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-26 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

one that is complementary too, but not redundant with-the Wyoming SGIT. Examples from other western 

states abound for effective working groups that add value to the agency's decision-making process. These 

groups more nimbly process data, evolving conditions, and infuse policy recommendations with local 

knowledge, diverse stakeholder perspectives and experiences. We recommend the BLM examine the Upper 

Klamath Basin Working Group, Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, Uncompahgre Plateau 

Collaborative Restoration Project, Malpai Borderlands Working Group, and the Upper Green River Air 

Quality Advisory Board. 

Comment ID: 2980 

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) 

Name: Doug Thompson 

Comment: The WCCA supports an adaptive management strategy that incorporates the best available 

science to identify both soft and hard management triggers. And further bases those determinations on 

varied scales of data to ensure efficient and effective implementation of remedial actions across the 

Planning Area. The WCCA believes a stand-alone working group, perhaps housed within the existing SageGrouse Implementation Team (SGIT), should be charged with identifying causal factors and enforcing 

remedial actions where appropriate. This working group would include those federal agencies directly 

vested in effective implementation of the Plan and the State of Wyoming. In addition to the working group 

undertaking its own analysis to determine potential causal factors having an adverse impact on greater sagegrouse, the WCCA encourages the examination of causal inputs provided by state and local government 

sponsored entities (for example, data collected by local predator control boards). 

Summary: The BLM should incorporate a stakeholder working group under the Adaptive Management 

process of managing sage-grouse habitats. This working group can add value by allowing for a greater 

range of public input from impacted stakeholders, creating more agility for responding to new data and 

scientific research, allow flexibility for evolving on-the-ground conditions, and create oversight for 

monitoring and mitigation. These groups create value through collaboratively addressing possible conflicts 

before they arise, bringing together and negotiating between diverse interests, and allowing quicker 

response times than the usual administrative process. This adaptive management working group could be 

incorporated as an official subcommittee into the Wyoming Resource Advisory Council (RAC), an existing 

functional and FACA-chartered working group. Incorporating this working group under the RAC's 

umbrella eases the burden of several of the FACA charter process (for example, a time-consuming 

nomination process) while retaining the benefits afforded by a FACA charter. The Wyoming Resource 

Advisory Council currently meets four times a year, and consistently deals with land-use issues that are 

intimately related to sage-grouse habitats. The RAC could also benefit from housing a sage-grouse working 

group as the RAC currently lacks an authoritative voice on sage-grouse species or habitat management. 

Alternatively, if the Wyoming Resource Advisory Council does not wish to be the umbrella group and 

clearinghouse for this sage-grouse adaptive management process, the agency should very seriously consider 

structuring a parallel FACA-charted working group focused on sage-grouse habitat management-one that 

is complementary to, but not redundant with-the Wyoming SGIT. The BLM should examine the Upper 

Klamath Basin Working Group, Upper Klamath Basin Working Group, Uncompahgre Plateau 

Collaborative Restoration Project, Malpai Borderlands Working Group, and the Upper Green River Air 

Quality Advisory Board. 

Response: Action 23 specifically states: "These adaptive management strategies will be developed in 

partnership with the WGFD, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders and will incorporate the best 

available science." Appendix D further identifies composition of 'Implementation Groups' for adaptive 

management. Specifically, Appendix D states "The Adaptive Management Working Group will include 

BLM, Forest Service, USFWS, and State of Wyoming." 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-27

NEPA

Cooperating agency relationships

Weston County cooperator status

Comment ID: 969 

Organization: 4W Ranch 

Name: Robert Harshbarger 

Comment: As matter of concern, since the beginning of the NEPA process on The Wyoming Greater SageGrouse Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Intent 

(NOI), has the Newcastle BLM Office or the Douglas Ranger District ever formally met with the Weston 

County Commissioners on the proposed Wyoming Sage Grouse Plan? 

Comment ID: 955 

Organization: 4W Ranch 

Name: Robert Harshbarger 

Comment: During the Scoping Process at the Newcastle open house of 9 March 2012, it was not brought 

to the attention of, or emphasized to the participants of this meeting that the purpose of this NEPA Process 

was to amend both the Newcastle Resource Management Plan and the Thunder Basin National Grassland 

Land and Resource Management Plan. Since in fact, this Draft EIS does propose amending both plans, 

Federal Law has been broken by the agencies. As of 18 March 2014, our local government, the Weston 

County Commissioners have not been approached on this matter by either the Newcastle Field Office 

(BLM) or the Douglas Ranger District (U.S. Forest Service). This is in direct violation of the following 

laws; Sec. 1508.21 NEPA process. "NEPA process" means all measures necessary for compliance with the 

requirements of section 2 and Title I of NEPA. 

Comment ID: 972 

Organization: 4W Ranch 

Name: Robert Harshbarger 

Comment: As citizens of Weston County, State of Wyoming, and on behalf of our Weston County 

Government, we must insist that the Newcastle BLM Office and the U.S. Forest Service Douglas Ranger 

District meet with the Weston County Commissioners, State of Wyoming as required by Federal Law cited 

above to coordinate with the Weston County Land Use Plan and appropriate Weston County Resolutions. 

Six of the Resolutions that need to be addressed are 11 - 07, 11 - 08, 11 - 13, 94 -10, 94 - 11, and 94 - 12. 

Federal Law states that this will be done prior to the publication of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Summary: BLM and the Forest Service have violated NEPA by not contacting and working with Weston 

County Commissioners on the proposed Wyoming Sage Grouse Plan. During the scoping process at the 

Newcastle open house on March 9, 2012, it was not brought to the attention of, or emphasized to the 

participants of this meeting that the purpose of this NEPA process was to amend both the Newcastle RMP 

and the Thunder Basin National Grassland LRMP. This is in direct violation of Section 1508.21 of the 

NEPA process. 

Response: At multiple stages in the creation of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, the BLM and Forest 

Service gathered and incorporated public comments during formal comment periods, which included public 

scoping and meetings before preparation of the Draft EIS began, and during the public comment period and 

public meetings that occurred after the Draft EIS was published. All public entities were invited to comment 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-28 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

during these formal comment periods, including individuals, organizations, businesses, and local, state, 

federal, and tribal government entities. Both the CEQ and BLM Planning regulations define cooperating 

agency status, including what it is, who is eligible to become a cooperating agency, and how the lead agency 

should invite participation as a cooperating agency (40 CFR 1501 and 1508; 43 CFR 1601.0-5). The BLM 

Wyoming State Office extended cooperating agency status to government entities and agencies throughout 

the 17-county planning area. DOI regulations (43 CFR 46.225(c)) require the BLM, as lead agency, to 

consider any request by a government entity to participate as a cooperating agency (BLM Desk Guide to 

Cooperating Agency Relationships and Coordination with Intergovernmental Partners, pages 8-9). From 

the time that the Notice of Intent was published and throughout the development of the EIS, an agency 

could notify the BLM requesting cooperating agency status. However, the BLM did not receive this 

notification from the Weston County requesting BLM to consider them for cooperating agency status during 

development of the Draft EIS nor in any of the Draft EIS comment letters; as a result, only the agencies 

described in Section 5.1.1 were listed as Cooperating Agencies in development of the Draft EIS. The Notice 

of Intent published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2011 clearly identifies the Newcastle RMP as 

one of the plans being amended by this plan. Further, the Notice of Availability published in the Federal 

Register on December 27, 2013 also clearly identifies the Newcastle RMP as one of the plans being 

amended by this plan. 

NEPA

GIS data and analysis

Connectivity areas not shown

Comment ID: 2896 

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Map 3-18: Sage-grouse Habitat, Map 1-3: Mineral Ownership, Map 1-2: Surface Ownership, 

and Map 1-1: Planning Area These maps and possibly others reference in their legends a yellow squiggly 

line denoting "Sagegrouse connectivity habitat areas." However, there are no areas so denoted on the maps 

themselves, making it impossible to tell what are the identified "connectivity habitat areas." Not clearly 

defining or showing the connectivity habitat areas makes it difficult to provide conm1ents on how those 

areas and the management actions associated with them may affect our grazing operations; therefore, we 

request any analysis or management actions based on "connectivity habitat areas" be dropped from the Final 

LUPA/EIS, or alternatively, we request that a new Draft LUPA/EIS be prepared and published to give the 

public adequate opportunity to review and comment. 

Comment ID: 2911 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: The document states that "It is the policy of BLM Wyoming to manage Greater sage-grouse 

seasonal habitats and maintain connectivity in identified areas in support of the population management 

objectives set by the State of Wyoming." While the Draft LUPA/EIS adequately defines "core population 

area" and BLM's adoption of management objectives of the State of Wyoming, it poorly develops any 

connection between "core population area" and the planning decision area. This should be clarified in the 

final document. Also, while there are multiple maps that mention connectivity areas in their legends, none 

of those areas are actually depicted. 

Summary: Map 3-18: Sage-grouse Habitat, Map 1-3: Mineral Ownership, Map 1-2: Surface Ownership, 

Map 1-1: Planning Area, and possibly others reference in their legends a yellow squiggly line denoting 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-29

"Sagegrouse connectivity habitat areas." However, there are no such areas shown on the maps themselves, 

making it impossible to tell what are the identified "connectivity habitat areas." 

Response: Connectivity areas are shown on the maps indicated and intersect the planning area only in the 

north end of the Newcastle Field Office. 

NEPA

GIS data and analysis

Landscape-level maps not appropriate/too vague

Comment ID: 2542 

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation 

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor 

Comment: The BLM's landscape-level mapping for sage-grouse seasonal habitat (Map 3-19) in the DEIS 

cannot be used alone to mandate conservation measures at the project level. Currently, the large-landscape 

level habitat designation map incorporates habitat that is not suitable for sage-grouse. This is particularly 

true for northeast Wyoming where areas are often erroneously designated as sagebrush when compared to 

local verified field maps. Landscape-level habitat maps should not be used for project-level impacts. 

Comment ID: 3002 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

Name: Marion Loomis 

Comment: The BLM's landscape-level mapping for sage-grouse seasonal habitat (Map 3-19) in the DEIS 

cannot be used alone to mandate conservation measures at the project level. Currently, the large-landscape 

level habitat designation map incorporates habitat that is not suitable for sage-grouse (such as woodland 

areas or areas lacking sagebrush cover) into suitable sage-grouse habitat. Landscape-level habitat maps 

should not be used for project-level impacts especially when local field verified habitat maps are available. 

Comment ID: 2182 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Improper Use of Landscape-Level Habitat Maps for Project-Level Impacts The BLM's 

landscape-level mapping for sage-grouse seasonal habitat (Map 3-19) in the DEIS cannot be used alone to 

mandate conservation measures at the project level. Currently, the large-landscape level habitat designation 

map incorporates habitat that is not suitable for sage-grouse (such as woodland areas or areas lacking 

sagebrush cover) into suitable sage-grouse habitat. Landscape-level habitat maps should not be used for 

project-level impacts especially when local field-verified habitat maps are available. 

Comment ID: 2331 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS's landscape-level mapping for sage-grouse seasonal habitat (Map 3-19) in 

the Draft EIS cannot be used alone to mandate conservation measures at the project level. Currently, the 

large landscape level habitat designation map incorporates habitat that is not suitable for sage grouse, such 

as woodland areas or areas lacking sagebrush cover, into suitable sage-grouse habitat. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-30 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 3111 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2‐ 5 2‐ 195 Minerals and Energy Alt D The scale of the map associated (map 2‐ 7) does 

not allow for full appreciation of areas that may already be leased that would be closed (core areas that are 

within the PAPA boundary?). Please correct to make map more readable. 

Comment ID: 2952 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: The LUP contains numerous maps that are critical to understanding the proposed alternatives. 

Unfortunately, the maps are at such a scale that many of the lines on the map are so thick they partially or 

completely cover Ur-Energy's projects. In some cases it appears the lines are up to four miles wide. Because 

our project areas cannot be seen on these vague maps, it is impossible to understand how the various 

alternatives will impact our operations and therefore it is impossible to provide useful comments. In an 

attempt to resolve this matter, Ur-Energy contacted the BLM Pinedale office and requested electronic files 

of the maps so we could understand the proposed alternatives. However, the BLM was unable to provide 

usable maps. Ur-Energy respectfully requests that BLM supply the requested maps either in electronic form 

or at a usable scale so the public can adequately review the LUP. Because of these vague maps, BLM has 

failed to adequately analyze and describe the actual impacts of the alternatives and has failed to comply 

with NEPA's requirement to provide meaningful information for public review. BLM must comply with 

FLPMA and NEPA by providing adequate maps in a revised or supplemental Draft LUP/EIS and re-open 

for public review and comment. 

Summary: The BLM's landscape-level mapping in the Draft EIS cannot be used alone to mandate 

conservation measures at the project level. Currently, the landscape-level habitat designation map 

incorporates habitat that is not suitable for sage-grouse (such as woodland areas or areas lacking sagebrush 

cover) into suitable sage-grouse habitat. Landscape-level habitat maps should not be used for project-level 

impacts especially when local field-verified habitat maps are available. The maps are at such a scale that 

many of the lines on the map are so thick they partially or completely cover up smaller projects. 

Response: The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to "succinctly describe the 

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The description 

shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a 

statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall 

concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR 1502.15). Additionally, the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments and EIS is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve sage-grouse and its 

habitat across a broad geographic area. The BLM described the affected environment and depicted the 

related maps broadly, appropriate to program-level land use planning actions. Because of the large size of 

the planning area, depicting every small project area would be impractical. 

NEPA

GIS data and analysis

Roadless areas missing on Map 3-17

Comment ID: 171 

Organization: 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-31

Name: Jean Harshbarger 

Comment: Inventoried Roadless Areas are addressed in 3-233. These areas in the TBNG are supposed to 

be shown on map 3-77 but are not. Why can we not find where they are located? 

Comment ID: 3130 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: 3.13.2 Multiple Page 3‐ 223, paragraph 6, line 4; page 3‐ 225, paragraph 2; page 3‐ 228, 

paragraph 5, line 2; and page 3‐ 233 paragraph 3, line 2 Inventoried roadless areas are not shown on the 

referenced Map 3--‐ 17. 

Comment ID: 2627 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 3-223, paragraph 6, line 4; page 3-225, paragraph 2; page 3-228, paragraph 5, line 2; and 

Page 3- 233 paragraph 3, line 2: Inventoried roadless areas are not shown on the referenced Map 3-17. 

Summary: Inventoried roadless areas mentioned in Chapter 3 are not shown on the referenced map, Map 

3-17. 

Response: Inventoried Roadless Areas were identified in Chapter 3 as being depicted on Map 3-17, however 

they were inadvertently left off. This mistake has been corrected in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final 

EIS. In the meantime, these areas can be viewed by contacting the Forest Service offices directly. 

NEPA

Impact Analysis

Impacts analysis doesn't compare effectiveness of the 'No Action' for each area

Comment ID: 1287 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: The purpose of the "No Action" alternative is to provide decision-makers with a benchmark 

from which to compare the magnitude of effects in the proposed "action" alternatives. With respect to 

ongoing management actions like those in a LUP, the "No Action" alternative must represent analysis of 

the effects of continuing current management actions into the future. As the DLUPA/DEIS currently stands, 

insufficient explanation and discussion of current regulatory mechanisms or conservation strategies are 

described with respect to sage-grouse, or any other management action, which makes it impossible to 

compare the impacts of the management actions proposed. AEMA recognizes that BLM summarizes 

existing land use stipulations related to protection of sagegrouse and its habitat by field or district office 

(See Generally Chapter 2). However, BLM provides little meaningful analysis of the effectiveness or 

implementation of these stipulations (See Ch. 4). 

Summary: The purpose of the "No Action" alternative is to provide decision-makers with a benchmark 

from which to compare the magnitude of effects in the proposed "action" alternatives. With respect to 

ongoing management actions like those in a LUP, the "No Action" alternative must represent analysis of 

the effects of continuing current management actions into the future. Current regulatory mechanisms and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-32 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

conservation strategies are insufficiently described, which makes it impossible to compare the impacts of 

the management actions proposed. BLM summarizes existing land use stipulations related to protection of 

sage-grouse and its habitat by field or district office in Chapter 2. However, BLM provides little meaningful 

analysis of the effectiveness or implementation of these stipulations in Chapter 4. 

Response: The No Action alternative was fully analyzed in the LUP Amendments completed for each of 

the 9 plans being amended by this action. As you stated, the No Action alternative is the baseline to which 

the other alternative analyzed in this document are compared. The analysis in Chapter 4 adequately 

describes the deviations from the No Action. The impact analysis for Alternative A (No Action) was 

prepared first to serve as a baseline for alternative comparison. Each resource describes the impact of each 

alternative for comparison against the impacts under each of the action alternatives. The Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provides an adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the 

cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provide a discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the 

proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be 

implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that 

would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

provided sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the preferred 

alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could 

have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than 

quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, 

A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning). 

NEPA

Impact Analysis

Impacts analysis is flawed

Comment ID: 1224 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: The conflict between sage-grouse conservation and the prohibition through administrative fiat 

against mineral, oil and gas and other commodity development in the Planning Area must not be ignored. 

Unfortunately, BLM fails to recognize and disclose this conflict in the DLUPA/DEIS. AEMA contends 

that BLM has an obligation under existing law to comply with federal, state, and local policies, including 

but not limited to, balancing resources, and to recognize the Nation’s need for domestic mineral sources. 

Detailed discussion of the impacts to each of the resources with respect to the proposed management actions 

and RDFs/BMPs for sage-grouse found throughout the DLUPA/DEIS must be thoroughly developed and 

analyzed in a revised DLUPA/DEIS, and the public given another opportunity to review and comment upon 

the revised document. 

Comment ID: 524 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Perhaps most glaringly, throughout chapter 4, BLM does not simply state the differences 

between the impacts of the alternatives in terms of acres affected. The BLM must correct these deficiencies 

in the FEIS. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-33

Comment ID: 1366 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Page 4-3 provides general assumptions that underlie all of the impacts analyses. For instance the 

BLM assumes that the "alternatives will be implemented as described in Chapter 2 and associated 

appendices" but as we have discussed before most of the supposed actions are merely to "analyze" or

"consider" so it is unclear whether the analysis has been conducted based on merely the analysis and 

consideration or the actual implementation of the actions discussed. In addition, another flawed assumption 

is that "sufficient funding and personnel will be available to implement the RMP and LRMP amendments" 

but no information has been provided regarding current budgets and projected budgets or the workloads 

currently laid out in the RMPs (and how well the BLM has been able to fulfill those obligations) or those 

proposed in these amendments. Without this information we can only assume from the current experience 

that RMPs are never fully funded and that this will continue or become even worse. As such this flawed 

assumption vitiates the analyses. 

Comment ID: 521 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: For example, by failing to include the actual number of core GRSG habitat acres within grazing 

allotments, the BLM has not analyzed nor disclosed which alternative has the most significant effect on the 

most important GRSG habitats. The BLM offers general conclusions but provides no analysis of the likely 

different effects on the 574 allotments in the project area. Cursory analysis is insufficient. 

Comment ID: 2054 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Finally, BLM needs to discuss how the management actions under one program (lands and 

realty) will have on the management of another (minerals). For example if BLM makes it impossible to 

obtain a ROW for a new project by implementing restrictions and prohibitions such as those proposed 

across alternatives under lands and realty then BLM must discuss the impacts that will have on other 

resources such as locatable minerals and disclose the potential and likely result of de facto withdrawals as 

a cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts, which BLM has failed to do. 

Comment ID: 1877 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: In addition, the impact analysis is far too vague and lacks sufficient detail to make an informed 

decision. Specifically the impact analysis lacks any useful discussion of the intensity of the impacts. Merely 

describing impacts as "the same," "more than" or "less than" is not sufficient. For example, BLM asserts 

that the management action- ROW Exclusion Areas- may be "the same" or "similar" under Alternatives A, 

B, C, and D (Ch4. at 4-72,74, 75), however the level of impact is certainly different. 

Comment ID: 1149 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-34 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The BLM is bound by law to provide a full and fair environmental analysis of the proposed 

actions, and those actions must comply with federal regulations and agency direction, including but not 

limited to the requirements outlined here. We provide below a brief synopsis of applicable laws and 

regulations. Many of the requirements discussed below have not been complied with in the DEIS and 

proposed action. 

Comment ID: 2640 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Throughout: Alternative D impacts are understated due to the preclusion of ROWs/SUAs in 

core. Where these features are denied, many other developments would not be achievable. 

Summary: The impacts described in Chapter 4 are understated in general, especially for Alternatives B and 

C, which would preclude virtually all resource development. Impacts from alternatives for one resource 

program are not sufficiently discussed on other programs. For example, precluding ROWs/SUAs in core 

habitat would eliminate mineral development in those areas. The impacts analysis is flawed for the 

following reasons: -The impacts analysis does not state the differences between alternatives in terms of 

acres affected. -The impacts analysis is too vague and lacks sufficient detail regarding the intensity of 

impacts across alternatives. -The impacts analysis does not calculate acres of other resource values 

contained within core or priority sage-grouse habitat, for example the number of grazing allotments within 

core. The assumptions for the impacts analyses are flawed. For example, page 4-3 of the document assumes 

that the "alternatives will be implemented as described in Chapter 2 and associated appendices." However, 

most of the supposed actions are merely to "analyze" or "consider" so it is unclear whether the analysis has 

been conducted based on merely the analysis and consideration or the actual implementation of the actions 

discussed. In addition, another flawed assumption is that "sufficient funding and personnel will be available 

to implement the RMP and LRMP amendments." No information has been provided regarding current 

budgets and projected budgets or the workloads currently laid out in the RMPs. 

Response: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provides an adequate discussion of the environmental 

consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. The Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provided sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed 

with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such 

that the public could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the 

alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and 

qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land 

Management Planning). The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS contains only planning actions and does 

not include any implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be 

required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may 

affect the area come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA 

analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will 

tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis when more specific information is 

known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for implementation actions. As a landscape level planning effort, none of the alternatives 

prescribe project-level or site-specific activities on BLM or Forest Service managed lands. Furthermore, 

the agencies’ selection of an alternative does not authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor 

does it directly tie into the agencies’ budgets as appropriated annually through the Federal budget process. 

As a consequence, agencies’ costs and differences in program costs across alternatives have not been 

quantified. Information has been presented in several resource impact sections on the types of costs that 

might be associated with various sage-grouse conservation measures. Assumptions are for the purpose of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-35

analysis only. They are presumed true for the purpose of equitably comparing the alternatives, do not 

constrain or define management, and are based on observations, historical trends and professional 

judgment. 

NEPA

Impact Analysis

Impacts analysis should estimate future sage-grouse population by alternative

Comment ID: 354 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are also concerned that the direct and cumulative impact analyses in the Draft EIS offer only 

a laundry list of conservation measures and qualitative comparisons among alternatives, without evaluating 

their efficacy and overall impact on sage grouse populations under each alternative. See, e.g., DEIS at 4-

490. Are sage grouse populations expected to increase or decrease under each alternative in 10 years, 50 

years, and 100 years? What would be the magnitude of population changes for each alternative? Even 

current population trends by Field Office are missing from the EIS; Pinedale offers a detailed account of 

recent trends, Rock Springs has some broad-brush figures over the past 60-year span, but Newcastle and 

Rawlins offer virtually no data at all. See DEIS at 3-284 through 295. Data are similarly sparse for Medicine 

Bow (DEIS at 2-334) and Bridger-Teton (DEIS at 3- 310) national forests. Please provide the requested 

estimated habitat and population trend versus current baseline conditions for each subpopulation under each 

alternative, so it can be determined to what extent each alternative does or does not fulfill the Purpose and 

Need for the EIS. 

Summary: What would be the magnitude of population changes for each alternative? Please provide 

estimated habitat and population trend versus current baseline conditions for each subpopulation under each 

alternative, so it can be determined to what extent each alternative does or does not fulfill the purpose and 

need for the EIS. 

Response: Estimates of Greater Sage-Grouse populations would be highly speculative and would not be 

appropriate to use in the impacts analysis to describe reasonably foreseeable consequences. This 

amendment addresses changes in management of sage-grouse habitats under the jurisdiction of the land 

management agencies not bird populations. Population changes are the responsibility of the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department. The actions and the analysis in this document are focused on habitat 

management changes, not population changes. 

NEPA

Impact Analysis

Impacts discussed under alternatives should be "common to all" alternatives

Comment ID: 938 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Name: Todd Parfitt 

Comment: Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7. There are a number of action alternatives which are common to 

all action alternatives; it would be helpful if these were identified. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-36 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7: There are a number of action alternatives which are common to 

all action alternatives. 

Response: Impacts from actions that were common to all alternatives are not described in a separate section 

in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Impacts from such actions are first described under Alternative 

A headings and referenced in subsequent action alternatives using the language "Impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative A" or similar wording. 

NEPA

Impact Analysis

Other benefits of sage-grouse conservation measures

Comment ID: 1790 

Organization: The Wilderness Society 

Name: Nada Culver 

Comment: BLM should explicitly identify and consider benefits from sage-grouse conservation actions that 

also serve to conserve other resources. Therefore, when evaluating the impacts of various alternatives in 

this planning effort, the agencies should explicitly discuss the benefits of protecting land (such as scenic 

values, clean air and water), as part of considering various approaches to conserving sagegrouse habitat. 

The Draft EIS is addressing a range of issues, as part of developing a meaningful approach to sage-grouse 

conservation, that can and should take into account the many resources of the affected lands, acknowledge 

the benefits of conserving other resources (such as big game habitat, vegetation, lands with wilderness 

characteristics, backcountry recreation) and explicitly incorporate these considerations into a revised 

preferred alternative. 

Summary: The BLM should explicitly identify and consider benefits from sage-grouse conservation actions 

that also serve to conserve other resources. The benefits of protecting land should include big game habitat, 

vegetation, lands with wilderness characteristics, backcountry recreation, scenic values, clean air, and clean 

water. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS identified many other resource areas that 

would benefit from the alternatives, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Resources and 

programs that identified as receiving secondary benefits from sage-grouse conservation measures include 

air, soil, water, vegetation, visual resources, fish and wildlife, and wilderness values to name a few. 

NEPA

Impact Analysis

Remove "would," "could," and "may"

Comment ID: 3023 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Use of the terms such as "should," "could," and "may" are subjective, provide no information 

regarding what may ultimately be required, and therefore result in ambiguity. It is suggested that these 

words be changed throughout the document as appropriate to identify which specific actions would be 

requirements versus those that are merely recommendations. This would provide specific regulatory 

mechanism assurance. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-37

Summary: Use of the terms such as "should," "could," and "may" are subjective, provide no information 

regarding what may ultimately be required, and therefore result in ambiguity. It is suggested that these 

words be changed throughout the document as appropriate to identify which specific actions would be 

requirements versus those that are merely recommendations. This would provide specific regulatory 

mechanism assurance. 

Response: The use of the terms "would" and "could" are used in place of more definitive terms such as 

"will" because the impacts analysis describes the result that would or could occur IF the management 

actions were implemented. The BLM and Forest Service wish to avoid describing the results of actions in 

the Draft EIS as occurring with certainty because that would imply alternatives being proposed have already 

been selected. Use of the term "will" is more appropriate in the Final EIS and Proposed LUP Amendments. 

In the Draft EIS, the term "would" was used when an action's result is more or less certain, such as from a 

requirement. The term "could" was used to describe impacts that might or might not happen if the action is 

implemented, such as from a recommendation or an action that has some degree of freedom in how it is 

implemented. 

NEPA

Litigation/Lawsuits

The plan must adhere to pending litigation and rulings

Comment ID: 1384 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: We also provide a copy of the recent federal ruling regarding the NEPA and FLPMA violations 

found in the Pinedale RMP. It appears from our review that the BLM failed to comply with the order in the 

DEIS. The BLM should also be aware that while the ruling was on the two test RMP’s, the Pinedale and 

Craters of the Moon, the principles provided in the ruling would apply equally to the rest of the RMP’s in 

this group. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the implications of this order prior to 

your efforts to begin to complete the FEIS and Draft ROD. Please let me know your schedule so that we 

can set a date. 

Comment ID: 517 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Western Watersheds Project (WWP) continues to attack public land planning documents across 

the west. Significantly, WWP challenged the Pinedale RMP in Federal District Court in Idaho under Judge 

Winmill. See Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 4:08- CV-516-BLW, Dckt. 131 (D. Idaho 2011). 

Judge Winmill invalidated the Pinedale RMP and remanded the document to the BLM in order to correct 

its deficiencies. Id. In so doing, Judge Winmill retained jurisdiction over any revisions to the Pinedale RMP, 

such as the GRSG amendment. Id. More importantly, all of the field offices in the current GRSG 

amendment would fall under Judge Winmill’s jurisdiction. Thus, BLM must make every effort to meet the 

applicable NEPA standards and to address the judicial findings already the law of the case in this pending 

matter. 

Summary: BLM must make every effort to address outstanding judicial findings and orders. Western 

Watersheds Project (WWP) challenged the Pinedale RMP in Federal District Court in Idaho under Judge 

Winmill. See Western Watersheds Project v. Salazar, 4:08- CV-516-BLW, Dckt. 131. Judge Winmill 

invalidated the Pinedale RMP and remanded the document to the BLM in order to correct its deficiencies. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-38 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

In so doing, Judge Winmill retained jurisdiction over any revisions to the Pinedale RMP, such as the sagegrouse amendment. More importantly, all of the field offices in the planning area would fall under Judge 

Winmill’s jurisdiction. 

Response: The agencies are fully aware of the court's decision in the referenced case. 

NEPA

Mitigation measures

No discussion of mitigation measure effectiveness

Comment ID: 1342 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Page 2-8 discusses mitigation but fails to comply with case law regarding the need to determine 

the effectiveness of mitigation within the NEPA document itself. 

Summary: Page 2-8 discusses mitigation but fails to comply with case law regarding the need to determine 

the effectiveness of mitigation within the NEPA document itself. 

Response: Mitigation will be applied to all implementation actions/decisions that take place on Federal 

lands within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during the life of this plan. Mitigation has been further defined 

as Regional Mitigation and the Framework is in Appendix D. The Regional Mitigation Framework was 

developed to follow the BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794, Forest Service Handbook FSH 

1909.15, and CEQ 40 CFR 1508.20. The Mitigation Framework, through the mitigation hierarchy, guides 

the BLM and Forest Service. The hierarchy direction is to first avoid impacts entirely by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action; second, if unable to avoid, minimize impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of an action or parts of an action; and lastly, if avoidance or minimizing is not possible, 

compensate impacts associated with future implementation actions. If residual impacts to Greater SageGrouse from implementation-level actions remain after applying avoidance or minimization measures, then 

compensatory mitigation projects will be used to offset the residual impacts in an effort to achieve the land 

use plan goals and objectives. As articulated in Appendix D, compensatory mitigation will occur on sites 

that have the potential to yield the greatest conservation benefit to the Greater Sage- Grouse, regardless of 

land ownership. These sites should be sufficiently “durable.” According to BLM Manual Section 1794, 

durability is defined as “the administrative, legal, and financial assurances that secure and protect the 

conservation status of a compensatory mitigation site, and the ecological benefits of a compensatory 

mitigation project, for at least as long as the associated impacts persist.” Specific mitigation strategies, 

based on the Framework, will be developed by regional teams (at the WAFWA Management Zone level) 

within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. These strategies will guide the application of the 

mitigation hierarchy to address Greater Sage-Grouse impacts within that WAFWA Management Zone. The 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy will be applicable to BLM and Forest Service 

lands within the zone’s boundaries. Subsequently, the BLM/Forest Service’s NEPA analyses for 

implementation-level decisions that might impact Greater Sage-Grouse will include analysis of mitigation 

recommendations, including the effectiveness of mitigation measures from the relevant WAFWA 

Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy(ies). 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-39

NEPA

Monitoring

Qualitative Monitoring Form

Comment ID: 2110 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Qualitative Monitoring Form, Page C-10 This form is not referenced at any point in Appendix 

C, so we are at a loss as to why it is included. 

Summary: The Qualitative Monitoring Form, mentioned on page C-10, is not referenced anywhere. What 

is it and why is it included? 

Response: The Qualitative Monitoring Form provides an example of how monitoring and reporting are 

completed. This form was included merely as an example. 

NEPA

Public Notification

Public Notification: Response to public comments

Comment ID: 1826 

Organization: 

Name: Marybeth Devlin 

Comment: I urge BLM to publish the number of persons that respond to the Draft LUPA/EIS. Show that 

you value every response on its own merits rather than labeling some as "form letters." The Constitution 

provides for the right of citizens to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution 

does not require each complainant to formulate a unique letter. Indeed, the very word "petition" connotes a 

document that multiple parties sign in agreement and solidarity regarding a particular issue. At court, there 

are even class-action suits, wherein many plaintiffs join together to seek justice regarding a matter of mutual 

concern. One action, many parties. BLM should just state the facts: • How many individuals responded to 

the Draft LUPA/EIS , • How many and what percentage favored each Alternative and why, • What different 

ideas and alternatives were proposed, and • What modifications, corrections, improvements will BLM make 

per our input. BLM is supposed to build consensus. The public-involvement component is designed to 

secure feedback from those persons interested enough to participate in the planning process. Disregarding 

feedback leads to decisions that are not supported by the majority of stakeholders. Recommendations: Each 

and every comment must be honored -- fully, individually, and collectively -- with the numerical results 

published. Remember that the public lands belong to We the People, not just to those individuals that 

happen to reside nearby or to those who wish to capitalize on our lands. 

Comment ID: 237 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a). Importantly, while agencies must attach comments considered 

"substantive" to the EIS (40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(b)), a comment need not be substantive to trigger the agency’s 

response requirement. We expect BLM to respond substantively to each issue raised in these comments 

pursuant to the requirements of NEPA. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-40 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1564 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(a). While agencies must attach comments considered "substantive" to the 

EIS (40 C.F.R. § 1503.4(b)), a comment need not be substantive to trigger the agency’s response 

requirement. We expect BLM to respond substantively to each issue raised in these comments pursuant to 

the requirements of NEPA. 

Summary: BLM should publish the number of persons that respond to the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. Each comment should be valued on its own merits rather than labeling some as "form letters." BLM 

needs to report the following: • How man individuals responded to the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

• How many and what percentage favored each alternative and why • What different ideas and alternatives 

were proposed • What modifications, corrections, or improvements will BLM make per public input? BLM 

is required by NEPA to respond substantively to each issue raised in the public comments. 

Response: All comments received on the Draft EIS were considered and reviewed to determine the 

appropriate response, if any. Comments simply stating a preference for or against a specific alternative or 

opinions without reasonable basis were considered non-substantive since they do meet they do not meet the 

substantive comment requirement of BLM Handbook H-1790-1, Section 6.9.2.1. Form letters, or identical 

letters submitted by different commenters, were identified as part of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

comment response effort. Since these submissions are identical in nature, it is adequate for only one 

“master” form letter to be included as part of the comment response effort and reviewed for substantive 

comments. All form letters will be entered into the project decision file and all commenters will be entered 

into the project decision file as having submitted a comment during the comment period. Summarized 

comments and responses are included in this appendix and includes counts and totals of the number of 

comments received. It is important to note that during the process of identifying substantive concerns, all 

comments were treated equally. The comments were not weighted by organizational affiliation or status of 

respondents, and the number of duplicate comments did not add more bias to one comment than another. 

The process was not one of counting votes and no effort was made to tabulate the exact number of people 

for or against any given aspect of the plan. Rather, emphasis was placed on the content of each comment. 

NEPA

Purpose and Need

Alternative D does not meet regulatory certainty requirement

Comment ID: 364 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Throughout, Alternative D is designed to maximize management flexibility, which necessarily 

minimizes certainty that any prescribed protection measures will be applied in practice. In this way, 

Alternative D fails to meet the regulatory certainty requirements of the PECE policy, and therefore cannot 

be said to meet the Purpose and Need for this EIS. 

Summary: Alternative D is designed to maximize management flexibility, which necessarily minimizes 

certainty that any prescribed protection measures will be applied in practice. In this way, Alternative D fails 

to meet the regulatory certainty requirements of the Policy for Evaluating for Conservation Efforts (PECE), 

and therefore cannot be said to meet the purpose and need for this EIS. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-41

Response: The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 

40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, including 

seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. The stated purpose of Alternative D is to 

"provide opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing protection of Greater SageGrouse habitat based on scoping comments and input from cooperating agencies involved in the alternatives 

development process." The description, found in Section 2.4.4, further states that "[t]his alternative 

increases the potential for development and resource use, with reduced Greater Sage- Grouse habitat 

protections." Alternative D includes conservation measures for the purpose of conserving, enhancing, 

and/or restoring Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in the context of the agencies' multiple use mission and is 

therefore fully consistent with the purpose and need of this Final EIS. 

NEPA

Purpose and Need

Figure 1-1 incomplete

Comment ID: 2916 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Figure 1-1, Nine-Step Planning Process, is not referenced or explained in the text, and it should 

be revised to correspond to the major steps in the ElS process. Also, a key step is missing from the "major 

steps in the EIS process" list - the Formulation of Alternatives. This should be outlined in a similar level of 

detail as the other steps are. 

Summary: Figure 1-1, Nine-Step Planning Process, is not referenced or explained in the text should be 

revised to correspond to the major steps in the EIS process. Key steps, such as 'Formulation of Alternatives,' 

are missing from the list. 

Response: Although Figure 1-1 is not intended to be a comprehensive discourse on the planning process, it 

is nevertheless explained in more detail on page 1-6 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The 

formulation of alternatives is specifically listed as Step 5. 

NEPA

Purpose and Need

Remove alternatives/impacts not related to sage-grouse

Comment ID: 2815 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: The title of the document talks about it being for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse. However,

there are numerous pages dedicated to other topics which leave the reader confused about the need for the 

apparently extraneous items. The document fails to correlate these extraneous items to the needs of the the 

analysis on sage-grouse impacts. Given the significant volume of information and the limited amount of 

time allowed to analyze and comment, this extraneous material serves to divert the public's attention away 

from sage-grouse. We are puzzled as to why the document would seek to do this. Secondly, in several 

places the document offers up speculation instead of facts. This does not serve the purpose of NEPA, which 

is to offer land use decision makers information to make informed decisions regarding possible alternatives. 

Thirdly, we are puzzled by the document offering two alternatives which have very similar management 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-42 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and environmental outcomes. Again in an effort to identify viable alternatives and eliminate significant 

volumes of repetitive information it would seem logical to combine these two alternatives into one 

alternative. Additionally these two (Alternatives B and C) offered alternatives appear to violate the Multiple 

Use Sustained Yield Act of providing multiple use on federal lands. 

Comment ID: 2903 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: the Draft LUPA/EIS BLM often strays from its stated purpose and need by providing analysis 

of individual sage-grouse and proposing development stipulations unrelated to managing sage-grouse 

habitat. BLM should not analyze impacts on individual sage-grouse until first establishing a link between 

the impacts to individuals and sage-grouse habitat. Furthermore, BLM may not propose management 

actions unrelated to management of sage-grouse habitat because such actions are outside the scope of this 

LUPA/EIS. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS BLM often strays from its stated purpose and need by 

providing analysis of individual sage-grouse and proposing development stipulations unrelated to managing 

sage-grouse habitat. BLM should not analyze impacts on individual sage-grouse until first establishing a 

link between the impacts to individuals and sage-grouse habitat. Furthermore, BLM may not propose 

management actions unrelated to management of sage-grouse habitat because such actions are outside the 

scope of this plan and EIS. There are numerous pages dedicated to topics other than Greater sage-grouse, 

which leave the reader confused about the need for the extraneous items. The document fails to correlate 

these items to the needs of the analysis on sagegrouse impacts. Given the significant volume of information 

and the limited amount of time allowed to analyze and comment, this extraneous material serves to divert 

the public's attention away from sage-grouse. 

Response: The BLM complied with regulations in describing the affected environment. The requisite level 

of information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope 

and nature of the proposed decision. The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various 

appendices is appropriate to support, at the general land use planning-level of analysis, the environmental 

impact analysis resulting from management actions presented in the Draft EIS. 

NEPA

Range of alternatives

Alternative E is inadequate

Comment ID: 2149 

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter 

Name: Connie Wilbert 

Comment: The preferred Alternative E fails to meet some basic requirements of a land use plan. BLM's 

scoping process identified the issues, which should be resolved in the planning decision. By BLM's own 

admission, implementation of Alternative E may very well still lead to continued decline of sage grouse 

populations in Wyoming, thus clearly not addressing this fundamental issue of the planning process.

Furthermore, BLM and the Forest Service skillfully (but incorrectly) identify administrative tasks as issues. 

The handbook (H-1601-1) describes issues as disputes or controversies over resource allocation, use, and 

management. Planning criteria define the decision space and the resulting plan must be consistent with 

these criteria. Unfortunately, Alternative E often fails to meet key criteria. For example, BLM is required 

to manage for multiple use, which requires that the combination of actions prevent the "permanent 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-43

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment." Yet for some actions, BLM 

openly admits that they will continue actions that will perpetuate habitat impairment indefinitely. 

Alternative E simply fails to address the need to restore impaired lands. Legally, BLM must apply direction 

from the courts on relevant programs, but Alternative E fails to correct the legal issues created by BLM's 

use of habitat assessment protocols that fail to address sage grouse needs. Alternative E also fails to address 

the court ruling calling for BLM to have criteria that minimize the impacts of Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) 

use. Quite the contrary: under Alternative E, current levels of OHV use would continue without restriction. 

As these examples clearly show, the proposed action fails to meet the fundamental requirements for BLM 

to establish an adequate regulatory structure for sage grouse conservation. 

Comment ID: 235 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Because the majority of remaining Greater sage-grouse habitat overlaps with land managed by 

the federal Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, the long-term survival of the species rests 

largely on management prescriptions established by these agencies. Development pressure is expected to 

increase on these lands. For that reason, I am disappointed to see the agencies put forth as their "Preferred 

Alternative" (Alternative E) in the draft environmental impact statement for amending nine land use 

management plans in Wyoming a strategy that continues to rely on measures that have proven ineffective 

in preventing the decline of Greater sage-grouse. The continued reliance on management "prescriptions" 

that are not supported by current science and the ability to waive protections and allow development in 

sage-grouse habitat will not be sufficient to ensure that sage-grouse are recovered and need not be listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. The agencies need to develop a more protective plan that incorporates 

elements of Alternatives B and C. The final plan must require that oil and gas drilling as well as roads, 

transmission lines, wind turbines and over-grazing are restricted in priority sage-grouse habitat, that 

migration corridors are protected, and that damaged habitat is reclaimed. 

Summary: The Preferred Alternative E fails to meet some basic requirements of a land use plan. BLM's 

scoping process identified the issues, which should be resolved in the planning decision. By BLM's own 

admission, implementation of Alternative E may very well still lead to continued decline of sagegrouse 

populations in Wyoming, thus clearly not addressing this fundamental issue of the planning process. 

Furthermore, BLM and the Forest Service skillfully (but incorrectly) identify administrative tasks as issues. 

The Handbook (H-1601-1) describes issues as disputes or controversies over resource allocation, use, and 

management. Planning criteria define the decision space and the resulting plan must be consistent with 

these criteria. Unfortunately, Alternative E often fails to meet key criteria. For example, BLM is required 

to manage for multiple-use, which requires that the combination of actions prevent the "permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment." Yet for some actions, BLM 

openly admits that they will continue actions that will perpetuate habitat impairment indefinitely. 

Alternative E simply fails to address the need to restore impaired lands. Legally, BLM must apply direction 

from the courts on relevant programs, but Alternative E fails to correct the legal issues created by BLM's 

use of habitat assessment protocols that fail to address sage-grouse needs. Alternative E also fails to address 

the court ruling calling for BLM to have criteria that minimize the impacts of off highway vehicle (OHV) 

use. Quite the contrary: under Alternative E, current levels of OHV use would continue without restriction. 

As these examples clearly show, the proposed action fails to meet the fundamental requirements for BLM 

to establish an adequate regulatory structure for sage-grouse conservation. Protecting large expanses of 

important sage-grouse habitat--as outlined in Alternative C--will help stem the decline of many species and 

begin to restore balance to an over-utilized and degraded landscape. 

Response: The BLM’s FLPMA (Section 103(c)) and Forest Service's Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act 

defines "multiple-use" as the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-44 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people. 

Accordingly, the BLM is responsible for the complicated task of striking a balance among the many 

competing uses to which public lands can be put. The BLM’s multiple-use mandate does not require that 

all uses be allowed on all areas of the public lands. The purpose of the mandate is to require the BLM to 

evaluate and choose an appropriate balance of resource uses which involves tradeoffs between competing 

uses. The FLPMA also directs the BLM to develop and periodically revise or amend its RMPs, which guide 

management of BLM-administered lands, and provides an arena for making decisions regarding how public 

lands would be managed and used. The LUP Amendments is a targeted amendment specifically addressing 

goals, objectives, and conservation measures to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and to respond to the 

potential of it being listed (see Draft LUP Amendments Section 1.3, Purpose and Need). The BLM’s 

planning processes allow for analysis and consideration of a range of alternatives in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate regulatory mechanisms to conserve, 

enhance, and restore sage-grouse habitat and to eliminate, reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to 

ensure that a balanced management approach was recommended. The plan includes alternatives that 

provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in various use programs, but would not eliminate or 

invalidate any valid existing development rights. The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable 

range of alternatives during the Greater Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with the NEPA 

while utilizing best available science. While there are many possible alternatives or actions to manage 

public lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and the Forest Service fully considered 

the planning issues and criteria developed during the scoping process to determine a reasonable range of 

alternatives. As a result, five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

that best addressed the issues and concerns identified by the affected public. The BLM and Forest Service 

will consider the entire range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision when the 

land use planning process is completed. Regarding management of OHVs, the alternatives appropriately 

consider the land use allocations of open, closed, and limited. The appropriate minimization criteria for 

travel routes will be applied in the subsequent travel management planning efforts. 

NEPA

Range of alternatives

Alternatives B and C are not reasonable

Comment ID: 1222 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM states as one of its objectives for Alternatives A, D, and E is to: "Conserve, recover, and 

enhance sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale consistent with local, state, and federal management plans 

and policies, as practical, while providing for multiple use of BLM-administered lands and National Forest 

System lands" (Ch. 2 at 2-11, emphasis added). BLM’s description of the management goals for 

Alternatives B and C speaks volumes as to the inadequacy of these alternatives. Both Alternatives B and C 

fail to include compliance with applicable law and policy which is inconsistent with § 202 ©(9) of FLPMA; 

and Alternative C fails to include cooperation with other conservation partners as a goal-which seems 

counterproductive if conservation and protection of sage-grouse is the purpose of the LUPA (See Id.), 

described in detail below. 

Comment ID: 547 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-45

Comment: From a National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") perspective, Samson understands 

the need to analyze a range of alternatives, but suggests the BLM was not required to analyze either 

Alternative B or Alternative C in detail given the inherently unreasonable nature of these alternatives. It is 

well established that NEPA requires an agency only to consider "reasonable alternatives." 40 C.F.R. § 

1502.14 (2013). Federal courts and the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA") have long held that 

"[a]lternatives that do not accomplish the purpose of an action are not reasonable and need not be studied 

in detail by the agency." Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. United States Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 

1012, 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (citations and internal punctuation omitted). Given the drastic limitations 

Alternative B and Alternative C would have upon oil and gas development, neither of their alternatives are 

reasonable and they must not be selected. Samson urges the BLM not to adopt either Alternative B or 

Alternative C because of the drastic adverse impacts they would have upon oil and gas development and, 

thus, on the economy of the Planning 

Comment ID: 994 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: The State of Wyoming cannot accept Alternatives B and C. These alternatives are not reasonable 

and will have drastic and adverse impacts to the economy, custom and culture of communities in the 

Planning Area and beyond. Public land uses of all types will be impacted by the management constrains 

under Alternatives B and C, including recreation. The BLM and USFS cannot meet multipleuse and 

sustained yield mandates if these alternatives are adopted. Within the Planning Area, agriculture, oil and 

gas industries, and mining will be the most adversely impacted by Alternatives B and C. 

Comment ID: 2718 

Organization: Sweetwater County 

Name: Mark Kot

Comment: Since Alternatives B and C severely limits multiple use including recreation, grazing, oil and 

gas and mineral development, Sweetwater County strongly discourages the BLM and the USFS from 

selecting and implementing these alternatives. Since approximately 86% of Sweetwater County's operating 

revenues are related to mineral development, Sweetwater County strongly believes that if either of these 

alternatives is selected as the final management strategy for the LUPA and EIS, there will be major negative 

impacts to Sweetwater County’s economy. 

Comment ID: 548 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: the BLM is not required to pursue alternatives that are not reasonable because they are not 

technically or economically feasible. The Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") has described 

reasonable alternatives as "those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint 

and using common sense, rather than simply desirable." CEQ's Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 2a, 

46 Fed. Reg. 18028, 18027 (Mar. 23, 1981) (emphasis added). BLM need not analyze speculative, 

impractical, or uneconomic alternatives. Citizens' Comm. to Save Our Canyons, 297 F.3d at 1030-31. The 

BLM's own NEPA regulations also state that the agency is only required to evaluate technically and 

economically practical alternatives. 43 C.F.R. § 46.420(b) (2013). BLM's NEPA Manual also only requires 

the evaluation of reasonable and practicable alternatives. BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1, § 6.6.1, pg. 

50 (H-1790-1, Rel. 1-1710 0113012008). 

Comment ID: 2536 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-46 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation 

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor 

Comment: Peabody endorses Alternative E with conditions. It offers the best balance of conservation of the 

species with development of coal resources. Alternatives A and D do not offer practical conservation 

measures for sage-grouse habitat management and improvement. They are also deficient in encouraging or 

facilitating collaboration between agencies and private land owners. While they may offer the greatest 

opportunities for mineral development, they do so at the expense of habitat management and improvement. 

Peabody recognizes the need for development and conservation to proceed in lockstep on this issue, and 

further, that the coal industry in Wyoming has demonstrated the ability to successfully do so. Alternatives 

B and C do not substantially enhance sage-grouse habitat. Their Management Objectives promote 

avoidance and non-occupancy of various portions of the habitat. Blanket "no occupancy" restrictions do 

nothing to improve habitat. Furthermore, Alternatives B and C lack provisions for collaboration among 

stakeholders, funding, mechanisms for prioritizing habitat enhancement opportunities, and adequate 

programs for monitoring and reporting. Alternatives B and C do not provide a benefit to the species and 

should not be considered for implementation. 

Comment ID: 2712 

Organization: Solvay Chemicals, Inc. 

Name: Tim Brown 

Comment: This alternative emphasizes improvement and protection of the Greater Sage Grouse and is 

applied to all sage grouse priority habitat. This alternative also has a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 

acres that would limit development and would close or restrict certain land uses. This alternative also 

considers closing priority sage grouse habitat to grazing and other surface activities. Solvay Chemicals 

believes this is overly restrictive, is in conflict with the multiple use mandate and would stifle responsible 

development. 

Comment ID: 2905 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Alternative C is based on the citizen groups recommended alternative. This alternative 

emphasizes improvement and protection of habitat for sage-grouse and is applied to all occupied sagegrouse habitat. Alternative C would limit commodity development in areas of occupied sage-grouse habitat, 

and would close or designate portions of the planning area to some land uses. Under this alternative, a 

surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. This 

alternative considers closing priority sage-grouse habitat to livestock grazing. Alternative C is not a 

reasonable alternative and should not have been carried forward for analysis. Alternative C is so restrictive 

that it fails to meet BLM's statutory obligation and purpose and need of this plan amendment to manage 

public lands for multiple use. Alternative C is the no-resource development alternative that would, if 

selected, require BLM to manage for a single resource - sagegrouse. While FLPMA does not require BLM 

to manage for every resource everywhere, it does require BLM to strike a balance in the management of 

public lands and does not allow the BLM to manage a significant percentage of its lands within the Planning 

Area to the benefit of a single species. Alternative C should be dropped from further consideration. 

Summary: NEPA requires an agency only to consider "reasonable alternatives." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 

(2013). Federal courts and the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) have long held that "alternatives that 

do not accomplish the purpose of an action are not reasonable and need not be studied in detail by the 

agency." Citizens’ Comm. to Save Our Canyons v. United States Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1030 (10th 

Cir. 2002). BLM need not analyze speculative, impractical, or uneconomic alternatives. The BLM's own 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-47

NEPA regulations also state that the agency is only required to evaluate technically and economically 

practical alternatives. 43 C.F.R. § 46.420(b). BLM's NEPA Manual also only requires the evaluation of 

reasonable and practicable alternatives. BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1, § 6.6.1, pg. 50. Given the drastic 

limitations Alternative B and Alternative C would have upon oil and gas development, neither of these 

alternatives are reasonable and they must not be selected. These alternatives would have drastic adverse 

impacts upon the economy, custom, and culture of the communities in the Planning Area. The BLM and 

Forest Service cannot meet multiple-use and sustained yield mandates if these alternatives are adopted. 

Within the planning area, agriculture, oil and gas industries, mining, livestock grazing, and recreation will 

be adversely impacted by Alternatives B and C. BLM was not required to analyze either Alternative B or 

Alternative C in detail given the inherently unreasonable nature of these alternatives. Alternatives B and C 

do not substantially enhance sagegrouse habitat. Their management objectives promote avoidance and nonoccupancy of various portions of the habitat. Blanket "no occupancy" restrictions do nothing to improve 

habitat. Furthermore, Alternatives B and C lack provisions for collaboration among stakeholders, funding, 

mechanisms for prioritizing habitat enhancement opportunities, and adequate programs for monitoring and 

reporting. 

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater 

Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1) 

require that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. While there are many possible 

alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and 

the Forest Service fully considered the management opportunities presented in the Analysis of the 

Management Situation (AMS) and the planning issues and criteria developed during the scoping process to 

determine a reasonable range of alternatives. As a result, five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that best addressed the issues and concerns identified by the affected 

public. Both the Forest Service’s and BLM’s planning processes allow for analysis and consideration of a 

range of alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and to eliminate, 

reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach was 

recommended. The plan includes alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in 

various use programs, but would not eliminate or invalidate any valid, existing development rights. 

NEPA

Range of alternatives

Alternatives B, C, D, and E withdrawals are overly restrictive and unwarranted

Comment ID: 1277 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that Alternatives B, C, D, and E fail to recognize the Nation’s need for domestic 

mineral sources, are overly restrictive, unreasonable and contrary to law and other BLM policies. AEMA 

also contends that Alternatives B, C, D, and E are inconsistent with BLM policy on land withdrawals - that 

except for congressional withdrawals and withdrawals made pursuant to FLPMA § 204(c) for a period not 

to exceed 20 years, the public lands should remain open and available unless doing otherwise is clearly in 

the National interest. Alternatives B, C, E and elements of D are thus inconsistent with the statutory mandate 

and BLM policy and do not fit within the planning criteria. 

Comment ID: 1286 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-48 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: In addition, the DLUPA/DEIS lists and describes four alternatives that were eliminated from 

detailed analysis because "they were unreasonable or not practical or feasible as a result of technical, legal 

or policy factors; were not found to be necessary to achieve the intended result, or did not meet the purpose 

and need for the planning effort" (Ch. 2 at 2-2). Following this same line of reasoning, BLM should have 

eliminated Alternatives B, C, D and E from detailed analysis rather than evaluate them as viable alternatives 

that could be selected. Section 6.6.3 of BLM’s NEPA Manual (Handbook H-790-1) provides clear guidance 

on when BLM should eliminate an alternative from detailed analysis:You may eliminate an action 

alternative from detailed analysis if: • It is ineffective (it would not respond to the purpose and need) • It is 

inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the management of the area. Alternatives that pursue 

sweeping land and mineral withdrawals within the Planning Area are overly restrictive, unreasonable and 

contrary to law and BLM policy; which calls into question the validity of Alternatives B, C, E, and to a 

lesser extent D, which propose sweeping land and mineral withdrawals, or de facto withdrawals due to 

special designations, or unreasonable and unsupported surface use restrictions. Based on BLM NEPA 

guidance, and the above-described conflicts with land management statutes, Alternatives B, C, D, and E, 

are not reasonable or viable alternatives. BLM must eliminate these alternatives as alternatives considered 

in detail and revise and re-issue a DLUPA/DEIS that treats these alternatives as alternatives eliminated 

from detailed analysis. 

Summary: Alternatives B, C, D, and E fail to recognize the Nation’s need for domestic mineral sources, are 

overly restrictive, unreasonable and contrary to law and other BLM policies. Section 6.6.3 of BLM’s NEPA 

Manual (Handbook H-790-1) provides clear guidance on when BLM should eliminate an alternative from 

detailed analysis: You may eliminate an action alternative from detailed analysis if: • It is ineffective (it 

would not respond to the purpose and need) • It is inconsistent with the basic policy objectives for the 

management of the area. Alternatives B, C, D, and E are inconsistent with BLM policy on land withdrawals 

- that except for congressional withdrawals and withdrawals made pursuant to FLPMA § 204(c) for a period 

not to exceed 20 years, the public lands should remain open and available unless doing otherwise is clearly 

in the National interest. Alternatives B, C, E and elements of D are thus inconsistent with the statutory 

mandate and BLM policy and do not fit within the planning criteria. 

Response: The BLM is aware of their requirement to notify the US Congress of any decision for mineral 

withdrawal on an aggregate of 5,000 acres or more, or removing one or more of the principle uses on 

100,000 acres or more, as required by Sections 202 and 204 of FLPMA. 

NEPA

Range of alternatives

Inadequate range of alternatives or new alternatives suggested

Comment ID: 1450 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: The purpose and need statement in the DEIS states: "The major threats identified within BLMand Forest Service-administered lands in the Nevada and Northeastern California Subregion include the 

following (the major threats were identified by the BLM interdisciplinary team in coordination with the 

USFWS): . . . Infrastructure "fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to human development activities such as 

right-of-way and renewable energy development." This statement fails to properly specify the underlying 

purpose and need to which the proposal is responding as required by NEPA regulations. See 40 CFR 

1502.13 (requiring a statement that "shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-49

agency is responding and the need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including 

the proposed action"). The narrowly stated purpose in the DEIS fails to meets the requirements of section 

1502.13 as it narrowly dictates the range of alternatives and an agency cannot define its objectives in 

unreasonably narrow terms. See City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Dep't of Transp., 123 F.3d 

1142, 1155 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Comment ID: 1463 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: Alternatives B and D are variations on NTT theme, Alternatives C and F are variations on 

environmentalists’ themes, and Alternative E is the state plan. The final DEIS should consider a multiple 

use alternative in addition to those alternatives. 

Comment ID: 1150 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that the BLM consider a reasonable 

range of alternatives. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)©(iii). Considering the presence of endangered, special status, 

and sensitive species in the planning area, a no grazing alternative and 50% reduction from actual use in 

permitted grazing should be included within the reasonable range of alternatives for the DRMPA/DEIS. 

Comment ID: 1185 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA believes that in light of the May 16, 2013 letter the Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) sent to Department of the Interior Secretary, Sally Jewell, expressing concern 

with the “one-size-fits-all “conservation measures recommended in the NTT Report, the DLUPA/DEIS 

should be revised to consider other alternatives and reissued to give the public another opportunity to 

comment on the draft EIS documents.

Comment ID: 1200 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that BLM has not adequately addressed the issues for which the RMP was 

remanded in the first place. To that end, failing to analyze full and consistent implementation of existing 

policies and conservation measures, like those contained in Manual 6840, IM-2005-024: National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2004 Strategy), Fundamentals for Standards for Rangeland Health 

(43 C.F.R §4180.1), and existing Best Management Practices (BMPs) as an alternative, which would be 

consistent with the USFWS "Warranted but Precluded" finding for sage-grouse in the EIS documents, is 

arbitrary and capricious and does not comply with NEPA requirements (discussed infra, Section 

II(A)(3)(a)). Consequently, BLM must revise the DLUPA/DEIS to include a detailed analysis of the above 

alternatives and provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment upon the revised draft 

document. 

Comment ID: 1622 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-50 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: A coalition of environmental organizations developed and previously submitted a new 

alternative for consideration entitled, the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative. Our recommendations build 

upon some of the proposed actions contained in the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative (Alternative “F” in 

the DEIS, although the DEIS did not faithfully follow all of the recommendations), and so they are not 

identical. For instance, our recommendations also incorporate very recent research results on the impacts 

of noise and ravens on sage-grouse. Importantly, our proposed system of sage-grouse conservation areas 

system includes winter distribution habitat and does not solely focus on mapping breeding and broodrearing areas; within sage-grouse conservation areas we generally buffer active leks with a 10 km buffer 

for surface occupancy and new roads, and 7.6 km for new trails, while Alternative C uses more conservative 

buffers. 

Comment ID: 1251 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: In addition to failing to take a “hard look” at the range of ecological and socioeconomic issues 

identified in the preceding section, the analysis in the DLUPA/DEIS contains a number of legal deficiencies 

that must be remedied before the final plan amendment is issued. These include failings under the governing 

laws and policies of the BLM and the Forest Service. The document fails to meet these legal requirements, 

primarily because it failed to take seriously the effects of past, present, and foreseeable livestock grazing 

and failed to adequately assess a range of alternatives to the status quo grazing management, management 

which is contributing to the decline of the species and its habitat in the planning area. 

Comment ID: 3022 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: If the LUP Amendment and SEIS are still believed to be necessary, after review of the 

alternatives presented within the Wyoming Sage Grouse LUP Amendment and DEIS, USQ strongly 

recommentds the addition of an additional alternative that considers application of the Core Area Strategy 

and nothing more. In terms of the alternatives presented, USQ finds only Alternatives A, D and E to be 

marginally acceptalbe with the following caveats: Alternative A should explicitly identify adherence to 

policy 6840 and thereby would involve the inclusion of multiple candidate/sensitive species protections 

(e.g., Core aRea Strategy, Conservation Objectives Team Guidance, National Technical Team Guidance), 

and could be developed on a site or project-specific basis. This approach would provide the regulatory 

mechanism assurance USFWS wants. The mandate for preclusion of Rights of Way (ROWs) and Special 

Use Authorizations (SUAs) within core areas should be removed from Alternative D. A number of 

modifications should be made to Alternative E, which may also apply to Alternative D. These comments 

are noted in the detailed comments below. 

Comment ID: 2350 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIA fails to make a clear presentation and comparison of the available 

alternatives in a way that will allow the public to make informed comments. The DLUPA/DEIS presents 

five alternatives that all rely on substantially similar habitat designations, conservation measures; and 

disturbance cap and withdrawal requirements without providing sufficient detail or scientific support to 

accurately evaluate the. impacts from any particular proposal. For example, the proposed alternatives all 

include the same general set of conservation measures without prioritizing particular activities. Many of 

the proposed alternatives rely on identical BMP conservation measures or stipulations that are unclear, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-51

undefined, or unsupported. The DLUPA/DEIS must be modified to rigorously explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives. 

Comment ID: 2429 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Failure to sharply define proposed alternatives. A fundamental requirement in any BLM Draft 

EIS is a clear presentation and comparison of the available alternatives in a way that will allow the public 

to make informed comments. Indeed, the alternative analysis is "the heart of the environmental impact 

statement" which "should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in 

comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by 

the decision maker and the public." 40 CFR § 1502.l4(a). BLM's Draft EIS presents five alternatives that 

all rely on substantially similar habitat designations, conservation measures, and disturbance cap and 

withdrawal requirements without providing sufficient detail or scientific support to accurately evaluate the 

impacts from any particular proposal. For example, the proposed alternatives all include the same general 

set of conservation measures without prioritizing particular activities. Many of the proposed alternatives 

rely on identical BMP conservation measures or stipulations that are unclear, undefined, or unsupported. 

BLM has thus failed in its mandate to "[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives." Id. 

Summary: The purpose and need statement in the Draft EIS fails to properly specify the underlying purpose 

and need to which the proposal is responding as required by NEPA regulations. See 40 CFR 1502.13 

(requiring a statement that "shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is 

responding and the need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the 

proposed action"). The narrowly stated purpose in the Draft EIS fails to meets the requirements of section 

1502.13 as it narrowly dictates the range of alternatives and an agency cannot define its objectives in 

unreasonably narrow terms. BLM's Draft EIS presents five alternatives that all rely on substantially similar 

habitat designations, conservation measures, disturbance cap, and withdrawal requirements without 

providing sufficient detail or scientific support to accurately evaluate the impacts from any particular 

proposal. Many of the proposed alternatives rely on identical BMP conservation measures or stipulations 

that are unclear, undefined, or unsupported. BLM has thus failed in its mandate to "rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives." The BLM has not adequately addressed the issues for 

which the RMP was remanded in the first place. The BLM must revise the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS alternatives and provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment upon the revised draft 

document. Alternatives should be revised to consider a full and consistent implementation of existing 

policies and conservation measures, like those contained in Manual 6840, IM-2005-024: National SageGrouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, Fundamentals for Standards for Rangeland Health (43 C.F.R 

§4180.1), and existing Best Management Practices (BMPs). Alternatives might also include: Consider a no 

grazing alternative or a 50 percent reduction from actual use in permitted grazing. Create an alternative that 

considers application of the Core Area Strategy and nothing more. Consider a multiple-use alternative. A 

coalition of environmental organizations developed and previously submitted a new alternative for 

consideration entitled, the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative. These recommendations build upon some of 

the proposed actions contained in the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative (Alternative “F” in the Draft EIS, 

although the Draft EIS did not faithfully follow all of the recommendations), and so they are not identical. 

For instance, the coalition’s recommendations also incorporate very recent research results on the impacts 

of noise and ravens on sage-grouse. Importantly, the proposed system of sage-grouse conservation areas 

includes winter distribution habitat and does not solely focus on mapping breeding and brood-rearing areas. 

Within sage-grouse conservation areas, we generally buffer active leks with a 10 km buffer for surface 

occupancy and new roads, and 7.6 km for new trails, while Alternative C uses more conservative buffers. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-52 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: In accordance with NEPA, the BLM and Forest Service have discretion to establish the purpose 

and need for action (40 CFR 1502.13). CEQ regulations direct that an EIS "...shall briefly specify the 

underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the 

proposed action" (40 CFR 1502.13). Also, under the CEQ regulations, the BLM and the Forest Service are 

required to "study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources as provided 

by section 102(2)€ of the Act [NEPA]." (40 CFR 1501.2). The breadth or narrowness of the purpose and 

need statement has a substantial influence on the scope of the subsequent analysis. The purpose and need 

statement provides a framework for issue identification and will inform the rationale for alternative 

selection. The range of alternatives developed are intended to meet the purpose and need and address the 

issue; thereby providing a basis for eventual selection of an alternative in a decision (BLM NEPA handbook 

and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 – National Environmental Policy Act Handbook Chapter 10 –

Environmental Analysis). As stated in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS in Section 1.3, Introduction, 

the BLM and the Forest Service prepared the LUP Amendments with an associated EIS to incorporate 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures into Wyoming LUPs. This effort responds to the USFWS 

March 2010 ‘warranted, but precluded’ Endangered Species Act listing petition decision, and that existing 

regulatory mechanisms in BLM and the Forest Service land use plans were inadequate to protect the species 

and its habitat. The range of alternatives, including the preferred alternative and its components (such as 

the disturbance caps), focus on areas affected by threats to Greater Sage- Grouse habitat identified by the 

USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. Formulated by the planning team, the preferred alternative 

represented those goals, objectives, and actions determined to be most effective at resolving planning issues, 

balancing resource use at this stage of the process, and meet the stated purpose and need for action. While 

collaboration is critical in developing and evaluating alternatives, the final designation of a preferred 

alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM and Forest Service. The BLM and Forest 

Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater Sage-Grouse planning process in 

full compliance with the NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1) require that the BLM and Forest 

Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the 

quality of the human environment. While there are many possible alternatives or actions to manage public 

lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and Forest Service fully considered the 

management opportunities presented in the planning issues and criteria developed during the scoping 

process to determine a reasonable range of alternatives. In addition, question 2a of the Forty Most Asked 

Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations states that an EIS is required 

to examine all reasonable alternatives rather than all alternatives (CEQ 40 Questions). As a result, five 

alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that best addressed the issues 

and concerns identified by the affected public. The range of alternatives in the plan represented a full 

spectrum of options which address the issues of sage-grouse protection, including a no action alternative 

(current management, Alternative A), up to a conservation of all occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

within the planning area (Alternative C). Additional alternatives suggested that fit within the range of 

alternatives are considered to have been adequately analyzed and were not addressed separately. As part of

the alternatives development process, only alternatives that are considered practical and feasible from a 

technical and economic standpoint were considered for analysis in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

(CEQ 40 Questions). Some alternatives were considered, but eliminated from analysis for a variety of 

reasons. See Section 2.2.2, Alternatives and Management Options Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis, for explanations of these alternatives and why they were eliminated from consideration. The 

agencies are fully aware of the case and are in compliance with all orders and declarations associated with 

the case. There is no alternative F in this Draft EIS; this comment will not be addressed. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-53

NEPA

Range of alternatives

More fully incorporate Wyoming's core policy into Alternative E

Comment ID: 3058 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: The Wyoming Outdoor Council views Alternative E as a potentially sufficient plan to provide 

management protections to sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming-but only if modified. Since the regulatory 

agencies are tasked with management "in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 

historical, ecological, [and] environmental ... values" (FLPMA, Sec. 102. [43 U.S.C. 1701] (a) (8)), landuse decisions should not only seek to sustain current population numbers, but also to protect habitat in a 

manner that works to ensure the long-term viability of Wyoming's sagegrouse populations. The Outdoor 

Council supports the EO 2011-5 as a theoretically sound state-level policy. We believe if it is fully 

implemented it has the potential to help provide a minimum basis by which to secure viable sage-grouse 

populations in Wyoming-but it will only be one piece of the puzzle. If the goal is to protect sage-grouse 

well enough to preclude a federal listing of Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 

federal land management agencies will not only need to incorporate the state's core area approach as a 

baseline for protection, but also offer improved, broader, range-wide standards for management across these 

nine jurisdictions, based on the best currently available science (including Dzialak et al. 2012; Knick et al. 

2013). Modeled after EO 2011-5, the preferred alternative (Alternative E) does offer a standardization of 

management across the six BLM Field Offices, two National Forests, and the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland with a goal of creating a range-wide standard for management rather than management on a 

project-by-project or case-by-case basis (personal communication with BLM personnel, public meeting 

Casper, WY, Feb. 5, 2014). But it is important to note that the science underpinning EO 2011- 5 is already 

more than three years old, and several improvements can be made to this core area approach to better 

incorporate the best available science and to better ensure that sage-grouse do not become threatened or 

endangered. A decision by these agencies to rely almost entirely on the stipulations of the EO for the 

management of sage-grouse would essentially be a "no action" alternative on the part of the BLM. 

Summary: Alternative E should be modified to more fully support the Wyoming Governor's Executive 

Orders (EOs) 2011-5 and 2013-03. EO 2011-5 is a theoretically sound state-level policy with support from 

a wide range of stakeholders. If it is fully implemented, it has the potential to help provide a minimum basis 

by which to secure viable sage-grouse populations in Wyoming. If the goal is to protect sagegrouse well 

enough to preclude a federal listing of threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, federal 

land management agencies will not only need to incorporate the state's core area approach as a baseline for 

protection, but also offer improved, broader, range-wide standards for management across the nine 

jurisdictions. 

Response: As stated in Section 2.4.5 in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, "Alternative E incorporates 

the guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) 

and additional management based on the NTT recommendations. This alternative emphasizes management 

of sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives set 

by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). This guidance is consistent with guidelines provided 

in the Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team’s Core Population Area strategy and the Governor’s 

Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05)." Alternative E in the Draft EIS has been modified into the Proposed 

LUP Amendments and continues support of the Governor's EO. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-54 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

NEPA

Range of alternatives

Protect private property rights

Comment ID: 2369 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA Recommendation No. 7: The EIS Must Evaluate Ways to Minimize Adversely Affecting 

Private Property Rights- The land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals have significant potential 

to diminish landowners’ rights to develop their private property if their lands have priority/core sagegrouse 

habitat or are located near priority/core sage-grouse habitat. The EIS must evaluate ways to minimize 

interfering with private property rights, including the rights associated with owning patented mining claims 

and fee mineral estates located in, adjacent to or near key/core sage-grouse habitat. 

Summary: AEMA Recommendation No. 7: The EIS Must Evaluate Ways to Minimize Adversely Affecting 

Private Property Rights- The land use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals have significant potential 

to diminish landowners’ rights to develop their private property if their lands have priority/core sagegrouse 

habitat or are located near priority/core sage-grouse habitat. The EIS must evaluate ways to minimize 

interfering with private property rights, including the rights associated with owning patented mining claims 

and fee mineral estates located in, adjacent to, or near key/core sage-grouse habitat. 

Response: Per requirements of NEPA, the BLM considers disturbance in private lands when making land 

use decisions since actions on private lands could impact the BLM's ability to manage for sage-grouse. So 

while the BLM cannot make planning or implementation decisions on private lands, the disturbance levels 

of nearby private lands will be considered in these planning process and future project-level decisions. As 

stated in Section 4.1.3, planning assumptions, the LUP Amendments will comply with valid existing rights. 

The potential impacts on valid existing rights from management decisions in this plan amendment are 

further discussed throughout Chapter 4. 

FLPMA

BLM should not make site-specific decisions

Comment ID: 1276 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: EOG applauds the BLM‘s recognition that LUPs are not the appropriate place to make sitespecific decisions. Nonetheless, in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM proposes several site-specific COAs 

contained in Appendix B that will be applied to all site-specific projects. The BLM should recognize the 

contradiction in its decision making and remove any attempts to make site-specific decisions in the SageGrouse DLUPA. This error should be corrected. 

Comment ID: 1741 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: ConocoPhillips applauds the BLM’s recognition that LUPs are not the appropriate place to make 

sitespecific decisions. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 1-10. Nonetheless, in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM 

proposes several site-specific COAs contained in Appendix B that will be applied to all site-specific 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-55

projects. The BLM should recognize the contradiction in its decision making and remove any attempts to 

make site-specific decisions in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. This error should be corrected. 

Comment ID: 558 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Given its nature and purpose, the BLM should consider what decisions need to be made in the 

Sage- Grouse DLUPA. The BLM should not attempt to make site-specific decisions, but should develop 

only broad management goals and objectives. The BLM should not expend unnecessary resources 

attempting to analyze the potential impacts of oil and gas development on a site-specific basis more than 

necessary given the uncertainty associated with the location and extent of future development. Individual 

development projects will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis if and when operations are actually proposed. 

Based on the BLM's own policies and binding legal precedent, the BLM should ensure that the agency does 

not utilize the land use planning process to impose site-specific COAs or unreasonably limit future 

management actions when revising the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The BLM attempts to make too many 

specific decisions in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA that may unreasonably restrict its management opportunities 

in the future. 

Comment ID: 723 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Given its nature and purpose, the BLM should consider what decisions need to be made in the 

Sage- Grouse DLUPA. The BLM should not attempt to make site-specific decisions, but should develop 

only broad management goals and objectives. The BLM should not expend unnecessary resources 

attempting to analyze the potential Impacts of oil and gas development on a site-specific basis given the 

uncertainty associated with the location and extent of future development. Based on the BLM's own policies 

and binding legal precedent, the BLM should ensure that the agency does not utilize the land use planning 

process to impose site-specific COAs or unreasonably limit future management actions when revising the 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The BLM attempts to make too many specific decisions In the SageGrouse DLUPA 

that may unreasonably restrict its management opportunities in the future. 

Comment ID: 2163 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana applauds the BLM’s recognition that LUPs are not the appropriate place to make sitespecific decisions. Nonetheless, in the Sage- Grouse DLUPA, the BLM proposes several site-specific COAs 

contained in Appendix B that will be applied to all site-specific projects. The BLM should recognize the 

contradiction in its decision making and remove any attempts to make site-specific decisions in the SageGrouse DLUPA. This error should be corrected. 

Summary: The BLM should not attempt to make site-specific decisions, but should develop only broad 

management goals and objectives. Based on the BLM's own policies and binding legal precedent, the BLM 

should ensure that the agency does not utilize the land use planning process to impose sitespecific COAs 

or unreasonably limit future management actions when revising the Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments. 

The BLM attempts to make too many specific decisions that may unreasonably restrict its management 

opportunities in the future. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-56 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: COAs are an implementation action. As specific actions that may affect the area come under 

consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and 

implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions would 

be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 

1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for any site-specific actions. It is appropriate to consider COAs in the LUP Amendments to 

guide management in the cases where leases have been already been issued. 

FLPMA

Multiple-use must be continued

Comment ID: 1220 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that the surface use restrictions, prohibitions and land withdrawals proposed 

within sage-grouse habitat under Alternatives B, C, D, and E, conflict with the existing RMPs goals and 

objectives for minerals, BLM’s own policies including those contained in Manual 6840, the Mining and 

Minerals Policy Act, the General Mining Law, and BLM’s multiple use mandate under FLPMA (discussed 

in detail below), which represents a fatal flaw rendering the DLUPA/DEIS both inadequate and inconsistent 

with existing laws and policies. 

Comment ID: 1255 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands and resources according to the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield. Included in this requirement are human uses, such as mineral development 

or livestock grazing, that must be managed so as to account for other resource values, such as wilderness 

or wildlife resources. A LUP cannot close an area to the operation of the Mining Laws because withdrawals 

of the magnitude proposed under Alternatives B, C, D and E conflict with FLPMA’s multiple use mandate, 

§ 22 of the General Mining Law, and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act, and cannot be implemented 

through the land use planning process. Withdrawals of this magnitude can only be made by an Act of 

Congress or by the Secretary pursuant to the requirements and procedures of FLPMA § 204(c) for a period 

not to exceed 20 years. In addition, the prohibition and restrictions placed upon geophysical exploration, 

and ancillary uses, such as ROWs proposed under Alternatives B, C, D, and E are inconsistent with § 22 of 

the General Mining Law, discussed in detail below. 

Comment ID: 1446 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: FLPMA is BLM’s “organic act” that establishes the agency’s multiple-use mandate to serve 

present and future generations. Further, FLPMA provides that “goals and objectives be established by law 

as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and 

sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.” While FLPMA does establish a policy of environmental 

quality protection and conservation on public lands, it simultaneously recognizes that the public lands 

should be managed “in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, 

food, timber, and fiber from the public lands.” Furthermore, the term “sustained yield,” a second component 

of federal public lands policy under FLPMA, means “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a 

high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-57

consistent with multiple use.” When drafting the act, Congress intended federal public lands policy to 

support not only environmental protection, but also the necessary human utilization of various resources on 

public lands. The statutory language and the multiple-use mandate indicate that these two concepts—

environmental protection and resource utilization—are not mutually exclusive when establishing 

management measures. Therefore, the sage-grouse management policies in the DEIS that limits discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances on public lands that contain sage-grouse habitats to less than 3 percent is at 

odds with BLM’s existing multiple-use policy. 

Comment ID: 117 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Management of these lands for multiple-uses including reasonable motorized use allows the 

greatest enjoyment of these lands by the widest cross-section of the public to continue. These lands are 

designated as multiple-use lands. We ask that management for sharing of these lands for continued multipleuse be selected as the preferred alternative. 

Comment ID: 584 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: In particular, Alternatives B and C are not reasonable alternatives because they virtually 

eliminate oil and gas development from the public lands contrary to the BLM's multiple use mandate. Under 

FLPMA and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, BLM is required to foster and encourage mineral 

development, not stifle and prohibit such development. Alternative B and Alternative C do not comply with 

the BLM's multiple use mandate and must be eliminated. 

Comment ID: 1453 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: While protection of the sage-grouse is driving this federal action, “[a]n agency may not define 

the objectives of its actions in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative from among the 

environmentally benign ones in the agency’s power would accomplish the goals of the agency’s action, and 

the EIS would become a foreordained formality.” Based on this directive, the purpose and need statement 

should acknowledge the goal of rehabilitating sage-grouse populations while balancing the other productive 

uses of the land that BLM and the FS are required to facilitate by law. Courts have noted that the most 

important factor in guiding the EIS purpose and need statement is that “an agency should always consider 

the views of Congress, expressed, to the extent that the agency can determine them, in the agency’s statutory 

authorization to act, as well as in other congressional directives.” Applied here, as discussed above, there 

are a host of legislative mandates that require the federal lands at issue in this proceeding to be managed to 

promote multiple use and sustained yield. FLPMA provides, with respect to land management, that it should 

be conducted “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.” RMPs, 

such as those at issue in the DEIS, are to be implemented in accordance with multiple use and sustained 

yield principles, along with the plans that govern units of the NFS. As noted, courts have reinforced the 

legislative mandate in favor of federal lands being managed according to principles of multiple use and 

sustained yield. Such language affirms that any EIS’s “purpose and need” statement should focus on the 

diverse uses that federal lands should promote, including renewable energy development. While sagegrouse conservation must be pursued, it should not overly burden the advancement of other productive 

activities. Federal law makes clear that an EIS governing land management plans must “recognize 

competing values.” The principles of multiple use and sustained yield should play a central role in framing 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-58 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the DEIS considering that both BLM and the FS maintain multiple use mandates for their land that trump 

single-species management. 

Comment ID: 1285 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Alternatives B, C, and E and to a lesser extent D, also fail to comply with the General Mining 

Law, Mining and Minerals Policy Act, BLM’s own policy pursuant Manual 6840, DOI 603 Departmental 

Manual 1, withdrawal regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 2300, and NEPA. 

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Alternatives B, C, D and E do not satisfy the Purpose and Need 

for the RMP revision, which is to identify and incorporate appropriate sage-grouse conservation measures 

in compliance BLM’s multiple-use mandate under FLPMA, and should therefore, be revised to demonstrate 

that they are legal and fit the Purpose and Need in a revised DLUPA/DEIS that is made available to the 

public for review and comment. 

Comment ID: 1226 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM must provide detailed analysis that supports why the Preferred Alternative is in the best 

interest of the agency as well as the public. BLM’s Land Use Planning Manual and Land Use Planning 

Handbook, II.A.7, pg. 22 (Rel. 1-1693 03/11/05), provides that BLM must identify how the Preferred 

Alternative best meets the multiple use and sustained yield requirements of FLPMA. BLM has failed to 

demonstrate how any of the Alternatives best satisfy statutory requirements; balance BLM goals, objectives, 

and polices; address key issues, and consider cooperating agencies’ recommendations. If BLM proposes 

Comment ID: 1449 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: Renewable energy development thus is an appropriate use of the federal public lands pursuant 

to the multiple-use and sustainable-yield mandates under FLPMA and NFMA. Nevertheless, the new sagegrouse management policy substantially limits opportunities for renewable energy growth given the 

limitation of all discrete anthropogenic disturbances on just 3 percent of sage-grouse habitat across all land 

ownerships. This means that the renewable energy industry will have to compete with all other sources of 

anthropogenic disturbance for access to 3 percent or less of federal public lands containing sage-grouse 

habitat and, in some cases, this threshold may likely already have been met; in other words, no new uses 

may occur beyond what already exists in the landscape today. In sum, the strict single-species management 

being pursued by BLM and the FS through the current sage-grouse policy is clearly a violation of the 

multiple-use policy that Congress has repeatedly declared in several federal statutes and the balancing of 

interests that those statutes require. In other words, to manage these public lands for the protection of a 

single species and categorically limit other interests on specified land is clearly inconsistent with the 

statutory intent of both FLPMA and NFMA. Consistent with these statutes, BLM and the FS should manage 

federal public lands pursuant to the multiple-use and sustainable-yield mandates and not rule out certain 

activities on those lands, such as excluding important uses, including renewable energy development, from 

certain areas. 

Comment ID: 1442 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-59

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: This sage-grouse management policy described in the NTT Report, in conjunction with the NOI 

and the IMs, elevates sage-grouse management above other multiple uses on the federal public lands. This 

is the case even though BLM and the FS have established their multiple-use management mandate, which 

trumps single-species management, in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, 

(FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 

Act of 1960. Congress has rejected such single-species management in favor for multiple-use management 

elsewhere. 

Comment ID: 559 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to manage the public lands on the basis of multiple use and 

sustained yield. 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(7). Samson recognizes the difficult task the BLM faces to manage 

public lands in the Planning Area for multiple use, and encourages the BLM to remember that oil and gas 

development is a crucial part of the BLM's multiple use mandate. The BLM must ensure that oil and gas 

development is not unreasonably limited in the revision to the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. FLPMA requires the 

BLM to foster and develop mineral activities, not stifle and prohibit such development. 

Comment ID: 2343 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that applying an emphasis on one resource, sage-grouse, across an entire 

Planning Area is not consistent with the multiple-use mandate of FLPMA. BLM must also consider whether 

the sage-grouse centric management contained in the NTT Report and the DLUPA/DEIS is appropriate in 

the context of other special status species. Simply stating that other special status would benefit (See Ch.4 

at Section 4.14) is overly simplistic, lacks necessary detail. 

Comment ID: 2352 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA Recommendation No. 3: Demonstrate Compliance with FLPMA- The DLUPA/DEIS 

should discuss how the proposed land withdrawals and surface disturbing restrictions in sage-grouse 

priority and general habitat areas contained in Alternatives B, C, E, and to a lesser extent Alternative D 

comply with the FLPMA mandate to balance a wide range of resource values and uses 

Comment ID: 2345 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: The EIS must evaluate how the extensive ACEC designations, land use restrictions, prohibitions, 

and withdrawals recommended in the DLUPA/DEIS achieve the required balance in managing the public 

lands. AEMA contends that the land use restrictions and prohibitions, especially the proposed withdrawals 

from mineral entry, and the extensive acreage proposed for ACEC designation under Alternatives B and C 

are not consistent with FLPMA’s multiple use mandate or the specific directive pertaining to minerals in 

FLPMA § 102(a)(12). 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-60 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2422 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") provides that "[t]he 

Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield." 42 U.S.C. § 

1732(a). Furthermore, FLPMA requires management of the public lands "in a manner which recognizes the 

Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals." 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(11)( 12). While BLM recognizes that 

locatable minerals are "non-discretionary activities," the Draft EIS includes new requirements that would 

result in vast prohibitions on development. BLM's 2006 Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy highlights 

the importance of mining on public lands and endorses "multiple use" as a guiding principle for land use 

management. The policy states BLM land use planning and multiple use management decisions will 

recognize that, with few exceptions, mineral exploration and development can occur concurrently or 

sequentially with other resource uses and further indicates that the least restrictive stipulations that 

effectively accomplish the resource objectives or uses will be used. See BLM 2006 policy at p.2. 

Comment ID: 3100 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Multiple-use management does not “mandate” allowing all uses on all lands. BLM retains the 

discretion to prioritize, weigh various resource mixes, and choose between various multiple uses throughout 

the field office planning area. Because much of the planning area has already been leased and developed, 

BLM should emphasize avoidance where that proven strategy remains available. The planning process 

provides a timely opportunity to ensure continued high density of breeding birds by protecting important 

breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats. 

Comment ID: 2141 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana recognizes the difficult task the BLM faces to manage public lands in the Planning Area 

for multiple use, and encourages the BLM to remember that oil and gas development is a crucial part of the 

BLM’s multiple use mandate. The BLM must ensure that oil and gas development is not unreasonably 

limited in the revision to the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. FLPMA requires the BLM to foster and develop mineral 

activities, not stifle and prohibit such development. 

Comment ID: 2579 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-1 Text: The FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands and resources according to 

the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, including recognizing the nation’s needs for domestic 

sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber. Comment: Although the DEIS recognizes FLPMA’s mandates 

here, BLM does not analyze Wyoming’s impact on national demand for energy and, conversely, the impact 

that national demand for energy plays on Wyoming. As mentioned earlier, the BLM may not conveniently 

ignore the interplay between other states and the nation to avoid a hard look at the full impacts of the project. 

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Andrus, 440 F. Supp. 1245, 1252 (D.D.C. 1977) (One of the purposes of NEPA is 

“to break the cycle of such incremental decisionmaking.”). The importance of examining Wyoming’s 

impact on national energy cannot be overstated. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-61

Comment ID: 2301 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that the land use restrictions and prohibitions incorporated into the 

DLUPA/DEIS and in the NTT Report exceed BLM’s authority under FLPMA, conflict with the multiple 

use mandate under FLPMA, violate rights under the General Mining Law, and ignore the conservation 

policies in BLM Manual 6840. 

Summary: Management for multiple-uses allows the greatest enjoyment of these lands by the public. BLM 

and Forest Service lands are designated as multiple-use by their respective enabling acts. Continued 

multiple-use management must be selected in the Preferred Alternative. In particular, Alternatives B and C 

are not reasonable alternatives because they virtually eliminate oil and gas development from the public 

lands contrary to the multiple-use mandate. The sage-grouse management policy described in the NTT 

Report, in conjunction with the NOI and the IMs, elevates sage-grouse management above other multiple 

uses on the federal public lands. Surface use restrictions, prohibitions, and withdrawals proposed under 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E conflict with the existing RMP goals and objectives for minerals, BLM’s own 

policies including those contained in Manual 6840, the Mining and Minerals Policy Act, the General Mining 

Law, and BLM’s multiple use mandate under FLPMA, which represents a fatal flaw rendering the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS inadequate. BLM must identify how the Preferred Alternative best meets the 

multiple use and sustained yield requirements of FLPMA. BLM has failed to demonstrate how any of the 

alternatives best satisfy statutory requirements; balance BLM goals, objectives, and polices; address key 

issues; and consider cooperating agencies’ recommendations. 

Response: The BLM’s FLPMA (Section 103(c)) and Forest Service's Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act 

define "multiple use" as the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they 

are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people. 

Accordingly, the BLM and Forest Service are responsible for the complicated task of striking a balance 

among the many competing uses to which public lands can be put. The multiple-use mandate does not 

require that all uses be allowed on all areas of the public lands. The purpose of the mandate is to require the 

BLM and Forest Service to evaluate and choose an appropriate balance of resource uses which involves 

tradeoffs between competing uses. FLPMA also directs the BLM to develop and periodically revise or 

amend its RMPs, which guide management of BLM-administered lands, and provides an arena for making 

decisions regarding how public lands would be managed and used. The LUP Amendments is a targeted 

amendment specifically addressing goals, objectives, and conservation measures to conserve Greater SageGrouse and to respond to the potential of it being listed (see Draft LUP Amendment Section 1.3, Purpose 

and Need). The planning process allows for analysis and consideration of a range of alternatives in the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate regulatory mechanisms to 

conserve, enhance, and restore sage-grouse habitat and to eliminate, reduce, or minimize threats to this 

habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach was reached. The Final EIS includes alternatives 

that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in various use programs, but would not eliminate or 

invalidate any valid existing development rights. The Proposed LUP Amendments do not make any 

withdrawals from location and entry under the mining law; it only recommends them. Withdrawals are not 

required to close lands to laws and uses other than the 1872 Mining Law. 

FLPMA

The plan needs more specific requirements

Comment ID: 1153 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-62 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The objective of resource management planning by the Bureau of Land Management is to 

maximize resource values for the public through a rational, consistently applied set of regulations and 

procedures which promote the concept of multiple use management and ensure participation by the public, 

state and local governments, Indian tribes and appropriate Federal agencies. Resource management plans 

are designed to guide and control future management actions and the development of subsequent, more 

detailed and limited scope plans for resources and uses. (emphasis added) It is clear from the above that 

RMP’s are required to provide specific requirements, standards and limitations that are overarching for the 

Field Office and that guide the site-specific decisions later. The proposed RMP amendments are little more 

than aspirational with no requirements. This violates FLPMA.

Summary: RMPs are required to provide specific requirements, standards, and limitations that are 

overarching for the BLM field office and that guide the site-specific decisions later. The Draft LUP 

Amendments violate FLPMA because they have no specific requirements. 

Response: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments and EIS is a programmatic NEPA effort 

to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat across a broad geographic area. The alternatives in the plan 

are appropriate to program-level land use planning actions. The planning process allows for analysis and 

consideration of a range of alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and 

incorporated appropriate regulatory mechanisms to conserve, enhance, and restore sage-grouse habitat and 

to eliminate, reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach was 

recommended. The plan includes alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in 

various use programs. 

FLPMA

Consistency with other state, county, or local plans

BLM must retain decision-making authority

Comment ID: 1793 

Organization: The Wilderness Society 

Name: Nada Culver 

Comment: While cooperating agencies play an important role in providing special expertise to the planning 

process and the agencies may seek to make this planning effort consistent state and local plans and policies, 

BLM and the Forest Service retain exclusive decision-making authority. We support efforts to take 

Wyoming state and local policies into account; however, BLM and the Forest Service must comply with 

federal laws, policies and objectives and this must be the guiding principle for completing this EIS. 

Summary: While cooperating agencies play an important role in providing special expertise to the planning 

process and the agencies may seek to make this planning effort consistent with state and local plans and 

policies, BLM and the Forest Service retain exclusive decision-making authority. 

Response: While cooperating agencies are involved in the BLM and Forest Service planning processes, 

BLM retains decisionmaking authority on BLM-administered public lands and the Forest Service retains 

decisionmaking authority on Forest Service-administered public lands. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-63

FLPMA

Consistency with other state, county, or local plans

The plan is inconsistent with local plans

Comment ID: 916 

Organization: County of Weston 

Name: Lenard D. Seeley 

Comment: The Draft EIS is fully lacking of any evidence of Coordination or Cooperation occurring with 

Weston County as is required by Federal Laws that protect the "Community stability" of Weston County. 

"Community Stability" is defined as a combination of local custom, culture and economic preservation. 

Comment ID: 1466 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: The DEIS states that BLM and the FS recognize the importance of state and local plans, as well 

as plans developed by other federal agencies and tribal governments, and will strive to be consistent with 

or complementary to the management actions in these plans whenever possible. However, it appears that 

the agencies did not consider how their following planning efforts conflict with: (1) the BLM Manual 6840 

Special Status Species Management; and (2) Wind PEIS and BMP approach. See 40 CFR 1502.16© 

(requiring the consideration of “[p]ossible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of 

Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and 

controls for the area concerned”). 

Comment ID: 988 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: The BLM and USFS should include all applicable state agencies or other appropriate bodies on 

issues involving adaptive management, causal factors, conservation objectives, mitigation planning, 

reclamation, changes in management, etc. It is also important to include local government and 

permittees/lessees where appropriate. 

Comment ID: 2200 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Chapter 1, Relationships to other plans The Wyoming Governors Executive Order should be 

listed and acknowledged in this plan. Consideration should be given to CCAA/CCA plans as well. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments are not consistent with state or county plans. The BLM and Forest 

Service should work with all applicable state and local agencies or other appropriate bodies. It appears that 

the agencies did not consider how their following planning efforts conflict with the Wyoming Governor's 

Executive Order, county plans, the BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Species Management, and the Wind 

PEIS and BMP approach, to name a few. 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially 

approved or adopted resource-related plans of Indian Tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local 

governments to the extent that these resource-related plans comport with FLPMA and other federal laws 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-64 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and regulations (see 43 CFR 1610). The BLM and Forest Service have worked closely with state and local 

governments during preparation of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS lists the cooperating agencies actively involved in the planning process in Section 

5.1. The BLM and Forest Service work to find a balance among uses and needs as reflected in these local 

government plans and has done so in the preparation of the LUP Amendments/EIS. No known 

inconsistencies between the Proposed LUP Amendments and other plans, policies, and controls exist. This 

information has been updated in the Final EIS. This information has been updated in the Final EIS. The 

BLM and Forest Service coordinates with cooperating agencies commensurate with each agency's 

recognized jurisdiction or expertise. In areas where the State of Wyoming has clear jurisdiction, such as 

wildlife populations, the agencies have worked closely with that State agency. In cases where a county or 

agency has expertise, such as local county socioeconomic information, the agencies have worked closely 

with the group to incorporate the information into the EIS. 

FLPMA

Cooperating Agency relationships

BLM must fulfill consultation obligations

Comment ID: 142 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: The agency has a role of consultation, recommendation and facilitation. Reasonable timelines 

need to be established for completion of these functions. 

Summary: The agency has a role of consultation, recommendation and facilitation. Reasonable timelines 

need to be established for completion of these functions. 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service recognize their responsibility to ensure that meaningful 

consultation and coordination with other agencies and Tribes concerning Greater Sage-Grouse planning. 

Chapter 5 of the Draft EIS, section 5.1, contained information on which entities have been engaged in 

consultation and coordination efforts, and Table 5-1 contains a timeline of events such as the printing of 

the Final EIS. 

FLPMA

Cooperative Management/Agreements/Working Groups

BLM must engage working groups

Comment ID: 2539 

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation 

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor 

Comment: BLM management under Alternative E emphasizes collaboration with local, state, federal and 

private entities. Peabody is a member of the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association 

(TBGPEA). TBGPEA is a non-profit organization which has developed a combined conservation 

agreement that consists of a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) for private 

property, an appended Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for property with a federal nexus, and 

an appended Conservation Agreement (CA) which, addresses conservation efforts associated with the 

foreseeable future development of energy resources within the coverage area. When approved, the 

CCAA/CCA/CA will include a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the BLM and FS. This will 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-65

provide extensive habitat enhancements for the eight species including the greater sagegrouse. The final 

EA is anticipated to be completed later this year. This extensive collection of conservation measures offers 

a more localized, site specific conservation strategy to improve habitat on a landscape scale. 

CCAA/CCA/CA conservation strategies use adaptive management. This strategy is nimble and offers a 

platform to implement sage-grouse habitat enhancements specifically adapted to the Thunder Basin 

Grasslands area. Flexibility is an essential prerequisite for any proposed reclamation and habitat 

improvement. Flexibility allows for adaptable implementation. Flexibility should not be used by BLM or 

Forest Service as an excuse to allow agency field offices to require arbitrary practices beyond established 

levels on individual projects. Unlike the LUPA, CCAA/CCA/CA conservation strategies provide flexibility 

through an adaptive management platform to implement site-specific sage-grouse habitat enhancement. 

Peabody requests that the LUPA under consideration be revised to recognize the TBGPEA CCAA/CCA/CA 

as an adaptive conservation and management strategy that meets the stated goals and objectives of the 

LUPA. This request constitutes a logical extension of the stated goal of collaboration. 

Comment ID: 2213 

Organization: Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association 

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne 

Comment: The management objectives common to all alternatives section emphasizes collaboration with 

local, state, federal and private entities (see 2.5.4.1). The Association requests that the DEIS be modified 

to recognize the Association’s conservation strategy contained in the integrated CCAA/CCA/CA as an 

adaptive conservation and management strategy that meets the stated goals and objectives of the DEIS. 

This would allow the Association’s ongoing collaborative efforts with the BLM and Forest Service to 

continue. Implementation of the conservation measures contained within the strategy would achieve 

demonstrable conservation of sagebrush steppe and shortgrass prairie ecosystems and the sensitive species 

dependent on these habitats. 

Comment ID: 3003 

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association 

Name: Marion Loomis 

Comment: BLM and Forest Service management strategies under some alternatives emphasize 

collaboration with local, state, federal and private entities. We encourage this. Several WMA members are 

involved in Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA), for private properties, and 

Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for properties with a federal nexus. These CCAA/CCA are 

extensive collections of conservation measures, which create opportunities for local, site-specific 

conservation strategies to improve habitat on a landscape scale. The collaboration between agencies, local 

governments, and private land owners adjacent to habitat areas can expand the area where sage-grouse 

habitat could be enhanced beyond the LUPA boundaries. Through the above-mentioned efforts and other 

collaborative ventures, the significance of the end product to the species cannot be overstated. WMA 

requests that BLM and Forest Service recognize participation in the CCAA/CCA and other such programs. 

The enhanced habitat conservation and reclamation available through these conservation strategies offer 

site-specific opportunities that are not available through the implementation of the LUPA alone. 

Comment ID: 2356 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: Western Fuels would like the opportunity to work collaboratively with the BLM, USFS, and the 

USFWS to identify sage-grouse conservation measures that will encourage the long-term conservation of 

the GrSG, as well as maintain public lands access and economic stability in Wyoming. The final 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-66 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

DLUPA/DEIS should recognize participation in local programs such as the CCAA/CCA partnerships that 

many in the mining industry use to enhance habitat conservation, enhancement and reclamation. 

Comment ID: 2978 

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) 

Name: Doug Thompson 

Comment: The WCCA strongly advises against a rationalized regulatory approach across Wyoming's 

varied landscape. An effort by the Agencies to provide a blanket prescription across Wyoming in regard to 

seasonal stipulations runs the risk of inhibiting economic development and the continued viability of greater 

sage-grouse in the Planning Area. Such an outcome defeats the basic premise of what all parties hope to 

achieve through the planning process: multiple-use, sustained yield on our public lands that is responsive 

to the requirements of sensitive species. For example, when looking at seasonal stipulations we understand 

the timing of leking is dependent upon a number of factors, including habitat and elevation. While we 

understand the Plan is a landscape level analysis, when one starts examining the particular breeding 

practices of a speciesespecially when the nature of the practice is contingent upon its immediate 

environment-a more detailed, ground-level analysis is called for. The result of such an analysis would define 

seasonal stipulations that provide for continued species viability by directing development in an appropriate 

manner with the added aim of encouraging economic sustainability in the Planning Area. We encourage 

the Agencies to look toward increased interagency collaboration and partnerships with state and local 

government in the various Planning Area to conduct the more detailed analysis required here. I can speak 

for all counties affected by the Plan that we are ready and willing partners in helping the Agencies achieve 

this goal. 

Comment ID: 2194 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: TBCC requests that BLM and USFS recognize participation in the CCAA/CCA and other such 

programs. The enhanced habitat conservation and reclamation available through these conservation 

strategies offer site-specific opportunities that are not available through the implementation of the LUPA 

alone. Flexibility is an essential prerequisite for any proposed reclamation and habitat improvement which 

allows for adaptable implementation, including consideration of private mitigation banking options and 

credit exchanges. Flexibility should not be used by BLM or USFS as an excuse to allow agency field offices 

to require arbitrary practices beyond established levels on individual projects. Unlike the LUPA, 

CCAA/CCA conservation strategies provide an adaptive management platform to implement site-specific 

sage-grouse habitat enhancement no matter which entity owns the surface and provides for a landscapewide consistency where appropriate. 

Summary: The Draft EIS must be modified to recognize the conservation strategies contained in integrated 

CCAAs/CCAs/CAs as an adaptive conservation and management strategy that meets the stated goals and 

objectives of the Draft EIS. This would allow ongoing collaborative efforts with the BLM and Forest 

Service to continue. The enhanced habitat conservation and reclamation available through these 

conservation strategies offer site-specific opportunities that are not available through the implementation 

of the LUP Amendments alone. 

Response: CCA and CCAAs are not a land management action, but rather a programmatic agreement 

between the BLM and Forest Service, USFWS, NRCS, private landowners, and other local, state, and 

federal agencies. As such, they cannot be included in the action alternatives. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-67

Other Laws

Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act

Comment ID: 225 

Organization: 

Name: Lori Smith 

Comment: A better alternative is the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014, S. 1996. This proposal would 

expand access for hunters and anglers while reauthorizing key conservation programs and funding sources. 

The agencies need to develop a more protective plan that incorporates elements of Alternatives B and C. 

The final plan must require that oil and gas drilling as well as roads, transmission lines, wind turbines and 

over-grazing are completely RESTRICTED in priority sage-grouse habitat, that migration corridors are 

protected, and that damaged habitat is reclaimed. 

Summary: The Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014 would expand access for hunters and anglers while 

reauthorizing key conservation programs and funding sources. 

Response: The referenced proposed act has only been introduced in 113th Congress. Until the proposed act 

is passed and signed into law by the President, it is not appropriate for the agencies to address comments 

relating to the proposed act. 

Other Laws

BLM IMs and Wyoming core policies are inadequate

Comment ID: 273 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We have grave concerns about the adequacy of conservation measures employed by the State of 

Wyoming and the Wyoming State Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under its Instruction 

Memoranda to conserve greater sage grouse in that state. The two entities’ Core Area strategies share 

weaknesses that prevent them from successfully addressing the conservation needs of sage grouse. These 

policies were established in State Executive Order 2011-5 and BLM Instruction Memoranda WY-2010-012 

and WY-2010-013, and carried forward in Instruction Memorandum WY- 2012-019. These weaknesses 

have been adopted in the Preferred Alternative for the Wyoming RMP amendment. Stronger measures are 

needed. 

Summary: Conservation measures employed by the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming State Office of 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under its Instruction Memoranda to conserve Greater SageGrouse in Wyoming are inadequate. The two entities’ core area strategies share weaknesses that prevent 

them from successfully addressing the conservation needs of sage-grouse. These policies were established 

in State Executive Order 2011-5 and BLM Instruction Memoranda WY-2010-012 and WY-2010-013, and 

carried forward in Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019. These weaknesses have been adopted in the 

Preferred Alternative of the Draft LUP Amendments. Stronger measures are needed. 

Response: As stated in Section 1.2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, "In 2010, the state of 

Wyoming developed a “Core Population Area” strategy to weave the many on-going efforts to conserve 

the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming into a statewide strategy. New science, information and data continue 

to emerge regarding “Core Population Areas” and the habitats and behaviors of the Greater Sage-Grouse, 

which led the Governor’s Sage-grouse Implementation Team to re-evaluate the original “Core Population 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-68 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Areas” and protective stipulations for Greater Sage-Grouse. It is the policy of BLM Wyoming to manage 

Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats and maintain connectivity in identified areas in support of the 

population management objectives set by the State of Wyoming. This guidance is consistent with guidelines 

and recommendations provided for in the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation Team’s Core 

Population Area Strategy and the most recent Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (EO) 2011-5." 

Alternatives B and C are included in the range of alternatives and provide additional protection measures 

for sage-grouse. The BLM and Forest Service will determine which alternative or portions to be included 

in the final decision. 

Other Laws

Data Quality Act standards not met

Comment ID: 1215 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA is concerned that the DLUPA/DEIS does not meet the standards of quality pursuant the 

“Data Quality Act” (Pub. L. No. 106‐ 554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A‐ 153‐ 154 (2000), hereafter 

DQA), and subsequent BLM Guidelines, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, 

Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Bureau of Land Management, February 9, 2012; 

(hereafter, 2012 Guidelines) discussed in detail infra Section III. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS have not meet the standards of quality pursuant to the 

“Data Quality Act” (Pub. L. No. 106‐ 554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A‐ 153‐ 154 and subsequent BLM 

Guidelines, Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by the Bureau of Land Management, February 9, 2012). 

Response: All alternatives would comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and standards, 

including FLPMA multiple-use mandates and the implementation of actions originating from laws, 

regulations, and policies and conformance to day-to-day management, monitoring, and administrative 

functions not specifically addressed. The BLM and Forest Service complied with all federal laws and 

regulations pertaining to data quality. 

Other Laws

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS need to be resubmitted for public review with corrections

Comment ID: 2972 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Ur-Energy contends that the above noted deficiencies in the LUP are so significant that they 

cannot be corrected in a Final EIS and RMP. We request that each of the deficiencies be corrected in a new 

draft or supplemental document, and the resulting revised draft LUP/EIS be issued for public review and 

comment. 

Summary: Noted deficiencies in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS are so significant that they cannot 

be corrected in a Final EIS. Each of the deficiencies should be corrected in a new draft or supplemental 

document and the resulting revised Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS should be re-issued for public review 

and comment. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-69

Response: Any new information is not significant and does not present a seriously different picture of the 

environmental impacts of the Proposed LUP Amendments and any change in the alternatives is a minor 

variation within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed. As explained elsewhere in this EIS, including 

Section 2.1, no supplementation is therefore required. 

Other Laws

Energy Policy Act uranium analysis

Comment ID: 2949 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Expanding nuclear power is a key component of the Energy Policy Act and a significant portion 

of the BLM lands being proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry contain known deposits of uranium 

that may in the future be key to expanding the use of nuclear power and reducing our nation 's dependence 

on foreign uranium supplies. The goals of the Energy Policy Act should not be ignored in this process but 

instead should be acknowledged by the BLM and an analysis of how BLM's alternatives do or do not 

comply with this Congressional directive should be incorporated in a revised or supplemental Draft EIS 

and LUP and re-circulated for public comment. The LUP gives a slight nod to the 1872 Mining Law on 

page 3-99, however, the LUP needs to provide an in depth discussion of how the LUP complies with the 

1872 Mining Law. 

Summary: Expanding nuclear power is a key component of the Energy Policy Act and a significant portion 

of the BLM lands being proposed for withdrawal from mineral entry contain known deposits of uranium 

that may, in the future, be key to expanding the use of nuclear power and reducing our nation's dependence 

on foreign uranium supplies. How BLM's alternatives comply with this Congressional directive should be 

incorporated in a revised or supplemental Draft EIS and Draft LUP Amendments and re-circulated for 

public comment. 

Response: All alternatives comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and standards, 

including FLPMA multiple-use mandates and the implementation of actions originating from laws, 

regulations, and policies and conformance to day-to-day management, monitoring, and administrative 

functions not specifically addressed. 

Other Laws

EO 13211, 13212, and 13302 require expedited energy production

Comment ID: 585 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: As the BLM is aware, mineral exploration and production is identified as a principal or major 

use of the federal lands under FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(1). Under existing Executive Orders, federal 

agencies are required to expedite projects which increase domestic energy production under existing 

executive orders. Executive Orders 13211, 13212, and 13302. The adoption of Alternative B or Alternative 

C would significantly curtail domestic production compared to both the baseline scenario and any of the 

other alternatives analyzed by the BLM. The loss of such an enormous energy supply is contrary to the best 

interests of the nation, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Comment ID: 2431 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-70 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: BLM failed to comply with requirements of Executive Order 13211. Executive Order 13211 

requires a Statement of Energy Effects for all significant regulatory actions that are likely to have a 

significant adverse impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. BLM acknowledges in the Draft 

EIS that bentonite is primarily used for oil and gas drilling, and notes that the Black Hills region accounts 

for about 45% of total United States sodium bentonite production. Restrictions on the mining of minerals 

used in oil and gas production processes will therefore have an impact on the drive for energy independence 

in the U.S. and BLM was required to draft a Statement of Energy Effects. This analysis must be conducted 

before finalizing any proposed alternative. 

Comment ID: 2353 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS fails to comply with requirements of Executive Order 13211. Executive 

Order 13211 requires a Statement of Energy Effects for all significant regulatory actions that are likely to 

have a significant adverse impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The costs associated with 

land withdrawals, development caps, and ROW restrictions will increase electric utility project timelines, 

decrease construction windows, increase planning and coordination, and increase project costs. 

Summary: As the BLM is aware, mineral exploration and production is identified as a principal or major 

use of the federal lands under FLPMA. Federal agencies are required to expedite projects which increase 

domestic energy production under Executive Orders 13211, 13212, and 13302. Executive Order 13211 

requires a Statement of Energy Effects for all significant regulatory actions that are likely to have a 

significant adverse impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The costs associated with land 

withdrawals, development caps, and ROW restrictions will increase electric utility project timelines, 

decrease construction windows, increase planning and coordination, and increase project costs. The 

adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would significantly curtail domestic production compared to 

both the baseline scenario and any of the other alternatives analyzed by the BLM. The loss of such an 

enormous energy supply is contrary to the best interests of the nation, and inconsistent with the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. BLM acknowledges in the Draft EIS that bentonite is primarily used for oil and gas 

drilling, and notes that the Black Hills region accounts for about 45% of total United States sodium 

bentonite production. Restrictions on the mining of minerals used in oil and gas production processes will 

therefore have an impact on the drive for energy independence in the U.S. and BLM was required to draft 

a Statement of Energy Effects. This analysis must be conducted before finalizing any proposed alternative. 

Response: An amendment of a land use plan does not meet the definition of a ‘significant energy action’ 

(“any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to 

lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of 

proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking”) as defined in EO 13211. No statement of 

energy effect is required. 

Other Laws

EPCA needs to be incorporated

Comment ID: 1825 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-71

Comment: Since the purpose of integrating the EPCA results into planning is intended to determine whether 

existing resource protection measures are inadequate, adequate or excessive, we recommend that BLM 

reevaluate its management decisions accordingly and make requisite changes to the final planning 

documents 

Summary: Since the purpose of integrating the EPCA results into planning is intended to determine whether 

existing resource protection measures are inadequate, adequate, or excessive; BLM should reevaluate 

management decisions and make requisite changes to the final planning document. 

Response: The initial analysis directed by WO IM-2003-233 has been completed and the results 

implemented as directed in the IM. The stated purpose and need for this amendment is to implement 

appropriate measures that focus on areas affected by threats to sage-grouse habitat. The No Action 

alternative represents protection measures that may currently be inadequate to address the purpose and 

need. The other alternates look at an appropriate range of protection measures to address the purpose and 

need for the amendments. 

Other Laws

FSM 2621.2 has not been implemented

Comment ID: 1202 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: It does not appear that the Forest Service has implemented FSM 2621.2 or FSM 2672 and 2676. 

2670.45 and 2672.32 are of particular importance. 2621.2 - Determination of Conservation Strategies. To 

preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for Federal listing, units must develop 

conservation strategies for those sensitive species whose continued existence may be negatively affected 

by the forest plan or a proposed project. The proposed Forest Plan amendment does not implement these 

requirements. The final Plan must fully implement these requirements. 

Summary: It does not appear that the Forest Service has implemented FSM 2621.2 or FSM 2672 and 2676, 

2670.45 and 2672.32 are also of particular importance. FSM 2621.2 Determination of Conservation 

Strategies states, “To preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for federal listing, 

units must develop conservation strategies for those sensitive species whose continued existence may be 

negatively affected by the forest plan or a proposed project.” The proposed Forest Plan amendment does 

not implement these requirements and should do so in the final plan. 

Response: The purpose of the EIS is to provide management guidance that ensures the conservation of 

sagegrouse habitats within the planning area (National Forest or Grassland). In essence, the Forest Plan 

amendment being developed constitutes a conservation strategy and is consistent with FSM 2621.2. As part 

of the analysis process, the Forest Service developed a viability strategy that is aimed at ensuring that 

habitats on National Forest lands provide for viable (persistent) populations of sagegrouse for those life 

history periods when they utilize those habitats. A biological evaluation is prepared for all proposed actions, 

including Forest Plans (consistent with FSM 2672) that assesses each alternative, including management 

actions, and provides a synthesis of effects on the species by management actions. The selected alternative 

must ensure that actions do not result in a loss of viability or trend the species towards federal listing. 

Further, conservation actions in the Forest Plan amendments are tiered to guidance in in other sage-grouse 

conservation planning documents. For example, the Conservation Objectives Team report identifies 

Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) that are considered important for sage-grouse populations, and 

offers initial guidance to protect these areas. The states also worked with the federal agencies to identify 

core areas considered important for sage-grouse. Forest Service and BLM crafted conservation direction 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-72 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

for all resource practices within these areas that together provide a strategy for protecting and managing 

these areas for Greater Sage-Grouse. The requirement for conservation strategies is currently in the TBNG 

plan pg. 1-3 Goal 1.b, Objective 3. 

Other Laws

IM WY-2012-12 should not be included because it was replaced

Comment ID: 1401 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: EOG is concerned about the BLM‘s reference to BLM Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 

2010-012 and its incorporation into Alternative E. As the BLM is aware, BLM IM WY-2010-012 was 

replaced by Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of IM WY2012- 019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM IM WY-2010-012. BLM should 

explain why its preferred alternative is based upon an instruction memorandum that is no longer in force 

and effect. 

Comment ID: 591 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Samson is concerned about the BLM's reference to BLM Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 

2010- 012 and its incorporation into Alternative E. As the BLM is aware, BLM IM WY-2010-012 was 

replaced by Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of IM WY2012- 019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM 1M WY-2010-012. BLM should 

explain why its preferred alternative is based upon an instruction memorandum that is no longer in force 

and effect. 

Comment ID: 742 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon is concerned about the BLM's reference to BLM Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 

2010-012 and its incorporation into Alternative E. As the BLM is aware, BLM IM WY-2010-012 was 

replaced by Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of IM WY2012- 019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM IM WY-2010-012. BLM should 

explain why its preferred alternative is based upon and instruction memorandum that is no longer in force 

and effect. 

Comment ID: 1146 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Anschutz is concerned about the BLM’s reference to BLM Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 

2010- 012 and its incorporation into Alternative E. As the BLM is aware, BLM IM WY-2010-012 was 

replaced by Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of IM WY2012-019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM IM WY-2010-012. BLM should 

explain why its preferred alternative is based upon an instruction memorandum that is no longer in force 

and effect. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-73

Comment ID: 404 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Additionally, the BLM Wyoming State Office (WYSO) issued a revised Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management policy, WYSO IM 2012-019, on February 12, 2012. WYSO IM 2012-019 applies the 

State of Wyoming GSG management strategy (Wyoming Governor’s EO 2011-5) to BLM surface and 

federal mineral estate. As such, EO 2011-5 and the WYSO policy should be incorporated into Alternative 

E. 

Comment ID: 405 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: we question why the preferred alternative incorporates guidance from IM WY-2010- 012. This 

IM was replaced by BLM IM WY 2012-019, the Wyoming BLM’s current GSG habitat management policy 

guidance which specifically states, “This IM replaces IM No. WY-2010-012.” As such, Yates requests 

Alternative E incorporate guidance from IM WY-2012-019 and not IM WY-2010-012. 

Comment ID: 1745 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: ConocoPhillips is concerned about the BLM’s reference to BLM Instruction Memorandum 

Wyoming 2010-012 and its incorporation into Alternative E. As the BLM is aware, BLM IM WY-2010-

012 was replaced by Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of 

IM WY-2012-019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM IM WY-2010-012. BLM 

should explain why its preferred alternative is based upon an instruction memorandum that is no longer in 

force and effect. 

Summary: BLM Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2010-012 should not be incorporated into Alternative 

E. IM WY-2010-012 was replaced by IM Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of IM 

WY- 2012-019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM IM WY-2010-012. BLM 

should explain why its Preferred Alternative is based upon an instruction memorandum that is no longer in 

force and effect. Alternative E should incorporate guidance from IM WY-2012-019 and not IM WY- 2010-

012. 

Response: Alternative E was based on IM 2012-019 not on IM 2010-012. The references to only IM 2010-

012 were missed for conversion to 019 in the final edit. References to IM 2010-012 have been corrected to 

include IM 2012-019. 

Other Laws

Primary purpose first on forest lands

Comment ID: 169 

Organization: 

Name: Jean Harshbarger 

Comment: In volume 2 4-3 it states "Implementation actions will comply with valid existing rights and all 

federal laws, regulations and policies." And in 3-377 NFMA states that planning must support multiple use. 

To strengthen these, there is case law pointing out that "federal lands must be managed for the purposes for 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-74 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

which they were originally reserved or acquired and any subsequent designated uses are secondary". Most 

of the federal lands in this area were acquired for grassland agriculture. To put more emphasis on use by 

chickens or prairie dogs is legally wrong. 

Summary: The NFMA states that planning must support multiple-use. To strengthen this, there is case law 

pointing out that "federal lands must be managed for the purposes for which they were originally reserved 

or acquired and any subsequent designated uses are secondary.” Most of the federal lands in this area were 

acquired for grassland agriculture. To put more emphasis on use by chickens or prairie dogs is legally 

wrong. 

Response: Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (MUSYA), 

the Forest Service manages National Forest System land to sustain the multiple use of its renewable 

resources in perpetuity while maintaining the long-term health and productivity of the land. Resources are 

managed through a combination of approaches and concepts for the benefit of human communities and 

natural resources. Land management plans guide sustainable, integrated resource management of the 

resources within the plan area in the context of the broader landscape, giving due consideration to the 

relative values of the various resources in particular areas. The Forest Service is required by statute to have 

a national planning rule: the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. The Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue 

regulations under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 for the development and 

revision of land management plans. Title III, Section 31 of the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant established 

the Land Utilization Projects. While the preamble does mention a purpose "to promote more secure 

occupancy of farms and farm homes, to correct economic instability result from some present forms of farm 

tenancy..." Title III, Section 31 (as amended) provides the purpose of the LUPs, now grasslands. Title III 

did not (in 1937), and currently (as amended) does not mention agriculture, ranching or livestock grazing. 

However, it does include wildlife. 36 CFR 213.1 is the regulation defining the management of the 

grasslands. 

Other Laws

The Forest Service must comply with the NFMA

Comment ID: 238 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Wyoming RMP amendment EIS includes within its authority the amendment of the 

Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton Forest Plans and Thunder Basin Grassland Plan, triggering the 

requirements of the National Forest Management Act. While Forest Service officials have waived objection 

procedures for this planning process and have adopted BLM administrative review procedures, the 

substantive requirements of NFMA still apply, at least for Forest Service lands and plans. At the very least, 

this NEPA document must fulfill the requirements of the National Forest Management Act as regards the 

amendment of this Forest Plan. If the 1982 regulations are applied, this includes maintaining viable 

populations of sage grouse well distributed across the planning area. 

Comment ID: 239 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The NFMA planning regulations provide, “The responsible official shall use the best available 

scientific information to inform the planning process required by this subpart.” 36 C.F.R § 219.3. Within 

these comments we have provided a number of referenced to peer-reviewed scientific studies, which we 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-75

would ask the responsible official to consider for the purpose of informing the planning process. 

Furthermore, NFMA requires a number of specific steps to be taken in the use of the best available science, 

as follows: In doing so, the responsible official shall determine what information is the most accurate, 

reliable, and relevant to the issues being considered. The responsible official shall document how the best 

available scientific information was used to inform the assessment, the plan decision, and the monitoring 

program as required in §§ 219.6(a)(3) and 219.14(a)(4). Such documentation must: Identify what 

information was determined to be the best available scientific information, explain the basis for that 

determination, and explain how the information was applied to the issues considered. 36 C.F.R. § 219.3. 

With this in mind, the Forest Service is bound to render these determinations regarding incorporating the 

best available science on a point-by-point basis 

Comment ID: 240 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Should the Forest Service decide to implement the 1982 planning regulations for this 

amendment, the agencies must then render viability determinations for all National Forest sage grouse 

populations, and provide for species viability well-distributed across the planning area. Thus far, the DEIS 

does not provide this analysis. 

Comment ID: 1447 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: NFMA is the primary federal statute governing the administration of national forests. As 

FLPMA does with respect to the management of public lands generally, NFMA establishes a multiple-use 

and sustainable yield policy with respect to the management of national forests. Specifically, NFMA calls 

for the coordination of the multiple diverse uses of National Forest System (NFS) lands, including “outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.” Therefore, any measures that prefer 

single-species management over multiple-use management on NFS lands conflict with the multiple-use 

mandate plainly stated in statute. 

Summary: The NFMA is the primary federal statute governing the administration of national forests. As 

FLPMA does with respect to the management of public lands generally, NFMA establishes a multiple-use 

and sustainable yield policy with respect to the management of national forests. Specifically, NFMA calls 

for the coordination of the multiple diverse uses of National Forest System (NFS) lands, including “outdoor 

recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.” Therefore, any measures that prefer 

single-species management over multiple-use management on NFS lands conflict with the multiple-use 

mandate plainly stated in statute. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS includes within its authority the 

amendment of the Medicine Bow and Bridger-Teton Forest Plans and Thunder Basin Grassland Plan, 

triggering the requirements of the National Forest Management Act. While Forest Service officials have 

waived objection procedures for this planning process and have adopted BLM administrative review 

procedures, the substantive requirements of NFMA still apply, at least for Forest Service lands and plans. 

At the very least, this NEPA document must fulfill the requirements of the National Forest Management 

Act as regards the amendment of this Forest Plan. If the 1982 regulations are applied, this includes 

maintaining viable populations of sage-grouse well distributed across the planning area. Should the Forest 

Service decide to implement the 1982 planning regulations for this amendment, the agencies must then 

render viability determinations for all National Forest sage-grouse populations, and provide for species 

viability well-distributed across the planning area. Thus far, the Draft EIS does not provide this analysis. 

The NFMA planning regulations provide, “The responsible official shall use the best available scientific 

information to inform the planning process required by this subpart.” 36 C.F.R § 219.3. The responsible 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-76 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

official shall document how the best available scientific information was used to inform the assessment, the 

plan decision, and the monitoring program as required in §§ 219.6(a)(3) and 219.14(a)(4). Such 

documentation must: identify what information was determined to be the best available scientific 

information, explain the basis for that determination, and explain how the information was applied to the 

issues considered. 36 C.F.R. § 219.3. With this in mind, the Forest Service is bound to render these 

determinations regarding incorporating the best available science on a point-by-point basis. 

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service began working together to address conservation of the Greater 

Sage- Grouse and its habitat in 2010. At that time, the Forest Service’s 2012 Planning Rule was not final; 

it became final May 9, 2012. For plan amendments initiated before May 9, 2012, the Forest Service may 

complete and approve the amendments under the prior planning regulations, including its transition 

provisions (36 CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). Land use 

plan amendments associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse conservation effort are using the 1982 planning 

rule procedures that are allowed under the transition procedures of the prior planning rule. The 1982 

planning rule procedures may be found in 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000 or at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html. This amendment has been developed under the 

transition provisions of 36 CFR § 219.17(b)(3), which provides for completion and approval of the plan 

amendment "in conformance with the provisions of the prior planning regulation, including its transition 

provisions (36 CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010)." As such, 

36 CFR § 219.3 does not apply. Under the prior planning regulation, at its Appendix B to § 219.35 

(interpretative rule related to § 219.35(a) and (b)), the requirement is only that "the responsible official must 

consider the best available science in . . . amending existing plans." There is no requirement in the prior 

planning regulation for documenting the identification and determination of the best available scientific 

information used or considered during the amendment process. Viability analysis has been completed and 

included in the Final EIS. For the Draft EIS the Forest Service prepared a Wildlife, Botany and Management 

Indicator Species Report, which was included in Appendix M. This document provided an analysis of 

sagegrouse on National Forest Service administered lands and a determination of viability for each of the 

alternatives. This document has been updated in the Final EIS to reflect changes to the alternatives, 

including the Proposed LUP Amendments. In keeping with Forest Service policy, this document may be 

referred to as the Biological Evaluation in the Final EIS. Similar to the Draft EIS, it will be included as an 

appendix. 

Other Laws

Wyoming Executive Order

BLM must not adopt measures inconsistent with the EO

Comment ID: 1809 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: As BLM is aware, Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 (EO) was developed through an extensive 

collaborative process in which all affected parties were represented. Consequently, we object to all 

management and mitigation proposals contained in the LUPA/DEIS alternatives that deviate from the EO 

because they disregard the need for consistent management throughout the state; and reject the need for and 

benefits of continued development of domestic energy resources while ignoring the tremendous economic 

impact implementation of these alternatives would have on the region. Therefore, we strongly recommend 

that BLM’s final LUPA/EIS preserve clear consistency with the EO. 

Comment ID: 754 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-77

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon is opposed to the BLM's decision not to recognize provisions of Executive Order 2011-

005 that excludes existing land uses, including oil and gas development within existing federal exploratory 

units. 

Comment ID: 230 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Throughout the Draft LUPA and EIS, BLM proposes to adopt GSG conservation measures and 

stipulations that are inconsistent with EO 2011-5. GSG conservation measures that are inconsistent with 

and extend beyond EO 2011-5 are unnecessary and have not been justified by BLM. 

Comment ID: 516 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Moreover, the DEIS includes inconsistencies with EO 2011-5 as well as the varied concerns of 

the Coalition that we were not given opportunity to comment on during a specifically requested PDEIS. 

Comment ID: 980 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: The BLM and USFS must achieve consistency with EO 2011-5 and 2013-3 or explain why 

consistency would violate federal law. In addition to consistency with Wyoming's GSG strategy, the draft 

plan must meet multiple-use and sustained yield mandates using the least restrictive approaches. 

Comment ID: 1159 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s decision not to recognize provisions of Executive Order 

2011-005 that exclude existing land uses, including oil and gas development within existing federal 

exploratory units. Anschutz believes it is inappropriate for the BLM to depart so significantly from the 

strategy set forth in the Executive Order. Anschutz encourages the BLM to reinstate this provision in the 

final land use plan. 

Comment ID: 403 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: In light of the identified discrepancies between GSG stipulations under EO 2011-5 and 

Alternative E, Yates requests BLM modify Alternative E such that GSG habitat management is entirely 

consistent with EO 2011-5. This will ensure consistent management of GSG habitat throughout Wyoming 

and illustrate that the State of Wyoming and BLM are dedicated to protecting and preserving GSG to 

prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2015. 

Comment ID: 1044 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-78 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-20 MA 31 Text: In addition to Alternative A: Within general sage-grouse habitat where 

new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new ROWs/SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs 

where technically feasible. Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints would be applied. 

Comment: “General habitat” is inconsistent with, and not used by, EO 2011-5. If the BLM intends to keep 

its promise to follow EO 2011-5, it should use the same terms as they are used by the Executive Order 

consistently throughout the FEIS. 

Comment ID: 2138 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: The entire premise behind Executive Order 2011-005 is that development should be allowed to 

proceed and be prioritized outside of core areas given the significant additional protection and limitations 

that apply to oil and gas development within core areas. Encana believes the BLM has not appropriately 

recognized this balance in any of the alternatives proposed in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, and encourages 

the BLM to more fully recognize this balance in the final document. 

Comment ID: 2537 

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation 

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor 

Comment: Adoption of the provisions of the Wyoming Executive Order, WY EO 2011-05, will offer 

regulatory certainty for the preservation of sage-grouse habitat. By adopting the EO 2011-05 as the basis

for the LUPA, consistency throughout the state will be enhanced and regulatory certainty will be improved. 

Summary: Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 was developed through an extensive collaborative process in 

which all affected parties were represented. Throughout the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, BLM 

proposes to adopt Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures and stipulations that are inconsistent with 

EO 2011-5. Conservation measures that are inconsistent with and extend beyond EO 2011-5 are 

unnecessary and have not been justified by BLM. BLM must modify Alternative E such that Greater SageGrouse habitat management is entirely consistent with EO 2011-5. For example, “general habitat” is 

inconsistent with, and not used by the EO. The BLM should follow the EO 2011-5 terms as the EO 

consistently throughout the document. Consistency with the EO will ensure that the State of Wyoming and 

BLM are dedicated to protecting and preserving Greater Sage-Grouse to prevent listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. The entire premise behind Executive Order 2011-005 is that development should 

be allowed to proceed and be prioritized outside of core areas, given the significant additional protection 

and limitations that apply to oil and gas development within core areas. The BLM has not appropriately 

recognized this balance in any of the alternatives and should more fully recognize this balance in the final 

document. 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order 

(WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, BLM WY IM 2012-019, BLM WO IM 

2012-044, the National Technical Team Report, best available science, and input from the USFWS, State 

of Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to both protect sagegrouse and allow for multiple use of public lands. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-79

Other Laws

Wyoming Executive Order

Core areas are invalid

Comment ID: 203 

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company 

Name: Doug Cooper 

Comment: The Wyoming Governor has no authority to create core areas that include private land. The core 

areas were created without notice to the affected landowners or without any opportunity to speak in an 

orderly proceeding. The BLM should insist that the core areas be given a firm foundation under state law 

and that basic civil rights of citizens be respected. 

Summary: The Wyoming Governor has no authority to create core areas that include private land. The core 

areas were created without notice to the affected landowners or without any opportunity to speak in an 

orderly proceeding. The BLM should insist that the core areas be given a firm foundation under state law 

and that the basic civil rights of citizens be respected. 

Response: Authority of the Wyoming Governor to issue executive orders is an issue with the State of 

Wyoming. The federal management agencies have no jurisdiction over Orders issued by the Governor of 

Wyoming. 

Other Laws

Wyoming Executive Order

Project-level analysis concepts should be incorporated

Comment ID: 2333 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: To the extent the DLUPA/DEIS incorporates project-level analysis concepts from Wyoming 

Executive Order 2011-05, Western Fuels supports an approach that is based on these principles. To the 

extent the DLUPA/DEIS prefers an alternative approach that does not appear to account for project-level 

information, this raises significant consistency issues that the agency must resolve with the State of 

Wyoming before adopting any particular alternative. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.3-2. 

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS should incorporate project-level analysis concepts from 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05. To the extent the plan prefers an alternative approach that does not 

appear to account for project-level information, this raises significant consistency issues that the agency 

must resolve with the State of Wyoming before adopting any particular alternative. 

Response: Programmatic documents are regional in scope and place emphasis on developing broad 

environmental policies, programs, or plans. Site-specific data is important during implementationlevel 

decisions, which may be tiered to the decisions made in this document. Data scales include broad-scale, 

mid-scale, fine-scale, and site-scale. For this planning document, it is appropriate to utilize data at the midscale (e.g., WAFWA management zones) and fine-scale (e.g., sub-region data). For this document, the best 

available information was used as generated and provided by the organizations and agencies with authority 

and special expertise to provide that information on a planning scale. ThDraft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

contains only planning actions and does not include any implementation actions. A more quantified or 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-80 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation 

actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the BLM would conduct 

subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions. Site-specific 

concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions would be addressed when project-level reviews are 

tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the 

public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. 

Other Laws

Wyoming Executive Order

The EO negates a need for this planning process

Comment ID: 1720 

Organization: Kennecott Uranium Company 

Name: Oscar Paulson 

Comment: Given the thoroughness of the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) 

regarding Sage Grouse, the fact that it was created following extensive input from stakeholders and 

continues to be broadly supported by all of the applicable state and federal agencies (see Appendix A) 

through the Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) process, there is no need for a separate Federal land 

use plan for Sage Grouse in Wyoming. 

Summary: Given the thoroughness of the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) 

regarding sage-grouse, the fact that it was created following extensive input from stakeholders and 

continues to be broadly supported by all of the applicable state and federal agencies (see Appendix A) 

through the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) process, there is no need for a separate federal land 

use plan for sage-grouse in Wyoming. 

Response: While the BLM and Forest Service have recognized the importance of consistency with the 

Wyoming Executive Order (see Section 1.1, Introduction) the BLM stated objective in Section 1.3 is to 

amend the six existing BLM RMPs and the three existing Forest Service LRMPs. The BLM and Forest 

Service complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500 in the development 

of alternatives, including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. BLM and Forest 

Service compliance with the Wyoming Executive Order is voluntary and does not provide regulatory 

assurance needed to satisfy the USFWS standards for designation of endangered species. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

Because IMs were not subject to NEPA, they should not be incorporated into the plan

Comment ID: 1275 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: Prior to the issuance of the December 2011 IMs, AWEA suggested to BLM that the policies set 

forth in those documents should not be established through the issuance of IMs but rather evaluated through 

a notice-and-comment process as they would determine the outcomes of the RMPs at issue in the NOI. 

Rather than go through the notice-and-comment process, BLM issued the IMs, which were made effective 

immediately. However, because the guidance documents drive the policies that will ultimately be adopted 

in the RMPs and LMPs, AWEA nonetheless submitted comments on the documents promoting the 

incorporation of greater sage-grouse conservation measures into RMPs and LMPs. The purpose of the IMs 

indicates that the policies driving the actual conservation measures were determined when the IMs were 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-81

issued and were determined without an opportunity to comment. BLM has never provided an explanation 

as to why IMs, which add substantive requirements to the National Strategy, and the NOI do not require 

conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Thus, as we understand the situation and explain 

further below, failure to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the IMs was a violation of the 

APA. 

Comment ID: 1427 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: When a federal agency issues a directive concerning the future exercise of its discretionary 

power, for purposes of § 553, its directive will constitute either a substantive rule, for which noticeandcomment procedures are required, or a general statement of policy, for which they are not—the APA's 

"general policy statement" exception. In determining whether the December 2011 IMs, the NTT Report, 

and March 2010 IM qualify for the “general policy statement” exception, the question, as suggested above, 

is whether they bind parties (impose any additional rights or obligations) and leave the BLM free to exercise 

discretion (which is generally determinative when deciding cases). Substantive rules that require notice and 

comment are commonly referred to as legislative rules because they are “the product of an exercise of 

delegated legislative power to make law through rules.” It is clear that BLM views the December 2011 IMs, 

the March 2010 IM, and the NTT Report as general statements of policy as they did not provide notice of 

an opportunity to comment on the documents in the Federal Register. However, the label an agency puts 

on a document in the exercise of its administrative power is not determinative of whether the document 

requires compliance with § 553.6 Rather, the issue is whether the documents have the same effect as a 

legislative rule, in which case BLM must follow notice-and-comment procedures. To be considered a nonlegislative rule and avoid the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures, the documents must fall into one of 

the following three buckets: interpretative rule, policy statement, or a rule of agency organization, 

procedure, or practice. Thus, whether BLM should have followed notice-and-comment procedures in 

issuing the IMs and the NTT Report requires a three-part analysis. Courts have developed a threeprong test, 

outlined below, to determine whether an interpretive rule has a legal effect and should have been issued 

legislatively. First, a court asks “whether in the absence of the rule there would not be an adequate 

legislative basis for enforcement action or other agency action to confer benefits or ensure the performance 

of duties.” Next, a court must determine “whether the agency has explicitly invoked its general legislative 

authority.” Finally, a court considers “whether the rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule.” If any 

of the three inquiries are answered in the affirmative, it is a legislative and, not an interpretive rule. When 

applying this test to the December 2011 IMs, the March 2010 IM, and the NTT Report, the question is 

whether there would be an adequate legislative basis for agency action to confer the benefits or ensure the 

performance of duties as outlined in the documents but in the absence of these documents. BLM does not 

have the statutory authority to manage for a single species because the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) have multiple use mandates. 

While sage-grouse constitutes a special status species under the Special Species Manual, that designation 

in and of itself does not trump BLM’s mandate under the FLPMA because the manual is a general policy 

statement and not a regulation. Moreover, the FLPMA does not contain concrete language that would allow 

BLM to impose the binding restrictions set forth in the Ims and the NTT Report. Thus, there is a legislative 

gap between the Ims and the NTT Report and the performance of BLM’s specific duties, or, in order words, 

there is no legislative basis for agency action. The second prong asks whether the agency has explicitly 

invoked its general legislative authority. When describing the purpose of its National Strategy, BLM stated 

that the “FLPMA provides the basic authority for BLM’s multiple use management of all resources on the 

public lands. One of BLM’s many responsibilities under the FLPMA is to manage public lands for the 

benefit of wildlife species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.” As noted, the March 2010 IM 

states that it is supplementing the National Strategy, and the December 2011 Ims state that they are, in turn, 

supplementing the March 2010 IM. Therefore, all these documents are essentially relying on oblique 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-82 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

references to BLM’s general legislative authority in the FLPMA and the Special Species Manual to explain 

their power to amend the FLPMA through the Ims and the NTT Report. Neither the FLPMA nor the Special 

Species Manual gives BLM the tangible authority to impose the restrictions contained in these documents. 

Under the third prong, if a rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule or a prior interpretive rule, it 

should be promulgated legislatively. Here, the Ims all build upon the National Strategy to create, as the 

March 2010 IM states, a “comprehensive Bureau-wide policy for the protection of sage-grouse populations 

and the conservation of habitat on a landscape scale. It would be hard to argue that these Ims merely clarify 

the National Strategy, which was issued legislatively, because each IM clearly states that they “supplement” 

either the National Strategy or a prior IM. Considering all three prongs of the analysis are answered in the 

affirmative, it is clear that the Ims are legislative, and not interpretive, rules and, therefore, should have 

been noticed for comment. The Ims do not interpret sufficiently concrete statutory language from the 

FLPMA, or any other statute or regulation, to qualify as interpretive. Put simply, these documents do not 

constitute interpretive rules because BLM is explicitly invoking its statutory authority and setting out 

substantive new rules instead of interpreting previous legislative rules. If Congress had already acted 

legislatively, BLM could have exercised its own delegated legislative authority, but, since the Ims and the 

NTT Report do not stay within the language of the FLPMA, they add substantive content to the statute and 

are therefore legislative rules subject to APA section 553’s notice-and-comment requirements. 

Comment ID: 1431 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: The Ims governing sage-grouse conservation satisfy the test for federal action that is subject to 

NEPA review. The failure to complete this review shielded the Ims’ provisions from scrutiny, specifically 

with respect to the evaluation of other reasonable alternatives that could have achieved BLM’s conservation 

objectives while not overly burdening wind energy development. The wind industry’s contributions in 

mitigating climate change also received no analysis or consideration as a mitigating effect due to the fact 

that these documents were not subject to NEPA. Given these shortcomings, the Ims should not have been 

relied upon in formulating the DEIS. 

Summary: The IMs governing sage-grouse conservation satisfy the test for federal action that is subject to 

NEPA review. The failure to complete this review shielded the IMs’ provisions from scrutiny, specifically 

with respect to the evaluation of other reasonable alternatives that could have achieved BLM’s conservation 

objectives while not overly burdening wind energy development. The wind industry’s contributions in 

mitigating climate change also received no analysis or consideration as a mitigating effect due to the fact 

that these documents were not subject to NEPA. Given these shortcomings, the IMs should not have been 

relied upon in formulating the Draft EIS. The purpose of the IMs indicates that the policies driving the 

actual conservation measures were determined when the IMs were issued and were determined without an 

opportunity to comment. BLM has never provided an explanation as to why IMs, which add substantive 

requirements to the National Strategy, and the NOI do not require conformity with the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1500 in the development of 

alternatives for this Draft EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing a reasonable range of 

alternatives. In developing alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service also took into consideration 

management options for planning decisions in the RMPs and LRMPs for the planning area. The content of 

the IMs governing sage-grouse conservation, including BLM WY IM 2010-012, IM 2012- 019, and BLM 

WO IM 2012-044 are presently going through the NEPA process in this EIS. Notice-andcomment 

rulemaking is not triggered by this planning process and, in any event, notice and comment has now been 

provided through development of this Final EIS. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-83

National Sage-grouse Strategy

Incorporate Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment (WBEA) Report findings

Comment ID: 264 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: This Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment publication (“WBEA”) was completed in 2011, 

and BLM should reference the findings of this report as they apply to Wyoming, which falls substantially 

within the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion, in order for the BLM has not met its obligation to “use the best 

available science” including publications specifically mandated under the Strategy. This study included a 

complete land cover mapping exercise including analysis of human footprint, which would have been useful 

to include in the Affected Environment section of the DEIS. Chapter 5 of this publication (WBEA at 112) 

specifically addresses sage grouse avoidance of oil and gas developments and other permitted facilities. 

This analysis found that sage grouse density was negatively correlated with major highways, powerlines, 

and the presence of oil and gas wells. WBEA at 124. These researchers pointed out, “Any drilling <6.5 km 

[approximately 4 miles] from a sage-grouse lek could have indirect (noise disturbance) or direct (mortality) 

negative effects on sage-grouse populations.” WBEA at 131. This finding supports the NTT 

recommendation of a 4.0-mile no-surface-disturbance buffer as proposed for application in Alternatives B 

and C for Priority Habitat, but General Habitat gets no such buffer, which is problematic. Model results 

(WBEA at 134) could have been used to examine what proportion of high abundance roost sites and general 

use areas were encompassed by the Core Area and non-Core mitigation measures applied under each 

alternative. These researchers concluded, This spatially explicit knowledge of existing sage-grouse 

distribution can help inform and prioritize areas for application of future conservation and management 

actions in the region (Aldridge et al. 2008, Meinke et al. 2009) and thus maximize the effectiveness of 

limited but precious conservation resources. WBEA at 135. BLM must incorporate the findings of this 

study into its EIS. 

Summary: The Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment publication (WBEA) was completed in 2011, 

and BLM should reference the findings of this report as they apply to Wyoming, which falls substantially 

within the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion, in order for the BLM to meet their obligation to “use the best 

available science” including publications specifically mandated under the strategy. This study included a 

complete land cover mapping exercise including analysis of the human footprint, which would have been 

useful to include in the Affected Environment section of the Draft EIS. Chapter 5 of this publication 

specifically addresses sage-grouse avoidance of oil and gas developments and other permitted facilities. 

This analysis found that sage-grouse density was negatively correlated with major highways, powerlines, 

and the presence of oil and gas wells. These researchers pointed out, “Any drilling <6.5 km [approximately 

4 miles] from a sage-grouse lek could have indirect (noise disturbance) or direct (mortality) negative effects 

on sage-grouse populations.” This finding supports the NTT recommendation of a 4.0-mile no surface 

disturbance buffer as proposed for application in Alternatives B and C for priority habitat, but general 

habitat gets no such buffer, which is problematic. Model results could have been used to examine what 

proportion of high abundance roost sites and general use areas were encompassed by the core area and noncore mitigation measures applied under each alternative. These researchers concluded this spatially explicit 

knowledge of existing sage-grouse distribution can help inform and prioritize areas for application of future 

conservation and management actions in the region and thus maximize the effectiveness of limited but 

precious conservation resources. BLM must incorporate the findings of this study into its EIS. 

Response: The BLM reviewed and considered the Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment and it is 

included in the Literature Cited on page LC-17 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-84 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

Need site-specific information for priority and general habitat

Comment ID: 1506 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: The maps of PPH and PGH appear to be inaccurate. The concept of delineating PPH and PGH 

for sagegrouse is generally sound, inasmuch as the sage-grouse is a landscape species and thus roams over 

a very large area to meet its seasonal needs for survival. However, the current application of that concept 

by BLM is inconsistent and unjustifiably broad. BLM does not provide a quantitative definition of PPH. 

Due to the lack of appropriate funding, most sage-grouse populations have generally not been well studied, 

and to the extent sage-grouse populations have been studied, the quality of data varies for each population. 

Each state BLM office has therefore individually established its own PPH maps, using varying degrees of 

available population data. In states that have not completed their delineations of PPH, BLM relied on the 

analysis by Doherty et al. to map PPH. Furthermore, most PPH maps appear to be developed without regard 

to actual habitat on the ground, resulting in the incorporation of non-habitat within the PPH areas. Given 

that there are many such areas within the PPH that do not provide habitat for sage-grouse, BLM’s current 

definition of PPH is not only vague and inconsistent but also overly broad. Such a broad delineation of PPH 

will unnecessarily limit productive legitimate economic uses of these federal public lands. To make the 

delineation of PPH more consistent and more narrowly tailored, we find that the best areas are likely those 

encompassing 75 percent of the breeding density of the species, as depicted by Doherty et al. (2010). If 

each sage-grouse population’s PPH is measured using this Doherty et al. (2010) analysis, the results will 

be more consistent across all populations and states. Importantly, this analysis should be augmented with 

site-specific information detailing actual habitat on the ground to ensure that the PPH and GPH does not 

include non-habitat areas or habitat that is not critical to sage-grouse yearround. As noted, by BLM’s 

definition, PGH “comprises areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat.” 

Given that this definition is based on PPH, which we previously suggested is inconsistent and overly broad, 

it follows that the definition of PGH, too, is inconsistent and overly broad. There are many areas of various 

kinds of development within PGH that do not provide habitat for sage-grouse. Both PPH and PGH maps 

should be amended in the RMPs based on site-specific data. Such amendments have already been made in 

Wyoming in response to public outcry regarding the original PPH and PGH designations in those states. 

Until this is corrected, PPH and PGH delineation should be subject to site-specific field evaluation as to 

their importance to local sage-grouse instead of simply prohibiting development. This would allow for this 

process to avoid blanket prohibition of wind development in large areas without appropriate site-specific 

evaluations first. 

Comment ID: 1265 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: The NTT Report states: “The priority is to implement off‐ site mitigation within the priority 

sage‐ grouse habitat, followed by general sage‐ grouse habitat.” Furthermore, the NTT Report calls for: 

"Assess[ment of] general sage-grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused 

by perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity between priority areas...these habitats 

should be given some priority over other general sage-grouse habitats that provide marginal or substandard 

sage-grouse habitat." The difficulty with respect to delineation of PPH and PGH is that these areas are 

inconsistently and inaccurately defined across the sage-grouse range. Therefore, we emphasize again the 

need for site-specific information to consistently and accurately describe PPH and PGH. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-85

Summary: The NTT report states, “The priority is to implement off‐ site mitigation within the priority 

sage‐ grouse habitat, followed by general sage‐ grouse habitat.” Furthermore, the NTT report calls for: 

"Assess[ment of] general sage-grouse habitats to determine potential to replace lost priority habitat caused 

by perturbations and/or disturbances and provide connectivity between priority areas...these habitats 

should be given some priority over other general sage-grouse habitats that provide marginal or substandard 

sage-grouse habitat." The difficulty with respect to delineation of PPH and PGH is that these areas are 

inconsistently and inaccurately defined across the sage-grouse range. BLM needs site-specific information 

to consistently and accurately describe PPH and PGH. The maps of PPH and PGH appear to be inaccurate. 

The concept of delineating PPH and PGH for sagegrouse is generally sound, inasmuch as the sage-grouse 

is a landscape species and thus roams over a very large area to meet its seasonal needs for survival. 

However, the current application of that concept by BLM is inconsistent and unjustifiably broad. BLM does 

not provide a quantitative definition of PPH. Due to the lack of appropriate funding, most sage-grouse 

populations have generally not been well studied, and to the extent sage-grouse populations have been 

studied, the quality of data varies for each population. Each state BLM office has therefore individually 

established its own PPH maps, using varying degrees of available population data. In states that have not 

completed their delineations of PPH, BLM relied on the analysis by Doherty et al. to map PPH. 

Furthermore, most PPH maps appear to be developed without regard to actual habitat on the ground, 

resulting in the incorporation of non-habitat within the PPH areas. Given that there are many such areas 

within the PPH that do not provide habitat for sage-grouse, BLM’s current definition of PPH is not only 

vague and inconsistent but also overly broad. Such a broad delineation of PPH will unnecessarily limit 

productive legitimate economic uses of these federal public lands. To make the delineation of PPH more 

consistent and more narrowly tailored, we find that the best areas are likely those encompassing 75 percent 

of the breeding density of the species, as depicted by Doherty et al. (2010). If each sage-grouse population’s 

PPH is measured using this Doherty et al. (2010) analysis, the results will be more consistent across all 

populations and states. Importantly, this analysis should be augmented with site-specific information 

detailing actual habitat on the ground to ensure that the PPH and GPH does not include non-habitat areas 

or habitat that is not critical to sage-grouse yearround. As noted, by BLM’s definition, PGH “comprises 

areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat.” Given that this definition is 

based on PPH, which we previously suggested is inconsistent and overly broad, it follows that the definition 

of PGH, too, is inconsistent and overly broad. There are many areas of various kinds of development within 

PGH that do not provide habitat for sage-grouse. Both PPH and PGH maps should be amended in the LUP 

based on site-specific data. Such amendments have already been made in Wyoming in response to public 

outcry regarding the original PPH and PGH designations in those states. Until this is corrected, PPH and 

PGH delineation should be subject to site-specific field evaluation as to their importance to local sagegrouse instead of simply prohibiting development. This would allow for this process to avoid blanket 

prohibition of wind development in large areas without appropriate site-specific evaluations first. 

Response: The LUP Amendments/EIS utilized the best available information in the development of priority 

(PPH) and general habitat (PGH). Wyoming's LUP Amendments/EIS PPH is consistent with the core and 

connectivity areas identified by the State of Wyoming, who is responsible for managing and monitoring 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations. These areas were developed through a public process that included local 

working groups and the Governor's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team. These core areas are 

geographically identical to the Priority Areas for Conservation in the USFWS's COT report. Core, 

connectivity and general habitat identified in Alternatives A through D are consistent with habitat identified 

in the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 as amended. In Alternative E, the Forest Service has proposed to 

add additional acres of proposed core and proposed connectivity habitat to increase protection of habitat to 

meet the requirements of species viability described in the 1982 planning regulations. Map 3-18 in the Final 

EIS displays core, connectivity and general habitat for all Alternatives. The concern stated in this comment 

is that the identified habitat areas are overly broad and include areas of non-habitat within their boundaries. 

Areas of non-habitat within core, connectivity and general habitat are available for some types of 

disturbance and development. For example, Management Actions 131 through 134 restrict surface 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-86 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

disturbance and/or disruptive activities during certain seasons of the year. Activities in unsuitable habitats 

within the restricted areas would be allowed on a case-by-case basis if they meet the exception, waiver, and 

modification criteria. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

Sage-grouse strategy needs a range-wide, consistent approach

Comment ID: 981 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: We recommend that BLM use a single environmental impact statement to cure deficiencies and 

resolve inconsistences within and among the draft plans, producing a single record of decision and unified 

strategy to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat. To meet planning requirements under NEPA, the single 

EIS might include 15 subparts that finalize each draft plan, but still produce one record of decision for all 

15 planning areas. A single, comprehensive strategy could ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms are 

consistently applied throughout sage-grouse range to conserve the species. A comprehensive plan, with its 

range-wide perspective, could also better account for and direct conservation of the most important areas 

for sage-grouse across the West, identifying areas for special protection based on range-wide data, trends 

and projections. Alternatively, the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture could assemble a team of planners 

to review all of the draft plans together in order to incorporate uniform, enforceable conservation measures 

into the preferred alternatives for each final plan and EIS. In this case the agencies may produce 15 separate 

records of decision, but they should all implement the same adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve 

sagegrouse. 

Comment ID: 1496 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Importantly, thus far, each DEIS and proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments for 

greater sage-grouse have taken vastly different approaches and proposed management prescriptions to 

conserve the species. Such a patchwork approach is fundamentally inadequate to conserve the greater sagegrouse. Given the sage-grouse’s wide distribution in the western United States and Canada, conserving the 

species requires a range-wide management framework that establishes specific standards common across 

the landscape to protect and restore habitat across all of the birds range. Without such a uniform and 

consistent framework, the individual and far ranging Plan Amendments are bound to miss the mark in 

providing adequate regulatory mechanisms to avoid listing the greater sage-grouse under the ESA. 

Summary: Each Draft EIS and Proposed LUP Amendment/RMP Amendment or Revision for Greater SageGrouse have taken vastly different approaches and proposed management prescriptions to conserve the 

species. Such a patchwork approach is fundamentally inadequate to conserve the Greater Sage- Grouse. 

Given the sage-grouse’s wide distribution in the western United States and Canada, conserving the species 

requires a range-wide management framework that establishes specific standards common across the 

landscape to protect and restore habitat across all of the bird’s range. Without such a uniform and consistent 

framework, the individual and far ranging plan amendments are bound to miss the mark in providing 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to avoid listing the Greater Sage-Grouse under the ESA. BLM should use 

a single EIS to cure deficiencies and resolve inconsistences within and among the draft plans, producing a 

single record of decision and unified strategy to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat. To meet planning 

requirements under NEPA, the single EIS might include 15 subparts that finalize each draft plan, but still 

produce one record of decision for all 15 planning areas. A single, comprehensive strategy could ensure 

that adequate regulatory mechanisms are consistently applied throughout sage-grouse range to conserve the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-87

species. A comprehensive plan, with its rangewide perspective, could also better account for and direct 

conservation of the most important areas for sage-grouse across the West; identifying areas for special 

protection based on range-wide data, trends and projections. Alternatively, the Secretaries of Interior and 

Agriculture could assemble a team of planners to review all of the draft plans together in order to incorporate 

uniform, enforceable conservation measures into the Preferred Alternatives for each final plan and EIS. In 

this case the agencies may produce 15 separate records of decision, but they should all implement the same 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve sage-grouse. 

Response: The BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy provides a coordinated, cooperative 

stakeholder team approach to incorporate regionally appropriate, science-based conservation measures into 

BLM land-use planning efforts throughout the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse. In addition, the Forest 

Service is working with the BLM to amend 20 Forest and National Grassland management plans as a formal 

cooperator in this planning process. Due to the variance in ecology and land uses of BLM and Forest Service 

lands throughout the west, variability in management is included in each of the plans. Each regional effort 

is developing and analyzing its own set of alternatives. All of the planning efforts, however, have been 

directed to analyze the following alternatives where appropriate: • A “no-action" alternative analyzing the 

existing management direction set for Greater Sage- Grouse conservation. • An alternative which contains 

all the applicable and appropriate conservation measures that were developed in the National Technical 

Team’s 2011 Report (NTT report). • An alternative which analyzes state-proposed conservation strategies. 

As part of their alternative submission, states provided the BLM with GIS data depicting their preferred 

Preliminary Priority Habitat (PPH) and Preliminary General Habitat (PGH) areas, conservation measures 

that should be applied to these areas, and rationale as to why their measures deviate from those outlined in 

the NTT report. • One or more alternatives which consolidate suggestions made by non-governmental 

organizations during the scoping process. These suggestions generally propose more stringent management. 

• An alternative which considers sub-regional adjustments to the recommendations of the NTT report. This 

would allow the sub-regions to make changes to the recommendations from the NTT report and adjust 

habitat boundaries based on science, resource trade-offs, scoping comments, and internal staff expertise. • 

Each sub-region also has the option to develop additional options for consideration that do not apply to 

other sub-regional efforts. Decision and allocation approaches across the Greater Sage-Grouse range are 

often different based on local vegetative and habitat conditions, threats, populations, landownership 

patterns, and the various planning issues that were developed during scoping. Due to the intentional 

simplistic nature of RODs, these variations would be difficult to present in the ROD. Several mechanisms 

are in place to ensure appropriate level of consistency, while providing flexibility for local conditions. The 

BLM land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resourcerelated plans of Indian Tribes, other federal agencies, and state and local governments to the extent 

that these resource-related plans comport with FLPMA and other federal laws and regulations (see 43 CFR 

1610)(per 43 CFR 1610.3-1b), the Wyoming Core Area Strategy. In this planning process, this is achieved 

through the sub-regional approach. The Forest Service intends to use the Final EIS to support three Records 

of Decision - one for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, one for the Medicine Bow National Forest and one 

for the Thunder Basin National Grassland. Each Forest Service administrative unit has a separate land and 

resource management plan; therefore, a separate amendment is appropriate for each. The issuance of 

individual Forest Service RODs allows the deciding official to tailor the decision to the local unit and 

conditions on the ground. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

COT Report

The COT report is flawed 

Comment ID: 1137 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-88 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Due to a number of significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its 

reliance on the COT report in the final Sage-Grouse DLUPA and subsequent Record of Decision (“ROD”). 

While the COT report says that “there is an urgent need to ‘stop the bleeding’ of continued population 

declines,” it fails to cite hunting, which is the most well documented source of sage-grouse mortality with 

207,433 sage-grouse harvested between 2001 and 2007 [5]. 5 [COT Report at 31; Kerry P. Reese and John 

W. Connelly, Harvest Management for Greater Sage-Grouse: A Changing Paradigm for Game Bird 

Management, in Greater Sage‐ Grouse Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. 

Studies in Avian Biology (vol. 38) Table 7.3 p. 106 (Steven T. Knick and John W. Connelly eds., 2011).] 

Moreover, peer review of the COT report was inadequate. In addition to conflicts of interest and reliance 

upon questionable data to assess threats, more than one reviewer cited real uncertainties regarding 

management and potential impacts on sage-grouse populations. Given these significant flaws, we advise 

the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the DLUPA. To do otherwise would be inconsistent 

with the ESA, the Data Quality Act (“DQA”), and current Presidential and Interior Department memoranda 

and orders. 

Comment ID: 1273 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: The COT report is also heavily relied upon throughout the DLUPA. Due to a number of 

significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the 

final Sage-Grouse DLUPA and subsequent Record of Decision ("ROD"). The COT report does not 

represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an incomplete examination of limited 

literature and unpublished reports that were used to "identify conservation objectives to ensure the long 

term viability of the GRSG." In fact, the COT report provides no original data or quantitative analyses and 

notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature on the GRSG. Consequently, this severely 

limited review perpetuates outdated information and assumptions in the COT report. While the COT report 

says that ―there is an urgent need to  ̳stop the bleeding‘ of continued population declines‖ it fails to cite 

hunting, which is the most well documented source of GRSG mortality with 207,433 GRSG harvested 

between 2001 and 2007 [5]. 5 [COT Report at 31; Kerry P. Reese and John W. Connelly, Harvest 

Management for Greater Sage-Grouse: A Changing Paradigm for Game Bird Management, in Greater 

Sage‐ Grouse Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and its Habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 

(vol. 38) Table 7.3 p. 106 (Steven T. Knick and John W. Connelly eds., 2011).] Moreover, peer review of 

the COT report was inadequate. Given these significant flaws, we advise the BLM to reconsider its reliance 

on the COT report in the DLUPA. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with the ESA, the Data Quality 

Act ("DQA") and current Presidential and Interior Department memoranda and orders. 

Comment ID: 1811 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: The COT report is heavily relied upon throughout the LUPA/DEIS. Due to a number of 

significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the 

final LUPA/DEIS and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD). In fact, the COT report provides no original 

data or quantitative analyses and notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature on the GRSG. 

Consequently, this severely limited review perpetuates outdated information and assumptions in the COT 

report. Moreover, peer review of the COT report was inadequate. Given these significant flaws, we advise 

the BLM/FS to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the RMPA/DEIS. To do otherwise would be 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-89

inconsistent with the ESA, the Data Quality Act (DQA) and current Presidential and Interior Department 

memoranda and orders. 

Comment ID: 618 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Oil and Gas Activities Must Be Considered under the Lens of Today’s Technologies in Use and 

Actual Development. The COT Report (2013) should be used with caution. As a recent well-established 

sagegrouse researcher has noted “This report was largely a rehash of previously published information and 

introduced some vague concepts (representation, redundancy, and resilience) as guidance for conservation. 

These parameters are not measured by state wildlife agencies when assessing sagegrouse (in fact, no 

information was provided on how to measure them or even if they could be adequately measured), thus 

their use may further confuse the issue.” (Connelly, 2013). One such vague concept is the term 

“widespread.” Neither the COT report nor agencies in their reliance on the report have defined this 

subjective term whose synonyms include extensive, universal or ubiquitous. 

Comment ID: 1740 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: The COT report is also heavily relied upon throughout the DLUPA. Due to a number of 

significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the 

final Sage-Grouse DLUPA and subsequent Record of Decision (“ROD”). The COT report does not 

represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an incomplete examination of limited 

literature and unpublished reports that were used to “identify conservation objectives to ensure the long 

term viability of the GRSG.” In fact, the COT report provides no original data or quantitative analyses and 

notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature on the sage-grouse. Peer review of the COT 

report clearly failed to meet the requirements of both the DOI Manual and the NAS policy, which stress the 

need for independence and an avoidance of conflict of interest. Given these significant flaws, we advise the 

BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the DLUPA. To do otherwise would be inconsistent 

with the ESA, the Data Quality Act (“DQA”), and current Presidential and Interior Department memoranda 

and orders. 

Comment ID: 733 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Due to a number of significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its 

reliance on the COT report in the final Sage-Grouse DLUPA and subsequent Record of Decision ("ROD"). 

The COT report does not represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an incomplete 

examination of limited literature and unpublished reports that were used to "identify conservation objectives 

to ensure the long term viability of the (Greater Sage-Grouse) GRSG." In fact, the COT report provides no 

original data or quantitative analyses and notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature on 

the sage-grouse. Consequently, this severely limited review perpetuates outdated information and 

assumptions in the COT report. Moreover, peer review of the COT report was inadequate. 

Comment ID: 578 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-90 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The COT report is also heavily relied upon throughout the DLUPA. Due to a number of 

significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the 

Sage- Grouse Proposed Land Use Planning Amendment (PLUPA) and subsequent Record of Decision 

("ROD"). The COT report does not represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an 

incomplete examination of limited literature and unpublished reports that were used to "identify 

conservation objectives to ensure the long term viability of the GRSG." In fact, the COT report provides 

no original data or quantitative analyses and notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature 

on the sage-grouse. Consequently, this severely limited review perpetuates outdated information and 

assumptions in the COT report. 

Comment ID: 2162 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: The COT report is also heavily relied upon throughout the DLUPA. Due to a number of 

significant flaws, as described below, we urge the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the 

final Sage-Grouse DLUPA and subsequent Record of Decision (“ROD”). The COT report does not 

represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an incomplete examination of limited 

literature and unpublished reports that were used to “identify conservation objectives to ensure the long 

term viability of the GRSG.” In fact, the COT report provides no original data or quantitative analyses and 

notably fails to review all of the available scientific literature on the sage-grouse. Consequently, this 

severely limited review perpetuates outdated information and assumptions in the COT report. Peer review 

of the COT report clearly failed to meet the requirements of both the DOI Manual and the NAS policy, 

which stress the need for independence and an avoidance of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, COT report 

deficiencies include: authorship with three COT report team members; grant support from the USFWS and 

USGS; significant financial support for sage-grouse research (Drs. Holloran, Messmer and Reese listed 

over $10 million);12 [Reese listed over $6.3 million in funding and in‐ kind contributions, but failed to 

account for precisely how much can be attributable to sage‐ grouse.] authorship with NTT members; and 

authorship with other influential sage‐ grouse authors including Doherty, Naugle, and Knick.13 [Scientific 

Peer Review of the Sage‐ Grouse Conservation Objectives Draft Report, Appendix A] The reviews of the 

COT report present numerous examples of failures to meet NAS and OMB guidelines. Given these 

significant flaws, we advise the BLM to reconsider its reliance on the COT report in the DLUPA. 

Summary: The COT report does not represent a comprehensive scientific review; rather, it is simply an 

incomplete examination of limited literature and unpublished reports that were used to "identify 

conservation objectives to ensure the long term viability of the Greater Sage-Grouse." In fact, the COT 

report provides no original data or quantitative analyses and notably fails to review all of the available 

scientific literature on the sage-grouse. Consequently, this severely limited review perpetuates outdated 

information and assumptions in the COT report. The COT report should be used with caution. As a recent 

well-established sage-grouse researcher has noted “This report was largely a rehash of previously published 

information and introduced some vague concepts (representation, redundancy, and resilience) as guidance 

for conservation. These parameters are not measured by state wildlife agencies when assessing sage-grouse 

(in fact, no information was provided on how to measure them or even if they could be adequately 

measured), thus their use may further confuse the issue.” (Connelly, 2013). One such vague concept is the 

term “widespread.” Neither the COT report nor agencies in their reliance on the report have defined this 

subjective term whose synonyms include extensive, universal, or ubiquitous. The COT report fails to cite 

hunting as a cause of sage-grouse decline, which is the most well documented source of sagegrouse 

mortality with 207,433 sage-grouse harvested between 2001 and 2007. Peer review of the COT report 

clearly failed to meet the requirements of both the DOI Manual and the NAS policy, which stress the need 

for independence and an avoidance of conflict of interest. Nevertheless, COT report deficiencies include: 

authorship with three COT report team members; grant support from the USFWS and USGS; significant 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-91

financial support for sage-grouse research (Drs. Holloran, Messmer, and Reese listed over $10 million); 

[Reese listed over $6.3 million in funding and in‐ kind contributions, but failed to account for precisely 

how much can be attributable to sage‐ grouse] authorship with NTT members; and authorship with other 

influential sage‐ grouse authors including Doherty, Naugle, and Knick. The reviews of the COT report 

present numerous examples of failures to meet NAS and OMB guidelines. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service used the best available science to prepare and analyze the LUP 

Amendments. The COT report is only one of many documents used in the development of the LUP 

Amendments. Even if the COT report does not contain original qualitative analysis, it is nevertheless 

appropriate for BLM and Forest Service to review the report as part of the body of available science on 

Greater Sage-Grouse and the threats to the species and its habitat. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

NTT report/findings

BLM must consider the latest studies and science, NTT and COT are inadequate

Comment ID: 575 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Several studies have been published after the NTT Report and BLM is obligated under NEPA 

and the Data Quality Act to incorporate new work and new data. 

Comment ID: 2591 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: This DLUPA/EIS heavily relies on both the USFWS Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Objectives Team Report (COT) and the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Technical Team 

(NTT) report, A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. These reports have been 

criticized for failing to meet the best available science standard and lacking credible peer review. The COT 

report in particular failed to meet the requirements for peer review according to both the Dol manual and 

as well as the National Academy of Sciences' policy. Additionally, the NTT report relies on older, selective 

studies and fails to consider technological advancements in extracting oil and gas. Many of the management 

restrictions taken from the NTT report, like the RDFs, are overly burdensome and are not based on local 

conditions. Despite several requests from the Western Energy Alliance (WEA) and other groups for the 

scientific data used as support for the NTT recommendations, the BLM has only released the emails 

associated with the development of the report and little to nothing about the studies that support its 

recommendations. QEP asks that the BLM release all the scientific data used in making these 

determinations. 

Summary: Several studies have been published after the NTT report and BLM is obligated under NEPA 

and the Data Quality Act to incorporate new work and new data. The NTT report relies on older, selective 

studies and fails to consider technological advancements in extracting oil and gas. Many of the management 

restrictions taken from the NTT report, like the RDFs, are overly burdensome and are not based on local 

conditions. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service used the best available science to prepare and analyze the LUP 

Amendments. Some science/information provided was published following the preparation and/or release 

of the LUP Amendments. Before beginning the LUP Amendments/EIS and throughout the planning 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-92 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

process, the BLM and Forest Service considered the availability of data from all sources, adequacy of 

existing data, data gaps, and the type of data necessary to support informed management decisions at the 

land-use plan level. The data needed to support broad-scale analysis of the planning area are substantially 

different than the data needed to support site-specific analysis of projects. The BLM and Forest Service 

used the most recent and best available information available that was relevant to a land-use planning level 

analysis. A National Technical Team (NTT) was formed as an independent, science-based team to ensure 

that the best information about how to manage Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is reviewed, evaluated, and 

provided to the BLM and the Forest Service in the planning process. The group produced a report in 

December 2011 that identified sciencebased conservation measures to promote sustainable Greater SageGrouse management. The NTT report was not the sole source of management decisions for the range of 

alternatives. The range of alternatives and associated analysis is based upon public scoping comment; state 

management plans; BLM and Forest Service reports, policies, and information; and input from the BLM 

and Forest Service interdisciplinary teams and cooperating agencies. The BLM reviewed the literature 

sources provided by commenters to determine if there were new or updated sources that should be 

considered in the Proposed LUP Amendments. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

NTT report/findings

NTT needs to be considered in one alternative, not necessarily the preferred

Comment ID: 1280 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM also states that the Purpose of the RMP is to: "identify and incorporate appropriate sagegrouse conservation measures into the plan. In compliance with IM 2012-044, the measures to be 

considered include appropriate conservation measures developed by the National Technical Team (NTT). 

The BLM will consider such measures in the context of its multiple-use mandate under the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and incorporate measures that will help conserve, enhance and/or 

restore Greater Sage- Grouse habitat by reducing, eliminating or minimizing threats to that habitat. (ES at 

iv, see also Ch. 1 at 1-3)." AEMA recognizes that IM 2012-044 requires the inclusion of one alternative 

that considers the conservation measures identified in the NTT Report; however BLM fails to include the 

second directive of the IM, which is to consider all applicable conservation measures (not just those in the 

NTT Report) consistent with law. BLM has not achieved the above stated purpose, responded to the 

planning issues within the framework of the planning criteria, or provide for compliance with applicable 

laws, standards, implementation plans, BLM and Forest Service policies and regulations, and 

inappropriately targets secondary threats such as locatable mineral development, as described below. 

Comment ID: 392 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: The GSG conservation measures produced in the NTT Report referred to in BLM IM No. 2012-

044 and proposed in the Draft LUPA and EIS are a scary proposition for all who live, recreate, and operate 

in the State of Wyoming. Not only will these conservation measures preclude oil and gas development in 

the Plan Area, but they will prevent any activity from occurring within a significant portion the Plan Area. 

This includes grazing, recreational activities and other activities with low surface and environmental 

impact. Clearly this is excessive and in direct conflict with the BLMs multiple use mandate under the 

Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA). As such, Alternative B that proposes to adopt NTT 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-93

Conservation Measures in the Draft LUPA and EIS should not be considered during preparation of BLM’s 

Preferred Alternative in the Final LUPA and EIS/ROD. 

Comment ID: 1831 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: BLM IM 2012-044 does not conflict with or prohibit BLM from adopting GRSG management 

policies and procedures consistent with the EO in the LUPA/DEIS. It does not suggest preferred 

conservation measures or require the adoption of any particular conservation measures, such as those 

contained in Appendix B. In sum, adoption of the conservation measures and policies outlined in the EO 

would be entirely consistent with the process and strategy described in IM 2012-044. Additionally, no 

scientific justification has been presented for applying NTT-based RDFs in Wyoming over and above those 

requirements of the EO. Further, given that the BLM WY Office (via WY-2012- 019) and the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) have already adopted and endorsed the EO, we suggest that this should serve as 

the basis for GSG management for all land in Wyoming, including all land subject to this LUP process. As 

stated earlier, any proposed restrictions contained in the preferred Alternative that go beyond the EO are 

unjustified and should be eliminated. 

Comment ID: 390 

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: The BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (BLM IM No. 2012-044) 

does not conflict with, nor prohibit BLM from adopting GSG management policies and procedures 

consistent with EO 2011-5 in the Draft LUPA and EIS. Additionally, the conservation measures provided 

in Attachment 1 (Goals and Objectives, National Technical Team) of BLM IM No. 2012-044 should not 

supersede the conservation measures provide for by EO 2011-5. BLM IM No. 2012-044 merely establishes 

a policy and process for the consideration of GSG conservation measures in one or more alternatives during 

the land use planning process. It does not suggest preferred conservations measures or require the adoption 

of any particular conservation measures. In the Draft LUPA and EIS that Alternative is Alternative B. As 

such, the adoption of conservation measures and policies provided by EO 2011-5 would be consistent with 

the process and strategy in IM No. 2012-044. 

Comment ID: 391 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: The conservation measures provided by the NTT in Attachment 1 of BLM IM No. 2012-044 go 

well beyond those provided in EO 2011-5, and are therefore more restrictive than necessary to effectively 

protect GSG. For example, the NTT recommends BLM “exclude energy development and other large scale 

disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid existing rights exist, minimize those impacts by 

keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface disturbance impacts held to 3% of the area or less.” 

On the other hand, EO 2011-5 establishes a 5% disturbance cap for suitable Sagegrouse habitat (unsuitable 

habitat is not included in the disturbance calculation). As such, while BLM may consider the overly 

restrictive conservation measures recommended by the NTT during the planning process as directed by IM 

No. 2012- 044, they should not be included in the agencies preferred alternative or adopted in the Final 

LUPA and EIS/ROD. 

Summary: IM 2012-044 requires the inclusion of one alternative that considers the conservation measures 

identified in the NTT report; however, BLM fails to include the second directive of the IM, which is to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-94 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

consider all applicable conservation measures (not just those in the NTT report) consistent with law. The 

BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (BLM IM 2012-044) does not conflict 

with nor prohibit BLM from adopting Greater Sage-Grouse management policies and procedures consistent 

with EO 2011-5 in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Additionally, the conservation measures 

provided in Attachment 1 of BLM IM 2012-044 should not supersede the conservation measures provide 

for by EO 2011-5. BLM IM 2012-044 merely establishes a policy and process for the consideration of 

Greater Sage-grouse conservation measures in one or more alternatives during the land use planning 

process. It does not suggest preferred conservations measures or require the adoption of any particular 

conservation measures. In the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, that Alternative is Alternative B. As 

such, the adoption of conservation measures and policies provided by EO 2011-5 would be consistent with 

the process and strategy in IM 2012-044. The conservation measures provided by the NTT in Attachment 

1 of BLM IM No. 2012-044 go well beyond those provided in EO 2011-5, and are therefore more restrictive 

than necessary to effectively protect Greater Sage-grouse. For example, the NTT recommends BLM 

“exclude energy development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid 

existing rights exist, minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface 

disturbance impacts held to 3% of the area or less.” On the other hand, EO 2011-5 establishes a 5% 

disturbance cap for suitable sage-grouse habitat (unsuitable habitat is not included in the disturbance 

calculation). 

Response: Alternative B was developed based on the conservation measures developed by the NTT 

planning effort in IM-2012-044 and is being considered and analyzed in this EIS. The buffer distances, 

disturbance caps, and seasonal restrictions contained in the management alternatives are based on peerreviewed scientific research of sage-grouse needs for continued existence. All alternatives considered in 

the Draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all laws and policy and meet the multiple use 

mandate of FLPMA. The goal of the LUP Amendments is to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush 

ecosystems; and the management contained in the management alternatives will allow for unfragmented, 

contiguous habitat for sage-grouse. BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the 

Wyoming Executive Order (WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, IM 2012-019, 

and BLM WO IM 2012-044; the National Technical Team Report, the best available science, input from 

USFWS, the State of Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to 

both protect sage-grouse and allow for multiple use of public lands. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

NTT report/findings

The NTT recommendations must be adopted

Comment ID: 369 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The National Technical Team Report prescribes a number of conservation measures for sage 

grouse General Habitat, the lands outside priority habitat. These include avoidance for the purposes of 

rights-of-way and enhanced riparian area protections, for example. The Wyoming DEIS does not appear to 

consider alternatives to provide all enhanced protections for sage grouse Priority and General Habitats of 

the type recommended in the National Technical Team report. Under current BLM policy, the agency must 

fully consider implementing the recommendations of the National Technical Team in at least one 

alternative, and this direction applies to Priority and General Habitats alike. This shortcoming should be 

addressed in the Final EIS, and General Habitats should be accorded the protections necessary to maintain 

viable populations of this BLM Sensitive Species. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-95

Comment ID: 276 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In contrast to the Wyoming Core Area strategies, the NTT report recommends managing priority 

sage-grouse habitat so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than three percent of any single 

square-mile section regardless of ownership (NTT 2011 at 7). Furthermore, once the three percent limit is 

reached, additional surface-disturbing projects are precluded (with no exceptions in cases where off-site 

mitigation projects are undertaken), and in cases where the three percent limit is already exceeded, 

restoration must occur to meet this threshold under the NTT recommendations. Alternative B includes a 

3% disturbance cap for Priority Habitats, and Alternatives B and C include a 3% disturbance cap for 

connectivity areas (DEIS at 2-134), within the range recommended by the NTT, but these alternatives are 

not proposed for adoption by BLM. BLM should cap disturbance at 3% on a per-square-mile basis at most 

in both Priority Habitats and Connectivity Areas. 

Comment ID: 257 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The lack of sufficient regulatory mechanisms to conserve sage grouse and their habitats was 

identified as a primary threat leading to the USFWS warranted but precluded finding in 2010. 75 FR 13910. 

BLM will need to select and alternative that meets the level of protection recommended in the National 

Technical Team Report at minimum in order to represent effective conservation measures that have some 

chance of obviating the need to list the greater sage grouse in general, and this population in particular, as 

Threatened or Endangered. 

Comment ID: 274 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Given the limitations in the Wyoming strategies and considering new scientific information on 

sage grouse, it is unlikely that application of the strategies in the Wyoming RMP Amendment Preferred 

Alternative will prevent further declines in sage-grouse. BLM should instead apply at minimum the 

measures recommended by the BLM’s National Technical Team, and more preferable the Sage Grouse 

Recovery Alternative (Alternative C) attached to these comments. 

Comment ID: 371 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that the BLM has not fully considered applying the Sage-grouse Recovery 

Alternative or the National Technical Team recommendations in full, and has not provided sufficient 

explanation for why this has occurred. In particular, measures to protect sage grouse wintering habitat are 

almost entirely absent from all alternatives, and there is no impacts analysis for permitted activities on 

wintering sage grouse and their habitats. There is a notable absence of baseline information in the DEIS on 

wintering habitats, and the lack of impacts analysis leaves open the question of how heavily wintering sage 

grouse will be affected by permitted activities under the new RMP, and what effect this will have on the 

viability of sage grouse populations both inside and outside Priority Habitats. 

Comment ID: 275 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-96 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM should implement the National Technical Team recommendations, which are consistent 

with state Executive Order 2011-5. EO 2011-5 prescribes a maximum of 1 wellpad or mine site per square 

mile as calculated within a DDCT area; applying a one wellpad or mine site per section limit as 

recommended by the NTT would result in a lesser density than 1 site per square mile when calculated with 

a DDCT area, and therefore would always result in a well density allowable under EO 2011-5. Requiring a 

no surface disturbance buffer of 4 miles would never allow surface disturbance as close as 0.6 mile of leks 

inside Core Areas, and therefore all development under a 4-mile NSO would be allowable under EO 2011-

5 because the state prohibition of surface disturbance within 0.6 mile of leks would be upheld. An 

unconditional burial of electrical distribution lines would never violate the state guideline to bury 

powerlines when possible. Implementing a 2.5% or 3% cap on surface disturbance on a per-square mile 

basis would always yield a disturbance result less than the state’s 5% limit and therefore within the realm 

of acceptable outcomes under the state policy. At no point does state policy mandate that impacts to sage 

grouse reach the maximum levels allowed under the policy; the state thresholds under EO 2011-5 are written 

as limits, not targets. The BLM therefore has the opportunity (and indeed under NEPA, FLPMA, and 

Manual 6840, the responsibility) to implement the science-based measures recommended in the NTT 

Report in order to both maintain consistency with state Core area policy and protect this BLM Sensitive 

Species with measures that satisfy NEPA’s scientific integrity standards and prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation to sage grouse Core habitats under FLPMA. 

Comment ID: 1828 

Organization: Prairie Hills Audubon Society 

Name: Nancy Hilding 

Comment: The Wyoming BLM has not considered protections for sage grouse for lands outside Priority 

Habitats, and has not fully considered NTT or Sage-grouse Recovery Alternative measures proposed for 

sage grouse general habitats. What will be the impact of permitted activities on grouse populations that fall 

outside the Priority Habitats/ACEC boundaries under this plan (which is what is the class of the Planning 

area along the SD border south of Newcastle)? The DEIS is silent on this matter. 

Comment ID: 265 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: According to BLM IM 2012-44, “The conservation measures developed by the NTT and 

contained in Attachment 3 must be considered and analyzed, as appropriate, through the land use planning 

process by all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.” This must 

be done fully in the Wyoming DEIS. IM 2012-44 does not provide an option not to analyze these measures 

in at least one alternative unless a clear finding is provided that the measure is not appropriate, and BLM 

has provided no such findings in the context of the Wyoming RMP Amendment. 

Comment ID: 160 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Development on previously existing oil and gas leases should be restricted to levels that will 

have no negative effect on sage grouse, in accordance with the recommendations of the BLM's own 

National Technical Team. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-97

Summary: BLM will need to select an alternative that meets the level of protection recommended in the 

NTT report at minimum in order to represent effective conservation measures that have some chance of 

obviating the need to list the Greater Sage-Grouse in general, and this population in particular, as threatened 

or endangered. According to BLM IM 2012-44, “The conservation measures developed by the NTT and 

contained in Attachment 3 must be considered and analyzed, as appropriate, through the land use planning 

process by all BLM State and Field Offices that contain occupied Greater Sage- Grouse habitat.” This must 

be done fully in the Wyoming Draft EIS. IM 2012-44 does not provide an option not to analyze these 

measures in at least one alternative unless a clear finding is provided that the measure is not appropriate, 

and BLM has provided no such findings in the context of the Wyoming LUP Amendments. Given the 

limitations in the Wyoming strategies and considering new scientific information on sagegrouse, it is 

unlikely that application of the strategies in the Wyoming LUP Amendments Preferred Alternative will 

prevent further declines in sage-grouse. BLM should instead apply, at minimum, the measures 

recommended by the BLM’s NTT, and more preferable the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative (Alternative 

C). BLM should implement the NTT recommendations, which are consistent with state EO 2011-5. EO 

2011-5. The recommendations prescribe a maximum of 1 wellpad or mine site per square mile as calculated 

within a DDCT area. Applying a one wellpad or mine site per section limit as recommended by the NTT 

would result in a lesser density than 1 site per square mile when calculated with a DDCT area, and therefore 

would always result in a well density allowable under EO 2011-5. Requiring a no surface disturbance buffer 

of 4 miles would never allow surface disturbance as close as 0.6 mile of leks inside core areas, and therefore 

all development under a 4-mile NSO would be allowable under EO 2011-5 because the state prohibition of 

surface disturbance within 0.6 mile of leks would be upheld. An unconditional burial of electrical 

distribution lines would never violate the state guideline to bury powerlines when possible. Implementing 

a 2.5% or 3% cap on surface disturbance on a per-square mile basis would always yield a disturbance result 

less than the state’s 5% limit and therefore within the realm of acceptable outcomes under the state policy. 

At no point does state policy mandate that impacts to sage-grouse reach the maximum levels allowed under 

the policy; the state thresholds under EO 2011-5 are written as limits, not targets. The BLM therefore has 

the opportunity (and indeed under NEPA, FLPMA, and Manual 6840, the responsibility) to implement the 

science-based measures recommended in the NTT report in order to both maintain consistency with state 

core area policy and protect this BLM sensitive species with measures that satisfy NEPA’s scientific 

integrity standards and prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to sagegrouse core habitats under 

FLPMA. Specific NTT recommendations that the Draft LUP Amendments need to consider include: • The 

NTT report prescribes a number of conservation measures for sage-grouse general habitat, the lands outside 

priority habitat. These include avoidance for the purposes of rights-of-way and enhanced riparian area 

protections, for example. The Wyoming Draft EIS does not appear to consider alternatives to provide all 

enhanced protections for sage-grouse priority and general habitats of the type recommended in the NTT 

report. • Measures to protect sage-grouse wintering habitat are almost entirely absent from all alternatives, 

and there is no impacts analysis for permitted activities on wintering sage-grouse and their habitats. There 

is a notable absence of baseline information in the Draft EIS on wintering habitats, and the lack of impacts 

analysis leaves open the question of how heavily wintering sagegrouse will be affected by permitted 

activities under the new LUP Amendments, and what effect this will have on the viability of sage-grouse 

populations both inside and outside priority habitats. 

Response: Alternative B was developed based upon all appropriate and applicable conservation measures 

developed by the NTT and includes management for both priority and general habitat. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

NTT report/findings

The NTT recommendations should not be adopted

Comment ID: 1266 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-98 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.24, agencies must insure the professional integrity, including scientific 

integrity, of the discussions and analyses in an EIS. However, even though peer reviewer comments were 

highly critical of the draft NTT report, BLM failed in its duty to adequately consider and incorporate those 

opposing scientific viewpoints. For instance, The NTT Report is not supported by the Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) as BLM’s sole source of Sage‐ grouse management direction. 

In a letter sent to the Interior Secretary on May 16, 2013, WAFWA member states made it clear that they 

never endorsed the sole use of the NTT or any other scientific publication to determine appropriate 

management of sage‐ grouse habitat. Rather, they believe that a variety of peer‐ reviewed publications 

which collectively provide the best available science for sage‐ grouse should have been used by BLM as

the basis for conserving the sage‐ grouse, thereby avoiding a listing under the ESA. WAFWA went on to 

recommend that management and regulatory mechanisms be based upon the best available science which 

would provide the best strategy for near‐ and long‐ term management of sage‐ grouse and provides the 

best opportunity for precluding the need to list the species under the ESA. 

Comment ID: 1231 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA maintains that BLM failed to develop an alternative that supports responsible resource 

development in the Planning Area, and that Alternatives C, D, and E, the Preferred Alternative, only masks 

BLM’s use of the NTT Report. As a result, failure to include consideration and detailed analysis of 

conservation measures other than those in the NTT Report represents a pre-determined decision by BLM 

to implement the NTT conservation measures without giving proper and detailed analysis to alternative 

conservation measures which may produce equal or better results for sage-grouse conservation, while 

complying with FLPMA. 

Comment ID: 1718 

Organization: Kennecott Uranium Company 

Name: Oscar Paulson 

Comment: Guidance from the National Technical Team (NTT) is not consistent with the guidelines 

provided in the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 2011-05, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

and general methods for land conservation and habitat enhancement in the west. Therefore, KUC does not 

support the wholesale incorporation of management from the NTT. The NTT narrowly describes and 

endorses one-size-fits-all conservation measures for sage-grouse which in some cases can be blatantly 

deleterious to other species as well as being less effective than appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. 

For instance, at the Monitoring without Borders meeting at Rawlins, WY on March 11, 2014 a presentation 

was given on BP’s Sage Grouse Research Project in the Rawlins Field Office area. Approximately 140 

satellite monitors were placed on female Sage Grouse over about five years. The results showed that current 

restrictive lines on the map didn’t reflect the actual Sage Grouse use and movements. Further discussions 

including BLM biologists suggested that actual on the ground decisions should reflect the best available 

data. KUC recommends that the NTT be removed from 2.4.5 and the Governor’s Order and the SGIT 

continue to function in WY to develop the appropriate methodologies for Sage Grouse conservation, and 

that the best available data be utilized for on the ground decisions. 

Comment ID: 2555 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-99

Comment: Should BLM choose to ignore the lack of scientific underpinnings for Alternative B and carry it 

forward into the Final LUPA/EIS then, the BLM must address the following issues: 1) BLM must update 

the NTT (2011) report with current best available science; 2) BLM must address the issues raised regarding 

inaccurate, misleading, or unfounded "scientific" statements and conclusions in the NTT (2011) report; and 

3) BLM must address the issues raised in the Western Energy Alliance letter. 

Comment ID: 1739 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: Additionally, many of the Required Design Features ("RDF”) and Best Management Practices 

(“BMP”) recommended by the NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and/or fail to reflect the 

complexity of oil and gas exploration and development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a one-sizefits-all management approach that disregards topography, local conditions, and practicality. We recommend 

that the agencies revisit their design features and mitigation to ensure they are technically feasible and 

appropriate and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use may be properly 

considered on a site-specific basis. Another major fundamental concern is that the NTT report failed to 

recognize that the level of disturbance associated with a well is not constant throughout its life. 

Comment ID: 406 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Yates understands that many of the GSG management decisions and stipulations proposed under 

Alternative B are considered to establish compliance with WO IM 2012-044 by incorporating the NTT 

conservation measures into the Draft LUPA and EIS. However, Yates has several issues with 

recommendations for GSG habitat management proposed in the NTT report (i.e. NTT conservation 

measures). First, several of these recommendations are significantly inconsistent with the general approach 

and specific stipulations provided for in EO 2011-5 (e.g. 4.0 mile lek buffer, 3% surface disturbance cap). 

Second, these NTT GSG conservation measures are biologically and scientifically flawed and unjustified 

(see preceding comments on NTT GSG Conservation Measures). Third, EO 2011-5 has been endorsed, 

adopted, and/or supported by the State of Wyoming, Wyoming SGIT, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, BLM Wyoming, BLM Washington Office, and USFWS. Consequently, GSG management 

decisions under Alternative B are unacceptable and should not be given consideration during development 

of the final Preferred Alternative. Rather, Yates urges BLM to adopt and GSG habitat management strategy 

that is consistent with EO 2011-5. 

Comment ID: 577 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Governor Mead, in his April 26, 2013 comments to the BLM on the Lander Proposed 

RMP/FEIS, stated that while the threats in the NTT report may mirror many of those addressed in 

Wyoming's management plan, the NTT report "gave limited, if any, consideration to BLM's multiple-use 

mandate, local conditions, other species, or local economies. As a consequence they suggest greater 

restrictions in their Report." The letter goes on to express that "the FWS confirmed on November 10, 2010 

that Wyoming's Core Population Area Strategy for the greater Sage-grouse provides an excellent model for 

meaningful conservation on Sage-grouse if fully supported and implemented." Samson shares the 

Governor's concerns and recommend that BLM maintain consistency with the Executive Order 

Comment ID: 1736 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-100 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: Overall, the BLM places undue importance on the December 21, 2011, Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures developed by the BLM’s Sage-Grouse national technical 

team (“NTT”). ConocoPhillips requests the BLM review, in its entirety, its reliance on the NTT Report to 

ensure that only the most appropriate science is utilized. ConocoPhillips incorporates herein Dr. Ramey’s 

Reports attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and the comments by the Petroleum Association of 

Wyoming filed separately. 

Comment ID: 2220 

Organization: Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA) 

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne 

Comment: In general, the Association believes that Alternative E provides the best combination of 

approaches to provide both protective measures for sensitive species and flexibility to allow for on-going 

energy development on the covered federal lands. However, wholesale incorporation of the National 

Technical Team (NTT) report is not warranted and in some cases is contradictory to the Wyoming 

Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05). The EO was developed in partnership with FWS, BLM, 

Forest Service and many other stakeholders. In addition, the FWS has recognized that the EO provides a 

“sound framework for a policy by which to conserve greater sage-grouse in Wyoming.” Therefore, the 

Association encourages the BLM and Forest Service to ensure that the selected alternative is fully consistent 

with the Executive Order. In addition, the NTT recommendations were developed for consideration over a 

broad area of the western United States. As a result, these recommendations tend towards a one size fits all 

approach focusing solely on sage-grouse. The Association firmly believes that these recommendations 

should not take precedence over scientifically developed, site-specific conservation measures. The 

Association requests that the DEIS be modified to clearly indicate that where local sage-grouse or other 

sensitive species conservation measures have been developed as part of a FWS sponsored conservation 

agreement, that those will take precedence over any conservation measures listed or developed as a result 

of the DEIS. 

Comment ID: 2560 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Alternative E incorporates the guidance from the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order, but it 

also includes "additional management based on the NTT recommendations." As outlined above, the NTT 

(2011) report is so fatally flawed that it should not be used as the basis for any alternative, including 

Alternative E. While we commend the BLM for attempting to develop a balanced alternative, to have any 

credibility the alternative must start with best available science and an unbiased view of sagegrouse 

conservation and energy and transportation development. This Alternative has the potential to best balance 

the interests of public lands users, economic interests, and sage-grouse conservation. We encourage BLM 

to take its time to work with stakeholders to fully develop Alternative E and to correct the current 

deficiencies in the document in order to defensibly carry this alternative forward as the agency preferred 

alternative for the Final LUPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 2214 

Organization: Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association 

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-101

Comment: In general, the Association believes that Alternative E provides the best combination of 

approaches to provide both protective measures for sensitive species and flexibility to allow for on-going 

energy development on the covered federal lands. However, wholesale incorporation of the National 

Technical Team (NTT) report is not warranted and in some cases is contradictory to the Wyoming 

Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05). The EO was developed in partnership with FWS, BLM, 

Forest Service and many other stakeholders. In addition, the FWS has recognized that the EO provides a 

“sound framework for a policy by which to conserve greater sage-grouse in Wyoming.” Therefore, the 

Association encourages the BLM and Forest Service to ensure that the selected alternative is fully consistent 

with the Executive Order. In addition, the NTT recommendations were developed for consideration over a 

broad area of the western United States. As a result, these recommendations tend towards a one size fits all 

approach focusing solely on sage-grouse. The Association firmly believes that these recommendations 

should not take precedence over scientifically developed, site-specific conservation measures. The 

Association requests that the DEIS be modified to clearly indicate that where local sage-grouse or other 

sensitive species conservation measures have been developed as part of a FWS sponsored conservation 

agreement, that those will take precedence over any conservation measures listed or developed as a result 

of the DEIS. 

Comment ID: 2873 

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Alternative E incorporates the guidance from the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order, but it 

also includes "additional management based on the NTT recommendations." As outlined above, the NTT 

(2011) report is so fatally flawed that it should not be used as the basis for any alternative, including 

Alternative E. While we commend the BLM for attempting to develop a balanced alternative, to have any 

credibility the alternative must start with best available science and an unbiased view of sagegrouse 

conservation and grazing, as well as a recognition of the rights of private property owners grazing their land 

within Wyoming's checkerboard. This Alternative has the potential to best balance the interests of public 

lands users, private property owners, and sage-grouse habitat conservation. We encourage BLM to take its 

time to work with stakeholders to fully develop Alternative E and to correct the current deficiencies in the 

document in order to defensibly carry this alternative forward as the agency preferred alternative for the 

Final LUPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 2907 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Alternative E incorporates the guidance from the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order, but it 

also includes "additional management based on the NTT recommendations." As outlined above, the NTT 

(2011) report is so fatally flawed that it should not be used as the basis for any alternative, including 

Alternative E. While we commend the BLM for attempting to develop a balanced alternative, to have any 

credibility the alternative must start with best available science and an unbiased view of sagegrouse 

conservation and energy and transportation development. This Alternative has the potential to best balance 

the interests of public lands users, economic interests, and sage-grouse conservation. We encourage BLM 

to take its time to work with stakeholders to fully develop Alternative E and to correct the current 

deficiencies in the document in order to defensibly carry this alternative forward as the agency preferred 

alternative for the Final LUPA/ElS. 

Comment ID: 2538 

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation 

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-102 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Peabody does not support the wholesale incorporation of management from the National 

Technical Team (NTT). Guidance from the NTT is not consistent with the guidelines provided in the EO 

2011-05, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department standard operating procedures (SOPs), and general 

SOPs for land conservation and habitat enhancement in the west. The NTT offers narrow descriptions of, 

and endorses one-size-fits-all conservation measures for sage-grouse. In some cases these measures are 

blatantly deleterious to other species living in the Thunder Basin Grasslands. This is less effective than 

utilizing site-specific mitigation measures. 

Comment ID: 2805 

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: The basis for Alternative B is the sage-grouse conservation measures in A Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures by the National Technical Team (NTT) released in 2011. The 

NTT (2011) report does not rely on best available science, contains numerous errors and misstatements of 

facts, and evidences a bias in favor of preservation of sage-grouse habitat rather than conservation of habitat 

and responsible multiple use. In fact, the NTT (2011) report is so fatally flawed and lacking in scientific 

integrity that on November 19, 2013, the Western Energy Alliance was compelled to write to Secretary 

Sally Jewell of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), urging the Secretary to correct the numerous 

flaws of the NTT (2011) report and to confirm that Dol will not rely upon the flawed document as the basis 

for prescriptive land use decisions that conflict with multiple uses of public lands and valid existing rights. 

Because Alternative B does not comply with NEPA and the foundation upon which the alternative was built 

is not scientifically sound, BLM should not carry forward Alternative B to the Final LUPA/EIS. Further, 

Alternative B fails to recognize the checkerboard land ownership pattern that underlies much of what is 

defined as sage-grouse core and priority habitat. It is impractical and impossible for BLM to attempt to 

incorporate a "light grazing" strategy on public lands in priority habitat in the checkerboard without 

simultaneously impairing the rights of the private property grazer, due to the interspersed land pattern. 

Alternative B would effectively restrict the grazing rights of private property owners, which fails to meet 

BLM's statutory obligation and purpose and need of this plan amendment to manage public lands for 

multiple use and not for a single resource. 

Summary: Several NTT recommendations are significantly inconsistent with the general approach and 

specific stipulations provided for in EO 2011-5 (e.g. a 4.0 mile lek buffer and a 3% surface disturbance 

cap). NTT conservation measures are biologically and scientifically flawed and unjustified. EO 2011-5 has 

been endorsed, adopted, and/or supported by the State of Wyoming, Wyoming SGIT, Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, BLM Wyoming, BLM Washington Office, and USFWS. Consequently, Greater SageGrouse management decisions under Alternative B are unacceptable and should not be given consideration 

during development of the final Proposed Alternative. The NTT narrowly describes and endorses one-sizefits-all conservation measures for sage-grouse which in some cases can be blatantly deleterious to other 

species as well as being less effective than appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. Additionally, 

many of the RDFs and BMPs recommended by the NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and fail to 

reflect the complexity of oil and gas exploration and development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a 

one-size-fits-all management approach that disregards topography, local conditions, and practicality. The 

agencies should revisit their design features and mitigation to ensure they are technically feasible and 

appropriate and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use may be properly 

considered on a site-specific basis. Another major fundamental concern is that the NTT report failed to 

recognize that the level of disturbance associated with a well is not constant throughout its life. The Greater 

Sage-Grouse conservation measures produced in the NTT report referred to in BLM IM 2012-044 and 

proposed in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS will preclude oil and gas development in the planning 

area and prevent grazing, recreational activities, and other activities with low surface and environmental 

impact. This is excessive and in direct conflict with the BLM's multiple-use mandate under the FLPMA. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-103

As such, Alternative B that proposes to adopt NTT Conservation Measures in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS should not be considered in BLM’s Proposed Plan. Alternatives C, D, and E, the 

Preferred Alternative, only mask BLM’s use of the NTT report. As a result, failure to include consideration 

and detailed analysis of conservation measures other than those in the NTT report represents a predetermined decision by BLM to implement the NTT conservation measures without giving proper and 

detailed analysis to alternative conservation measures which may produce equal or better results for sagegrouse conservation, while complying with FLPMA. Governor Mead, in his April 26, 2013 comments to 

the BLM on the Lander Proposed RMP/FEIS, stated that while the threats in the NTT report may mirror 

many of those addressed in Wyoming's management plan, the NTT report "gave limited, if any, 

consideration to BLM's multiple-use mandate, local conditions, other species, or local economies. As a 

consequence they suggest greater restrictions in their report." The letter goes on to express that "the USFWS 

confirmed on November 10, 2010 that Wyoming's Core Population Area Strategy for the Greater SageGrouse provides an excellent model for meaningful conservation on sage-grouse if fully supported and 

implemented." 

Response: The buffer distances, disturbance caps, and seasonal restrictions contained in the management 

alternatives are based on peer-reviewed scientific research of sage-grouse needs for continued existence. 

The goal of the LUP Amendments is to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush ecosystems; and the 

management contained in the management alternatives will allow for unfragmented, contiguous habitat for 

sage-grouse. All alternatives considered in the Draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all 

laws and policy and meet the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. The final decision for these actions will be 

included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public involvement process. 

National Sage-grouse Strategy

NTT report/findings

The NTT report is flawed 

Comment ID: 703 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Notwithstanding year-round grazing, direct competition and vegetation impacts, NTT dedicates 

less than a page to analyze the effects of wild horses on GRSG habitat. BLM admits elsewhere that HMAs 

far exceed AMLs throughout Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. See RSGA v. Salazar, et al., 2:11-cv- 00263, 

Dckt. # 92-1 (Apr. 3, 2013). The Coalition has been involved in the BLM’s horse gathering operations in 

southwest Wyoming and the NTT Report falls woefully short of adequately addressing the documented 

impacts of year-round grazing and wild horses on sagebrush and related habitat. Id. The NTT Report 

assumes that wild horses be managed within existing AML’s but the report makes no mention of 

reproduction rates, fertility measures, gather frequency, or the basic principles that drive wild horse 

management. See BLM, EA: Great Divide Basin HMA Wild Horse Gather, WY- 040-EA11- 154 at 3 (May 

2011); BLM EA: Adobe Town - Salt Wells Creek HMA Complex Wild Horse Gather, WY- 040-EA10-

109 at 1-4 (Aug. 26, 2010). Virtually all BLM AMLs were set in the first generation of RMPs or decades 

before sage-grouse were first considered to be in decline. Thus reliance on AMLs as having no adverse 

impact on sagegrouse habitat is seriously flawed. 

Comment ID: 702 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-104 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Thematic flaws, however, are prevalent throughout the alternatives and are discussed here. The 

NTT Report betrays sound management principles as it exhaustively lists domestic grazing restrictions such 

as fences, exclosures, water developments, vegetation treatments, dispersing grazing animals, changing 

seasonal pastures, and retiring grazing privileges over three pages. See NTT Report at 14- 18. Even more 

strikingly, the NTT Report begins by listing five potential impacts of “herbivory on sagegrouse and their 

habitat” and immediately follows that list with a paragraph discussing livestock without even mentioning 

similar effects by wild horses or other ungulates such as antelope, mule deer, or elk. The Report omits 

contradictory findings that proper livestock grazing, while accounting for wildlife escalation, actually 

benefits GRSG habitat and viable populations. J. Cagney, et al., Grazing Influence, Objective Development, 

and Management in Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (2010). 

Comment ID: 1272 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: EOG is concerned about the BLM‘s reliance upon the National Technical Team ("NTT") report 

as its principal guiding document, particularly for oil and gas leasing and operations, because it failed to 

utilize any type of systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent and 

effectiveness of mitigation measures currently used by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, the NTT report 

is clearly biased as evidenced by its assertion that oil and gas ―impacts are universally negative and 

typically severe,‖ particularly since the NTT utilized little or no useful and site‐ specific data upon which 

to base that conclusion. In fact, this statement is predicated upon a select few studies while ignoring other 

data and studies that clearly demonstrate impacts from oil and gas are not universally negative and typically 

severe. Additionally, many of the Required Design Features (―RDF‖) and Best Management Practices 

(―BMP‖) recommended by the NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and/or fail to reflect the 

complexity of oil and gas exploration and development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a one-sizefits-all management approach that disregards topography, local conditions, and practicality. We recommend 

that the agencies revisit their design features and mitigation to ensure they are technically feasible and 

appropriate, and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use may be properly 

considered on a site-specific basis. Moreover, in accordance with current law and regulation, it is 

inappropriate for the DLUPA to establish these overly site-specific requirements at a programmatic level 

as proposed. Another major fundamental concern is that the NTT report failed to recognize the level of 

disturbance associated with a well is not constant throughout its life. EOG also notes that the NTT report 

relied heavily upon Holloran‘s 2005 [2] dissertation despite the fact that it failed to acknowledge the 

countless stipulations and mitigation measures imposed on the oil and gas industry in GRSG habitat. 2 

[Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) population response to natural 

gas field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. University of Wyoming, Laramie, 

Wyoming] 

Comment ID: 1810 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: We strenuously object to BLM’s reliance upon the NTT report as its principal guiding document, 

particularly for oil and gas leasing and operations, because it failed to utilize any type of systematic 

cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent and effectiveness of mitigation 

measures currently used by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, the NTT report is clearly biased as evidenced 

by its assertion that oil and gas “impacts are universally negative and typically severe," particularly since 

the NTT utilized little or no useful and site-specific data upon which to base that conclusion. Additionally, 

many of the Required Design Features (RDF) and Best Management Practices (BMP) recommended by the 

NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and fail to reflect the complexity of oil and gas exploration and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-105

development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a onesize- fits-all management approach that disregards 

topography, local conditions, and practicality. We recommend the agencies revisit these design features 

and mitigation to ensure they are technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the level of 

flexibility required when their use may be properly considered on a site-specific basis. Moreover, in 

accordance with current law and regulation, it is inappropriate for the LUPA/DEIS to establish these overly 

site-specific requirements at a programmatic level as proposed. Another major fundamental concern is that 

the NTT report failed to recognize that the level of disturbance associated with a well is not constant 

throughout its life. We also point out that the NTT report relied heavily upon Holloran's 20052 dissertation 

despite its failure to acknowledge the countless stipulations and mitigation measures utilized by the oil and 

gas industry in GRSG habitat. 

Comment ID: 571 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The sources often cited [in the NTT Report] by the authors do not directly support the assertions 

made. For example, the NTT Report states that with regards to all priority GRSG habitat, full reclamation 

bonds should be required to ensure full restoration. NTT Report at 23. However, the source cited only 

recommends that breeding habitat should be restored to a condition that is once again suitable for breeding. 

NWMA Review at 14. NTT authors used the latter and extremely narrow principle to support the former 

and broader principle – a basic flaw in statistical and analytical reasoning. If the BLM chooses an action 

beyond the support of peer-reviewed data, the BLM must clearly state it’s decision to do so. The NTT 

Report is written so as to suggest that all of the recommendations are based on peerreviewed data when that 

is not the case. As a result, the NTT Report prescribes restoration on a landscape-scale using authority that 

never supported the sweeping propositions. See NWMA Review at 14 (“Connelly et al. 2000 only 

recommends this level of restoration for areas where there has been at least 40% loss of habitat, it does not 

necessarily apply range-wide, like the NTT implies.”). 

Comment ID: 704 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Nor does the NTT Report describe or distinguish the biological differences in grazing habits and 

patterns of wild horses and livestock. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Greater Sagegrouse (Centrocercus uropphasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report, p. ii (February 2013) 

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/ species/birds/sagegrouse/COT/COT-Report-with-Dear- InterestedReader-Letter.pdf (COT Report). Per individual animal, horses consume more forage than cattle or sheep 

and remove more of the plant which limits vegetative recovery. Id. at 46. Wild horses also travel great 

distances and act as vectors for invasive plant species. Id. The irreducible conclusion is that wild horses, 

unlike cattle or sheep, have disparate impacts on GRSG habitat that the NTT Report does not describe or 

analyze. 

Comment ID: 393 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: BLM has based its analysis and several GSG conservation measures proposed within the Draft 

LUPA and EIS (particularly Alternative B) upon the findings contained in the NTT report. However, the 

NTT report relied upon outdated and scientifically flawed studies. Primary sources of information relied 

upon by the NTT was reviewed by the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability 

(CESAR) which found: • Significant mischaracterization of previous research; • Substantial errors and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-106 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

omissions; • Lack of independent authorship and peer review (3 of the authors of the NTT are also the 

authors, researchers, and editors on 3 of the most cited sources in the NTT.) • Methodological bias; • Invalid 

assumptions and analysis; and • Inadequate data. 

Comment ID: 732 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon is concerned about the BLM's reliance upon the National Technical Team ("NTT") report 

as Its principal guiding document, particularly for oil and gas leasing and operations, because it failed to 

utilize any type of systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent and 

effectiveness of mitigation measures currently used by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, the NTT report 

is clearly biased as evidenced by its assertion that oil and gas "impacts are universally negative and typically 

severe," particularly since the NTT utilized little or no useful and site-specific data upon which to base that 

conclusion. Additionally, many of the RDF and Best Management Practices ("BMP") recommended by the 

NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and/or fail to reflect the complexity of oil and gas exploration 

and development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all management approach that 

disregards topography, local conditions, and practicality. We recommend that the agency revisit its design 

features and mitigation to ensure they are technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the 

level of flexibility required when their use may be properly considered on a site-specific basis. Another 

major fundamental concern is that the NTT report failed to recognize the level of disturbance associated 

with a well is not constant throughout its life. BLM's reliance upon the NTT Report appears aimed at 

causing new oil and gas leasing, exploration and development in the public lands states to be essentially 

terminated throughout millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 1133 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: As demonstrated in the attached report by Dr. Rob Ramey, the BLM science and conservation 

measures contained in the NTT are not based on sound or reliable science. In fact, it appears the BLM 

developed onerous mitigation measures and then attempted to justify the same by any means necessary. In 

other words, the BLM selected the conservation measures it wanted to impose first and then attempted to 

find science to justify those restrictions rather than identifying appropriate mitigation measures based on 

scientific study. Anschutz requests the BLM review, in its entirety, its reliance on the NTT Report to ensure 

that only the most appropriate science is utilized. 

Comment ID: 1205 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA believes the entire DLUPA/DEIS process is fraught with substantial procedural, legal 

and scientific flaws. BLM’s NTT Report is the source for many of the scientific flaws, which was 

recognized by DOI employees and discussed in internal emails questioning the legality of some of the 

conservation measures recommended in the NTT Report: ...But, does the NTT really want to recommend 

something that is blatantly illegal(?)...8 Peer reviewers for the NTT Report also warned the team of the 

scientific and legal flaws: Are you going to sit back and have catastrophic wildfires dictate your 

outcome?...Are winter ranges a constant vegetation type? No, so why would you state such an 

objective?...This type of passive management is helping further degrade critical habitats...9 This seems a 

strange blend of policy loosely backed by citations, with no analysis of the science (emphasis added). 10 

Regrettably, DOI decision-makers did not heed warnings like this from DOI staff and peer reviewers and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-107

proceeded with publishing the NTT Report knowing that there were significant internal concerns about the 

report. If the legal, scientific and procedural flaws are not addressed and cured, the Final EIS and RMP will 

not likely withstand legal challenges. 

Comment ID: 574 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Adding to the prejudicial effect of the technical errors just discussed, the NTT Report failed to 

consider several important studies and scientific papers relevant to nearly every facet of the report. A 

cursory review produced six articles that the NTT did not evaluate in its report. It appears that the NTT 

ignored benchmark pieces of literature without even a brief explanation for its decision. Taylor et al., 

Greater Sage-Grouse Populations and Energy Development in Wyoming, (2007), 

http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/PDF/WYsageGrouseNov2paper.pdf. M.M. Rowland, Effects of management 

practices on grassland birds: Greater Sage-Grouse, (2004), 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grsg/ grsg.htm. E.T. Thacker, et al., Greater SageGrouse Seasonal Ecology and Responses to Habitat Manipulations in Northern, Utah (2010) (unpublished 

PHD dissertation, Utah State University (on file with author). H.J. Erickson, et al., Progress Report: Stratton 

Ecological Research Site—An Experimental Approach to Assess Effects of Various Grazing Treatments 

on Vegetation and Wildlife Communities Across Managed Burns and Habitat Controls, (2008), U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1016, 15 p. !G. Cornelis van Kooten, et al., Determinants of 

Threatened Sage Grouse in Northeastern Nevada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife (2007), 

http://web.uvic.ca/~ kooten/Publications/Human-Dim-Wildlife.pdf. !Rob Roy Ramey, Data Quality Issues 

in A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures, Produced by the Sage-Grouse 

National Technical Team (NTT), (2011)(On file with author). By omitting the above articles, it would 

appear that the NTT authors pursued a biased agenda, or at the very least, published a report that did not 

consider all of the best available science. However, when considering that the NTT authors did not cite the 

above papers and chose instead to cite their own work more than any other source in the report, the 

appearance of impropriety is impossible to ignore. The Department of Interior Scientific Integrity Policy 

Manual (DOI Manual) shows exactly why the NTT Report is so blatantly flawed. The DOI Manual defines 

a conflict of interest as, . . . any personal, professional, financial, or other interests that conflict with the 

actions or judgments of those covered by this policy when conducting scientific and scholarly activities or 

using scientific and scholarly data and information because those interests may: (1) significantly impair 

objectivity; (2) create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization; or (3) create the 

appearance of either. Dept. of the Interior, Department Manual, Part 305DM3, Chapter 3, p.3 

(http:www.fws.gov/science/ pdf/DOIScientificIntegrityPolicyManual.pdf). Three of the NTT authors are 

also the three most cited sources throughout the NTT Report. NWMA Review at 4. Without question, the 

NTT authors pushed their own perspective to the forefront and compromised the integrity and accuracy of 

the NTT Report itself. Again, whether intentional or benign, the consequence remains the same as the 

integrity and utility of the report falters with the bias of the authors 

Comment ID: 1136 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Anschutz is concerned about the BLM’s reliance upon the NTT report as its principal guiding 

document, particularly for oil and gas leasing and operations, because it failed to utilize any type of 

systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent and effectiveness of 

mitigation measures currently used by the oil and gas industry. Additionally, many of the RDF and Best 

Management Practices (“BMP”) recommended by the NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and/or 

fail to reflect the complexity of oil and gas exploration and development as evidenced by its attempt to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-108 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impose a one-size-fits-all management approach that disregards topography, local conditions, and 

practicality. We recommend that the agencies revisit their design features and mitigation to ensure they are 

technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use 

may be properly considered on a site-specific basis. Moreover, in accordance with current law and 

regulation, it is inappropriate for the DLUPA to establish these overly site-specific requirements at a 

programmatic level as proposed. Another major fundamental concern is that the NTT report failed to 

recognize that the level of disturbance associated with a well is not constant throughout its life. Anschutz 

also notes that the NTT report relied heavily upon Holloran’s [2] 2005 dissertation despite the fact that it 

failed to acknowledge the countless stipulations and mitigation measures imposed on the oil and gas 

industry in sage-grouse habitat. 2 [Holloran, M. J. 2005. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

population response to natural gas field development in western Wyoming. PhD Dissertation. University 

of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming] 

Comment ID: 573 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Finally, the NTT Report also contradicts its own statistical assertions. NTT Report at 7. First, 

the NTT Report states that priority habitat should be managed so that 70% of the habitat is adequate. Id. A 

page earlier, however, the report states that 50-70% of the range must be adequate to persist. Id. at 6. The 

sources cited do not recommend either the upper or lower range offered by the NTT authors. Those sources 

cited rely on anecdotal evidence of a preferred percentage. See NWMA Review at 15. Once again, it does 

not matter that these errors may be typographical. Their effect on the integrity and accuracy of the science 

is dispositive and demands a singular conclusion – the BLM has not relied on the best science available in 

the Draft EIS. 

Comment ID: 572 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: In addressing the issue of canopy and wildfire, the NTT Report cites J.W. Connelly to support 

the conclusion that sagebrush canopy should not be reduced to less than 15% when managing wildfire fuels. 

NTT Report at 26. Connelly, however, discusses a range of 10% to 30% and explicitly states that land 

treatments should not be based on targets, schedules or quotas. John W. Connelly, et al., Guidelines to 

Manage Sage-Grouse Populations and Their Habitats, 28 Wildlife Society Bulletin 967- 985, 77 (2000). 

The NTT authors omitted the instruction of the Connelly report and arbitrarily picked 15% as the target for 

sagebrush canopy. 

Comment ID: 570 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Samson is concerned about the BLM's reliance upon the National Technical Team ("NTT") 

report as its principal guiding document, particularly for oil and gas leasing, development and operations, 

because it failed to utilize any type of systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the 

type, extent and effectiveness of mitigation measures currently used by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, 

the NTT report is clearly biased as evidenced by its assertion that oil and gas "impacts are universally 

negative and typically severe," particularly since the NTT utilized little or no useful and site-specific data 

upon which to base that conclusion. 

Comment ID: 569 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-109

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The first glaring failure of the NTT Report is that the authors cite to authority that does not 

appear in the “Literature Cited” section. NWMA Report at 13-14. For example, J.W. Connelly is cited 12 

times in the Report but 25% of the time, there was no source available for review. Id. B.L. Walker was also 

cited 11 times and 45% of the time there was no source available for review. Id. As if to further confuse 

readers or to artificially boost the appearance of authority, the NTT Report includes sources in the 

“Literature Cited” section that are not actually used in the document. Id. Regardless of whether these errors 

are merely typographical or intentional, the consequence is the same: the conclusions in the NTT Report 

cannot be verified against sources used to support the assertions made by the authors. 

Comment ID: 566 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: After the USFWS determined that the GRSG was warranted but precluded from being listed 

under the ESA, the BLM chartered the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) in order to “develop 

new or revised regulatory mechanisms, through Resource Management Plans (RMPs), to conserve and 

restore the GRSG and its habitat on BLM administered lands on a range-wide basis over the long term.” 

NTT Report at 4. The BLM now proposes alternatives based heavily on the NTT Report, without addressing 

the significant technical errors, omissions, potential conflicts of interest, and most importantly, incorrect 

conclusions regarding GRSG habitat management. CLG retained Renee Taylor to evaluate the NTT 

conclusions and CLG also relies on the Northwest Mining Association critique. See Megan Maxwell, 

BLM’s NTT Report: Is It the Best Available Science or a Tool to Support a Pre-determined Outcome? 

(2013) http://www.nwma.org/pdf/NWMANTTReview- Final-revised.pdf (hereinafter NWMA Review). 

Both conclude that NTT findings overstate or misstate existing research and that the NTT omits important 

peer-reviewed literature. 

Comment ID: 2904 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: The basis for Alternative B is the sage-grouse conservation measures in A Report on National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures by the National Technical Team (NTT) released in 2011. The 

NTT (2011) report does not rely on best available science, contains numerous errors and mis-statements of 

facts, and evidences a bias in favor of preservation of sage-grouse habitat rather than conservation of habitat 

and responsible multiple use. In fact, the NTT (2011) report is so fatally flawed and lacking in scientific 

integrity that on November 19, 2013, the Western Energy Alliance was compelled to write to Secretary 

Sally Jewell of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOl), urging the Secretary to correct the numerous 

flaws of the NTT (2011) report and to confirm that DOl will not rely upon the flawed document as the basis 

for prescriptive land use decisions that conflict with multiple uses of public lands and valid existing rights. 

BLM has an obligation to disclose responsible opposing views in the EIS. (see 40 CPR 1502.9(b)) The 

courts are increasingly applying this requirement to mandate the agency's consideration of opposing 

scientific views as well. BLM must also rely upon best available scientific data and information in its 

consideration and analysis of impacts and cannot rely on stale or outdated data where more recent data is 

available? Neither the Draft LUPA/EIS nor the NTT (2011) report discloses opposing scientific views as 

to development impacts and threats to sage-grouse. Further, as set forth in our general and detailed 

comments below, neither the Draft LUPA/EIS nor the NTT (2011) report incorporates best available 

science. Therefore, BLM has failed to meet its obligations under the NEPA. Because Alternative B does 

not comply with NEPA and the foundation upon which the alternative was built is not scientifically sound, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-110 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

BLM should not carry forward Alternative B to the Final LUPA/EIS. Should BLM choose to ignore the 

lack of scientific underpinnings for Alternative B and carry it forward into the Final LUPA/EIS then, at a 

minimum, the BLM must address the following issues: 1) BLM must update the NTT (2011) report with 

current best available science; 2) BLM must address the issues raised regarding inaccurate, misleading, or 

unfounded "scientific" statements and conclusions in the NTT (2011) report; and 3) BLM must address the 

issues raised in the Western Energy Alliance letter. 

Comment ID: 2156 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana is concerned about the BLM’s reliance upon the National Technical Team (“NTT”) 

report as its principal guiding document, particularly for oil and gas leasing and operations, because it failed 

to utilize any type of systematic cataloging and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent and 

effectiveness of mitigation measures currently used by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, the NTT report 

is clearly biased as evidenced by its assertion that oil and gas “impacts are universally negative and typically 

severe,” particularly since the NTT utilized little or no useful and site-specific data upon which to base that 

conclusion. Additionally, many of the RDF and Best Management Practices (“BMP”) recommended by the 

NTT fail to recognize valid existing rights and/or fail to reflect the complexity of oil and gas exploration 

and development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all management approach that 

disregards topography, local conditions, and practicality. We recommend that the agencies revisit its design 

features and mitigation to ensure they are technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the 

level of flexibility required when their use may be properly considered on a site-specific basis. Moreover, 

in accordance with current law and regulation, it is inappropriate for the DLUPA to establish these overly 

sitespecific requirements at a programmatic level as proposed. Another major fundamental concern is that 

the NTT report failed to recognize the level of disturbance associated with a well is not constant 

Comment ID: 2950 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: The LUP is based in large part on the draconian findings and recommendations of the Sage 

Grouse National Technical Team (NTT Report, December 21, 2011). However, the findings and 

recommendations of the NTT have been called into question by a number of reports including: • M. 

Maxwell, BLM's NTT Report: Is It the Best Available Science or a Tool to Support a Pre- Determined 

Outcome? May 2013; • R.R. Ramey Ph.D., Review of Data Quality Issues in a Report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Produced by the BLM Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT), 

Dated December 21, 2011. September 19, 2013; and • J. Connelly Ph.D., Federal Agency Responses to 

greater Sage-Grouse and the ESA: Getting Nowhere Fast. Northwest Science Forum, Vol. 88, No. 1, 2014 

Not only has the BLM failed to consider these reports, the BLM has also failed to consider its own 

documents, including Manual 6840. NEPA requires that the best available science be considered but in this 

case it appears that the BLM has replaced, without adequate explanation or evaluation, its own policies and 

best available science with the questionable findings of the NTT. The NTT report also reportedly failed its 

peer review process and its findings are highly controversial even within the Department according to 

internal Department of the Interior documents obtained by the Governor of Idaho and shared with Wyoming 

counterparts. 

Summary: The NTT report relied upon outdated and scientifically flawed studies. Primary sources of 

information relied upon by the NTT were reviewed by the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy 

and Reliability (CESAR) which found: • Significant mischaracterization of previous research • Substantial 

errors and omissions • Lack of independent authorship and peer review (3 of the authors of the NTT are 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-111

also the authors, researchers, and editors on 3 of the most cited sources in the NTT) • Methodological bias 

• Invalid assumptions and analysis • Inadequate data. According to an evaluation of the NTT conducted by 

Renee Taylor for the Coalition of Local Governments and the Northwest Mining Association critique, the 

NTT report is inadequate. See Megan Maxwell’s review titled “BLM’s NTT report: Is It the Best Available 

Science or a Tool to Support a Pre-determined Outcome?” Both conclude that NTT findings overstate or 

misstate existing research and that the NTT omits important peer-reviewed literature. The NTT report cites 

to authority that does not appear in the “Literature Cited” section. For example, J.W. Connelly is cited 12 

times in the report but 25% of the time, there was no source available for review. B.L. Walker was also 

cited 11 times and 45% of the time there was no source available for review. As if to further confuse readers 

or to artificially boost the appearance of authority, the NTT report includes sources in the “Literature Cited” 

section that are not actually used in the document. Regardless of whether these errors are merely 

typographical or intentional, the consequence is the same: the conclusions in the NTT report cannot be 

verified against sources used to support the assertions made by the authors. The NTT report failed to 

consider several important studies and scientific papers relevant to nearly every facet of the report. A 

cursory review produced six articles that the NTT did not evaluate in its report. It appears that the NTT 

ignored benchmark pieces of literature without even a brief explanation for its decision. The NTT authors 

pushed their own perspective to the forefront and compromised the integrity and accuracy of the NTT report 

itself. Whether intentional or benign, the consequence remains the same as the integrity and utility of the 

report falters with the bias of the authors. The NTT report fails to utilize any type of systematic cataloging 

and quantitative evaluation to determine the type, extent, and effectiveness of mitigation measures currently 

used by the oil and gas industry. Moreover, the NTT report is clearly biased as evidenced by its assertion 

that oil and gas "impacts are universally negative and typically severe," particularly since the NTT utilized 

little or no useful and site-specific data upon which to base that conclusion. The sources often cited in the 

NTT report do not directly support the assertions made. For example: • The NTT report states that with 

regards to all priority Greater Sag-Grouse habitat, full reclamation bonds should be required to ensure full 

restoration. However, the source cited only recommends that breeding habitat should be restored to a 

condition that is once again suitable for breeding. NTT authors used the latter and extremely narrow 

principle to support the former and broader principle – a basic flaw in statistical and analytical reasoning. 

The NTT report prescribes restoration on a landscape-scale using authority that never supported the 

sweeping propositions. Connelly et al. 2000 only recommends this level of restoration for areas where there 

has been at least 40% loss of habitat, it does not necessarily apply range-wide, like the NTT implies. • The 

NTT report omits contradictory findings that proper livestock grazing, while accounting for wildlife 

escalation, actually benefits Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and viable populations. • Notwithstanding yearround grazing, direct competition, and vegetation impacts, the NTT report dedicates less than a page to 

analyze the effects of wild horses on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The NTT report assumes that wild horses 

will be managed within existing AMLs but the report makes no mention of reproduction rates, fertility 

measures, gather frequency, or the basic principles that drive wild horse management. Virtually all BLM 

AMLs were set in the first generation of RMPs or decades before sage-grouse were first considered to be 

in decline. Thus reliance on AMLs as having no adverse impact on sage-grouse habitat is seriously flawed. 

Nor does the NTT report describe or distinguish the biological differences in grazing habits and patterns of 

wild horses and livestock. Per individual animal, horses consume more forage than cattle or sheep and 

remove more of the plant which limits vegetative recovery. Wild horses also travel great distances and act 

as vectors for invasive plant species. The irreducible conclusion is that wild horses, unlike cattle or sheep, 

have disparate impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat that the NTT report does not describe or analyze. • 

In addressing the issue of canopy and wildfire, the NTT report cites J.W. Connelly to support the conclusion 

that sagebrush canopy should not be reduced to less than 15% when managing wildfire fuels. Connelly, 

however, discusses a range of 10% to 30% and explicitly states that land treatments should not be based on 

targets, schedules or quotas. The NTT authors omitted the instruction of the Connelly report and arbitrarily 

picked 15% as the target for sagebrush canopy. • The NTT report states that priority habitat should be 

managed so that 70% of the habitat is adequate. A page earlier, however, the report states that 50-70% of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-112 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the range must be adequate to persist. The sources cited do not recommend either the upper or lower range 

offered by the NTT authors. Those sources cited rely on anecdotal evidence of a preferred percentage. 

Response: A National Technical Team (NTT) was formed as an independent, science-based team to ensure 

that the best information about how to manage the Greater Sage-Grouse is reviewed, evaluated, and 

provided to the BLM and the Forest Service in the planning process. The group produced a report in 

December 2011 that identified science-based management considerations to promote sustainable Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations. The NTT report (NTT 2011) used the best current scientific knowledge to guide 

the BLM planning efforts through management considerations to ameliorate threats, focused primarily on 

priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitats on public lands. The NTT report cited 122 references including 

published papers from the formal scientific literature such as Journal of Wildlife Management, 

Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Wildlife Biology, BioScience and others, as well as 

graduate theses and dissertations, conservation strategies, the USFWS 2010 Finding, and other literature 

representing the best available science. The NTT is staying involved as the BLM and the Forest Service 

work through the strategy to make sure that relevant science is considered, reasonably interpreted, and 

accurately presented; and that uncertainties and risks are acknowledged and documented. As a starting point 

for developing a range of alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service used the NTT report and the 

Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report, both of which were based upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time. The purpose of these reports were to identify key areas for Greater 

Sage-Grouse conservation, key threats in those areas, and the extent to which they need to be reduced for 

the species to be conserved. Further, the Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies That 

Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (referred to 

as the BER) provided additional sources of baseline information and management objectives. 

ACECs

Appendices

Appendix H edits

Comment ID: 1977

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. H-1, ACEC’s – In the 4th paragraph, we comment that the BLM criteria for (relevance and

importance), with respect to ACEC’s are in excess of the criteria in the FLPMA on this subject. The ONLY 

criteria in the FLPMA for ACEC designation is , “ ... areas within the public lands where special 

management attention is required ... to protect and prevent IRREPARIABLE DAMAGE, ( my emphasis ), 

...”. The BLM criteria for “relevance and importance” is in excess of the definition from Congress. The

designation by the BLM of ACEC’s under the BLM criteria is an overreach of the authority from Congress 

to BLM on this subject. We comment that only those areas of public land that must be protected from 

“irreparable damage” qualify as ACEC’s under the Law and that the Final must reflect only those areas that 

qualify under the Congressional definition of this term.

Summary: Page H-1, 4th paragraph: The BLM criteria for relevance and importance with respect to ACECs 

are in excess of the criteria in the FLPMA on this subject. The ONLY criteria in the FLPMA for ACEC

designation is, “...areas within the public lands where special management attention is required...to protect 

and prevent IRREPARIABLE DAMAGE (emphasis added)...” The BLM criteria for relevance and

importance is in excess of the definition from Congress. The designation by the BLM of ACECs under the 

BLM criteria is an overreach of the authority from Congress to BLM on this subject. Only those areas of 

public land that must be protected from “irreparable damage” qualify as ACECs under the Law.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-113

Response: The relevance and importance criteria are taken from 43 CFR 1610.7-2(a), which incorporates 

and interprets FLPMA's definition of ACECs and have been through the appropriate public comment and

agency review prior to the finalization of the regulations.

ACECs

Best available information-baseline data

Explain connection between special management areas and sage-grouse

Comment ID: 2868

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 201 of Chapter 3, under the section dealing with a description of the Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern, the document discusses the current areas, but does not link whether these ACECs 

have any sage-grouse habitat, and if so, what types of habitat. Without this linkage the discussion does not 

provide useful information for decision makers. Beginning on page 204 the discussion of the Kemmerer 

Field Office protected areas also discuss ACECs and WSA (Wilderness Study Areas) but many, if not most, 

are for something other than sage-grouse. We don't see information presented that draws the connection 

between these areas and benefits for sage-grouse.

Summary: Page 3-201: The document discusses the current ACEC areas, but does not link whether these 

ACECs have any sage-grouse habitat. Without this linkage the discussion does not provide useful

information for decision makers. The ACECs and WSAs discussed were designated for something other 

than sage-grouse. Please present the connection between these areas and benefits for sage-grouse.

Response: The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to "succinctly describe the

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The description 

shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a 

statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall 

concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR 1502.15). Additionally, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

across a broad geographic area. As such, the BLM described the current conditions and trends in the affected 

environment broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate to program-level land use planning actions.

The BLM complied with these regulations in describing the affected environment. The requisite level of 

information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope 

and nature of the proposed decision. The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various 

appendices is sufficient to support, at the general land use planning-level of analysis, the environmental 

impact analysis resulting from management actions presented in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS.

ACECs

Cumulative impact analysis

Missing ACEC cumulative impacts on human environment

Comment ID: 2508

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-114 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Page 4-487 4.22.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource-Special Designations: Last paragraph 

seemingly leaves out a discussion of inverse cumulative impacts to the human environment through the 

naming of SD/MAs in the TBNG.

Summary: Page 4-487, 4.22.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource-Special Designations: The last paragraph 

leaves out a discussion of inverse cumulative impacts to the human environment through the naming of

SD/MAs in the TBNG.

Response: The cumulative impacts from ACEC designations on other resources and resource uses are 

described in those respective sections of the cumulative impacts analysis (e.g., grazing, socioeconomics,

mineral resources, recreation, etc.).

ACECs

Range of alternatives

Designate a sage-grouse ACEC under the Preferred Alternative

Comment ID: 1383

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Appendix H provides the BLM's analysis of ACEC's but fails to translate these ACEC 

recommendations into action as required by FLPMA. As we have stated above FLPMA requires: Section 

202 © In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall– (1) use and observe the 

principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law; (2) use a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other 

sciences; (3) give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern; (4) 

rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values; (5) 

consider present and potential uses of the public lands; (6) consider the relative scarcity of the values 

involved and the availability of alternative means (including recycling) and sites for realization of those 

values; (7) weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; It is clear that the BLM has 

not given "priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern".

Comment ID: 1800

Organization: The Wilderness Society

Name: Nada Culver

Comment: Priority areas (areas where managing to conserve sage-grouse habitat is the highest management

priority) should be formally designated using a special designation in the final plan. They can be designated 

as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Special Interest Areas (SIA) or through use of an 

alternate type of designation that incorporates important management prescriptions. In either case, it is 

critical for specific management prescriptions that will be applied in the designated areas to be spelled out 

in the plan. The preferred alternative does not include any designations and instead priority and general 

habitat would be open to most land uses, with no new closures to oil and gas development added from the 

current management. We are recommending that the agencies designate a proportion of the priority/core 

habitat as greater-sage-grouse priority areas, and that these areas be selected based on high biological 

priority and lower potential for energy development and other damaging uses. Since these areas will be 

made up of a subset of the priority/core, they clearly meet the relevance and importance criteria, as well as 

criteria for Forest Service SIAs. Further, their special worth is increased in comparison with the 

priority/core habitat as a whole because they are selected in part to protect leks within the priority habitat 

that support the highest densities of birds. Thus, these areas meet the relevance and importance criteria, and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-115

we suggest that they be considered for designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Special 

Interest Areas in the final plan. Even if these priority areas are not designated as ACECs or SIAs, the 

agencies can identify them as other administrative designations, which will still provide for areas of more

protective management. Within priority areas, management should be more protective than in priority/core 

habitat not incorporated in these priority areas, similar to those prescriptions provided in Alternatives B and 

C. Recommended management includes: closures to all energy development, exclusion of rights-of-way, 

closed to cross-country motorized use, motorized and mechanized vehicles limited to designated routes and 

no new routes to be created, seasonally prohibit camping and non-motorized recreation within four 4 miles 

of leks, seasonal/timing restrictions on grazing, permanently retire grazing as opportunities arise, no use of 

categorical exclusions under Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act, three percent cap on surface disturbance. 

The agencies should designate a subset of priority/core habitat as priority areas, which will be designated 

as ACECs, SIAs or with other special designations that incorporate stronger management prescriptions, as 

set out above.

Comment ID: 3093

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: Appendix H also considers Pinedale and Newcastle ACECs. We support the inclusion of those

proposed ACECs as parts of the Core Habitat ACEC. The DEIS recognizes the significant Native American 

cultural values of the Pinedale lands, known as “Seed-ska-dee.” DEIS at H-5. The map of the Proposed 

Pinedale Area ACEC is helpful, and maps specific to each Core Area should be prepared for the FEIS. The 

Big Game Migration corridor should be better mapped, and fully protected by fluid mineral leasing and 

other closures to ensure protection.

Comment ID: 3094

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: Some of this analysis was provided in map layers for the Proposed Newcastle ACEC, but 

existing Map H-3 could be improved to be more reader-friendly and better convey relevant information 

depicted in the existing version. The format of the Pinedale map at H-8 and the maps in the main DEIS are

more accessible and easier to interpret. In designating the ACEC, BLM should provide a detailed 

management plan to ensure the protection of sensitive biological, cultural, and other surface resources. In 

deciding which protections to apply within the Core Habitat ACEC, the agencies should be guided by the 

sage-grouse conservation values, other natural qualities, and current condition of each individual Core Area 

within the larger ACEC.

Comment ID: 2506

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-440 4.21.5 Alternative C: Same as the previous comment on Page 4-438 above. A finding 

of all assigned priority sage-grouse habitat and Audubon Acreage suitable for an ACEC has back-up

scientific information and support?

Summary: Appendix H provides the BLM's analysis of ACECs but fails to translate these ACEC 

recommendations into action as required by FLPMA. The BLM has not given "priority to the designation 

and protection of areas of critical environmental concern." Recommended management includes closures 

to all energy development, exclusion of ROWs, closure to cross-country motorized use, motorized and

mechanized vehicles limited to designated routes and no new routes to be created, seasonally prohibiting 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-116 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

camping and non-motorized recreation within four miles of leks, seasonal/timing restrictions on grazing, 

permanently retiring grazing as opportunities arise, no use of categorical exclusions under Section 390 of 

the Energy Policy Act, and a three percent cap on surface disturbance.

Response: All proposed ACECs were fully considered for designation and management in the resource

management planning process. Although all but one of the proposed ACECs met relevance and importance, 

none of ACECs proposed in Alternatives B and C have been carried forward into the Preferred Alternative 

nor the Proposed LUP Amendments and no management alternatives were developed for the ACECs. 

Appendix H contains the Relevance and Importance Evaluations for the proposed ACECs. No sage-grouse

ACECs are included in the Proposed LUP Amendments. The final decision for these actions will be 

included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public involvement process.

ACECs

Range of alternatives

Do not designate a sage-grouse ACEC

Comment ID: 1527

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG encourages the BLM not to create an ACEC to protect GRSG habitat. EOG supports the 

BLM‘s decision under Alternative D or Alternative E not to designate new GRSG conservation ACECs. 

EOG does not believe that such additional designations are necessary or required in order to protect GRSG

habitat.

Comment ID: 616

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson does not support the BLM's proposal to designate the Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat an ACEC under Alternative B or the proposal to make priority an Audubon Important Habitat an 

ACEC under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-95, Action No. 84. The existing State of Wyoming

Core Area Policy provides sufficient protection for sage-grouse within Wyoming. The designation of an 

ACEC is neither necessary nor warranted. Further, Samson does not believe that the BLM has sufficiently 

justified the creation of the ACECs using the relevance and importance criteria contained in the BLM's 

planning regulations. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2. Samson encourages the BLM not to create an ACEC to protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Samson supports the BLM's decision under Alternative D or Alternative E 

not to designate new sage-grouse conservation ACECs.

Comment ID: 1385

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG supports the BLM‘s decision not to designate all GRSG habitat as an area of critical

environmental concern ("ACEC"). Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-2. EOG agrees designating all potential

GRSG habitat as an ACEC would not meet the relevance and importance criteria required under the BLM‘s 

regulations. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2. EOG also believes, however, that given the significant number of 

unreasonable mitigation measures and other COAs that BLM intends to apply under Alternative B and 

Alternative C, they are also not reasonable alternatives that should not have been considered in detail by 

the BLM.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-117

Comment ID: 682

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Section 4.13 - Special Designations and Management Areas Under Alternatives B and C, the 

BLM should acknowledge that the State of Wyoming working in conjunction with other interested parties, 

including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, developed adequate protections for sage-grouse 

through the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Policy and Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. Therefore, the 

designation of additional ACECs will only complicate future oil and gas development and otherwise unduly 

restrict multiple use management of federal lands.

Comment ID: 1179

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz does not support the BLM’s proposal to designate the Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat an ACEC under Alternative B as the proposal to make priority and Audubon Important Habitat an

ACEC under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-95, Action No. 84. The existing State of Wyoming 

Core Area Policy provides sufficient protection for sage-grouse within Wyoming. The designation of an 

ACEC is neither necessary nor warranted. Further, Anschutz does not believe that the BLM has sufficiently 

justified the creation of the ACECs using the relevance and importance criteria contained in the BLM’s 

planning regulations. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2. Anschutz encourages the BLM not to create an ACEC to protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Anschutz supports the BLM’s decision under Alternative D or Alternative E 

not to designate new sage-grouse conservation ACECs.

Comment ID: 1526

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG does not support the BLM‘s proposal to designate the GRSG priority habitat an ACEC 

under Alternative B or the proposal to make priority and Audubon Important Habitat an ACEC under

Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-95, Action No. 84. The existing State of Wyoming Core Area

Policy provides sufficient protection for GRSG within Wyoming. The designation of an ACEC is neither

necessary nor warranted. Further, EOG does not believe that the BLM has sufficiently justified the creation 

of the ACECs using the relevance and importance criteria contained in the BLM‘s planning regulations. 43 

C.F.R. § 1610.7-2.

Comment ID: 1572

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: As discussed earlier, EOG is opposed to the creation of additional ACECs under Alternative B 

or Alternative C. EOG believes the State of Wyoming working in conjunction with other interested parties, 

including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, developed adequate protections for GRSG through 

the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Policy and Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. The designation of additional 

ACECs will only complicate future oil and gas development and otherwise unduly restrict multiple use 

management of federal lands.

Comment ID: 794

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-118 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Devon is opposed to the creation of additional ACECs under Alternative B or Alternative C.

Comment ID: 2448

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-95 Special Designations and Other Management Areas: Actions 84 and 85- Alternative 

C The statements in both sections seem to conflict with earlier statements in which the reader understands

that large swaths of relevant and important areas based only on size and the restrictions that could be placed 

on the landscape. Please explain how each priority habitat area created by the GIS analysis meets the ACEC 

relevance and importance criteria.

Comment ID: 2238

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana does not support the BLM’s proposal to designate the Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat an ACEC under Alternative B as the proposal to make priority and Audubon Important Habitat an

ACEC under Alternative C. The existing State of Wyoming Core Area Policy provides sufficient protection 

for sage-grouse within Wyoming. The designation of an ACEC is neither necessary nor warranted. Further, 

Encana does not believe that the BLM has sufficiently justified the creation of the ACECs using the 

relevance and importance criteria contained in the BLM’s planning regulations. Encana encourages the 

BLM not to create an ACEC to protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Encana supports the BLM’s decision 

under Alternative D or Alternative E not to designate new sage-grouse conservation ACECs. Encana does 

not believe that such additional designations are necessary or required in order to protect sage-grouse 

habitat. Encana urges the BLM not to select Alternative B or Alternative C.

Comment ID: 3200

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Appendix H General No ACECs are necessary for adequate sage grouse protection.

Comment ID: 2702

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: No ACECs are necessary for adequate sage-grouse protection.

Comment ID: 2294

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: As discussed earlier, Encana is opposed to the creation of additional ACECs under Alternative 

B or Alternative C. Encana believes the State of Wyoming working in conjunction with other interested

parties, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, developed adequate protections for sagegrouse through the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Policy and Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. The

designation of additional ACECs will only complicate future oil and gas development and otherwise unduly 

restrict multiple use management of federal lands.

Comment ID: 2178
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-119

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana supports the BLM’s decision not to designate all sage-grouse habitat as an area of critical

environmental concern (“ACEC”). Encana agrees designating all potential sage-grouse habitat as an ACEC 

would not meet the relevance and importance criteria required under the BLM’s regulations. Encana also 

believes, however, that given the significant number of unreasonable mitigation measures and other COAs 

that BLM intends to apply under Alternative B and Alternative C, they are also not reasonable alternatives 

that should not have been considered in detail by the BLM.

Comment ID: 2818

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page ix of the Executive Summary, the document discusses special management area

designations such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) for protection of sage-grouse. We 

urge the Agencies to reject establishing areas of limited multiple use and feel that sage-grouse protection 

can occur through current mechanisms.

Comment ID: 2828

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 4 of Chapter 2 the Agencies eliminated from consideration the use of ACECs and SIAs 

as an alternative. We support the Agencies elimination of this particular focus and agree that such analysis

was performed under Alternatives B and C.

Summary: BLM should not designate the Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat as an ACEC under 

Alternative B or Audubon Important Habitat as an ACEC under Alternative C. The existing State of 

Wyoming Core Area Policy and Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005 provide sufficient protection for 

sage-grouse within Wyoming. The designation of an ACEC is neither necessary nor warranted. BLM has 

not sufficiently justified the creation of ACECs using the relevance and importance criteria contained in

the BLM's planning regulations. Designation would complicate future oil and gas development and

otherwise unduly restrict multiple use management of federal lands. Actions 84 and 85, Alternative C: The 

statements in both sections seem to conflict with earlier statements in which the reader understands that 

large swaths of relevant and important areas based only on size and the restrictions that could be placed on 

the landscape. Please explain how each priority habitat area created by the GIS analysis meets the ACEC 

relevance and importance criteria.

Response: ACECs were considered under Alternatives B and C; however, the protection of habitat under 

the action alternatives will provide habitat viability for sage-grouse and other sagebrush species while

continuing to allow for valid, existing rights of current leaseholders and other compatible uses of public 

lands. Appendix H contains the Relevance and Importance Evaluations for the proposed ACECs. No sagegrouse ACECs are included in the Proposed LUP Amendments. The final decision for these actions will be 

included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public involvement process.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-120 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

ACECs

Range of alternatives

Raven Creek area ACEC issue

Comment ID: 967

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: Another issue relating to Weston County and the Newcastle Resource Management Plan

Amendment is the Raven Creek Special Management Area. The Raven Creek Special Management Area 

is totally within Weston County. This proposed amendment to the Newcastle Resource Management Plan 

(BLM) was hidden in Table H-4 of Appendix H of The Wyoming Greater Sage- Grouse Draft Land Use 

Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. This particular item was falsely listed as 

being in Crook County. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) are listed in Appendix H and are 

described as follows: As part of the process for developing the Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management 

Plan (RMP)/Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Amendments (hereafter, land use plans [LUP]), 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning team members reviewed all BLM administered public 

lands in the planning area to determine if any areas should be considered for designation as areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC) or if any existing ACEC designations should be modified or terminated. 

Only BLM-administered public lands can be considered for ACEC designation. All of this is very scary 

and hostile to the Custom, Culture and the Economic Well Being of the citizens of Weston County who 

live and ranch in the Raven Creek Area. Also the Weston County Financial assets would be impacted by a 

reduction or loss of revenue. In the 12 Townships covered, there are approximately 16 sections (10,240 

acres) of Thunder Basin National Grassland and 8 sections (5,120 acres) of BLM land. [This acreage 

estimate was taken from an old TBNG map that did not show all of the R 68 W lands.] The point is this: Is 

the BLM also considering all of the “Split-Estate” land as being a part of the proposed ACEC? Has the 

Newcastle BLM Office or the Wyoming BLM ever met with the Weston County Commissioners on this 

matter? Federal Law requires the Newcastle Field Office to bring this matter before the Weston County

Commissioners. Has this been done?

Summary: Is the BLM also considering all of the “split-estate” land in the Raven Creek Special 

Management Area as being a part of the proposed ACEC? BLM should coordinate with Weston County 

before making any ACEC determinations.

Response: The Raven's Creek ACEC was proposed to be withdrawn (made administratively unavailable) 

from oil and gas leasing under Action number 60, page 2-63 in the Draft EIS under Alternative D. This

proposal was discussed with the Weston County Commissioners early in the planning process. BLM

considers resource values on split-estate lands and special management prescriptions may be applied to the 

development of federal mineral estate in order to protect the values. Air Resources Best available 

information-baseline data BACT and New Source Emissions standards should be used

Comment ID: 788

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM should clarify whether it utilized best available control technology ("BACT") 

standards from 2011 or earlier standards. The WDEQ recently completed a rule making significantly 

modifying and reducing BACT standards in Wyoming. These new standards will undoubtedly significantly 

reduce emissions from oil and gas projects. To the extent the BLM has not utilized the most recent BACT

information, the information contained in Chapter 4 will not be accurate. The BLM must also ensure it has 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-121

considered the emissions reductions that will result from the EPA's recent adoption of the New Source 

Emission Standards for oil and gas operations. 40 C.F.R. part 60, subpart 0000 (77 Fed. Reg. 49490 (Aug. 

16, 2012).

Comment ID: 659

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM must also ensure it has considered the emissions reductions that will result from the 

EPA's recent adoption of the New Source Emission Standards for oil and gas operations. 40 C.F.R. part 60,

subpart 0000 (77 Fed. Reg. 49490 (Aug. 16, 2012). These regulations are expected to significantly reduce 

emissions from oil and gas operations.

Comment ID: 1559

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The BLM indicates in Section 4.2.4 that emission factors used to measure proposed emissions 

within the Planning Area were obtained using a variety of sources including the Environmental Protection

Agency ("EPA"), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ("WDEQ"), and the American

Petroleum Institute. The DLUPA also suggests information from WDEQ‘s air quality rules is utilized. The 

BLM should clarify whether it utilized best available control technology ("BACT") standards from 2011 or 

earlier standards. The WDEQ recently completed a rule making significantly modifying and reducing 

BACT standards in Wyoming. These new standards will undoubtedly significantly reduce emissions from 

oil and gas projects. To the extent the BLM has not utilized the most recent BACT information, the 

information contained in Chapter 4 will not be accurate. The BLM must also ensure it has considered the 

emissions reductions that will result from the EPA‘s recent adoption of the New Source Performance 

Standards for oil and gas operations. 40 C.F.R. part 60, subpart 0000 (77 Fed. Reg. 49490 (Aug. 16, 2012). 

As the BLM is aware, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States DOI, and the EPA 

recently entered into an Air Memorandum of Understanding regarding Air Quality Analyses (―Air MOU‖). 

The Air MOU should not be applied to the Sage-Grouse DLUPA because it would not be cost effective to 

do so. The Air MOU specifically allows for agencies not to comply with the time consuming and expensive 

modeling required by the Air MOU if it is not cost effective or timely to implement the procedures of the 

Air MOU. Given the lack of air quality analysis or emission inventories for the Planning Area, it would

require substantial time, effort, and funds for the BLM to gather the necessary data to develop an adequate 

model. And given current funding shortages for the BLM––and its numerous other responsibilities––it 

would not be responsible or appropriate for the BLM to attempt to comply with the Air MOU for the SageGrouse DLUPA. Further, as discussed elsewhere in these comments, given the BLM‘s lack of authority 

over air quality it would not be a responsible or appropriate use of BLM‘s efforts or funds to develop a 

model at this point in time. Given the lack of emissions data or available information regarding air quality 

in the Planning Area, the BLM has adequately explained why additional modeling is not required at this 

time.

Comment ID: 658

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM indicates in Section 4.2.4 that emission factors used to measure proposed emissions 

within the Planning Area were obtained using a variety of sources including the Environmental Protection

Agency ("EPA"), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ("WDEQ"), and the American

Petroleum Institute. The DLUPA also suggests information from WDEQ's air quality rules is utilized. The 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-122 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

BLM should clarify whether it utilized best available control technology ("BACT") standards from 2011 or 

earlier standards. The WDEQ recently completed a rule making significantly modifying and reducing 

BACT standards in Wyoming. These new standards will undoubtedly significantly reduce emissions from 

oil and gas projects. To the extent the BLM has not utilized the most recent BACT information; the 

information contained in Chapter 4 will not be accurate.

Comment ID: 2284

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: The BLM should clarify whether it utilized best available control technology (“BACT”) 

standards from 2011 or earlier standards. The WDEQ recently completed a rule making significantly 

modifying and reducing BACT standards in Wyoming. These new standards will undoubtedly significantly 

reduce emissions from oil and gas projects. To the extent the BLM has not utilized the most recent BACT

information, the information contained in Chapter 4 will not be accurate. The BLM must also ensure it has 

considered the emissions reductions that will result from the EPA’s recent adoption of the New Source 

Emission Standards for oil and gas operations. 40 C.F.R. part 60, subpart 0000 (77 Fed. Reg. 49490 (Aug. 

16, 2012). These regulations are expected to significantly reduce emissions from oil and gas operations.

Summary: The BLM indicates in Section 4.2.4 that emission factors used to measure proposed emissions 

within the planning area were obtained using a variety of sources including the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), and the American Petroleum

Institute. The BLM should clarify whether it utilized best available control technology (BACT) standards 

from 2011 or earlier standards. The WDEQ recently completed a rule making significantly modifying and 

reducing BACT standards in Wyoming. These new standards will undoubtedly significantly reduce 

emissions from oil and gas projects. To the extent the BLM has not utilized the most recent BACT 

information, the information contained in Chapter 4 will not be accurate. The BLM must ensure it has 

considered the emissions reductions that will result from the EPA's recent adoption of the New Source 

Emission Standards for oil and gas operations. These regulations are expected to significantly reduce 

emissions from oil and gas operations.

Response: The calculations used in the analysis use emission factors for existing sources and assume new

sources will comply with WY-DEQ's BACT/Presumptive BACT permitting guidance for oil and gas

production facilities dated March 2010. Air Resources Best available information-baseline data BLM 

should not use Air MOU

Comment ID: 660

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: As the BLM is aware, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States DOl, and 

the EPA recently entered into an Air Memorandum of Understanding regarding Air Quality Analyses ("Air

MOU"). The Air MOU should not be applied to the Sage-Grouse DLUPA because it would not be cost

effective to do so. The Air MOU specifically allows for agencies not to comply with the time consuming 

and expensive modeling required by the Air MOU if it is not cost effective or timely to implement the 

procedures of the Air MOU. Given the lack of air quality analysis or emission inventories for the Planning 

Area, it would require substantial time, effort, and funds for the BLM to gather the necessary data to develop 

an adequate model. And given current funding shortages for the BLM-and its numerous other 

responsibilities-it would not be responsible or appropriate for the BLM to attempt to comply with the Air 

MOU for the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Further, as discussed elsewhere in these comments, given the BLM's 

lack of authority over air quality, it would not be a responsible or appropriate use of BLM's efforts or funds 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-123

to develop a model at this point in time. As noted by the BLM, the agency is already developing a significant 

model to analyze potential impacts of oil and gas development in the Planning Area. Finally, as also 

recognized by the Air MOU, the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA do not require agencies to develop 

information that is not reasonably available. 40 C.P.R. § 1502.22. Rather, when the agency is faced with a 

situation where it does not have complete information, the agency is merely required to inform the public 

about the inadequate data and explain why it would not be feasible to develop such data. id. Given the lack 

of emissions data or available information regarding air quality in the Planning Area, the BLM has 

adequately explained why additional modeling is not required at this time. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-6.

Comment ID: 2285

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: The Air MOU should not be applied to the Sage-Grouse DLUPA because it would not be cost 

effective to do so. The Air MOU specifically allows for agencies not to comply with the time consuming 

and expensive modeling required by the Air MOU if it is not cost effective or timely to implement the

procedures of the Air MOU. Given the lack of air quality analysis or emission inventories for the Planning 

Area, it would require substantial time, effort, and funds for the BLM to gather the necessary data to develop 

an adequate model. And given current funding shortages for the BLM––and its numerous other 

responsibilities––it would not be responsible or appropriate for the BLM to attempt to comply with the Air 

MOU for the Sage- Grouse DLUPA. Further, as discussed elsewhere in these comments, given the BLM’s 

lack of authority over air quality it would not be a responsible or appropriate use of BLM’s efforts or funds 

to develop a model at this point in time. As noted by the BLM, the agency is already developing a significant 

model to analyze potential impacts of oil and gas development in the Planning Area. Given the lack of 

emissions data or available information regarding air quality in the Planning Area, the BLM has adequately 

explained why additional modeling is not required at this time.

Summary The United States Department of Agriculture, the United States DOI, and the EPA recently 

entered into an Air Memorandum of Understanding regarding Air Quality Analyses ("Air MOU"). The Air 

MOU should not be applied to the sage-grouse Draft LUP Amendments because it would not be cost

effective to do so. The Air MOU specifically allows for agencies not to comply with the time consuming 

and expensive modeling required by the Air MOU if it is not cost effective or timely to implement the 

procedures of the Air MOU. Given the lack of air quality analysis or emission inventories for the planning 

area, it would require substantial time, effort, and funds for the BLM to gather the necessary data to develop 

an adequate model. And given current funding shortages for the BLM-and its numerous other 

responsibilities-it would not be responsible or appropriate for the BLM to attempt to comply with the Air 

MOU for the Draft LUP Amendments. Further, as discussed elsewhere in these comments, given the BLM's 

lack of authority over air quality, it would not be a responsible or appropriate use of BLM's efforts or funds 

to develop a model at this point in time. As noted by the BLM, the agency is already developing a significant 

model to analyze potential impacts of oil and gas development in the planning area. The BLM has 

adequately explained why additional modeling is not required at this time.

Response Air quality modeling was not used in the Draft EIS to determine air quality impacts. Rather, an

emissions inventory was used, as described and presented in Section 4.2 of both the Draft and Final EIS.

Air Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Data availability contradictions

Comment ID: 1428
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-124 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Affected Environment, page 3-7, Environmental consequences, page 4-479, and Environmental

consequences, page 4-498 are inconsistent. In Section 3.2.4 (page 3-7) the statement is made that “current 

and complete data on the concentrations of criteria air pollutants for the planning area are not available.” 

Later in the document, on page 4-498 a statement is made as follows, “it is not anticipated that the 

concentrations of these substances would increase to the point where an exceedance of the NAAQS of 

WAAQS would occur”. Then, on page 4-479 the statement “cumulative emissions within the planning area 

would result in air quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards...” These 

statements are contrary, and it is difficult to understand how the future predictions can be made based on 

the fact that the current baseline data is not even available. It is our recommendation that the BLM revise 

the predictions appropriately.

Summary Affected Environment, page 3-7, Environmental Consequences, page 4-479, and Environmental

Consequences, page 4-498 are inconsistent. In Section 3.2.4 (page 3-7) the statement is made that “current 

and complete data on the concentrations of criteria air pollutants for the planning area are not available.” 

Later in the document, on page 4-498 a statement is made as follows, “it is not anticipated that the 

concentrations of these substances would increase to the point where an exceedance of the NAAQS of 

WAAQS would occur.” Then, on page 4-479 the statement “cumulative emissions within the planning area 

would result in air quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards...” These 

statements are contrary, and it is difficult to understand how the future predictions can be made based on 

the fact that the current baseline data is not available. Revise the predictions appropriately.

Response The BLM and Forest Service do not agree these statements are contrary as written. Modeling air

pollutant emission concentrations requires more detailed data than what were available at the time of the 

analysis (statement in Section 3.2.4). Pollutant emission rates (not concentrations of pollutants in the 

ambient air) from the proposed alternatives were estimated based on the best available data and emission 

factors. Based on the results of the analysis, we would not expect the level of emissions released into the 

ambient air to cause exceedances of the NAAQS or WAAQS (statements on pages 4-479 and 4-498).

Air Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Figure 3-44 issues

Comment ID: 2512

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Chapter 3 Figures - Is it Chapter 3 or 5? Figure 3-44. Climate Change in Northern Latitudes 

FIG-41: The scientific source of the temperature anomalies must be shown. Also it appears that the Northern 

Latitudes now includes the sub-tropics around the world? We suggest that the FIG-41 be taken out of the 

Figures section.

Summary: Chapter 3 Figures - Is it Chapter 3 or 5? Figure 3-44. Climate Change in Northern Latitudes 

FIG-41: The scientific source of the temperature anomalies must be shown. Also it appears that the Northern 

Latitudes now includes the sub-tropics around the world? We suggest that the FIG-41 be taken out of the 

Figures section.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-125

Response: Source of the data is NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/). This source has been added to the figure.

Air Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Impacts statements need scientific backing

Comment ID: 918

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: The document contains various statements regarding estimated future impacts and predicted

compliance or non-compliance with ambient air quality standards for the various BLM field offices;

however, the document does not seem to provide much of a scientific basis for supporting these statements. 

For example, there are qualitative statements in the document such as: 1) "it is unlikely that the increased 

emissions will contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard'" 2) "impacts 

to AQRVs from proposed activities are not anticipated to be significant"; and 3) "Potential impacts on PSD 

increments, visibility, and atmospheric deposition in distant Class I NWAs could be substantial.". At a 

minimum, it is suggested that the document incorporate consistency in the various statements made 

regarding estimated air quality levels and future predicted impacts to ambient air quality and Air Quality 

Related Values (AQRVs). Conclusions about specific air quality impacts should be reserved for project 

level analysis.

Summary: The document contains various statements regarding estimated future impacts and predicted

compliance or non-compliance with ambient air quality standards for the various BLM field offices;

however, the document does not seem to provide much of a scientific basis for supporting these statements. 

For example, there are qualitative statements in the document such as: 1) "it is unlikely that the increased 

emissions will contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard'" 2) "impacts 

to AQRVs from proposed activities are not anticipated to be significant"; and 3) "Potential impacts on PSD 

increments, visibility, and atmospheric deposition in distant Class I NWAs could be substantial." At a 

minimum, it is suggested that the document incorporate consistency in the various statements made 

regarding estimated air quality levels and future predicted impacts to ambient air quality and Air Quality 

Related Values (AQRVs). Conclusions about specific air quality impacts should be reserved for project 

level analysis.

Response: The air quality analysis contained in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS is 

appropriate for a LUP-level planning effort. The analysis uses both quantitative and qualitative assessments 

to describe potential impacts on air quality within the planning area. These assessments are based on

professional judgment, scientific literature sources, and consultation with other agencies.

Air Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Incorporate air quality monitoring data

Comment ID: 919

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-126 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Additionally, suggested improvements to the document would be to incorporate historic ambient

monitor data, trend analyses of those data, results from regional-scale air quality modeling analyses, such 

as the Powder River Basin Coal Review, and correlating these supporting data and analyses with futureprojected emission inventory data across the various field offices to substantiate the projected outcomes on 

future ambient air quality levels and AQRVs.

Summary: Incorporate historic ambient monitoring data, trend analyses of those data, results from 

regionalscale air quality modeling analyses such as the Powder River Basin Coal Review, and correlation 

of these supporting data and analyses with future projected emission inventory data across the various field 

offices to substantiate the projected outcomes on future ambient air quality levels and AQRVs.

Response: Air quality monitoring data was used to describe baseline air quality conditions in the planning 

area in Chapter 3 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, and to prepare the analysis of environmental

consequences in Chapter 4. The baseline data presented in Chapter 3 is accurate and appropriate for this 

planning effort.

Air Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Pinedale non-attainment confusion

Comment ID: 920

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: There are conflicting references to the status of the non-attainment area for ozone in the Pinedale

Field Office. In Chapter 4 - Air Quality, on Page 4-5, the following statement is provided: Parts of the

Pinedale Field Office are in a non-attainment area for ozone, and on page 4-478, the following statement is 

provided for the Pinedale Field Office: " ... although the area has not been designated a non-attainment 

area."

Summary: There are conflicting references to the status of the non-attainment area for ozone in the Pinedale

Field Office. In Chapter 4 on Page 4-5, the following statement is provided: “Parts of the Pinedale Field 

Office are in a non-attainment area for ozone.” On page 4-478, the following statement is provided for the 

Pinedale Field Office: " ... although the area has not been designated a nonattainment area." Please clarify.

Response: The discrepancy identified in the comment was addressed in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS. Portions of the Pinedale Field Office have been identified as air quality nonattainment areas for ozone. Therefore, the statement included on page 4-478 was revised.

Climate Change

Impact Analysis

BLM must consider impacts on global climate change

Comment ID: 1192

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: As required by Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3289, the BLM must “consider and analyze

potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises.”20 Certainly an RMP 

and EIS constitutes such a long-range planning exercise. This entails accounting for the impacts of livestock 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-127

grazing either as both emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs), for the reduced ability of the landscape as a 

carbon sink when vegetation is removed as forage, i.e. “carbon pools” that are extracted and turned into 

methane in livestock intestines as well as the effects of a continuation of the hotter, drier trends we have 

seen over the last 40 years and are predicted to continue and accelerate in the future.

Summary: As required by Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3289, the BLM must “consider and analyze

potential climate change impacts when undertaking long-range planning exercises.” Certainly an LUP and 

EIS constitutes such a long-range planning exercise. This entails accounting for the impacts of livestock 

grazing either as both emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs), for the reduced ability of the landscape as a 

carbon sink when vegetation is removed as forage, i.e. “carbon pools” that are extracted and turned into 

methane in livestock intestines as well as the effects of a continuation of the hotter, drier trends over the 

last 40 years that are predicted to continue and accelerate in the future.

Response: The issue of potential climate change is considered and reflected throughout the analysis of

environmental consequences in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Additional analysis of 

the expected effects of climate change on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is displayed in Chapter 3 on page 3-

1. Additional analysis of the expected effects of the proposed management actions on predicted climate 

change is displayed in Chapter 4 in Section 4.2.5 and also in the cumulative effects analysis in Section 

4.22.3.

Climate Change

Range of alternatives

Drought planning limitation

Comment ID: 1358

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 52 puts off drought management planning to "if periods of drought occur" (drought 

occurs in the planning area on average 6 out of 10 years, in other words drought is the norm not the

exception) and even then only to "evaluate" actions to deal with drought. Again, the BLM is proposing nice 

sounding words with no real requirements for implementation.

Summary: Action 52 puts off drought management planning to "if periods of drought occur" and then only 

to "evaluate" actions to deal with drought. Drought occurs in the planning area on average 6 out of 10 years, 

making it the norm, not the exception. The BLM is proposing actions with no real requirements for 

implementation.

Response: The text in Management Action 52 was changed from "If" to "When periods of drought occur..." 

The BLM believes the range of alternatives for Management Action 52 is appropriate. Without knowing

the duration or intensity of future drought occurrences, it is not possible to develop specific management 

actions that are designed to mitigate the effects of drought. The LUP Amendments establish the protocols 

to address drought-related effects, while the specific implementation actions would be identified during the 

implementation stage of the process. In addition, drought-related impacts are also addressed as part of the 

requirement to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health. If drought occurrences affect the ability to meet 

the standards, rangeland management practices would be implemented.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-128 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Oil and gas benefit to cultural resource protection

Comment ID: 635

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM notes that the majority of cultural resources in the Planning Area are identified, 

evaluated, and managed as a result of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act ("NHPA"). Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-19. The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant

portion of these cultural resources has been detected, studied and preserved as a result of oil and gas 

operations within the Planning Area. It is inappropriate to suggest that oil and gas development primarily 

leads to negative impacts to cultural resources when, in fact, oil and gas development has often lead to the 

detection and preservation of such resources.

Summary: The BLM notes that the majority of cultural resources in the planning area are identified, 

evaluated, and managed as a result of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA). The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant portion of these cultural resources

have been detected, studied, and preserved as a result of oil and gas operations. It is inappropriate to suggest 

that oil and gas development primarily leads to negative impacts to cultural resources when, in fact, oil and 

gas development has often lead to the detection and preservation of such resources.

Response: While it is true that oil and gas operations have been the catalyst for cultural resource survey

identification, that does not by default result in detection and preservation of such resources. Typically, 

impacts from oil and gas operations to cultural resource sites must be mitigated, even if that simply means 

moving a project to avoid the cultural resource. Industrial activities in the vicinity of a significant cultural 

resource site have detrimental effects to both the visual component of sites as well as often providing new 

access to the site. Sites affected by oil and gas operations are often excavated because the site will be 

irreversibly damaged by the operation. Cultural resources are a non-renewable resource and once excavated 

cannot be subject to new research technologies as they are developed. The prevailing desire by most 

professional archaeologists is to leave significant cultural resources undisturbed and the viewshed 

surrounding them unaltered. The statement that oil and gas development primarily leads to negative impacts 

is correct. Section 3.3.1 acknowledges that "the majority of cultural resources in the planning area are 

identified, evaluated, and managed as a result of compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA."

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impact Analysis

Consider erosion impacts from grazing

Comment ID: 1394

Organization: Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

Name: Mary Hopkins

Comment: We suggest this modification be made to the conclusion of the first paragraph on Page 4-59:

Alternatively, cattle trails and other heavily trampled and exposed areas could unearth otherwise undetected 

cultural resources and allow them to he recorded and evaluated. Federal agencies should however, consider 

the possibilities of increased erosion and potential effects to cultural resources.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-129

Summary: Page 4-59: Modify the end of the first paragraph as follows: Alternatively, cattle trails and other

heavily trampled and exposed areas could unearth otherwise undetected cultural resources and allow them 

to be recorded and evaluated. Federal agencies should however, consider the possibilities of increased 

erosion and potential effects to cultural resources.

Response: The agencies feel that the analysis is appropriate. The comment requests a minor wording change

and consideration of erosion. Erosion is discussed later in the document on page 4-60 in the Draft EIS.

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impact Analysis

Consider impacts from herbicides

Comment ID: 1395

Organization: Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

Name: Mary Hopkins

Comment: The potential effects to cultural resources from the use of herbicides as a vegetative treatment 

need to be considered. We suggest including the following language on page 4-60 after the first

management discussion under Alternative A. This language is from the BLM Vegetation Treatments Using 

Herbicides, Final EIS, dated June 2007: The use of herbicides for vegetative treatments to improve Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats could have an adverse effect on important cultural resources. While herbicide 

treatments may affect buried organic cultural resources, they are more likely to have a negative effect on 

traditional cultural practices of gathering plant foods or materials important to local tribes or groups. The 

effect of herbicide treatments on cultural resources depends on the method of herbicide application and the 

herbicide type used. Some chemicals can cause soil acidity to increase, which would result in deterioration 

of artifacts-even some types of stone from which artifacts are made. Application of chemical treatments 

can also result in impacts such as altering or obscuring the surfaces of standing wall masonry structures, 

pictograph or petroglyph panels, and organic materials. While chemicals may affect the surface of exposed 

artifacts, they can generally be removed without damage if treated soon after exposure. Organic substances 

used as inactive ingredients in herbicide formulations, such as diesel fuel or kerosene, may contaminate the 

surface soil and seep into the subsurface portions of a site. These organic substances could interfere with 

the radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (C-14) dating of a site. As part of the process of preparing for vegetation

treatments, cultural resource specialists would identify historic properties eligible for the NRHP. Historic 

properties may include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP. Impacts to National Register-eligible cultural resources can be avoided 

through project redesign or be mitigated through recordation, data recovery, monitoring, or other 

appropriate measures. If National Register-eligible cultural resources were discovered during vegetation 

treatments, appropriate actions would be taken to protect these resources or recover data following 

consultation processes. An important concern regarding the presence of non-cultural resource personnel on 

the ground during herbicide treatments is the unauthorized collection of artifactual material, especially from 

National Register-eligible properties. Procedures would be developed, as part of an unanticipated 

discoveries plan that would include reporting previously unrecorded cultural resources to local BLM 

professionals.

Comment ID: 1396

Organization: Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

Name: Mary Hopkins
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-130 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: We suggest including this language under Alternatives B through E on pages 4-61 through 4-

65: Management actions for vegetative treatments using herbicides would have the same impacts as those 

in Alternative A.

Summary: The potential effects to cultural resources from the use of herbicides as a vegetative treatment 

need to be considered. Consider including the following language on Page 4-60 after the first management

discussion under Alternative A. This language is from the BLM Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides, 

Final EIS, dated June 2007: The use of herbicides for vegetative treatments to improve Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats could have an adverse effect on important cultural resources. While herbicide treatments may affect 

buried organic cultural resources, they are more likely to have a negative effect on traditional cultural 

practices of gathering plant foods or materials important to local tribes or groups. The effect of herbicide 

treatments on cultural resources depends on the method of herbicide application and the herbicide type 

used. Some chemicals can cause soil acidity to increase, which would result in deterioration of artifactseven some types of stone from which artifacts are made. Application of chemical treatments can also result 

in impacts such as altering or obscuring the surfaces of standing wall masonry structures, pictograph or 

petroglyph panels, and organic materials. While chemicals may affect the surface of exposed artifacts, they 

can generally be removed without damage if treated soon after exposure. Organic substances used as 

inactive ingredients in herbicide formulations, such as diesel fuel or kerosene, may contaminate the surface

soil and seep into the subsurface portions of a site. These organic substances could interfere with the

radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (C-14) dating of a site. As part of the process of preparing for vegetation

treatments, cultural resource specialists would identify historic properties eligible for the NRHP. Historic 

properties may include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP. Impacts to National Register-eligible cultural resources can be avoided 

through project redesign or be mitigated through recordation, data recovery, monitoring, or other 

appropriate measures. If National Register-eligible cultural resources were discovered during vegetation 

treatments, appropriate actions would be taken to protect these resources or recover data following 

consultation processes. An important concern regarding the presence of non-cultural resource personnel on 

the ground during herbicide treatments is the unauthorized collection of artifactual material, especially from 

National Register-eligible properties. Procedures would be developed, as part of an unanticipated 

discoveries plan that would include reporting previously unrecorded cultural resources to local BLM 

professionals. Include this language under Alternatives B through E on pages 4-61 through 4-65: 

Management actions for vegetative treatments using herbicides would have the same impacts as those under

Alternative A.

Response: The impact analysis has been revised by incorporating part of the suggested language.

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impact Analysis

Define pot hunting

Comment ID: 1432

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Environmental Consequences, page 4-59. The statement is made as follows, “Without sufficient 

law enforcement associated with recreational activities, actions such as off-road travel, inadvertent

vandalism and pot hunting could result in a loss of cultural resources and information”. There was no

definition of “pot hunting” in the glossary section; as written we were unsure if this was a typographical 

error.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-131

Summary: Page 4-59. The statement is made as follows, “Without sufficient law enforcement associated 

with recreational activities, actions such as off-road travel, inadvertent vandalism and pot hunting could

result in a loss of cultural resources and information.” There was no definition of “pot hunting” in the

glossary section. As written we were unsure if this was a typographical error.

Response: The impact analysis has been revised.

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impact Analysis

Impacts to cultural resources unrelated to sage-grouse are out of scope

Comment ID: 2909

Organization: TransWest Express LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: The cultural resources analysis appears to have widely strayed from the LUPA/EIS's purpose 

and need to "address management of sage-grouse habitat" and to incorporate "adequate regulatory

mechanisms." The purpose of the LUPA/EIS is not to evaluate and disclose how human infrastructure

development such as transmission lines might impact cultural resources. However, this example from page 

4-58 includes nothing substantial about sage-grouse at all: Cultural resources could be impacted by the 

development of transmission lines within new and existing utility corridors, specifically surface 

disturbances from construction of poles, roads, and ancillary features, and visual impacts to the setting. Not 

allowing or avoiding new corridor development in specific areas, such as Bates Hole and Sand Hills 

Management Area, could help protect cultural resources in these areas by eliminating tbe potential for 

surface-disturbing activities and visual impacts caused by the right-of-way (ROW) activities. Under this 

alternative, excluding 285,930 acres from ROW development would protect cultural resources from 

potential damage associated with ROW development (Map 2-9). Managing 2,460,340 acres as ROW 

avoidance areas could also protect cultural resources from potential development. However, ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas could also result in longer ROWs (to get around the avoidance/exclusion 

area). This would result in more surface disturbance and increased potential to impact cultural resources.

Allowing wind energy development within sage-grouse core habitat areas could adversely impact cultural 

resources in those areas. Closing 437,120 acres in the planning area to wind energy development would 

help protect cultural resources from surface disturbing activities and associated visual impacts. It appears 

that BLM is seeking to use a rationale of sage-grouse protection to try to inhibit or slow resource 

development to "protect cultural resources." This is completely outside the scope of the Wyoming SageGrouse Draft LUPA/EIS; therefore, such analysis and proposed management actions must be deleted from 

the LUPA/ElS.

Summary: The cultural resources analysis appears to have widely strayed from the purpose and need of the

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS to "address management of sage-grouse habitat" and to incorporate 

"adequate regulatory mechanisms." The purpose of the LUP Amendments/EIS is not to evaluate and 

disclose how human infrastructure development such as transmission lines might impact cultural resources. 

It appears that BLM is seeking to use a rationale of sage-grouse protection to try to inhibit or slow resource 

development to "protect cultural resources." The cultural resource impacts analysis, and other analyses 

throughout the document, is completely outside the scope of the document; therefore, such analysis and 

proposed management actions must be deleted.

Response: Chapter 4 contains the analysis of the impacts from the management actions in Chapter 2 to the

various resources within the planning area. It is the impacts to cultural resources from the management 

actions for sage-grouse (in Chapter 2) that is analyzed in Section 4.3.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-132 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impact Analysis

Mineral development benefits cultural resources

Comment ID: 789

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon disagrees with the BLM's assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing activities 

will always result in the destruction of cultural resources. Devon believes that by complying with the NHPA 

and other BLM policies, cultural reso11rces are almost always properly identified, inventoried and 

preserved. Devon does not believe surface disturbing operations associated with oil and gas development 

result in the routine destruction of cultural resources.

Comment ID: 661

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson disagrees with the BLM's assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing activities 

will always result in the destruction of cultural resources. Samson believes that by complying with the

NHPA and other BLM policies, cultural resources are almost always properly identified, inventoried and 

preserved.

Comment ID: 1779

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips disagrees with the BLM’s assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing 

activities will always result in the destruction of cultural resources. ConocoPhillips believes that by 

complying with the NHPA and other BLM policies, cultural resources are almost always properly 

identified, inventoried and preserved. ConocoPhillips does not believe surface disturbing operations 

associated with oil and gas development result in the routine destruction of cultural resources.

Comment ID: 1776

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: The BLM notes that the majority of cultural resources in the Planning Area are identified, 

evaluated, and managed as a result of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (“NHPA”). Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-19. The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant

portion of these cultural resources has been detected, studied and preserved as a result of oil and gas 

operations within the Planning Area. It is inappropriate to suggest that oil and gas development primarily 

leads to negative impacts to cultural resources when, in fact, oil and gas development has often lead to the 

detection and preservation of such resources.

Comment ID: 783

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-133

Comment: The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant portion of these cultural resources has 

been detected, studied and preserved as a result of oil and gas operations within the Planning Area. It is

inappropriate to suggest that oil and gas development primarily leads to negative impacts to cultural

resources when, in fact, oil and gas development has often lead to the detection and preservation of such 

resources.

Comment ID: 1206

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: The BLM notes that the majority of cultural resources in the Planning Area are identified, 

evaluated, and managed as a result of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (“NHPA”). Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-19. The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant

portion of these cultural resources has been detected, studied and preserved as a result of oil and gas 

operations within the Planning Area. It is inappropriate to suggest that oil and gas development primarily 

leads to negative impacts to cultural resources when, in fact, oil and gas development has often lead to the 

detection and preservation of such resources.

Comment ID: 1561

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG disagrees with the BLM‘s assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing activities 

will always result in the destruction of cultural resources. EOG believes that by complying with the NHPA

and other BLM policies, cultural resources are almost always properly identified, inventoried and

preserved. EOG does not believe surface disturbing operations associated with oil and gas development 

result in the routine destruction of cultural resources.

Comment ID: 1214

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz disagrees with the BLM’s assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing activities 

will always result in the destruction of cultural resources. Anschutz believes that by complying with the

NHPA and other BLM policies, cultural resources are almost always properly identified, inventoried and 

preserved. Anschutz does not believe surface disturbing operations associated with oil and gas development 

result in the routine destruction of cultural resources.

Comment ID: 1546

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant portion of these cultural resources has 

been detected, studied and preserved as a result of oil and gas operations within the Planning Area. It is

inappropriate to suggest that oil and gas development primarily leads to negative impacts to cultural

resources when, in fact, oil and gas development has often lead to the detection and preservation of such 

resources.

Comment ID: 2280

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-134 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The BLM should specifically recognize that a significant portion of these cultural resources has 

been detected, studied and preserved as a result of oil and gas operations within the Planning Area. It is

inappropriate to suggest that oil and gas development primarily leads to negative impacts to cultural

resources when, in fact, oil and gas development has often lead to the detection and preservation of such 

resources.

Comment ID: 2286

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana disagrees with the BLM’s assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing activities 

will always result in the destruction of cultural resources. Encana believes that by complying with the

NHPA and other BLM policies, cultural resources are almost always properly identified, inventoried and 

preserved. Encana does not believe surface disturbing operations associated with oil and gas development 

result in the routine destruction of cultural resources.

Summary: The assumption in Section 4.3.2 that surface disturbing activities will always result in the 

destruction of cultural resources is incorrect. By complying with the NHPA and other BLM policies, 

cultural resources are almost always properly identified, inventoried and preserved by mineral developers.

Response: The assumption does not say that destruction will always occur, but that it could occur in the

absence of mitigation. The assumption goes on to cite the same mitigation measures identified in the

comment. The assumption is correct as written.

Fire and Fuels

Best available information-baseline data

Chapter 3 edits

Comment ID: 2637

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 3-457, paragraph 1, line 2: Insert "annually" after "wildfires".

Comment ID: 3137

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 3.20.1 3‐ 457 Paragraph 1, line 2 Insert ”annually” after “wildfires”.

Comment ID: 2481

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Chapter 3 - Wildland Fire and Fuels - TBNG Page 3-462: Should there be a discussion of 

wildland fires in greater sage-grouse core habitat areas?

Summary: Page 3-457, paragraph 1, line 2: Insert "annually" after "wildfires". Page 3-462, Wildland Fire 

and Fuels, TBNG: Should there be a discussion of wildland fires in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas?
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-135

Response: The text has been modified to clarify the location of wildland fires and to add the word "annually" 

as suggested.

Fire and Fuels

Impact Analysis

Roads provide fire breaks

Comment ID: 799

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Under each alternative, the BLM should acknowledge that access roads created by oil and gas

activities can increase Wildfire suppression effectiveness by providing access routes for fire engines and 

pre-existing fuel breaks. The BLM should also acknowledge that a reduction in the number of access roads 

could lead to less effective fire suppression efforts and therefore a lower level of protection to sage-grouse 

habitat from wildfire.

Summary: Under each alternative, the BLM should acknowledge that access roads created by oil and gas

activities can increase wildfire suppression effectiveness by providing access routes for fire engines and 

pre-existing fuel breaks. The BLM should also acknowledge that a reduction in the number of access roads 

could lead to less effective fire suppression efforts and therefore a lower level of protection to sage-grouse 

habitat from wildfire.

Response: The analysis of environmental consequences in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS (Section 4.20) discloses that roads and other ROWs can facilitate the transportation of fire suppression 

equipment and create fuel breaks.

Fire and Fuels

Impact Analysis

Surface use restrictions don't greatly reduce fire risk

Comment ID: 2014

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: While AEMA agrees with BLM that proliferation of invasive and noxious weeds contributes to 

an increase risk in fire potential, AEMA disagrees with BLM that minimizing anthropogenic disturbances

will reduce invasive and noxious weeds from spreading, and thus reduce the risk of fire to any sort of

meaningful level, in light of the fire-invasive species cycle. BLM must quantify and explain how the

proposed surface use restrictions and prohibitions will result in any meaningful reduction in the spread of 

invasive species in the context of existing BMPs/RDFs imposed on surface disturbing activities

Comment ID: 1886

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: Table 3-135 indicates that the vast majority of fires between 2002 and 2011 were caused by 

natural events, and that the natural wildfires burned significantly more acreage than human-caused fires 

(Ch. 3 at 3-453). In general the natural events were more damaging. Interestingly, the fire data indicates

that for the Pinedale Field Office fire frequency is low; which indicates that heavily developed lands (energy 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-136 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

infrastructure) in this area does not necessarily lead to an increase in fire potential (See generally Table 3-

135 and, 3-524), which undermines BLMs assumption that there is a direct relationship between density of 

human use and frequency of human-caused fires (Ch. 4 at 4-399). Throughout the impact analysis BLM 

asserts that there is an increased risk of human-caused-fire as a result of human-caused disturbances, such 

as ROWs and mineral developments. However BLM fails to quantify this risk, and provides no evidence 

to support the assertion. BLM later asserts that mineral exploration and development could reduce the size 

and intensity of fires due to a decrease in fuel loads, fire breaks, and improved access (Ch.4 at 4-400). BLM 

must explain its rationale for placing more restrictions on minerals and other development, in light of the 

relatively small number of acreage lost as a result of human activities (See Ch.4 at 399).

Comment ID: 2052

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM assumes that human-caused fires would decrease as a result of use prohibitions and

restrictions, but it certainly will not reduce the potential for large catastrophic fire as a result of fuel loading 

due to cover thresholds, for example (See Ch. 4 at 4-403); which essentially makes long-term restoration 

of sagebrush habitat (which will take a couple of decades to achieve) BLM’s primary objective – rather 

than protecting sage-grouse populations now and in the next decade or so. AEMA vehemently opposes this 

misguided objective and urges BLM to recognize that simply removing and prohibiting anthropogenic 

features will not lead to a decrease in fire potential, especially in light of the statistics reported in Table 3-

135.

Summary: While the proliferation of invasive and noxious weeds contributes to an increase risk in fire 

potential, minimizing anthropogenic disturbances will not necessarily reduce weeds from spreading, and 

thus reduce the risk of fire to any sort of meaningful level, in light of the fire-invasive species cycle. BLM

must quantify and explain how the proposed surface use restrictions and prohibitions will result in any 

meaningful reduction in the spread of invasive species in the context of existing BMPs/RDFs imposed on 

surface disturbing activities. Removing and prohibiting anthropogenic features will not lead to a decrease 

in fire potential, especially in light of the statistics reported in Table 3-135.

Response: Reducing surface disturbing activities would indeed reduce the proliferation of non-native 

invasive vegetation species (Roads as Conduits for Exotic Plant Invasions in a Semiarid Landscape -

Conservation Biology, 2003) and thereby reduce fire frequency and size (Effects of Invasive Alien Plants 

on Fire Regimes – Bioscience, 2004). Additionally, human-caused fires have been shown to occur more 

frequently when there is motorized access to an area (Spatial Patterns of Modern Period Human-Caused 

fire Occurrence in the Missouri Ozark Highlands - Forest Science, 2007; Factors influencing wildfire 

occurrence and distribution in eastern Kentucky, USA – International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2007; 

Human influence on California Fire Regimes - Ecological Applications, 2007). The only type of 

quantification that is possible regarding how the proposed surface use restrictions would reduce the spread 

of invasive vegetation species is to determine the extent of the restrictions and assume that the proliferation 

of invasive vegetation species would be reduced in these areas. This assessment is based on professional 

judgment, literature sources, and consultation with other agencies. The exact level of reduction is 

impossible to quantify, as it's based on a complex interrelation of multiple factors.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Adopt COT report fire-related conservation measures

Comment ID: 1923
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-137

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: To address the threat of fire, the COT Report identifies an objective of "Retain and restore 

healthy native sagebrush plant communities within the range of sage-grouse." Conservation measures under

this threat include (1) "eliminate intentional fires in sagebrush habitats, including prescribed burning of 

breeding and winter habitats" and (2) "immediately suppress fire in sagebrush habitats". However, these 

conservation measures have not been specifically included in the preferred alternative - instead the land 

management agencies have opted to retain the use of fire under these conditions as a habitat management 

tool (presumably to fulfill other resource management objectives). Additionally, the DEIS does not 

specifically contain the conservation measure to "monitor and control invasive vegetation post-wildfire for 

at least three years." We recommend that you reconsider all three of these conservation measures in your 

planning efforts.

Summary: To address the threat of fire, the COT report identifies an objective of "Retain and restore healthy

native sagebrush plant communities within the range of sage-grouse." Conservation measures under this 

threat include (1) "eliminate intentional fires in sagebrush habitats, including prescribed burning of breeding 

and winter habitats" and (2) "immediately suppress fire in sagebrush habitats." However, these conservation 

measures have not been specifically included in the Preferred Alternative - instead the land management 

agencies have opted to retain the use of fire under these conditions as a habitat management tool 

(presumably to fulfill other resource management objectives). Additionally, the Draft EIS does not 

specifically contain the conservation measure to "monitor and control invasive vegetation post-wildfire for 

at least three years." Please include all three of these conservation measures in the proposed plan.

Response: Federal firefighting agencies such as the BLM and Forest Service apply risk management 

principals when determining how to respond to wildfire incidents. The conditions and settings of each 

wildfire incident are situational and unique. Sage-grouse amendment objectives, standards, and guides that

are programmatic will inform suppression responses, but cannot dictate tactics because of the need to assure 

firefighter and public safety. The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives regarding fire and 

fuels management. The actions identified in the comment are within the range of alternatives and were 

analyzed in detail in the Chapter 4 analysis of environmental consequences. The final decision regarding 

the alternatives will be made in the Record of Decision after the land use planning process is completed.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Ban prescribed fire

Comment ID: 215

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: BLM SHOULD WAIT FOR NATURAL FIRE AND SHOULD PROSECTE ANYPOP 

EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVT WHO SET THE FIRE FOR OVERTIMEWORK. THERE IS NO NEED 

FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING. BAN ALL PRESCRIBED BURNING.

Comment ID: 1677

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-138 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Do not use 

prescribed fire as a tool in low elevation areas where the potential for cheatgrass invasion is above low.

Comment ID: 2262

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: Action 26, Page 2-18: “Fire and fuels management would contribute to the protection and

enhancement of sagebrush habitat that support Greater Sage-Grouse populations (including large

contiguous blocks of sagebrush)” Action 29, Page 2-18: Within acceptable risk levels, utilize a full range 

of fire management strategies and tactics, including the management of wildfires to achieve resource

objectives across the range of sage-grouse habitat consistent with land use plan direction. Also, Actions 

under Wildland Fire and Fuels Management (pages 2-115-132). Regarding these actions and statements 

above (notably “fire and fuels management would contribute to enhancement “...” and “a full range of fire 

management strategies and tactics”), we do not support broadcast, prescribed fire to manage habitat for 

sage-grouse, including use of fire to remove and manage juniper, as this approach is well known to fail 

(e.g., Bates et al. 2011, Beck et al. 2011, 2012, Rhodes et al. 2010).

Summary: The plan should eliminate the use of prescribed fire in sage-grouse habitat. Do not use prescribed 

fire as a tool in low elevation areas where the potential for cheatgrass invasion is above low. Using

prescribed fire to manage habitat for sage-grouse, including use of fire to remove and manage juniper, is 

well known to fail (e.g., Bates et al. 2011, Beck et al. 2011, 2012, Rhodes et al. 2010).

Response: The BLM and Forest Service have determined that, in some cases, prescribed fire is an effective 

tool in treating vegetation for purposes of conserving desired species. However, the BLM and Forest

Service also realize the limitations of using prescribed fire. Therefore, the Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable 

range of alternatives regarding the use of vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire. The final decision 

regarding the alternatives and management actions therein will be made in the Record of Decision after the 

land use planning process is completed. In addition, Appendix A includes specific protocols for treating 

vegetation in sage-grouse habitats. These protocols are designed to ensure that adverse impacts to sagegrouse habitat that could result from using prescribed fire do not occur.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Chapter 2 edits

Comment ID: 2860

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Items 120 - 123 in Table 2-1 under Alternative C advocates excluding livestock from areas in 

some cases until woody and herbaceous plants achieve habitat objects. We strongly reject the idea of such

actions, both from a practical standpoint as well as an economic standpoint. Item 124 in Table 2-1 Under 

Alternative A states that "Appropriate management response will be used on all wildfires in the planning 

area." We would like some clarification on what that exactly means. Further in the discussion under 

Alternative A it talks about full protection strategies. We believe livestock forage protection should be 

added to the full protection strategy since the implications to these producers are significant.

Summary: Items 120 - 123 in Table 2-1 under Alternative C advocates excluding livestock from areas in 

some cases until woody and herbaceous plants achieve habitat objects. We strongly reject the idea of such
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-139

actions, both from a practical standpoint as well as an economic standpoint. Item 124 in Table 2-1 Under 

Alternative A states that "Appropriate management response will be used on all wildfires in the planning 

area." We would like some clarification on what that exactly means. Further in the discussion under 

Alternative A it talks about full protection strategies. We believe livestock forage protection should be 

added to the full protection strategy since the implications to these producers are significant.

Response: Your concerns about Alternative C have been noted. The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range 

of alternatives regarding fire and fuels management. The alternatives are being considered by the BLM and 

Forest Service along with the Chapter 4 analysis of environmental consequences. Livestock forage is a 

resource value that will be considered when developing strategies and tactics during a wildfire event. The 

final decision regarding the alternatives and associated management actions will be made in the Record of 

Decision after the land use planning process is completed. "Appropriate Management Response" (AMR) 

as mentioned in Action 124 in Table 2-1 is any specific action suitable to meet Fire Management Unit 

objectives. Typically, the AMR ranges across a spectrum of tactical options (from monitoring to intensive 

management actions such as full suppression). The AMR is developed by using Fire Management Unit 

strategies and objectives identified in the Fire Management Plan. Appropriate Management Response is the 

term used in the TBNG and MBNF LRMPs to describe the suppression actions that would be used on these 

units. We are unable to modify Alternative A to include livestock forage protection to the full protection

strategy because it is a reflection of the no action alternative. The recommendation to add protection of 

livestock forage to the list of high value resources to be protected during fire use on the Bridger-Teton 

National Forest has been forwarded to Forest Service fire manager for consideration. Amendment of the 

BTNF Fire Management Plan is outside the scope of the purpose and need for this analysis.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Collaborate to reduce fire impacts

Comment ID: 11

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Name: Thom Seal

Comment: BLM/USFS should be working with ranchers and miners and the Rangeland Fire Protection to

mitigate fire and grouse habitat instead of adding withdrawals. The land, left unattended, builds up a large 

fuel load and is just waiting for a lightning strike. BLM/USFS should be proactive in lowering the fuels 

and fighting fires, instead of proposing the cutting of grazing allotments and minerals withdrawals. Instead 

of penalizing public land users they should be working with them, giving them incentives.

Comment ID: 2848

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 52 in Table 2-1 discusses actions for drought, fire and other natural causes as discerned by 

the discussion for Alternative A. Natural disasters cause significant disruption for all entities and we suggest 

that wording be adopted by the Agencies similar to that discussed under Item 49 in the Rawlins RMP as a 

process the Agencies should use for these disasters. We do not support the proposed actions outlined for 

Alternatives B and C.

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service should work with ranchers and miners to reduce fire on sagegrouse habitat instead of adding withdrawals. Left unattended, rangelands build up a large fuel load. The

agencies should be proactive in lowering fuel levels and fighting fires.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-140 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service do indeed work with livestock and mineral operators to reduce fire 

on BLM- and Forest Service-managed lands. Withdrawing areas from mineral location is generally

intended to eliminate surface disturbing activities associated with mining in sensitive areas.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Reduce fuels in sage-grouse habitat

Comment ID: 1855

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: Contrary to the WBP finding which indicates that fuels management activities can benefit 

sagegrouse, Alternatives B, C, E will subject sagebrush ecosystems/sage-grouse habitats to increased 

fuelloading and potential for catastrophic fire. BLM must explain how increased fire potential in the shortterm will benefit sage-grouse in the long-term; especially if sage-grouse are incapable of persisting in 

fragmented habitat, devoid of sagebrush cover as a result of wildfire. Under this assumption, most if not all 

the sage-grouse in areas impacted by fire would die; therefore there would dramatically reduced numbers 

of sage-grouse in the long-term.

Summary: Contrary to findings which indicate that fuels management activities can benefit sage-grouse,

Alternatives B, C, E will subject sagebrush ecosystems/sage-grouse habitats to increased fuel-loading and 

the potential for catastrophic fire. BLM must explain how increased fire potential in the shortterm will 

benefit sage-grouse in the long-term; especially if sage-grouse are incapable of persisting in fragmented 

habitat, devoid of sagebrush cover as a result of wildfire. Under this assumption, most if not all the sagegrouse in areas impacted by fire would die; therefore there would dramatically reduced numbers of sagegrouse in the long-term.

Response: The implementation of the actions under Alternatives B, C, and E would not necessarily increase 

fuel loads. While some level of increased fuel loading could occur from restricting surface disturbing

activities, those same actions would also decrease the potential for unintentional ignitions and thereby 

decrease the potential for wildfire events. In addition, vegetation and weed treatments would decrease both 

standing and non-standing vegetation (fuel load) across the decision area, which would decrease the 

intensity of wildland fires, and allow fires to be more easily controlled. Furthermore, habitat improvements 

for sage-grouse could improve vegetation and ecological health and resistance to fires, which would reduce 

the occurrence of uncharacteristic, large wildland fires, the need for fire suppression, and fire rehabilitation 

costs.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Support for Alternative E

Comment ID: 2858

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 114 in Table 2-1 deals with wildland fire and fuel management. Under the preferred 

alternative, the Agencies have set themselves a deadline of December of this year to establish a fuels

management strategy. We strongly urge the Agencies to carry this process out as expeditiously as possible 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-141

sine it is a critical management need, especially if there are conditions which lend themselves to wildland 

fires. We support Alternative E's desire to utilize livestock grazing to limit these types of fires.

Comment ID: 2859

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: We support aggressive fire suppression in sage-grouse core habitat identified in Alternative E 

since fire seems to have been a significant factor in other areas in the west in habitat destruction.

Summary: The commenter supports aggressive fire suppression in sage-grouse core habitat identified in

Alternative E since fire has been a significant factor in other areas in the west in habitat destruction. Under 

the Preferred Alternative, the BLM and Forest Service have set a deadline of December 2014 to establish a 

fuels management strategy. This process must be carried out as expeditiously as possible since it is a critical 

management need, especially if there are conditions which lend themselves to wildland fires. Continue to 

utilize livestock grazing to limit wildland fires.

Response: Federal firefighting agencies such as the BLM and Forest Service apply risk management 

principals when determining how to respond to wildfire incidents. The conditions and settings of each 

wildfire incident are situational and unique. Sage-grouse amendment objectives, standards, and guides that

are programmatic will inform suppression responses, but cannot dictate tactics because of the need to assure 

firefighter and public safety. The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives regarding fire and 

fuels management. The alternatives are being considered by the BLM and Forest Service along with the 

Chapter 4 analysis of environmental consequences. The BLM and Forest Service understand the importance 

of fire suppression activities and how they relate to the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. The final 

decision regarding the alternatives will be made in the Record of Decision after the land use planning 

process is completed.

Fire and Fuels

Range of alternatives

Will controlled burns be restored?

Comment ID: 1476

Organization:

Name: Denise Langley

Comment: Pg. 2-208 DEIS “Burned areas within sage-grouse core habitats would be restored.” Does this 

include areas burned within sage grouse core areas by controlled burns? How tall does the sagebrush have

to grow before allowing grazing again and can the areas be grazed during the winter to offset summer 

nonuse for growth?

Summary: Page 2-208: “Burned areas within sage-grouse core habitats would be restored.” Does this 

include areas burned within sage-grouse core areas by controlled burns?

Response: Yes, the intent of the management action is that areas burned by either wildfire or prescribed fire

within sage-grouse core habitats would be restored.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-142 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Additional references to add

Comment ID: 1917

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Additional literature cited for updates to trophy game sections Bjornlie, D. D., D. J. Thompson, 

M. A. Haroldson, C. C. Schwartz, K. A. Gunter, S. L. Cain, D. B. Tyers, K. L. Frey, and B. C. Aber. 2013. 

Methods to estimate distribution and range extent of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. DOI:O.l 002/wsb.368 Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services, and Eastern Shoshone and 

Northern Arapahoe Tribal-Fish and Game Department. 2013. 2012 Wyoming Gray Wolf Population 

Monitoring and Management Annual Report. K.J. Mills and R.F. Trebelcock, eds. Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department, 5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006.

Summary: The following is additional literature cited for updates to trophy game sections: Bjornlie, D. D., 

D. J. Thompson, M. A. Haroldson, C. C. Schwartz, K. A. Gunter, S. L. Cain, D. B. Tyers, K. L. Frey, and 

B. C. Aber. 2013. Methods to estimate distribution and range extent of grizzly bears in the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Society Bulletin. DOI:O.l 002/wsb.368 Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDAAPHIS- Wildlife Services, and 

Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribal-Fish and Game Department. 2013. 2012 Wyoming Gray 

Wolf Population Monitoring and Management Annual Report. K.J. Mills and R.F. Trebelcock, eds. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82006.

Response: The text and references have been updated with the suggested literature.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Black bear language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1913

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-501, Black bear and mountain lion, we recommend language be modified as shown.

Mountain Lion The wide distribution of mountain lion (Puma concolor) observations indicates that this 

species is presently found throughout much of the Rock Springs Field Office area within suitable habitat.

Indications are that distribution is widespread. Mountain lions reside in the broken juniper and rimrock 

areas south of Wilkins Peak to the Utah border and in the Haystacks. Cats have been observed on Cooper 

Ridge, in Adobe Town, on Steamboat Mountain, Little Mountain, and in the Wind River foothills. The 

main habitat component restricting mountain lion populations in the field office is the absence of large, 

undisturbed, remote wild areas or adequate prey therein. Black Bear Suitable bear habitat exists over about 

189 square miles of land in the field office. Black bear occupy timbered habitats along the Wind River 

Mountains and near the Colorado border. The BLM has found evidence of bear activity on Little and Pine

Mountains. Occasionally, black bears are seen or tracks noted along the Sweetwater River and its tributaries 

and upper reaches of Little and Big Sandy Creeks, with a slight increase in sightings/ tracks likely related 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-143

to natural dispersal of young male black bears in the past few years. Most of the legally harvested black 

bears are taken in the Bridget National Forest.

Comment ID: 1911

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-470, Black bear and mountain lion, we recommend language be modified as shown.

Black Bear Black bears occur within the planning area and primarily inhabit forested habitat types (i.e., 

Laramie Range, Wind River Range, Muddy Mountain, and the South Bighorns) at higher elevations. They 

are found within the aspen-conifer areas during spring and early summer (BLM 1985). These bears appear 

to move to higher, more remote areas during midsummer and fall. Along the Wyoming Range, black bear 

are found in the timbered areas along the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Black bear are omnivores and 

opportunistic feeders who consume foods essential to replenishing body fat for the winter hibernation and 

for reproductive success. Due to a bear's secretive nature, population estimates are difficult to obtain and 

population objectives are not established, but rather bears are managed based on harvest and population 

trends. The BLM and WGFD utilize management guidelines established by the WGFD's Black Bear 

Management Plan (WGFD 2003a) to help direct management activities on BLM-administered land.

Mountain Lion Mountain lions are fairly common but generally reclusive, with sightings reported 

occasionally. This species has one of the widest distributions of any native mammal in the western 

hemisphere and therefore, occupies a wide variety of plant communities and habitats. Typical mountain 

lion habitat in western North America is open woodland and shrubland, especially oak scrub, pinyon, 

juniper, ponderosa pine, spruce, fir, and aspen, as well as shrublands such as sagebrush, desert shrub,

mountain-mahogany, and snowberry, especially where these communities are interspersed with grasslands 

or meadows. Mountain lions also inhabit deep, rocky, vertical-walled river canyons containing riparian 

vegetation such as cottonwood and willows. As an obligate carnivore, the mountain lion selects for large 

(deer/elk sized) prey. Research indicates that 80% to 90% of a lion's diet is ungulate sized prey; on average, 

an adult with an established territory will kill almost one deer sized-prey per week on average. Other prey 

species include elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and smaller mammals. Mountain lions reside throughout the 

planning area; however, they are more common in areas associated with the canyons and foothills of

mountain ranges where prey concentrate. The main habitat component affecting mountain lion distribution 

in the planning area is the absence of large, undisturbed, remote wild areas. Most of the planning area is 

easily accessible; human presence and activities throughout the animal's habitat will probably continue to 

have some impact on mountain lion population distribution. Similar to black bears, population estimates 

for mountain lions are difficult to obtain. Mountain lion harvest levels are monitored; management direction 

for this species may be adjusted based on the age and gender structure of mortalities. The BLM and WGFD 

utilize management guidelines established by the WGFD's Mountain Lion Management Plan (WGFD 

2006a) to help direct management activities on BLM-administered land.

Summary: 1. On page 3-470, WFGD recommends language be modified as shown here: "Black bears occur

within the planning area and primarily inhabit forested habitat types (i.e., Laramie Range, Wind River

Range, Muddy Mountain, and the South Bighorns) at higher elevations. They are found within the aspenconifer areas during spring and early summer (BLM 1985). These bears appear to move to higher, more 

remote areas during midsummer and fall. Along the Wyoming Range, black bear are found in the timbered 

areas along the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Black bear are omnivores and opportunistic feeders who 

consume foods essential to replenishing body fat for the winter hibernation and for reproductive success. 

Due to a bear's secretive nature, population estimates are difficult to obtain and population objectives are 

not established, but rather bears are managed based on harvest and population trends. The BLM and WGFD 

utilize management guidelines established by the WGFD's Black Bear Management Plan (WGFD 2003a) 

to help direct management activities on BLM-administered land." 2. On page 3-485, WGFD recommends 

language be modified as shown here: "Limited black bear populations occur in aspen-conifer areas in higher 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-144 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

elevations of the northern portion of the field office. The goal within the field office is to maintain a healthy 

bear population capable of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities (including hunting and 

viewing in existing occupied habitats) while considering public safety, economic concerns, and other 

wildlife species." 3. On page 3-501 WGFD recommends language be modified as shown here: "Suitable 

bear habitat exists over about 189 square miles of land in the field office. Black bear occupy timbered 

habitats along the Wind River Mountains and near the Colorado border. The BLM has found evidence of 

bear activity on Little and Pine Mountains. Occasionally, black bears are seen or tracks noted along the

Sweetwater River and its tributaries and upper reaches of Little and Big Sandy Creeks, with a slight increase 

in sightings/ tracks likely related to natural dispersal of young male black bears in the past few years. Most 

of the legally harvested black bears are taken in the Bridget National Forest."

Response: 1. and 3. The suggested change has been made to pages 3-470 and page 3-501.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Gray wolf language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1892

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-254, Gray wolf, we recommend language be modified as shown. Gray wolves are habitat

generalists and may inhabit a wide variety of habitat types. The main habitat requirements for gray wolves 

include the presence of abundant prey (i.e., elk) and relatively low levels of human activity (BLM 2004h). 

Dispersing gray wolves are capable of traveling very long distances. Human activities associated with roads 

and other linear corridors cause fragmentation of gray wolf habitats. The major causes of mortality among 

gray wolves are legal and illegal harvest, depredation control, disease, and vehicle collisions (BLM 2004h). 

At least 277 wolves in ≥43 packs (including >21 breeding pairs) inhabited Wyoming on December 31, 

2012. Of the total, there were ≥83 wolves and ≥10 packs (including ≥6 breeding pairs) inside Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP), ≥8 wolves and ≥2 packs (≥O breeding pairs) in the Wind River Reservation (WRR), 

and ≥186 wolves and ≥31 packs (including ≥15 breeding pairs) in Wyoming outside YNP and WRR

(WGFD et al. 2013).

Comment ID: 1904

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Pages 286-287, Gray wolf and grizzly bear, we recommend language be modified as shown 

below. Gray Wolf The field office provides suitable habitat for gray wolves because it is mostly 

undeveloped and an abundance of prey such as deer, elk, and moose are present. Several gray wolf packs 

occur within the boundary of the field office from the Pinedale Field Office, generally located on National 

Forest System Land and associated foothill regions (WGFD et al. 2013). Lone gray wolves and small groups

of gray wolves have been observed around Cokeville and as far south as Kemmerer (BLM 2004h). Grizzly 

Bear Although grizzly bears do not generally occur in the field office, it is possible for them to disperse,

especially in the northern areas of the field office and along the eastern front of the Wyoming Range

(Bjornlie et al. 2013). Increased distribution of grizzly bears throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

has translated to more verified sightings in the Kemmerer field office along the Wyoming Range. Gray 

Wolf The Pinedale Field Office provides habitat to gray wolf populations, with multiple packs using areas

within the field Office. These packs are managed by the WGFD in areas within the Wolf Trophy Game

Management Area Wolf collar data has demonstrated variable yet large pack territory size, as well as a high 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-145

propensity for dispersal from sub adult males (WGFD et al. 2013). Grizzly Bear Grizzly bears occur in the 

Pinedale field office primarily in forested and foothill habitats of the Wind River and Wyoming Range, 

with overall distribution in the system increasing 38.3% from 2004 to 2010 (Bjornlie et al. 2013). Expansion 

and increase of distribution has occurred with grizzly bears in the field office due to protection through 

management and population recovery. Page 3-294, Gray wolf and grizzly bear, we recommend language 

be modified as shown below. Gray Wolf The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has been present in portions of the 

Rock Springs Field Office area over the past decade likely an expansion of their range as a result of a 

growing population. On January 29, 2007, the USFWS announced the proposal to remove the Northern 

Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the Endangered Species list. Gray wolves in the Northern 

Rockies have exceeded recovery goals so the USFWS considers them ready to be delisted. In February 

2008, gray wolves were determined recovered by the USFWS and were removed from the list of federally 

endangered and threatened species on March 28, 2008. The U.S. Federal District Court in Missoula, 

Montana, issued a preliminary injunction on July 18, 2008, that immediately reinstated the ESA protections 

for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. After further litigation and data acquisition illustrating

the recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, wolves were successfully delisted in 2012. 

Following deli sting in September 2012, WGFD instituted a wolf hunting season with the biological 

objective to reduce the wolf population by approximately 11% in the Wolf Trophy Game Management 

Area (WTGMA) and Seasonal WTGMA (WGFD et al. 2013) and secondly to provide recreational hunting 

opportunity to Wyoming sportsmen. Grizzly Bear The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) historically inhabited 

most of the Rock Springs Field Office area and was documented around the Sweetwater River and Pacific 

Creek in historical journals (Dorn). Grizzly bears are listed as threatened under the ESA throughout 

Wyoming. Under current federal (USFWS) and state (WGFD) management, grizzly bears found in the 

planning area may be removed or relocated if they cause conflicts with human health and safety or threaten 

livelihood of producers.

Comment ID: 1935

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: DEIS Volume 1, Page 3-294 The DEIS states that the gray wolf is currently a species listed as 

threatened in the BLM's Rock Springs Field Office. However, on September 12, 2012, the Service finalized 

a rule that removed the gray wolf in Wyoming from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. 

The Service recommends that the information in the DEIS be updated, as appropriate.

Summary: 1. On pages 286-287 WGFD recommend language be modified as shown here: "The field office

provides suitable habitat for gray wolves because it is mostly undeveloped and an abundance of prey such 

as deer, elk, and moose are present. Several gray wolf packs occur within the boundary of the field office 

from the Pinedale Field Office, generally located on National Forest System Land and associated foothill 

regions (WGFD et al. 2013). Lone gray wolves and small groups of gray wolves have been observed around 

Cokeville and as far south as Kemmerer (BLM 2004h). The Pinedale Field Office provides habitat to gray 

wolf populations, with multiple packs using areas within the field Office. These packs are managed by the 

WGFD in areas within the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area Wolf collar data has demonstrated 

variable yet large pack territory size, as well as a high propensity for dispersal from sub adult males (WGFD 

et al. 2013)." 2. On page 3-294, WGFD recommends the language be modified as shown here: The gray 

wolf (Canis lupus) has been present in portions of the Rock Springs Field Office area over the past decade

likely an expansion of their range as a result of a growing population. On January 29, 2007, the USFWS 

announced the proposal to remove the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves from the 

Endangered Species list. Gray wolves in the Northern Rockies have exceeded recovery goals so the USFWS 

considers them ready to be delisted. In February 2008, gray wolves were determined recovered by the 

USFWS and were removed from the list of federally endangered and threatened species on March 28, 2008. 

The U.S. Federal District Court in Missoula, Montana, issued a preliminary injunction on July 18, 2008, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-146 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

that immediately reinstated the ESA protections for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. After 

further litigation and data acquisition illustrating the recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky 

Mountains, wolves were successfully delisted in 2012. Following delisting in September 2012, WGFD 

instituted a wolf hunting season with the biological objective to reduce the wolf population by 

approximately 11% in the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area (WTGMA) and Seasonal WTGMA 

(WGFD et al. 2013) and secondly to provide recreational hunting opportunity to Wyoming sportsmen." 3. 

On page 3-254, the language should be modified as shown here: "Gray wolves are habitat generalists and 

may inhabit a wide variety of habitat types. The main habitat requirements for gray wolves include the 

presence of abundant prey (i.e., elk) and relatively low levels of human activity (BLM 2004h). Dispersing 

gray wolves are capable of traveling very long distances. Human activities associated with roads and other 

linear corridors cause fragmentation of gray wolf habitats. The major causes of mortality among gray 

wolves are legal and illegal harvest, depredation control, disease, and vehicle collisions (BLM 2004h). At 

least 277 wolves in ≥43 packs (including >21 breeding pairs) inhabited Wyoming on December 31, 2012. 

Of the total, there were ≥83 wolves and ≥10 packs (including ≥6 breeding pairs) inside Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP), ≥8 wolves and ≥2 packs (≥O breeding pairs) in the Wind River Reservation (WRR), 

and ≥186 wolves and ≥31 packs (including ≥15 breeding pairs) in Wyoming outside YNP and WRR 

(WGFD et al. 2013)."

Response: The document has been updated with the language provided.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Grizzly bear language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1906

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-307, Grizzly bear, Table 3-84. While grizzly bears can and do use habitats occupied by 

Greater Sage-grouse we do not agree that in the context of revising BLM RMPs and USFS Plans for Greater

Sage-grouse that the grizzly bear is relevant.

Comment ID: 1888

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-238, Grizzly bear, we recommend language be modified as shown. The grizzly bear is 

federally listed as threatened under the ESA. In Wyoming, grizzly bears may be found in coniferous forests, 

mountain-foothills shrublands, riparian shrub, and mountainfoothills grassland (Cerovski et al. 2004). 

Grizzly bears currently occupy Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and portions of adjacent 

National Forest and private lands extending south in the Wind River Range to the Green River Lakes area 

and into the Wyoming Range (Bjornlie et al. 2012). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear 

population has experienced a 38.3% increase in distribution from 2004 to 2010 (Bjornlie et al. 2012) A 

Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan was completed by WGFD in 2002 and amended in 2005 (Moody 

et al. 2005).

Summary: 1. On page 3-238, WGFD recommends language be modified as shown: "The grizzly bear is 

federally listed as threatened under the ESA. In Wyoming, grizzly bears may be found in coniferous forests,

mountain-foothills shrublands, riparian shrub, and mountain foothills grassland (Cerovski et al. 2004).

Grizzly bears currently occupy Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and portions of adjacent
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-147

National Forest and private lands extending south in the Wind River Range to the Green River Lakes area 

and into the Wyoming Range (Bjornlie et al. 2012). The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear 

population has experienced a 38.3% increase in distribution from 2004 to 2010 (Bjornlie et al. 2012) A 

Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan was completed by WGFD in 2002 and amended in 2005 (Moody 

et al. 2005)." 2. On page 286-287, WGFD recommends the following language be modified: "Although 

grizzly bears do not generally occur in the field office, it is possible for them to disperse, especially in the

northern areas of the field office and along the eastern front of the Wyoming Range (Bjornlie et al. 2013). 

Increased distribution of grizzly bears throughout the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has translated to 

more verified sightings in the Kemmerer field office along the Wyoming Range." 3. On page 286-287, 

WGFD recommends the following language be modified: "Grizzly bears occur in the Pinedale field office 

primarily in forested and foothill habitats of the Wind River and Wyoming Range, with overall distribution 

in the system increasing 38.3% from 2004 to 2010 (Bjornlie et al. 2013). Expansion and increase of 

distribution has occurred with grizzly bears in the field office due to protection through management and 

population recovery." 4. On page 3-294, WGFD recommends the language be modified as shown here: 

"The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) historically inhabited most of the Rock Springs Field Office area and was 

documented around the Sweetwater River and Pacific Creek in historical journals (Dorn). Grizzly bears are 

listed as threatened under the ESA throughout Wyoming. Under current federal (USFWS) and state 

(WGFD) management, grizzly bears found in the planning area may be removed or relocated if they cause

conflicts with human health and safety or threaten livelihood of producers." 5. On page 3-307, Table 3-84, 

while grizzly bears can and do use habitats occupied by Greater Sage- Grouse WGFD does not agree that 

in the context of revising BLM RMPs and Forest Service Plans for Greater Sage-Grouse that the grizzly 

bear is relevant.

Response: Comments 1 through 4: The document has been updated with the language provided. Comment 

5: The grizzly bear is relevant to this assessment in that there is a chance that they occupy some habitat that 

overlaps with sage-grouse habitat, especially in the areas north of Pinedale. Based on that, it is the 

responsibility of the BLM and the Forest Service to assess the impacts of the changes to existing 

management due to the LUP Amendments, and to determine whether those impacts would affect the grizzly 

bear and/or its habitat.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Mountain lion language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1912

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-485, Black bear and mountain lion, we recommend language be modified as shown.

Black Bear Limited black bear populations occur in aspen-conifer areas in higher elevations of the northern

portion of the field office. The goal within the field office is to maintain a healthy bear population capable 

of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities (including hunting and viewing in existing occupied 

habitats) while considering public safety, economic concerns, and other wildlife species. Mountain Lion

Mountain lion populations generally occur in the northern, northwestern, and southern edges of the field 

office at higher elevations. The seasonal range of mountain lions generally follows that of their prey. The 

field office encompasses portions of two WGFD lion management units (southwest and west) and three 

lion hunt areas. Management goals generally focus on sustaining mountain lion populations, maintaining 

prey (mule deer) populations, and providing recreation and hunting opportunities, while considering human 

safety, economic concerns, and the needs of other wildlife species.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-148 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: 1. On page 3-470, WFGD recommends language be modified as shown here: Mountain lions 

are fairly common but generally reclusive, with sightings reported occasionally. This species has one of the 

widest distributions of any native mammal in the western hemisphere and therefore, occupies a wide variety 

of plant communities and habitats. Typical mountain lion habitat in western North America is open 

woodland and shrubland, especially oak scrub, pinyon, juniper, ponderosa pine, spruce, fir, and aspen, as 

well as shrublands such as sagebrush, desert shrub, mountain-mahogany, and snowberry, especially where 

these communities are interspersed with grasslands or meadows. Mountain lions also inhabit deep, rocky, 

vertical-walled river canyons containing riparian vegetation such as cottonwood and willows. As an 

obligate carnivore, the mountain lion selects for large (deer/elk sized) prey. Research indicates that 80% to 

90% of a lion's diet is ungulate sized prey; on average, an adult with an established territory will kill almost 

one deer sized-prey per week on average. Other prey species include elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, and 

smaller mammals. Mountain lions reside throughout the planning area; however, they are more common in 

areas associated with the canyons and foothills of mountain ranges where prey concentrate. The main 

habitat component affecting mountain lion distribution in the planning area is the absence of large, 

undisturbed, remote wild areas. Most of the planning area is easily accessible; human presence and activities

throughout the animal's habitat will probably continue to have some impact on mountain lion population 

distribution. Similar to black bears, population estimates for mountain lions are difficult to obtain. Mountain 

lion harvest levels are monitored; management direction for this species may be adjusted based on the age 

and gender structure of mortalities. The BLM and WGFD utilize management guidelines established by the 

WGFD's Mountain Lion Management Plan (WGFD 2006a) to help direct management activities on BLMadministered land. 2. On page 3-485, WGFD recommends language be modified as shown here: Mountain 

lion populations generally occur in the northern, northwestern, and southern edges of the field office at 

higher elevations. The seasonal range of mountain lions generally follows that of their prey. The field office 

encompasses portions of two WGFD lion management units (southwest and west) and three lion hunt areas. 

Management goals generally focus on sustaining mountain lion populations, maintaining prey (mule deer) 

populations, and providing recreation and hunting opportunities, while considering human safety, economic 

concerns, and the needs of other wildlife species. 3. On page 3-501 WGFD recommends language be 

modified as shown here: The wide distribution of mountain lion (Puma concolor) observations indicates 

that this species is presently found throughout much of the Rock Springs Field Office area within suitable 

habitat. Indications are that distribution is widespread. Mountain lions reside in the broken juniper and

rimrock areas south of Wilkins Peak to the Utah border and in the Haystacks. Cats have been observed on 

Cooper Ridge, in Adobe Town, on Steamboat Mountain, Little Mountain, and in the Wind River foothills. 

The main habitat component restricting mountain lion populations in the field office is the absence of large, 

undisturbed, remote wild areas or adequate prey therein.

Response: The document has been updated with the language provided.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Mule deer language revisions needed

Comment ID: 3138

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 3.21.1 3‐ 488 Mule Deer 5‐ 6 months per year on transition ranges seems incredibly high 

considering Nov‐ April (6 months) on winter range.

Summary: On page 3‐ 488, 5‐ 6 months per year on transition ranges seems incredibly high considering 

Nov‐ April (6 months) on winter range.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-149

Response: The Sublette Herd has been found to have a very long migration, including stop-over areas for 

rest. Portions of the winter range can also be considered "transition range" because the deer may use

portions of the range at different times of the year, depending on timing, weather, disturbance, etc. Based 

on this, it is appropriate to say that the mule deer may spend up to 5-6 months on transition ranges.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Need updated information

Comment ID: 1880

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Unfortunately most of the information presented about wildlife in this document is outdated and

some cases wrong. For all sections on big game we suggest the authors access the Department web site at 

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/home.aspx and utilize the data provided in the 2012 Job Completion Reports 

found there rather than the 2009 or 2010 data used in these documents. On the same web site the authors 

can also find harvest data for small game, upland game birds, migratory game birds, trophy game and 

furbearers. Those reports do include data on harvest and hunter effort.

Summary: Most of the information presented about wildlife in this document is outdated and some cases

wrong. For all sections on big game WGFD suggests the authors access the Department web site at

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/home.aspx and utilize the data provided in the 2012 Job Completion Reports 

found there rather than the 2009 or 2010 data used in these documents. On the same web site the authors 

can also find harvest data for small game, upland game birds, migratory game birds, trophy game and 

furbearers. Those reports do include data on harvest and hunter effort.

Response: The information used in this document was current at the time the document was initiated. 

Although updated information may exist for the species identified in this comment, the information used in

this document provides an adequate representation of those species. The document also provides an

acceptable description of the Affected Environment for the purposes of the LUP Amendment and EIS.

Fish and Wildlife-Big game

Best available information-baseline data

Pronghorn crucial winter range incorrect south of Pinedale

Comment ID: 2638

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Map 3-26: Pronghorn crucial winter range is incorrectly shown south of Pinedale; its location 

extends northward across the Mesa. QEP asks this mistake be corrected.

Comment ID: 3139

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Map 3‐ 26 Pronghorn crucial winter range is incorrectly shown south of Pinedale; its location 

extends northward across the Mesa. Summary Map 3-26 incorrectly shows pronghorn crucial winter range 

south of Pinedale. The correct location should extend northward across the Mesa.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-150 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: Information and maps published in the Draft EIS were based on information collected from the

agencies in 2011 and early 2012. The pronghorn information was updated after the Draft EIS was in final 

editing and not reflected in Draft EIS. The information has been changed on map 3-26 to reflect the new 

information.

Fish and Wildlife-ESA Consultation

Appendices

Appendix M revisions

Comment ID: 214

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: APPENDIX M14 SHOWS NO IMPACT TO ENDANGERED SPECIES FROM THIS PLAN 

WHICH IS A TOTALLIE.

Summary: Appendix M14 is incorrect in saying there are no impacts to endangered species.

Response: Expected impacts to endangered and threatened species are described in the revised Appendix 

M and also in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS.

Fish and Wildlife-ESA Consultation

Best available information-baseline data

Need updated ESA species list

Comment ID: 1928

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: 4. Before completing the FEIS, the BLM should obtain an updated ESA species list. The Federal 

listing status may have recently changed for some species. The Service has recently transitioned to a new

online program to deliver species lists: the Information, Planning, and Conservation (lPaC) system. To

obtain a current list of endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species and their designated and 

proposed critical habitat that occur in or may be affected by actions associated with your planning area, 

please visit our website at http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.This website will provide you with an immediate 

response to your species list request. The response will also include information regarding other Service 

trust authorities.

Comment ID: 1931

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: DEIS Volume 1. Page 3-236, Table 3-78 Table 3-78 of the DEIS contains a list of federally 

listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species for Wyoming. However, this table is outdated and does 

not contain the northern long-eared bat as a species proposed for listing as endangered. Furthermore, Table 

3-78 does not indicate that the Western U.S. distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo is 

currently a species proposed for listing as threatened. The Service recommends that this table updated and 

language in the text addressing these proposed species be included, as well.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-151

Summary: Before completing the Final EIS, the BLM should obtain an updated ESA species list, at

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/, as it may have recently changed for some species. Additionally, on page 3- 236, 

Table 3-78 is outdated and does not contain the northern long-eared bat as a species proposed for listing as 

endangered. Furthermore, Table 3-78 does not indicate that the Western U.S. distinct population segment 

of the yellow-billed cuckoo is currently a species proposed for listing as threatened. This table should be 

updated and language in the text addressing these proposed species be included as well.

Response: The species list has been updated, yellow-billed cuckoo status has been updated to "proposedT" and the northern long-eared bat has been added as a "proposed - E" species. We are working closely in

informal consultation with the Wyoming office of the USFWS to predict the potential impacts to listed 

species. The latest species list through IPAC was reviewed prior to completion of the Biological

Assessment. The yellow-billed cuckoo has been included.

Fish and Wildlife-Fish

Best available information-baseline data

Fisheries section revisions

Comment ID: 2483

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-524 Fisheries: Suggest in first paragraph, first sentence adding "of the" between "Many" 

and "perennial". Once again suggest a table to detail the fish assemblages in the TBNG. The term "flashy"

may not be understood by all the readers of the EIS. Suggest replacing the term "intermittency" with "no 

flow" in the second paragraph. Also in the last sentence of the second paragraph " ... have likely altered 

species compositions." needs to be referenced or deleted. In the third paragraph there needs to be a clear 

distinction between the predominately sand/silt/clay substrates and the minimal cobble substrates in the 

watersheds. The last two sentences are seemingly out of place. There is no mention of greasewood here, if 

it is prevalent in the TBNG. Last paragraph, first sentence again appears to be supposition. There should be 

some quantitative way to show all impoundments, reservoirs and their relative location in the subwatersheds in the TBNG, and again the reference to "altered flows" and "impoundments" leading to exotic 

fish, which should be identified in a table. The only time a native fish (only 2) is mentioned is in the last 

sentence in the last paragraph.

Summary: On page 3-524, in the first paragraph, first sentence, add "of the" between "Many" and 

"perennial" and include a table to detail the fish assemblages in the TBNG. The term "flashy" may not be

understood by all the readers of the EIS. Replace the term "intermittency" with "no flow" in the second 

paragraph. Also in the last sentence of the second paragraph " ... have likely altered species compositions." 

needs to be referenced or deleted. In the third paragraph there needs to be a clear distinction between the 

predominately sand/silt/clay substrates and the minimal cobble substrates in the watersheds. The last two 

sentences are seemingly out of place. There is no mention of greasewood here if it is prevalent in the TBNG. 

Last paragraph, first sentence again appears to be supposition. There should be some quantitative way to 

show all impoundments, reservoirs and their relative location in the sub-watersheds in the TBNG, and again 

the reference to "altered flows" and "impoundments" leading to exotic fish, which should be identified in a 

table. The only time a native fish (only 2) is mentioned is in the last sentence in the last paragraph.

Response: Appropriate changes have been made to the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-152 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Fish and Wildlife-Fish

Best available information-baseline data

Native fish listings

Comment ID: 2482

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Chapter 3 - Wildlife and Fisheries TBNG- Page 3-516 Introduction: Is there a reason why the 

native fish of the Cheyenne River and Belle Fourche River Watersheds are not listed in a table.

Summary: Provide reasoning as to why the native fish of the Cheyenne River and Belle Fourche River

Watersheds are not listed in a table on page 3-516.

Response: Appropriate changes have been made to the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Appendices

Appendix F revisions

Comment ID: 2751

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Appendix F Comment: BLM must provide Administrative access for predator management.

Summary: BLM must provide administrative access for predator management.

Response: Access for predator management is a project-specific implementation level decision, and will be

addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Appendices

Appendix M revisions

Comment ID: 2634

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 3-296: QEP recommends Appendix M be deleted as discussed on page 12. QEP also

recommends references to pending Biological Assessments (BA) and Biological Evaluations (BE) in the

FEIS.

Summary: This Appendix (M) is laden with typos, errors, inaccuracies, redundancies, and inappropriate

references. Additionally it provides no new information. QEP asks this section be stricken and instead

include BAs and BEs in the Final EIS.

Response: Appendix M has been updated in the Final EIS and is called the Forest Service Biological 

Evaluation. The Forest Service is required by policy to evaluate impacts to designated sensitive species 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-153

through the Biological Evaluation process. The Final EIS contains text referring the reader to the Biological

Evaluation and Biological Assessment.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Best available information-baseline data

"No Occurrence" revisions

Comment ID: 1908

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-320, Wyoming pocket gopher, Change relevance to "No occurrence" Page 3-320, Water 

vole, Change relevance to "No occurrence" Page 3-329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Pygmy shrew, 

Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." and Change relevance to "No occurrence" Species is 

restricted to Med Bow portion of USFS lands. Page 3-329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Spotted 

bat, Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change relevance to "No occurrence" Page 3-329, 

Thunder Basin National Grasslands, River otter, Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change 

relevance to "No occurrence" Page 3-329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, American marten, Change 

habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change relevance to "No occurrence" Page 3-329, Thunder Basin 

National Grasslands, Wolverine, Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change relevance to "No 

occurrence" Page 3-329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Common hog-nosed skunk, Change habitat 

to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change relevance to "No occurrence"

Summary: The following revisions are requested: 1. Page 3-320, Wyoming pocket gopher, Change 

relevance to "No occurrence" 2. Page 3-320, Water vole, Change relevance to "No occurrence" 3. Page 3-

329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Pygmy shrew, Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." and 

Change relevance to "No occurrence" Species is restricted to Med Bow portion of USFS lands. 4. Page 3-

329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Spotted bat, Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." 

Change relevance to "No occurrence" 5. Page 3-329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, River otter, 

Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change relevance to "No occurrence" 6. Page 3-329, 

Thunder Basin National Grasslands, American marten, Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." 

Change relevance to "No occurrence" 7. Page 3-329, Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Wolverine, 

Change habitat to "Does not occur on TBNG." Change relevance to "No occurrence" 8. Page 3-329, 

Thunder Basin National Grasslands, Common hog-nosed skunk, Change habitat to "Does not occur on 

TBNG." Change relevance to "No occurrence"

Response: The document has been updated with the language provided.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Best available information-baseline data

Additional literature citations

Comment ID: 1918

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Additional literature cited for updates to nongame birds sections Orabona, A., C. Rudd, M. 

Grenier, Z. Walker, S. Patla, and B. Oakleaf. 2012. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in 

Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander. 232pp. Wyoming Game and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-154 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Fish Department [WGFD]. 2010. Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department, Cheyenne, USA.

Summary: The following literature cited for updates to nongame birds sections should be added: Orabona, 

A., C. Rudd, M. Grenier, Z. Walker, S. Patla, and B. Oakleaf. 2012. Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, 

and Reptiles in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander. 232pp.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department [WGFD]. 2010. Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan. Wyoming

Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, USA.

Response: The Draft EIS has been updated with the citations identified in the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Best available information-baseline data

Baseline revisions needed

Comment ID: 1916

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-517, Table 3-152, Add the following SGCN species • Eastern red bat • Hispid pocket 

mouse • Little brown myotis • Long-eared myotis • Long-legged myotis • Olive-backed pocket mouse • 

Silky pocket mouse • Western small-footed myotis

Comment ID: 1914

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-503, Juniper Obligate Species, line 3 - Add the following species to the sentence: Bushtit

(Psaltriparus minimus) and Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior). Page 3-517, Table 3-152, Remove the following 

mammal species: • Hoary Bat, no longer and SGCN (WGFD 2010) • Water Vole, does not occur on TBNG.

• Water shrew, does not occur on TBNG. • Vagrant shrew, does not occur on TBNG. • Sagebrush vole, no 

longer an SGCN (2010)

Summary: 1. On page 3-503, Juniper Obligate Species, line 3, add the following species to the sentence: 

Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) and Gray Vireo (Vireo vicinior). 2. On page 3-517, in Table 3-152, remove 

the following mammal species: • Hoary Bat, no longer and SGCN (WGFD 2010) • Water Vole, does not 

occur on TBNG. • Water shrew, does not occur on TBNG. • Vagrant shrew, does not occur on TBNG. • 

Sagebrush vole, no longer an SGCN (2010) 3. On page 3-517, Table 3-152, add the following SGCN 

species: • Eastern red bat • Hispid pocket mouse • Little brown myotis • Long-eared myotis • Long-legged 

myotis • Olive-backed pocket mouse • Silky pocket mouse • Western small-footed myotis.

Response: Comment 1:. Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) and gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) have been added to 

the species list on page 3-503. Comments 2 and 3: The document has been updated with the language

provided.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Best available information-baseline data

Mountain plover revisions

Comment ID: 1907
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-155

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 310, Table 3-85, Mountain plover - The information under the "Species and/or Species 

Habitat Present in Project Area" column is inaccurate. Recommend changing "Species" subcolumn from 

"Not suspected" to "Possible" and "Habitat" subcolumn from "No" to "Yes".

Summary: Page 310, Table 3-85, Mountain plover - The information under the "Species and/or Species 

Habitat Present in Project Area" column is inaccurate. Recommend changing "Species" subcolumn from 

"Not suspected" to "Possible" and "Habitat" subcolumn from "No" to "Yes".

Response: The table has been updated.

Fish and Wildlife-Non-game

Best available information-baseline data

Predators are critical for ecosystem

Comment ID: 2802

Organization:

Name: Andrea Baer

Comment: Apex predators are critical to the ecosystem.

Summary: Apex predators are critical to the ecosystem.

Response: BLM and Forest Service agree that apex predators are a vital part of the ecosystem, however the

BLM and Forest Service manage public lands habitat and do not have the authority to regulate hunting or 

wildlife, including predatory animals. The management for predators habitat is within the regulatory 

authority of BLM and Forest Service; management of predators is under the purview of APHIS or WGFD.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Additional population information needed

Comment ID: 1209

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: 2670.12 Departmental Regulation 9500-4. This regulation directs the Forest Service to: 1. 

Manage "habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to 

maintain at least viable populations of such species." No information is provided that shows current 

populations are viable or what a viable population is.

Summary: Departmental Regulation 9500-4 directs the Forest Service to manage "habitats for all existing 

native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to maintain at least viable populations 

of such species." No information is provided that shows current populations are viable or what a viable 

population is.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-156 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The analysis described in this comment is contained in Appendix M. In the Draft EIS it is called 

the Wildlife and Botany report. In the Final EIS it is referred to as the Forest Service Biological Evaluation

and Management Indicator Species report.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Black tern, Forster's tern, and great grey owl revisions needed

Comment ID: 1901

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-277, Black tern, line 3 - "Circumstantial evidence exists that black terns nest in Lincoln 

County within the planning area, and they also have been observed in the eastern portion of the planning

area (Luce et al. 1997). This sentence is outdated. Recommend updating to "The black tern has been

documented as breeding in Lincoln County, and they have been observed in the eastern portion of the 

planning area (Orabona et al. 2012)." Page 3-277, Forster's tern, line 3 - "The species has also been observed 

in the eastern portion of the planning area (Luce et al. 1997)." This sentence is outdated. Recommend 

updating to "This species has also been observed in the eastern portion of the planning area (Orabona et al. 

2012)." Page 3-277, Great gray owl, line 3 - Update citation to Orabona et al. (2012).

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-277, line 3 under Black tern, the sentence "Circumstantial evidence exists 

that black terns nest in Lincoln County within the planning area, and they also have been observed in the

eastern portion of the planning area (Luce et al. 1997)." is outdated. Recommend updating to "The black 

tern has been documented as breeding in Lincoln County, and they have been observed in the eastern portion 

of the planning area (Orabona et al. 2012)." Issue 2: On page 3-277, under Forster's tern, line 3, the sentence 

"The species has also been observed in the eastern portion of the planning area (Luce et al. 1997)." is 

outdated. Recommend updating to "This species has also been observed in the eastern portion of the 

planning area (Orabona et al. 2012)." Issue 3: On page 3-277, under Great gray owl, line 3, update citation 

to Orabona et al. (2012).

Response: Citations have been updated based on information presented in the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Black-footed ferret revisions

Comment ID: 1884

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3- 237, Black-footed ferret, Para 2, line 2: Strike "shooting". Shooting has never been 

linked to the decline of the black-footed ferret. This statement misrepresents historical events. Page 3-237, 

Black-footed ferret, Para 3, line 2. - replace USFWS with WGFD. The captive breeding and reintroduction 

program were both endeavors that were led by WGFD, with assistance (Le., financial) from USFWS. This

statement misrepresents historical events. Page 3-237, Black-footed ferret, Para 3, line 4. - replace 2000 

with 1992. Wild born blackfooted ferrets were detected as early as 1992 and have been ever since. This 

statement misrepresents historical events.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-157

Comment ID: 1934

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: DEIS Volume 1, Page 3-293 The DEIS appears to present conflicting information regarding the 

block-clearance of the blackfooted ferret in the BLM's Rock Springs Field Office by first stating that there 

are non-block cleared areas and later describing the entire state as block-cleared. The Service recommends 

that the DEIS consistently describe the entire state as currently being block-cleared for the presence of wild

(not originating from reintroduction areas) black-footed ferrets.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3- 237, Black-footed ferret, Para 2, line 2: Strike "shooting". Shooting has 

never been linked to the decline of the black-footed ferret. This statement misrepresents historical events.

Issue 2: On page 3-237, Black-footed ferret, Para 3, line 2. - replace USFWS with WGFD. The captive

breeding and reintroduction program were both endeavors that were led by WGFD, with assistance (Le.,

financial) from USFWS. This statement misrepresents historical events. Issue 3: On page 3-237, Blackfooted ferret, Para 3, line 4. - replace 2000 with 1992. Wild born blackfooted ferrets were detected as early 

as 1992 and have been ever since. This statement misrepresents historical events. Issue 4: On page 3-293, 

the Draft EIS appears to present conflicting information regarding the blockclearance of the black-footed 

ferret in the BLM's Rock Springs Field Office by first stating that there are non-block cleared areas and 

later describing the entire state as block-cleared. The FWS recommends that the Draft EIS consistently 

describe the entire state as currently being block-cleared for the presence of wild (not originating from 

reintroduction areas) black-footed ferrets.

Response: Issue 1: The suggested change in the comment was made. Issue 2: The suggested change in the 

comment was made. Issue 3: The suggested change in the comment was made. Issue 4: Revisions have 

been made to the paragraph in question, due to the information provided in the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Black-tailed prairie dog revisions needed

Comment ID: 1891

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-254, Black-tailed prairie dog, line 7; ... "they are reduced to a few towns through 

poisoning." This statement is largely inaccurate and over represents the declines of the species. BTPD are

abundant and widely distributed in Wyoming. Also, disease, the primary threat to the species is not

presented. Recommend revising to " ... black-tailed prairie dog are less abundant today due to sylvatic 

plague (e.g., disease) and poisoning."

Comment ID: 1894

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3- 254, Black-tailed prairie dog, line 7; ... "they are reduced to a few towns through 

poisoning." This statement is largely inaccurate and over represents the declines of the species. BTPD are

abundant and widely distributed in Wyoming. Also, disease, the primary threat to the species is not

presented. Recommend revising to " ... black-tailed prairie dog are less abundant today due to sylvatic 

plague (e.g., disease) and poisoning."
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-158 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1910

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-335, Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Para 3, line 4 - "colony acreage .... from 1997 through 

2000." The dates are not correct. Declines of BTPD due to sylvatic plague were first document in 2001 and

epizootics persist today though acreage has increased since 2006.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-254, Black-tailed prairie dog, line 7; ... "they are reduced to a few towns 

through poisoning." This statement is largely inaccurate and over represents the declines of the species. 

Blacktailed prairie dogs are abundant and widely distributed in Wyoming. Also, disease, the primary threat

to the species is not presented. Recommend revising to " ... black-tailed prairie dog are less abundant today 

due to sylvatic plague (e.g., disease) and poisoning." Issue 2: On page 3-335, Black-tailed Prairie Dog, 

Para 3, line 4 - "colony acreage .... From 1997 through 2000." The dates are not correct. Declines of Blacktailed prairie dog due to sylvatic plague were first document in 2001 and epizootics persist today though 

acreage has increased since 2006.

Response: Revisions have been made due to the information provided in the comment. Fish and WildlifeOther Special Status Species Best available information-baseline data Brewer's sparrow revisions needed

Comment ID: 1898

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-258, Brewer's sparrow, Paragraph 1, lines 1 and 2 - "The Brewer's sparrow is listed as a 

BLM Sensitive Species that breeds in high-elevation shrubs and thickets and in sagebrush deserts. Brewer's

sparrows are known to nest in the north region, west of Daniel, southwest of Boulder, north of Fontenelle 

Reservoir, and in the extreme east (WNDD 2002)." These statements are inaccurate. Recommend revising 

to "The Brewer's sparrow breeds in high-elevation shrubs and thickets and in sagebrush deserts. The BLM 

lists it as a Sensitive Species, and the WGFD lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WGFD 

2010). Confirmed or suspected breeding has been documented in 27 of Wyoming's 28 degree blocks 

(Orabona et al. 2012). Brewer's sparrows are known to nest in the north region, west of Daniel, southwest 

of Boulder, north of Fontenelle Reservoir, and in the extreme east (WNDD 2002)."

Summary: On page 3-258, paragraph 1, lines 1 and 2 the statements "The Brewer's sparrow is listed as a 

BLM Sensitive Species that breeds in high-elevation shrubs and thickets and in sagebrush deserts. Brewer's 

sparrows are known to nest in the north region, west of Daniel, southwest of Boulder, north of Fontenelle 

Reservoir, and in the extreme east (WNDD 2002)." are inaccurate and should be revised to "The Brewer's 

sparrow breeds in high-elevation shrubs and thickets and in sagebrush deserts. The BLM lists it as a 

Sensitive Species, and the WGFD lists it as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WGFD 2010). 

Confirmed or suspected breeding has been documented in 27 of Wyoming's 28 degree blocks (Orabona et 

al. 2012). Brewer's sparrows are known to nest in the north region, west of Daniel, southwest of Boulder, 

north of Fontenelle Reservoir, and in the extreme east (WNDD 2002)."

Response: Revisions have been completed based on the information provided in the comment.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-159

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Chapter 3 special status species baseline corrections

Comment ID: 2872

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: The section on Special Status Species beginning on page 235 spends a lot of time discussing 

these species and their needs and habitat; but very little, and in most cases, no information is provided as

to how these species will impact the sage-grouse. The reader is left with a very nice biological narrative 

which contributes little to a discussion about sage-grouse. Even so, some of the information presented is 

not accurate. For example the discussion of the wolverine lists trapping as one of the threats to the species, 

but in the listing proposal for the wolverine there are few states that even allow trapping of the wolverine. 

Another example is the Kendall Warm Springs Dace which lists cattle grazing and trampling as an impact, 

yet it is our understanding the area surrounding the Dace has been fenced off from livestock for a number 

of years. In the draft recovery plan's Executive Summary from 2012 the limiting factors identified are the 

distribution of the dace, habitat manipulation, and small population size. No where in the Summary does it 

mention cattle grazing and trampling. Another example deals with the narrative on gray wolf mortality 

where the document totally ignores intra-species mortality which is a significant factor but was not 

mentioned. In the discussion on the Spotted Bat, one part says that pesticide use may impact the bats, but 

one sentence later, states pesticides are the biggest threat. An interesting migration of certainty from one 

sentence to the next. The discussion on prairie dogs uses an estimate of 99% eradicated from their former 

range. Yet a study published in the July 2004 edition of BioScience calls into question the data which is 

used for these types of statements. Nowhere does the discussion bring this back to the area being considered 

by the draft LUPA and EIS. Discussions on the White-faced Ibis list DDT as a cause of a major threat even 

though DDT use has not occurred for decades. The discussion on Swift Fox on page 256 states that, "There 

are still poisoning campaigns to eradicate coyotes in some areas, . . .". After communications with APHIS 

personnel this statement appears to be inflammatory at best and at worst, false. The document should 

provide proof of the poisoning campaign. The discussion on the Midget Faded Rattlesnake has moved 

entirely into the realm of speculation in the document calling into question the entire chapter if not the 

document itself. On page 240 the document talks about how the Governor's EO has worked to alleviate 

declines in sage-grouse. It goes on to state that implementation of conservation easements within these 

areas have reduced the threat risk to those areas. However, we've seen no documentation as to how effective 

conservation easements have been for protecting sage-grouse. Most of the information appears to be 

speculative in nature and testimony has been provided to Wyoming Legislative committees that easements 

have little or no affect on the ability to develop many minerals thereby not affecting one possible concern 

for sage-grouse. On page 294 of Chapter 3 the document states that Grey Wolves are listed as a 

"Nonessential Experimental Population" in Wyoming. We believe the wolf is delisted in Wyoming.

Summary: The section on special status species beginning on page 235 spends a lot of time discussing these

species and their needs and habitat; but very little, and in most cases, no information is provided as to how 

these species will impact the sage-grouse. The reader is left with a very nice biological narrative which 

contributes little to a discussion about sage-grouse. Even so, some of the information presented is not 

accurate. For example the discussion of the wolverine lists trapping as one of the threats to the species, but 

in the listing proposal for the wolverine there are few states that even allow trapping of the wolverine. 

Another example is the Kendall Warm Springs dace which lists cattle grazing and trampling as an impact, 

yet it is our understanding the area surrounding the dace has been fenced off from livestock for a number 

of years. In the draft recovery plan's Executive Summary from 2012 the limiting factors identified are the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-160 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

distribution of the dace, habitat manipulation, and small population size. No where in the summary does it 

mention cattle grazing and trampling. Another example deals with the narrative on gray wolf mortality 

where the document totally ignores intra-species mortality which is a significant factor but was not 

mentioned. In the discussion on the spotted bat, one part says that pesticide use may impact the bats, but 

one sentence later, states pesticides are the biggest threat. An interesting migration of certainty from one 

sentence to the next. The discussion on prairie dogs uses an estimate of 99% eradicated from their former 

range. Yet a study published in the July 2004 edition of BioScience calls into question the data which is 

used for these types of statements. Nowhere does the discussion bring this back to the area being considered 

by the Draft LUP Amendments and EIS. Discussions on the white-faced Ibis list DDT as a cause of a major 

threat even though DDT use has not occurred for decades. The discussion on swift fox on page 256 states 

that, "There are still poisoning campaigns to eradicate coyotes in some areas, . . .". After communications 

with APHIS personnel this statement appears to be inflammatory at best and at worst, false. The document 

should provide proof of the poisoning campaign. The discussion on the midget faded rattlesnake has moved 

entirely into the realm of speculation in the document calling into question the entire chapter if not the 

document itself. On page 240 the document talks about how the Governor's EO has worked to alleviate 

declines in sage-grouse. It goes on to state that implementation of conservation easements within these 

areas have reduced the threat risk to those areas. However, there has been no documentation as to how

effective conservation easements have been for protecting sage-grouse. Most of the information appears to 

be speculative in nature and testimony has been provided to Wyoming Legislative committees that 

easements have little or no affect on the ability to develop many minerals thereby not affecting one possible 

concern for sage-grouse. On page 294 of Chapter 3 the document states that grey wolves are listed as a 

"Nonessential Experimental Population" in Wyoming. This should be correct as the wolf as been delisted 

in Wyoming.

Response: The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to "succinctly describe the

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The description 

shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a 

statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall 

concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR 1502.15). Additionally, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

across a broad geographic area. As such, the BLM described the current conditions and trends in the affected 

environment broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate to program-level land use planning actions.

The BLM complied with these regulations in describing the affected environment. The requisite level of 

information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope 

and nature of the proposed decision. The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various 

appendices is sufficient to support, at the general land use planning-level of analysis, the environmental 

impact analysis resulting from management actions presented in the LUP Amendments/EIS.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Fringed myotis revisions needed

Comment ID: 1895

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-254, Fringed myotis, Para 1 - The paragraph is poorly supported with literature. As 

written it implies that these are original thoughts. Recommend adding citations, such as (Hester and Grenier
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-161

2005) or other primary literature to support information presented. Some of the information, as presented, 

without citations may border on plagiarism.

Summary: On page 3-254, Fringed myotis, Para 1, the paragraph is poorly supported with literature. As 

written it implies that these are original thoughts. Recommend adding citations, such as (Hester and Grenier

2005) or other primary literature to support information presented. Some of the information, as presented, 

without citations may border on plagiarism.

Response: A citation has been added to the identified section based on the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Harlequin duck, Lewis' woodpecker, merlin, northern pygmy owl, three-toed woodpecker 

revisions needed

Comment ID: 1902

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-278, Harlequin duck, Lewis' woodpecker, merlin, northern pygmy owl, three-toed

woodpecker - Update Luce et al. (1997) to Orabona et al. (2012). Update Species of Special Concern to 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WGFD 2010).

Summary: On page 3-278, Harlequin duck, Lewis' woodpecker, merlin, northern pygmy owl, three-toed

woodpecker - Update Luce et al. (1997) to Orabona et al. (2012) and update Species of Special Concern to 

Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WGFD 2010).

Response: Citations have been updated based on the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Interior least tern and piping plover revisions needed

Comment ID: 1890

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-242, Interior least tern, line 1 - "The interior least tern is listed as endangered in Nebraska,

Colorado, and Montana, but does not occur in Wyoming (USFWS 2008a)." is inaccurate. Recommend

revising to "The interior least tern is listed as endangered in Nebraska, Colorado, and Montana, and

accidental in Wyoming with one historic record in the southeast (Orabona et al. 2012, USFWS 2008a)."

Page 3-242, Piping plover, line 1 - "The piping plover is considered threatened in most of the western Great 

Plains states; however, it is not known to occur in Wyoming (USFWS 2008b)." is inaccurate. This species 

is classified as a rare migrant in Wyoming, with observations documented in 8 of Wyoming's 28 degree 

blocks (Orabona et al. 2012). Recommend revising to "The piping plover is considered threatened in most 

of the western Great Plains states (USFWS 2008b, Orabona et al. 2012)."

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-242, Interior least tern, line 1 - "The interior least tern is listed as endangered 

in Nebraska, Colorado, and Montana, but does not occur in Wyoming (USFWS 2008a)." is inaccurate.

Recommend revising to "The interior least tern is listed as endangered in Nebraska, Colorado, and Montana, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-162 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and accidental in Wyoming with one historic record in the southeast (Orabona et al. 2012, USFWS 2008a)."

Issue 2: On page 3-242, Piping plover, line 1 - "The piping plover is considered threatened in most of the 

western Great Plains states; however, it is not known to occur in Wyoming (USFWS 2008b)." is inaccurate. 

This species is classified as a rare migrant in Wyoming, with observations documented in eight of 

Wyoming's 28 degree blocks (Orabona et al. 2012). Recommend revising to "The piping plover is 

considered threatened in most of the western Great Plains states (USFWS 2008b, Orabona et al. 2012)."

Response: The sentence has been revised based on information in the comments.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Northern long-eared bat revisions needed

Comment ID: 1933

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: DEIS Volume 1, Page 3-286 The DEIS provides information for special status species found in 

areas administered by the BLM's Newcastle Field Office. However, the northern long-eared bat is not 

included in this section. The Service recommends that the DEIS state that the northern long-eared bat is a 

species proposed for listing as endangered in the BLM's Newcastle Field Office and language in the text 

addressing the northern long-eared bat as a proposed species be included, as well.

Comment ID: 1936

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: DEIS Volume 1, Page 3-329 Table 3-95 of the DEIS contains a list of sensitive wildlife species 

in the Thunder Basin National Grassland. However, this table does not indicate that the northern long-eared 

bat is present in this area and is currently a species proposed for listing as endangered. The Service 

recommends that this table be revised to include this information and text addressing the northern longeared bat as a proposed species be included, as well.

Summary: On page 3-286, the Draft EIS provides information for special status species found in areas

administered by the BLM's Newcastle Field Office, and on page 3-329 Table 3-95 contains a list of sensitive 

wildlife species in the Thunder Basin National Grassland. However, the northern long-eared bat is not 

included in these sections. The USFWS recommends that the Draft EIS state that the northern long-eared 

bat is a species proposed for listing as endangered in the BLM's Newcastle Field Office and TBNG and 

language in the text addressing the northern long-eared bat as a proposed species be included as well.

Response: Northern long-eared bat has been added to the document.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Pygmy rabbit revisions needed

Comment ID: 1896

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-163

Comment: Page 3-255, Pygmy rabbit, Para 3, line 8 - "Pygmy rabbit populations which are isolated .. 

.locally extirpated" This statement is inaccurate. Thammayya and Buskirk 2012 demonstrated that

populations were well connected genetically despite occurring in isolated pockets of sagebrush. This

implies a strong ability to disperse, and re-colonize which contradicts statement on line 8.

Summary: The statement on page 3-255, paragraph 3, line 8, "Pygmy rabbit populations which are isolated 

.. .locally extirpated" is inaccurate. Thammayya and Buskirk (2012) demonstrated that populations were 

well connected genetically despite occurring in isolated pockets of sagebrush. This implies a strong ability 

to disperse, and re-colonize which contradicts statement on line 8.

Response: The sentence has been removed based on the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Revisions to baseline information

Comment ID: 487

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: On page 3-95 of volume 1 there is a statement that is incorrect. It states "Forest Service does not 

control or manage wildlife". Forest Service has been managing prairie dogs on thousands of acres of TBNG 

for many years, in direct conflict with this statement.

Summary: On page 3-95 the statement "Forest Service does not control or manage wildlife" is incorrect, as

Forest Service has been managing prairie dogs on thousands of acres of TBNG for many years.

Response: The text in the Draft EIS that stated that the Forest Service does not control or manage wildlife 

is incorrect. That text has been revised in the Final EIS. Courts have affirmed that the Forest Service clearly 

has the authority under the Property Clause, and Organic Act, 16 U.S.C 551, to regulate fish and wildlife 

on National Forest System lands. State governments have extremely important trustee and management 

roles in regulating wildlife management and harvest. It is a Forest Service policy decision on how to best 

work with state partners in managing wildlife. FSM 2600-90-2 (2610.3) includes Forest Service policy for 

management of wildlife and fish populations. "Policy-1. Recognize the role of the states to manage wildlife 

and fish populations within their jurisdictions and the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to manage fish and wildlife resources within its authority. 2. Recognize the state fish and wildlife agencies 

as a public agency with management responsibilities for wildlife on the National Forests and include them 

as partners in planning and implementation of activities that effect wildlife and fish. 3. Provide leadership 

in habitat management on National Forest System lands to meet resource objectives of the Forest Service 

and its cooperators. 4. Maintain processes for resolving habitat management issues of the Forest Service

and its cooperators." Prairie dog management is directed under part 4 of this policy.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

River otter revisions needed

Comment ID: 1900

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-164 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Page 3-276, River Otter, Para 1, line 1 - Add "and protected by Wyoming Statute" Page 3-276, 

River Otter, Para 1, line 4 - " .. .in the Green River Basin." Add "and western half of Wyoming." Species is 

more broadly distributed than the statement in the document implies.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-276, paragraph 1, line 1 - Add "and protected by Wyoming Statute" Issue 2: 

On page 3-276, paragraph 1, line 4 - " .. .in the Green River Basin." Add "and western half of Wyoming." 

Species is more broadly distributed than the statement in the document implies.

Response: Revisions to the sentence have been made based on the comments.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Species inclusion clarifications needed

Comment ID: 168

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: On 3-517-518 there is a list of "species of greatest conservation need." Of the 66 species listed, 

41 are included "wholly or in part due to the absence of data”. It seems unreasonable to assume that these 

are in need of conservation efforts if the data don't support that.

Comment ID: 483

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: Species of Greatest Conservation Need for the Thunder Basin National Grasslands What is the 

determining factor (or factors) that the American Bittern is on this list? This bird is said to be "rather 

common but very elusive" Perhaps this elusiveness is what makes people think it isn't there. Where in the 

TBNG is there enough water for the white Pelican to do anything except rest for a little while? Herons, 

Terns, Canvasbacks, Gulls,Scaup, pintails, Grebe and probably other birds that made the list are occasional

visitors to the TBNG. To put them on a list of this kind seems to make them of more importance then they 

are. Just because a bird flew over an area or stopped in a stockwater pond for a bit should not make it a 

"species of concern",

Comment ID: 2473

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-400 Species of Special Concern: The "several species of special concern" should be listed 

here either in the known or suspected list.

Summary: Issue 1: On 3-517-518 there is a list of "species of greatest conservation need." Of the 66 species

listed, 41 are included "wholly or in part due to the absence of data”. It seems unreasonable to assume that 

these are in need of conservation efforts if the data don't support that. Issue 2: Regarding Species of Greatest 

Conservation Need for the Thunder Basin National Grasslands, provide reasoning as to why the American 

Bittern is on this list, as this bird is said to be "rather common but very elusive". Issue 3: Birds that are 

occasional visitors to TBNG, including the white pelican, herons, terns, canvasbacks, gulls, scaup, pintails, 

grebe and probably other birds that made the list seems to make them of more importance then they are.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-165

Issue 4: On page 3-400 the "several species of special concern" should be listed here either in the known 

or suspected list.

Response: Issue 1: The descriptions of species of greatest conservation need is a report of existing

determinations. Changing these determinations is outside the scope of the actions studied in this

environmental analysis. Please see Section 4.14.2 for the list of species of special concern. Issue 2: This 

list has been developed by the State of Wyoming's Wildlife Action Plan. It identified the species the state 

has identified as needing conservation actions. The EIS has used the state's list to develop this table based 

on the occurrence within the project area. Issue 3: This list has been developed by the State of Wyoming's 

Wildlife Action Plan. It identified the species the state has identified as needing conservation actions. The 

EIS has used the state's list to develop this table based on the occurrence within the project area. Issue 4: 

These species are listed in Section 4.14.2

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

Spotted bat revisions needed

Comment ID: 1897

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-256, Spotted bat, Para 2, line 1 - This statement is inaccurate. Scientific collection of 

spotted bats, though perhaps once important, is not considered a threat today. Further the species is

protected from such widespread collection efforts by Chapter 52 of the Wyoming Game and Fish

Commission Regulations. Please remove or revise.

Summary: The statement on page 3-256, paragraph 2, line 1 is inaccurate and should be removed or revised.

Scientific collection of spotted bats, though perhaps once important, is not considered a threat today. 

Further, the species is protected from such widespread collection efforts by Chapter 52 of the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission Regulations.

Response: The sentence has been removed based on the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Best available information-baseline data

White-faced ibis revisions are needed

Comment ID: 1899

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish

Name: Mark Konishi

Comment: Page 3-263, White-faced ibis, Paragraph 1, line 1 - "The white-faced ibis occurs in marshes, 

wet-moist meadows, lakes, and irrigated meadows (Cerovski et al. 2004) and has been confirmed as nesting 

in the planning area (Luce et al. 1997). This statement is outdated. Recommend updating to "The whitefaced

ibis occurs in marshes, wet-moist meadows, lakes, and irrigated meadows and has been confirmed as 

nesting in the planning area (Orabona et al. 2012)."

Summary: On page 3-263, paragraph 1, line 1, the statement "The white-faced ibis occurs in marshes, 

wetmoist meadows, lakes, and irrigated meadows (Cerovski et al. 2004) and has been confirmed as nesting 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-166 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

in the planning area (Luce et al. 1997)." is outdated. Recommend updating to "The whitefaced ibis occurs 

in marshes, wet-moist meadows, lakes, and irrigated meadows and has been confirmed as nesting in the 

planning area (Orabona et al. 2012)."

Response: The sentence has been revised due to information provided in the comment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Cumulative impact analysis

Surface disturbing activities will impact special status species

Comment ID: 3079

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: According to the DEIS at 4-487: Oil and gas development would cause the greatest amount of 

surface disturbance through construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Reclamation 

and mitigation efforts would reduce impacts on special status wildlife; however, construction and 

maintenance of roads and well pads and the presence of humans would result in long-term or permanent 

impacts. Special status species, under the ESA and Wyoming BLM and Forest Service sensitive species 

guidance, would be protected on federal lands by site-specific mitigation, including exclusion or avoidance 

of all surface-disturbing activities; however, protection of non-federally listed species on private and state

lands may not occur, resulting in potentially significant impacts on these species. The degree of impact 

would depend on the timing of development activities and whether the amount of activity outpaces the 

successful reclamation and revegetation efforts in disturbed areas. Because of this pace of development 

(whether federal mineral, commercial, or private residence), more pressure would be put on habitats outside 

of the development (likely private lands) as wildlife is displaced from the disturbances. The assertion in the 

DEIS that special status species would be protected “by site-specific mitigation, including exclusion or 

avoidance of all surface-disturbing activities” is contradicted by the current preferred alternative. In fact, 

Alternative E provides for very little exclusion and avoidance. This misleading claim in the cumulative 

impacts section lacks any credence unless the FEIS adopts the conservation approach advocated by these 

comments consistent with the protective designations in Alternative B.

Summary: According to the Draft EIS at 4-487, oil and gas development would cause the greatest amount 

of surface disturbance and reclamation and mitigation efforts would reduce impacts on special status

wildlife; however, construction and maintenance of roads and well pads and the presence of humans would 

result in long-term or permanent impacts. Special status species, under the ESA and Wyoming BLM and 

Forest Service sensitive species guidance, would be protected on federal lands by sitespecific mitigation, 

including exclusion or avoidance of all surface-disturbing activities; however, protection of non-federally 

listed species on private and state lands may not occur, resulting in potentially significant impacts on these 

species. The degree of impact would depend on the timing of development activities and whether the 

amount of activity outpaces the successful reclamation and revegetation efforts in disturbed areas. Because

of this pace of development (whether federal mineral, commercial, or private residence), more pressure 

would be put on habitats outside of the development (likely private lands) as wildlife is displaced from the 

disturbances. The assertion in the Draft EIS that special status species would be protected “by site-specific

mitigation, including exclusion or avoidance of all surface-disturbing activities” is contradicted by the

current Preferred Alternative. In fact, Alternative E provides for very little exclusion and avoidance. This 

misleading claim in the cumulative impacts section lacks any credence unless the Final EIS adopts the 

conservation approach advocated by these comments consistent with the protective designations in 

Alternative B.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-167

Response: The combination of surface occupancy exclusions, surface activity and disturbance restrictions,

timing limitations, limits on density of development, and other management prescriptions provided under 

Alternative E have been developed to minimize habitat fragmentation, reduce multiple stressors to the 

species, support the recovery of the Greater Sage-Grouse population in Wyoming and surrounding states, 

and protect core, general, and seasonal sage-grouse habitat. Closure of specified areas to leasing has been 

considered and analyzed within other prescribed alternatives, and may yet be selected for use in the final 

Record of Decision.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Impact Analysis

Chapter special status species revisions

Comment ID: 2879

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 242 of Chapter 4, bullet point 6 discusses that development restrictions in core sagegrouse areas are assumed to benefit special status species. We reiterate our point that many raptors are

special status species which prey upon sage-grouse. Helping sage-grouse may mean addressing these other 

species, or in the least try to encourage them leaving the area to protect the sage-grouse. The entire 

discussion on special status species needs to point out how adverse impacts to one species can benefit 

another. The most obvious example would be that activities which would reduce predatory raptors such as 

eagles would result in increased sage-grouse survival rates.

Summary: On page 242 of Chapter 4, bullet point 6 discusses that development restrictions in core sagegrouse areas are assumed to benefit special status species. We reiterate our point that many raptors are

special status species which prey upon sage-grouse. Helping sage-grouse may mean addressing these other 

species, or in the least try to encourage them leaving the area to protect the sage-grouse. The entire 

discussion on special status species needs to point out how adverse impacts to one species can benefit 

another. The most obvious example would be that activities which would reduce predatory raptors such as 

eagles would result in increased sage-grouse survival rates.

Response: The alternatives contain a combination of surface disturbance restrictions, timing limitations, 

limits on density of development, and other management that will minimize or prevent disturbance and

habitat fragmentation, which will provide adequate protections for sage-grouse and other special status 

species. This document serves as an amendment to land use plans specifically to protect sagegrouse and 

their habitat, other provisions in each individual land use plan may provide further protections for special 

status species that are not discussed in this amendment.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Range of alternatives

Guidelines in Preferred Alternative should be included in all LUPs

Comment ID: 2175

Organization: The Nature Conservancy

Name: Graham McGaffin

Comment: The Conservancy supports the proposed order and actions in the preferred alternative but

recommends BLM and USFS apply those guidelines to wildlife and fisheries management in all BLM and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-168 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

USFS land-use plans considered in the DEIS and not limit the application to the Pinedale RMP, as proposed 

in the DEIS (page 2-135).

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service should apply those guidelines in the Preferred Alternative to 

wildlife and fisheries management in all BLM and Forest Service land-use plans considered in the Draft 

EIS and not limit the application to the Pinedale RMP, as proposed in the Draft EIS (page 2-135).

Response: Management was only included in Alternative A for amendment if it pertained to Greater SageGrouse Management. Pinedale was the only plan that contained this management. The management in 

Alternative E will apply to all BLM Field Offices and Forest Service Units, not just to Pinedale.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Range of alternatives

No alternative protects other special status species adequately

Comment ID: 1197

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA believes that all of the action alternatives in the DLUPA inappropriately jettison BLM’s 

existing policies to protect candidate species, including the policies contained in BLM Manual 6840, 

“Special Status Species Management” (Manual 6840) and represent a pre-determined decision to 

implement required design features and best management practices as recommended in the NTT Report 

(Ch. 2 at 2-15, 16). Consequently, the DLUPA arbitrarily imposes a completely new regulatory framework

without providing a reasonable explanation for doing so, and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Summary: All of the action alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments inappropriately jettison BLM’s 

existing policies to protect candidate species, including the policies contained in BLM Manual 6840, 

“Special Status Species Management” and represent a pre-determined decision to implement required 

design features and best management practices as recommended in the NTT report (Ch. 2 at 2-15, 16).

Consequently, the Draft LUP Amendments arbitrarily imposes a completely new regulatory framework 

without providing a reasonable explanation for doing so, and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

Response: The BLM special status species manual continues to apply. The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

LUP Amendments is only focusing on amending management for sage-grouse in the 6 BLM and 3 Forest

Service units. Management for other wildlife species is not addressed because that management is not being 

amended, and addressing that management would be out of scope of the plan. The specific management for 

other wildlife within the existing LUPs will not change. The management in the Draft LUP Amendments 

has been analyzed in Chapter 4 to disclose the impacts to special status and other fish and wildlife species. 

Analysis and necessary mitigation for threatened and endangered species and critical habitat is contained 

in the Biological Assessment, and an analysis of Forest Service sensitive species and Forest Service 

Management Indicator Species and their habitat is contained in the Biological Evaluation. Please see 

Appendix M.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Range of alternatives

Recovery objectives are needed

Comment ID: 1213
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-169

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The proposed Forest Plan amendment fails to include quantifiable recovery objectives either for 

ESA listed species or Sensitive Species. For example, one of many, there are no “quantifiable objectives”

for populations or habitat of Sensitive amphibian species. No recommendations for critical or essential 

habitats have been made or even discussed in the proposed Plan amendment.

Summary: The proposed Forest Plan amendment fails to include quantifiable recovery objectives either for 

ESA listed species or sensitive species. For example, there are no “quantifiable objectives” for populations 

or habitat of sensitive amphibian species. No recommendations for critical or essential habitats have been 

made or even discussed in the Proposed LUP Amendments.

Response: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments is only focusing on amending 

management for sage-grouse in the 6 BLM and 3 Forest Service units. Management for other wildlife 

species is not addressed because that management is not being amended, and addressing that management 

would be out of scope of the plan. The specific management for other wildlife within the existing LUPs 

will not change. The management in the LUP Amendments has been analyzed in Chapter 4 to disclose the 

impacts to special status and other fish and wildlife species. Analysis and necessary mitigation for

threatened and endangered species and critical habitat is contained in the Biological Assessment, and an 

analysis of Forest Service sensitive species and Forest Service Management Indicator Species and their 

habitat is contained in the Biological Evaluation. Please see Appendix M. The LUP Amendments/EIS is 

focused on identifying forest plan measures to protect the Greater Sage-Grouse and to help avoid the need 

to list the Greater Sage-Grouse under the ESA. Objectives and strategies have been developed in this EIS 

for this Forest Service sensitive species and its habitat. Development of quantifiable objectives for all other 

sensitive species or ESA listed species is beyond the scope of this decision.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Range of alternatives

Support for Alternative B

Comment ID: 2265

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: (Action 125, page 2-132-133): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B 

are most appropriate for Action 125.

Summary: For Action 125, page 2-132-133, the management actions outlined in Alternative B are most

appropriate for Action 125.

Response: The final decision for this action will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of 

the public involvement process.

Fish and Wildlife-Other Special Status Species

Range of alternatives

The plan needs to address conflicts between prairie dogs and sage-grouse

Comment ID: 1068

Organization: Association of National Grasslands, Inc.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-170 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Mark Tubbs

Comment: ANG believes that the overlapping core area habitats of the sage-grouse and the black-tailed 

prairie dog are management conflicts that NEPA requires the agency to take a hard look at in the DEIS.

Anything less renders the DEIS inadequate. We believe that the management prescriptions in the DEIS for 

sage grouse habitat and the prairie dog habitat requirements in the TBNG LRMP are in direct conflict. This 

conflict has not been adequately described or evaluated in the DEIS. The failure of the DEIS to provide 

scientific analysis concerning the habitat conflicts between the sage-grouse and the black-tailed prairie dog 

deprives the public of the information necessary to provide meaningful comment. This failure to recognize 

and analyze the habitat conflicts and the carrying capacity of uncontrolled prairie dog populations on the 

TBNG necessarily precludes outlining appropriate measures to mitigate these conflicts, as required by 40 

C.F.R. 1S0.14(f). In conclusion, ANG respectfully request that the FEIS and Biological Assessment be 

completed by the Forest Service to ensure that sufficient analysis and evaluation be given to the prairie dog 

and sage grouse habitat conflicts that will continue to occur unless the proper NEPA analysis and mitigation

measures are outlined in these documents and the Record of Decision. The adverse modification of sage 

grouse habitat by prairie dog expansion may not be ignored in the preparation of these NEPA required 

documents. Please give serious consideration to our well-intentioned request.

Comment ID: 1492

Organization:

Name: Denise Langley

Comment: The Fish and Wildlife hav stated that one of the major areas of concern to sage grouse habitat is 

the destruction and fragmentation of that specific habitat. In the TBNG the second biggest destructive force 

destroying the limited habitat of the bird is the habitat destruction caused by the black-tailed prairie dog. 

The encroachment of this rodent into the sage grouse core area has destroyed more acreage than all the 

other concerns put together excluding mining. As previously stated, there was a very large population of 

sage grouse in many areas. Then, over the years the Sage Grouse population has declined. One of the major 

components of their decrease has been a decrease in available habitat. When the FS took over the 

management of the Grasslands and then determined to grow prairie dogs that meant the demise of large 

expanses of sage grouse habitat. I have lived in the Grasslands all my life—probably longer than anyone 

working in the federal agencies today and can state with all honesty the pursuance in an increase for acreage 

of prairie dog towns has caused a dramatic decrease in hundreds of acres of sage grouse core area habitat.

Oil and gas pads are stationery, once set they do not move or increase in size. I have seen sage grouse 

huddled by the exhaust of a noisy pumping unit to stay warm so they do adjust. A pipeline once laid will 

grow vegetation over the top for cover. Transmission lines if buried are the same. Transmission lines if set 

for predator control will not leave a large footprint over the years. BUT the black- tailed prairie dog in the 

Grasslands has laid barren miles of once productive land that had sage grouse nesting and winter habitat.

Destruction of sage grouse habitat can occur with any type of prairie dog but is greatly increased with the 

black-tailed prairie dog colonization. This is because black-tailed prairie dogs colonize at a much higher 

density. All prairie dogs should be managed away from and kept out of sage grouse core area habitat and 

connectivity areas unless they are on private lands. In this case the landowner with the prairie dogs should 

be encouraged to protect the neighboring sage grouse habitat. If prairie dogs were not allowed or 

encouraged to inhabit any sage grouse core areas, connectivity areas and where ever there is good habitat 

for the Greater Sage Grouse, then that critical sage grouse vegetation format would be preserved. The prairie 

dog can live almost anywhere whereas the habitat for the sage grouse is greatly limited. How is it possible 

to actually say you are going to conserve Sage Grouse without placing restrictions on where the prairie 

dogs can live and also manage the density of the prairie dogs population levels? Will the federal agencies 

step up to the plate, and come up with actual workable solutions that will be a good solid basis the federal 

agencies can and will support to prevent more sage grouse habitat destruction by the prairie dog? Page 2-8 

Draft EIS “maintain or improve the viability of sage-grouse habitat and populations over time” this will not 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-171

be accomplished especially in the Northeastern part of Wyoming unless the prairie dog encroachment into 

sage grouse core area habitat is dealt with---so do it with good sound management solutions. If the prairie 

dogs are managed out of and far enough away from the core areas then you will have solved a major problem 

of habitat destruction and fragmentation in a key area of the State of Wyoming.

Comment ID: 478

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: Not addressed in the amendment is the conflict between prairie dogs and sage grouse. There are

documented cases of prairie dogs mowing sagebrush in areas that at one time were used by sagegrouse. The 

current prairie dog plan, which includes thousands of acres of prairie dog infested lands is certainly 

detrimental to sage grouse. If, as stated in 3-237, ferrets only need prairie dog towns of 12.5 acres, then 

even if the Thunder Basin National Grasslands is to be used for ferrets, the amount of land set aside is 

excessive.

Comment ID: 2224

Organization: Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA)

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne

Comment: In the Wildlife and Fisheries section of the executive summary (page x), a passing reference is 

made to comments received concerning potential conflicts between prairie dogs and greater sage-grouse

management. However, Appendix M provides very little information on this situation. Since a portion of 

prairie dog MA 3.63 overlaps the Thunder Basin sage-grouse core area, it is unclear how competing

management prescriptions will be blended in order to provide adequate habitat for sagegrouse. Managing 

for sage-grouse in conjunction with prairie dog and other shortgrass species is certainly complex. However 

Appendix M states that “...specific habitat management direction for prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that 

sufficient habitat will remain to support desired prairie dog levels.” This seems to imply that current 

management direction for prairie dogs will supersede management for sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat. 

The Association suggests that the final alternative clarify this ambiguity and include guidance for multispecies management including preserving, where possible, the habitat that takes the longest to establish or 

restore–in this case, sagebrush.

Summary: Not addressed in the amendment is the conflict between prairie dogs and sage-grouse. There are

documented cases of prairie dogs mowing sagebrush in areas that at one time were used by sagegrouse. The 

current prairie dog plan, which includes thousands of acres of prairie dog infested lands is certainly 

detrimental to sage-grouse. If, as stated in 3-237, ferrets only need prairie dog towns of 12.5 acres, then 

even if the TBNG is to be used for ferrets, the amount of land set aside is excessive. This failure to recognize 

and analyze the habitat conflicts and the carrying capacity of uncontrolled prairie dog populations on the 

TBNG necessarily precludes outlining appropriate measures to mitigate these conflicts. Appendix M states 

that “...specific habitat management direction for prairie dogs and MA 3.63 insure that sufficient habitat 

will remain to support desired prairie dog levels.” This seems to imply that current management direction 

for prairie dogs will supersede management for sagebrush and sagegrouse habitat. Please clarify this 

ambiguity and include guidance for multi-species management including preserving, where possible, the 

habitat that takes the longest to establish or restore–in this case, sagebrush.

Response: While the sage-grouse core area overlaps the MA 3.63, the habitats are not mutually exclusive.

Prairie dogs and associated species have coexisted with sage-grouse in this area for decades. The reference 

to 12.5 acres needed for ferrets does not meet current science and will be corrected in the Final EIS. Under 

the current prairie dog management strategy, the prairie dogs are within the current designated areas and 

acreages and within designated control limits. Under the current strategy they are not an uncontrolled 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-172 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

population. The current prairie dog strategy is not mutually exclusive and does not supersede management 

for sage-grouse.

Sage-grouse

Definitions, terminology

Comment ID: 985 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: "Core Areas" or "Core Habitat Areas" and "Priority Sage-grouse Habitat" - Throughout the Draft 

LUP Amendment and DEIS the terms "Core Areas" or "Core Habitat Areas" and "Priority Sage-grouse 

Habitat" are used interchangeably (including Map 3-18: Sage-grouse Habitat). However, as defined in the 

Glossary, the terms do not cross-reference. Other states may use their own terms for designating GSG 

habitat, but for this plan, please revise the definitions for "Core Areas" and "Priority Sage-grouse Habitat" 

to be consistent with Wyoming's strategy. 

Comment ID: 977 

Organization: American Colloid Company 

Name: Melody Smith 

Comment: EIS Glossary Definitions: “Core Areas: The term “Core” is associated with state-designated 

areas identified as the most important for Greater Sage-Grouse. Some states utilize a distance surrounding 

the largest leks, while other states use other methods including designating all occupied habitat as Core.” 

“Priority Sage-grouse Habitat: Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value to 

maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations. These areas would include breeding, late brood-rearing, 

and winter concentration areas. These areas have been identified by the BLM/Forest Service in coordination 

with respective state wildlife agencies.” Priority and core habitat do not have the same definitions and are 

identified by different agencies; how then can they be “the same” and used interchangeably in discussions 

as stated in the summaries for Alternatives B and C? (‘Core Habitat’ is not specified in DEIS Glossary, 

clarify if the term is synonymous with ‘Core Area’ that is in the Glossary.) Clarify definitions, use and 

represented area. 

Comment ID: 1017 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The FEIS needs to address both Site Stabilization and Interim Reclamation by adding the 

following: Site Stabilization: Newly-disturbed areas not needed for production, operation or travel would 

be protected to stabilize soils and prevent erosion until interim reclamation techniques are applied. This 

includes protection of top soil in stockpiles from deterioration. Interim Reclamation: Reclamation is 

initiated on well pads, roads, and pipelines immediately after drilling activity is completed and wells are 

producing. The objective of interim reclamation is to achieve healthy, biologically active topsoil, control 

erosion, restore habitat and visual qualities, and forage function of those portions of the disturbed area not 

needed for production operations for the life of the well or facilities or until final reclamation is initiated. 

Interim reclamation is designed to be complementary to final reclamation and should not inhibit final 

reclamation. Interim Reclamation is a best management practice with agency-wide emphasis. See BLM

Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-098. Throughout the DEIS, BLM has failed to adequately implement 

interim reclamation and should include interim reclamation as a basic management assumption that will 

reduce surface disturbance and habitat impacts. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-173

Comment ID: 986 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: "Conservation Measures" - Please add language to the definition for "Conservation Measures" 

that demonstrates measures will be developed in collaboration with the State of Wyoming and other 

applicable stakeholders. 

Comment ID: 987 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: "Disruptive Activities ", "Sage-grouse Disruptive Activity ", "Surface Disturbance ", and 

"Surface Disturbing Activities" - The definition "Sage-grouse Disruptive Activity" should be removed from 

the document - disruptive activities are the same for GSG as they are for other wildlife species. The BLM 

has defined "Surface Disturbance" and "Disruptive Activities" in Information Bulletin (IB) WY-2007-029, 

Guidance for Use of Standardized Surface Use Definitions, and again in BLM 1M WY-2012-019. Both 

documents direct the BLM to use the standardized definition provided in IB WY- 2007-029. The statement 

" ... activity to be present in these habitats for a duration of more than 1 hour during any one 24 hour period 

during the application season in the site-specific area." is acceptable. This exception will provide 

clarification to short-term activities occurring within site specific areas. Normal livestock grazing or trailing 

activities should not be considered "surface disturbance" or a "disruptive activity" provided management 

actions pertaining to these activities are applied. The Draft LUP Amendment and DEIS states, "Livestock 

grazing is not considered a surface disturbing activity." (p.4-87). I support this statement, and believe it 

should be reflected throughout the document, including the Glossary. 

Comment ID: 2326 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The Executive Order also allows mining operations to submit a conservation plan to the Sage 

Grouse Initiative Team to mitigate surface disturbing issues that fall within the .25 mile No Surface 

Occupancy buffer around leks. The DLUPA/DEIS fails to address how it will mitigate activities on BLM 

surface that are "restricted" within the .25 mile No Surface Occupancy property. Moreover, the Draft EIS 

fails to define what "restricted" means and how it will be implemented in a No Surface Occupancy area. 

Comment ID: 2268 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Also, the definition of what constitutes successful mitigation and the notion of “no-net loss with 

a net gain” should be explicit and extend beyond habitat acres for sage-grouse. The mitigation goal should 

explicitly state that mitigation means reproductively active and successful birds are occupying the habitat 

and not simply having the habitat characteristics on an acre-acre basis or even with a net gain of acres, but 

perhaps without occupancy. While bird presence and success cannot be measured on every acre, there must 

at least be some population metric measured at a reasonable scale to demonstrate population are level or 

increasing where mitigation efforts have been implemented (perhaps by estimating brood density and chicks 

per brood from observations on transects through mitigation sites). 

Summary: Requests to add, revise or remove definitions for: -sage-grouse disruptive activity (remove) -

surface disturbance, disruptive activity, core habitat areas, priority habitat areas, sage-grouse habitat 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-174 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

(revise) -conservation measures, restricted, site stabilization, interim reclamation, successful mitigation 

(add).

Response: The definitions have been updated in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. 

Sage-grouse

Protect sage-grouse and habitat

Comment ID: 735 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Some general habitat, however, must also be conserved if sage-grouse are to be restored to 

longterm viability. The goal for managing general habitat is to support habitat connectivity and increase 

sage-grouse populations within and outside of the other sage-grouse habitat designations. 

Comment ID: 727 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: In its scoping comments on the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy submitted on 

March 12, 2013, NWF and five of its state affiliates, California Planning and Conservation League, 

Colorado Wildlife Federation, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Montana Wildlife Federation, Nevada Wildlife 

Federation, and Wyoming Wildlife Federation, identified 15 components of effective management 

strategies for sage-grouse conservation (see discussion below). None of the alternatives identified in the 

Wyoming Nine-Plan Greater Sage Grouse Draft Land Use Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (WY9DEIS) contains all of these recommendations. NWF, therefore, urges the agencies 

to adopt a final resource management plan amendment (RMPA) that incorporates appropriate elements of 

Alternatives B and C, as well as the Preferred Alternative, in the final RMPA. 

Comment ID: 726 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: The guiding principle of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy must be to 

maintain and increase the abundance and distribution of Greater sage-grouse throughout the planning area. 

This planning effort will require the development of policies and strategies to conserve, enhance, and restore 

the sagebrush ecosystem across the species’ range. For that reason, NWF is disappointed to see the agencies 

put forth as their “Preferred Alternative” (Alternative E) in the draft environmental impact statement for 

amending nine land use management plans in Wyoming, a strategy that continues to rely on measures, such 

as the quarter-mile buffer for leks outside designated core areas, that have proven ineffective in preventing 

the decline of Greater sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1089 

Organization: 

Name: Brock Evans 

Comment: he Preferred Alternative simply does not -- can not -- accomplish these needed goals sufficiently 

to stabilize its numbers and eventually recover it to full sustainable health as a species. I urge that the BLM 

reconsider its position and to adopt the Conservation Alternative instead. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-175

Comment ID: 1069 

Organization: 

Name: John Davis 

Comment: Commercial uses of the land should only be permitted if they are compatible with protection of 

the sage grouse and other sagebrush species. 

Comment ID: 2738

Organization: 

Name: Ron Lambeth 

Comment: At the planning stage you can broaden your authority for protective measures at APD time. 

Reserving sizable areas as No Surface Occupancy would face opposition, but that's the nature of multiple 

use land management. Areas for true multiple use must include habitats kept that are large enough for strong 

populations of sage grouse that geneticists can predict persistence for more than a human generation or two. 

Protecting large expanses of important sage-grouse habitat--as outlined in the Conservation Alternative--

will help stem the decline of many species of wildlife across the American West. This alternative will also 

begin restoring balance to an over-utilized and degraded landscape, while at the same time identifying areas 

most appropriate for development and those that need to be avoided. 

Comment ID: 1067 

Organization: 

Name: Eileen Hennessy 

Comment: I am deeply concerned about the preservation of endangered sage grouse, however, I believe the 

solution to that problem is the critical listing of this rapidly declining bird under the ESA -- not a plan 

concocted by the BLM whose sole purpose is not saving this species from extinction but to head the ESA 

listing of sage grouse off at the pass before the strict regulations of an official federal listing would dictate 

the preservation of sage grouse habitat on public lands and put an end to the incessant destructive use of 

such areas by commercial interests including livestock grazing and extractive industries 

Comment ID: 734 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: NWF has long supported the approach adopted by the State of Wyoming and identified in all of 

the action alternatives under consideration in the WY9DEIS of delineating “core” or “priority” habitats that 

must be permanently protected from both direct and indirect impacts of development. The agencies’ own 

National Technical Team (NTT) has defined priority habitat as “areas that have the highest conservation 

value to maintaining or increasing sage‐ grouse populations.”6 These priority areas should include 

breeding, late brood‐ rearing, winter concentration areas, and migration or connectivity corridors.7 The 

remaining sage-grouse habitat, or general sage-grouse habitat, includes occupied seasonal or year-round 

habitat outside of priority habitat. Priority habitat should be set aside from development or protected via 

stringent management protections that meet the goal of maintaining and enhancing populations in these 

areas. These protected areas should be large enough to stabilize populations in the short term and enhance 

populations over the long term.8 Priority habitat should also include small or isolated populations, such as 

those along the periphery of the Greater sage-grouse’s range.6 BLM Sage‐ grouse National Technical 

Team, A Report on National Greater Sage‐ Grouse Conservation Measures (December 21, 2011), at p. 7. 

The National Technical Team calls these areas “priority” sage-grouse habitat. 7 Ibid. 8 For example, the 

Wyoming BLM proposed 11 contiguous square miles or sections as an appropriate minimum size for an 

area of habitat to qualify for being set-aside from development. BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-176 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

013, available at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/resources/efoia/Ims/2010.Par.43567.File.dat/wy2 010‐

013.pdf. 

Comment ID: 714 

Organization: 

Name: Meg Daly 

Comment: recognizing that Wyoming 9 is likely to recommend Alternative E, I am concerned that several 

measures in Alternative E are inadequate to ensure successful conservation of Greater sage-grouse. I 

suggest additional conservation measures be incorporated into the final determination. Limit surface 

disturbance within core Greater sage-grouse habitat to 3% per 640 acres. Research shows that sage-grouse 

populations decline in the long-run when facing higher levels of disturbance. Extend Greater sage-grouse 

lek buffers to four miles. Research shows that the negative impacts of energy infrastructure on leks extend 

four miles—more than 550% times farther than the proposed 0.6-mile buffer zone. Similarly, limit the 

timing of disruptive activities such as drilling wells and building roads to provide strong protections for 

grouse during lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing seasons. Provide core and/or connectivity habitat 

protections to sage-grouse in the Bridger-Teton National Forest (such as for the Gros Ventre and Hoback 

basin leks). These sage-grouse populations serve as critical connections between grouse in Jackson Hole 

and those in the Upper Green River basin. Currently, these populations are outside core area designations. 

Comment ID: 1624 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: A primary concern is that none of the administrative designations now in existence provide for 

longterm assurances that the lands will be managed for the recovery and conservation of the grouse. As a 

parallel effort, the Center urges the agencies to pursue new authorities to enter into long-term conservation 

for the grouse another species that provide for durable protections. At the heart of the effort to avoid the 

extirpation and extinction of the sage-grouse, there must be a profound and fundamental recognition that 

further habitat declines are very serious in nature. Early conservationist Aldo Leopold once said, “To keep 

every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”38 Due to the heavy impacts of man, 

fire and climate change on the landscape, we are facing a crisis of losing the “cogs” that form an intact and 

functional sage-grouse ecosystem. Immediate steps are needed to stabilize the losses and lay the foundation 

for future recovery.39 Towards this end, the Center and others are proposing a system of habitat reserves 

to provide for the conservation and recovery of the grouse. Rationale and details for this proposed reserve 

system are now provided. 

Comment ID: 1623 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The Center requests that the agencies map and implement a conservation reserve system for the 

recovery of the sage-grouse. Tools to implement and sustain such as system are limited however the 

agencies should take advantage of all existing land designations to do so, and pursue more durable and 

lasting designations through rule-making and Congressional actions.37 Primary among existing 

designations are the Area of Critical Environmental Concern authorized in the BLM’s regulations, and the 

USFS may “adopt special designations through plan amendment or revision” to conserve natural resources 

(36 CFR § 219.27). The USFWS and US Forest Service should administratively designate sage-grouse 

conservation areas in the current planning process with similar purpose and management as BLM ACECs 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-177

to conserve sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent species on National Wildlife Refuges and 

conservation areas in the planning area. 

Comment ID: 900 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: We selected key conservation measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the preferred alternatives 

in the draft plans to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat. The key conservation measures take a 

precautionary approach to sage-grouse conservation, recognizing the challenges of managing sagebrush 

steppe. Selected measures would designate and conserve sage-grouse priority habitat, identify habitat 

restoration areas, specially protect sagebrush reserves, ensure that land uses do not fragment and degrade 

sage-grouse habitat, and require that management plans account for the effects of climate change on 

sagebrush steppe. These science-based measures are further described in Appendix A. While they are not 

a complete set of prescriptions needed to conserve sage-grouse, implementing these measures would 

provide a strong foundation for protecting and restoring the species and its habitat. 

Comment ID: 901 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Designate and manage large areas of priority habitat to conserve 

sagegrouse. 

Comment ID: 1620 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Sage-grouse are a landscape species that use a variety of sagebrush habitats throughout the year. 

Large, interconnected areas of sagebrush steppe must be conserved if sage-grouse are to persist.31 The size 

of sagebrush cores areas, percent of area in sagebrush cover, patch size of the sagebrush and their proximity 

to one another were key variables found to differentiate between extirpated and occupied habitat ranges.32 

Much remaining sage-grouse habitat is publicly owned, most of it managed by the federal government.33 

DEIS table 1, Table 3.5. Historic patterns of land use, conflicting management policies and demand for 

resources on these lands have left little sagebrush steppe protected. Protecting large expanses of sagebrush 

steppe and current populations of sagegrouse are the highest priority.34 Establishing a system of habitat 

reserves in sagebrush steppe will help conserve habitat components and ecological processes important to 

species conservation. 

Comment ID: 906 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Protect a subset of priority habitat as sagebrush reserves with the 

primary purpose of conserving and restoring sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse populations. 

Comment ID: 720 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-178 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: NWF is also concerned that the Preferred Alternative continues to vest substantial discretion in 

local managers to authorize “exceptions, waivers and modifications” to the conservation measures set forth. 

The result is not so much a “national strategy” for sage-grouse conservation as 100s of different approaches 

that will vary with agency personnel across the West. The continued reliance on some management 

“prescriptions” that are not supported by current science and others which are not really prescriptive but 

merely suggestions that can be waived will not be sufficient to ensure that sagegrouse are restored and that 

no further action by USFWS will be required. 

Comment ID: 913 

Organization: 

Name: cindy sheptow 

Comment: Require in the Preferred Alternative that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse 

Lek (display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats. 

The Cloud Foundation1s goal in advocating for wild horses includes restoring habitats for all wildlife on 

our public lands. Please do not let us down again. 

Comment ID: 864 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: NWF also supports elements of Preferred Alternative E that would require a minimum lease size 

of 640 contiguous acres within priority sage-grouse habitat. By implementing a minimum lease size, BLM 

and USFS could limit the density of oil and gas or mining activities to no more than an average of one 

location per 640 acres. In areas that previously may have been leased as a 40- acre parcel, this would not 

be possible. 

Comment ID: 718 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: The direct loss, fragmentation, and degradation of its habitat must be addressed now or further 

declines in sage-grouse populations and range will certainly occur. 

Comment ID: 1627 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: We are concerned that the agency’s examination of impacts to sage grouse is rudimentary in 

Priority Habitats and in many cases absent outside them in the DEIS. BLM also must take the legally 

required ‘hard look’ at direct or cumulative impacts to sage grouse wintering habitat under the various 

alternatives; since the impact of development approved under the RMP Amendment on breeding and 

nesting sage grouse matters little if sage grouse populations do not survive the winter. No surface 

disturbance in or adjacent to winter habitat any time of year (Walker 2008). 

Comment ID: 713 

Organization: 

Name: Meg Daly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-179

Comment: I support the Bureau of Land Management’s efforts to conserve Greater sage-grouse in 

Wyoming. My preferred alternative is Alternative C: the alternative based on the input of citizen groups 

and that affords the greatest protection for managing Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 979 

Organization: 

Name: Chris Lish 

Comment: There are regions with high biological values for sage grouse that have not yet been leased or 

developed, and these should be given highest priority for focused management. Both suitable sage grouse 

conservation and other land use practices can co-exist in these low conflict areas. To help greater sage 

grouse recover, the land-management plans must: * Implement consistent, sciencebased, nondiscretionary 

conservation measures to restrict or minimize disturbance in sage grouse priority habitat and around all 

active leks. * Designate all priority sage grouse habitat into a system of large and connected sagebrush 

reserves where conservation of sage grouse and other sagebrushdependent species is the priority. * 

Withdraw or close priority habitat areas to new surface disturbance including oil, gas, mineral and other 

energy development, as well as excluding new rightsof- way in these areas. * Identify and prohibit from 

surface disturbance sage grouse winter habitat. * Prevent livestock grazing from degrading sage grouse 

habitat, including through the spread of cheatgrass, and facilitate voluntary retirement of federal grazing 

permits in the species' range. * Maintain and enhance sage grouse seasonal habitats, including nesting, 

brooding, and wintering grounds. * Account for the effects of climate change in conservation plans by 

anticipating future habitat and species shifts and supporting sage-steppe resilience to climate change. “I 

think America will have come to maturity when it will be possible to erect somewhere in the United States 

a great bronze marker which will read: “‘Beneath these lands which surround you there lies enormous 

mineral wealth. However, it is the judgment of the American people, who locked up this area, that these 

lands shall not be disturbed, because we wish posterity to know that somewhere in our country, in gratitude 

to nature, there was at least one material resource that we could let alone.’” -- Freeman Tilden If 

development or other disturbance must occur within habitat areas, roads, transmission lines, and off-road 

vehicle trails should be constructed in a manner that minimizes and mitigates damage to sage grouse habitat 

and overall surface disturbance. The plan should restrict habitat disturbance to no more than 3 percent 

disturbance of the land surface per square mile and create a buffer of 10 kilometers from active leks. 

Additionally, existing and new disturbance should be monitored (using aerial and satellite imagery) and 

properly assessed so that plans for future leasing and permitting can be adjusted to ensure habitat is 

protected.

Comment ID: 5 

Organization: 

Name: Kathleen Drury 

Comment: I strongly urge you and your organizations, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest 

Service, to develop and implement adequate, consistent management prescriptions to protect and restore 

sage-grouse and their habitat on public lands. Sage-grouse are a landscape species that are highly sensitive 

to habitat loss and degradation. Final agency plans must adopt management alternatives based on the best 

available science, that include but are not limited to withdrawing or closing priority habitat areas to further 

mineral development, and excluding new rights-of-way in these areas. 

Comment ID: 451 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-180 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Unfortunately, and although the draft Wyoming plan makes important advances in managing 

sagegrouse and other wildlife in the planning area, the preferred alternative (Alternative E) falls short of 

conserving and restoring sage-grouse populations. Current and future development threatens large areas of 

sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming, and most sage-grouse populations are directly and indirectly affected by 

land uses and related effects (see 4-488, 4-492; and Appendix A). The preferred alternative does not propose 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to reduce or eliminate the impacts of land use and development on sagegrouse. We are concerned that many conservation measures in the preferred alternative lack scientific 

support and would be detrimental to sage-grouse (see Table 1). 

Comment ID: 504 

Organization: Hudson-Mohawk Bird Club, Inc. 

Name: Patti Packer 

Comment: As development pressure increases on these lands, Alternative E is insufficient to ensure that 

migration corridors are protected and damaged habitat is reclaimed. The agencies must develop a more 

protective plan that incorporates elements of Alternatives B and C, and the final plan must require that oil 

and gas drilling, road building, construction of transmission lines and wind turbines, and overgrazing are 

restricted in priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 497 

Organization: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Name: Philip Strobel 

Comment: We additionally recommend that the BLM consider selecting more precautionary management 

actions in the Preferred Alternative and using adaptive management to relax conservation measures as 

GRSG populations increase or achieve sustainability. This precautionary approach to adaptive management 

planning appears to be-worth considering because of the slowness of the GRSG to move into expanded or 

improved habitat and the unpredictability of GRSG populations. Many of the land management practices 

and decisions covered by the Draft LUPA/ElS would result in permanent impacts with few opportunities 

to reduce habitat fragmentation. 

Comment ID: 453 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: The Wyoming Basin Ecological Assessment (2011: 131), relevant to the draft Wyoming plan, 

reported that “[a]ny drilling <6.5 km [approximately 4 miles] from a sage-grouse lek could have indirect 

(noise disturbance) or direct (mortality) negative effects on sage-grouse populations.” The Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department, using lek buffers of 0.25-mile, 0.5-mile, 0.6-mile, 1.0-mile, and 2.0-mile, estimated 

lek persistence of 4, 5, 6, 10, and 28 percent, respectively (Christiansen and Bohne 2008, memorandum).

More recent modelling predicts that the Wyoming core area strategy will only slow, not stop, sage-grouse 

population declines in the state (Copeland et al. 2013), an estimation that may be confirmed by the latest 

population data in Wyoming (USRBSGCP 2014, draft). Since 2007, there has been a 60 percent decrease 

in the number of males counted at leks statewide (USRBSGCP 2014, draft). Despite these predictions and 

the preponderance of scientific research, the draft Wyoming plan concludes, without reference to supporting 

information, that “the proposed lek buffers are sufficient to provide Greater Sage-Grouse undisturbed 

habitat and prevent habitat fragmentation” (2-202, Table 2-7). It is inexplicable how the draft plan can make 

such a claim given that the 0.6-mile buffer would only protect an additional 236,420 acres over current 

management—out of 27 million acres of sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming (4-453). 

Comment ID: 452 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-181

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: One example of the scientifically deficient conservation measures in the preferred alternative is 

the proposed 0.6-mile lek buffer in core habitat areas to protect active sage-grouse leks and adjacent nesting 

and brood-rearing habitat from fluid minerals development and other disturbance (see Table 1). Neither the 

state nor Wyoming BLM subjected the policy to robust scientific review. The 0.6-mile lek buffer is 

inadequate to protect essential sage-grouse habitat from the effects of energy development and other 

disturbance, and much larger buffers are advised. As reported in the draft Wyoming plan, “[d]eclines of 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations following energy development have been shown through numerous 

scientific studies (Braun 1986, Remington and Braun 1991, Braun et al. 2002, Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 

2007). Buffer distances from 0.5 to two miles from oil and gas infrastructure have been shown to be 

inadequate to prevent declines of birds from leks (Walker et al. 2007). Studies have shown that greater 

distances, anywhere from two to four miles, are required for viable Greater Sage-Grouse populations to 

persist (Connelly et al. 2000, Holloran and Anderson 2005, Walker et al. 2007)” (4-335). 

Comment ID: 719 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: The disappearance of Greater sage-grouse habitat and the decline of Greater sage-grouse 

populations indicate the need to implement more effective conservation immediately. While federal land 

management agencies and state wildlife agencies have engaged in efforts to preserve Greater sage-grouse, 

the species is still in decline, demonstrating that past and current efforts are inadequate. As the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has indicated, there is an urgent need to develop and implement rangewide, science-based conservation measures before the Greater sage-grouse reaches the brink of extinction. 

Comment ID: 844 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: 

disturbance or uses permitted adjacent to priority habitat do not negatively impact sage-grouse populations 

in priority habitat,15 thus negating the value of designated priority habitats. 

Comment ID: 1063 

Organization: 

Name: Kelcia Wheeler 

Comment: I would ask the BLM to adopt the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management to 

conserve the species. 

Comment ID: 829 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: priority 

habitat from large-scale disturbances (e.g., transmission lines, oil and gas wells, graded roads etc.), as well 

as any type of development that affects population distribution and abundance at any level. 

Comment ID: 1052 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-182 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: 

Name: DIANE KASTEL 

Comment: We are sending a comment letter urging that BLM adopt conservation measures--called the 

conservation alternative, or "Alternative C"--to ensure sustainable management for the grouse. 

Comment ID: 832 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: 

development to areas with low conflicts with Greater sage-grouse conservation. 

Comment ID: 835 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: habitat 

cannot be fully protected due to valid existing rights, minimize impacts by limiting permitted disturbances 

to one per section with no more than 3% surface disturbance.14 

Comment ID: 836 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: small scale 

disturbances do not cumulatively disturb more than 3% of each priority area. 

Comment ID: 838 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: and 

enhance the amount of protected priority habitat by aggressively pursuing available tools, including fluid 

mineral lease retirements, voluntary grazing permit retirement (where beneficial), mineral withdrawal, coal 

unsuitability findings, and mineral claim buyouts. 

Comment ID: 839 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: habitat, 

establish goals for enhancing habitat and building sage-grouse populations. In these identified areas, the 

agencies should work to reduce overall road densities, remove fences and enhance nesting cover and take 

other steps to improve habitat function. 

Comment ID: 1625 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-183

Comment: Greater sage-grouse are a landscape species. Migratory populations have large annual ranges 

that can encompass >2,700 km2 / 667,184 ac. Large-bodied birds like sage-grouse are generally more 

strongly affected by habitat loss and fragmentation. Although conclusive data on minimum patch size is 

unavailable, conserving large expanses of sagebrush steppe is the highest priority to conserve sagegrouse. 

One study identified ten lek complexes that were >5,000 km2 / 1,235,526 ac) (range 5,395–100,288 km2) 

and 8 of them contained >100 leks (range 143–1,139). Some sagebrushdependent species use different 

habitat composition, structure or succession than sage-grouse prefer. Protecting large blocks of habitat will 

also help preserve a mosaic of different habitats of varying successional stages used by sage-grouse and 

other sagebrush-dependent species. Preserving large habitat islands in itself is not enough – these centers 

must be inner-connected for several reasons. Knick et al. stated that, “Species that have multiple 

interconnected populations are more likely to persist because risk of extirpation caused by regional 

events...connectivity among populations ensures that recolonization can occur following local extirpation 

assuming that sufficient habitat remains.” In addition, some sage-grouse populations (known as 

“migratory”) move long distances between seasonal habitats, sometimes in two distinct movements. Annual 

movements of 40-160 km by sagegrouse along established routes have been reported. Thus Beck et al. 

recommended conserving habitat corridors to facilitate easier movement for migratory sage-grouse. 

Protecting smaller habitat patches can help connect larger areas. Successful conservation strategies for sagegrouse would preserve networks of populations and/or habitat patches, including connecting smaller lek 

complexes within 18 km that could serve as intermediary islands of habitat for dispersing sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 842 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: range 

management practices outlined by the NTT, with improvements, including avoiding new range and water 

developments that negatively impact sagegrouse and applying the 3% disturbance cap to certain range 

developments. 

Comment ID: 1626 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Several habitat characteristics capable of being mapped should be included as components in 

the reserve system. These are all priority habitat for courtship, breeding and nesting areas, brood rearing 

areas, as well as winter habitats and linkages or connectivity habitat. 

Comment ID: 847 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: habitat 

treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances will need to be managed below thresholds necessary to 

conserve not only local sage-grouse populations, but sagebrush communities and landscapes as well. 

Comment ID: 848 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Wherever possible, priority habitat should be set aside from development or protected via 

stringent management protocols, especially where it is not subject to valid existing rights. Both BLM and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-184 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

USFS have existing mechanisms for designating lands like sage-grouse priority habitat that have 

biologically valuable characteristics and are in need of special management attention. By identifying 

priority sagegrouse habitats and developing prescriptions for their maintenance and improvement, the 

agencies will have taken a critical step forward in as a means of achieving the goal of maintaining and 

enhancing greater sage-grouse populations. The NTT’s recommendations should be used as a starting point 

for achieving effective conservation in priority habitats. The agencies should strive to implement them to 

the fullest extent possible while refining them further to better address specific issues consistent with the 

most recent science. 

Comment ID: 852 

Organization: 

Name: Jodie MacTavish 

Comment: The sage grouse is threatened by GAS DRILLING - STOP permitting wells - it is poisoning 

water, air, destroying the land and people's health. 

Comment ID: 859 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: The agencies’ Preferred Alternative E continues to rely on mitigation measures that are 

inadequate, such as the .25-mile buffer for leks outside preferred habitat.20 It also permits disturbance 

levels (5%) within priority habitats that are too great to ensure that Greater sage-grouse will be restored to 

sustainable populations. It relies too heavily on discretionary mitigation actions and permits exceptions to 

key conservation measures.20 Pump stations and other permanent structures should be placed a minimum 

of 2 miles (3.2 km) from the nearest lek, with a preferred distance of greater than 4 miles (6.4 km) from 

active leks, based upon the best-available science. See Naugle, D.E., Doherty, K.E., Walker, B.L., Holloran, 

M.J., Copeland, H.E. 2011. Energy development and greater sage-grouse. In: Greater sage-grouse: ecology 

and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology. University of California 

Press. 

Comment ID: 862 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: None of the alternatives identified in the WY9DEIS meets all of the recommendations included 

in the scoping comments submitted by NWF and its affiliates. Alternative A, the “No Action Alternative” 

is unacceptable. New conservation efforts are required in order to ensure that the Greater sage-grouse need 

not be listed as threatened or endangered. Alternative C is identified as the “Conservation Alternative.” It 

calls for the retirement of all grazing allotments within all sage-grouse habitats. While NWF agrees that 

over-grazing and some range “improvement” projects can be damaging to sagegrouse populations, we do 

not recommend that livestock grazing be eliminated on all sage-grouse habitat.19 19 The WY9DEIS creates 

a false choice that sets conservation against all other uses. The agencies should instead adopt conservation 

measures that will conserve a broad range of resources and uses. This approach is most consistent with 

responsible management of sage-grouse habitat and the many conservation values of these federal lands. 

Comment ID: 863 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-185

Comment: Alternative B incorporates the NTT recommendations regarding minerals activities in 

sagegrouse habitat. It also addresses livestock grazing and renewable energy. It requires that grazing in 

allotments which are not meeting sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives be restructured. It requires that 

range improvements be designed to enhance sage-grouse habitat. Alternative B recommends that priority 

habitats be designated as exclusion areas for both renewable energy generation and new transmission. NWF 

supports these additions to the NTT recommendations. 

Comment ID: 1630 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: BLM should cap disturbance at 3% on a per-square-mile basis at most in both Priority Habitats 

and Connectivity Areas. Connectivity Areas, which often in this plan amendment alternatives fall within 

General Habitats, are of crucial importance to sage grouse. According to Taylor et al. (2012: 32), “Genetic 

connectivity is the glue that holds populations together, and remaining core areas, though impacted, may 

help maintain connectivity among populations....” The Conservation Objectives Team (2013: 36) stated, 

“Sage-grouse habitats outside of PACs may also be essential, by providing connectivity between PACs 

(genetic and habitat linkages), habitat restoration and population expansion opportunities, and flexibility 

for managing habitat changes that may result from climate change. There may also be seasonal habitats 

outside of PACs essential to meeting the year-round needs of sagegrouse within PACs but that have not yet 

been identified.” Connectivity Areas need to be established to connect Priority Habitats. 

Comment ID: 1621 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Given the importance of public lands to sage-grouse conservation; the sensitivity of these lands 

to disturbance, longer recovery periods and variable response to restoration; and their susceptibility to 

invasion by exotic plants, land uses that negatively affect these lands should be restricted or eliminated in 

key habitat areas to conserve sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 1064 

Organization: 

Name: Kelcia Wheeler 

Comment: I would ask the BLM to adopt the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management to 

conserve the species. 

Comment ID: 291 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: From the standpoint of scientific supportability, the Alternative B and C measures on 

development density (3% cap, and per square mile section rather than using a DDCT) are scientifically 

sound, while the other alternatives are inconsistent with scientific findings. Similarly, the one pad per 640-

acre section is the proper limit; the 1 pad per 640 acres averaged across a DDCT area does not comport 

with any of the scientific analyses, each one of which specified that disturbance density calculations were 

made on a per-section basis and none of which used a DDCT. The NSO of 0.6 miles from leks is completely 

inappropriate. Given the grouse’s propensity to nest within 5.3 miles of leks (Doherty et al. 2011), this 

measure does not prevent significant impacts to nesting grouse. Please provide scientific evidence that 

allowing drilling and/or production activity as close as 0.6 mile from active leks will prevent significant 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-186 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impacts to sage grouse habitat use and/or populations. The NSO/CSU of 0.25 to 0.6 miles from a lek in 

Alternatives D and E will likely result in major impacts to active leks within the Core Areas themselves 

and other populations as well, as this proximity results in significant impacts to breeding grouse on the lek 

and will result in development occurring in the midst of the most prime nesting habitats that surround the 

affected lek. All new major roads should be located farther than 1.9 miles from active leks. The Preferred 

Alternative prescribes a 0.25-mile “avoidance” zone for new road construction around leks (DEIS at 4-

315); please provide scientific evidence that this will prevent significant impacts to greater sage grouse 

breeding populations using these leks. Seismic activity should be limited to periods outside the 

breeding/nesting or winter use season, for breeding/nesting and winter concentration habitats, respectively. 

Comment ID: 172 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: The major problem of the deficiency is that the draft EIS does not contain an adequate 

presentation and analysis concerning the critical importance that improving or restoring destroyed good 

sagegrouse habitat will have in reversing the current trend of diminishing sage-grouse numbers. 

Comment ID: 294 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The COT report indicates that Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations must be maintained or 

restored to help support the species’ long-term persistence (COT 2013).The Wyoming Core Area strategies 

will fail to achieve these goals. New research (Copeland et al. 2013) projects continued sage-grouse 

population declines at 14-29 percent in Wyoming if state policies are fully implemented (and the examples 

above demonstrate less than full compliance), and also significant decreases of sage grouse populations 

inside Core Areas. The same study estimates that, even if bolstered by $250 million in targeted conservation 

easements on private property (a very unlikely assumption), the Core Area policies would only cut 

anticipated sage-grouse population declines by half in Wyoming, and by twothirds within high abundance 

areas. Given that listing the sage grouse was found to be “warranted” (although precluded by other 

priorities) in 2010 by the USFWS, BLM cannot afford to manage its Wyoming sage grouse habitats for 

additional population declines. 

Comment ID: 1607 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Large leks are an important index of population trends, and Taylor et al. (2012: 28) found a 

particular reduction in large leks with increasing well densities, even below one well per square mile: “A 

warning signal of declining populations is given by the accompanying decline in large leks, which showed 

a 70% decrease from no development to 160 ac spacing (1.5 wells/km2, 1- 18/60, Table 3). By 80 ac spacing 

(3.1 wells/km2), only 2 large leks remained on the landscape (Table 3).” It is critically important to maintain 

large leks, rather than allowing impacts from energy development to degrade them into small leks. When 

large leks are lost and only small leks remain, extirpation via West Nile virus, fire, or other stochastic 

disturbances becomes likely, perhaps only a matter of time. 

Comment ID: 1609 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-187

Comment: While a lek provides an important center of breeding activity, and a conspicuous location at 

which to count birds, its size is merely an index to the population dynamics in the surrounding habitat. Thus 

attempting to protect a lek, without protecting the surrounding habitat, provides little protection at all.” 

Unfortunately, both the State and Wyoming BLM Core Area strategies (and Wyoming RMP Amendment 

Preferred Alternative) only require protective buffers of 0.6 miles around leks in designated core habitat 

(DEIS at 2-138); this corresponds to a 6% probability of lek persistence (Christiansen and Bohne 2008). 

Indeed, BLM itself points to the inadequacy of this regulatory mechanism: Studies have shown that greater 

distances, anywhere from two to four miles, are required for viable Greater Sage-Grouse populations to 

persist. DEIS at 4-335, citations omitted. By comparison, the NTT report recommends a 4-mile lek buffer 

for siting industrial development in sage-grouse habitat (NTT 2011), a prescription in greater accord with 

the science. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) suggested that even larger buffers (10 km) are warranted. Males 

use shrubs <1 km (0.6 mi) from a lek for foraging, loafing, and shelter (Rothenmeier 1979, Autenreith 1981, 

Emmons and Braun 1984); this does not make 0.6 mile the appropriate NSO buffer for preventing impacts 

even to breeding bird, much less nesting birds. In Wyoming, State and BLM policies have in the past (and 

in the Preferred Alternative for this EIS) erroneously use this as a basis for a 0.6-mile No Surface 

Occupancy buffer around leks. However, there is no science to indicate that preventing wells within 0.6 

mile of a lek will eliminate or minimize negative population impacts on sage grouse 

Comment ID: 1610 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Buffers prescribed for leks outside Core Areas are even smaller and more inadequate. Both 

Wyoming strategies call for buffers of only 0.25 miles. The WGFD’s stated position is for 50 percent 

probability of lek persistence outside Core Areas (WGFD 2010 at 31). But this is the same level protection 

criticized by former Governor Freudenthal and former WGFD Director Cleveland as grossly inadequate in 

2007, and which were found to be inadequate by State fish and game biologists in 2008 (Christiansen and 

Bohne 2008, Attachment 12). BLM itself admits this buffer distance is inadequate. DEIS at 4-268. The 

BLM has implemented the 0.25-mile lek buffer, paired with a 2-mile seasonal restriction on development 

activities around sage-grouse leks for years in Wyoming (as prescribed in Instruction Memorandum WY2012-019), and significant impacts to sage-grouse populations have been documented where these 

stipulations have been applied (Holloran 2005, Walker 2008, Holloran et al. 2007). Yet in the Preferred 

Alternative, BLM prescribes a 0.25-mile NSO buffer in General Habitats, a level of protection that is proven 

to be insufficient. 

Comment ID: 1611 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The differences between the sizes of NSO buffers are major. A 0.25-mile lek buffer protects 0.2 

square miles of habitat; an 0.6-mile buffer covers 1.13 square miles, a 2-mile buffer covers 12.57 square 

miles, a 4-mile buffer covers 50.27 square miles, and a 5.3-mile buffer covers 88.25 square miles of habitat. 

If one assumes that a 5.3-mile buffer covers the nesting habitat (which is not always true), then an 0.25-

mile buffer covers two-tenths of one percent of the nesting habitat while an 0.6- mile buffer would 

encompass 1.3% of the nesting habitat surrounding a lek. Factor in the established scientific principle that 

impacts of a producing gas well can extend 1.9 miles from the well pad into adjacent habitats (Holloran 

2005), and the level of protection afforded by 0.25-mile and 0.6 mile buffers are negligible. 

Comment ID: 1612 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-188 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The Wyoming BLM Core Area strategy proscribes future leasing of fluid minerals in Core 

Areas, but only in areas of 11 contiguous square miles of unleased, BLM-managed minerals (BLM IM WY2012- 019). Current lease deferrals should be replaced with an outright closure to future fluid minerals 

leasing, regardless of whether there is contiguous unleased federal estate at present or not. It would further 

impair the viability of sage grouse populations to reverse the decreasing trend of Core Area acreage leased 

(due to deferrals under Wyoming Instruction Memoranda) by opening up Core Areas to fluid minerals 

leasing. 

Comment ID: 213 

Organization: 

Name: jean public 

Comment: M174 - ANY PLAN THAT HAS ALREADY MANAGED TO WIPE OUT SO MANY 

SPECIES WILL NOT WORK TO SAVE SAGEGROUSE. SPECIES NEED EACH OTHER. IF THERE 

IS ONLY PROFITEERS AND SAGEGROUSE, THE SAGEGROUSE WILL NOT THRIVE AND LIVE. 

SOUND ECOLOGY IS COMPLEX AND REQUIRES MANY SPECIES TO MUTUALLY HELP EACH 

OTHER. OIL COMPANIES ARE NOT LIKELY TO HELP GROUSE. 

Comment ID: 197 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM must consider implementing key sage grouse protections recommended by USFWS and 

the BLM’s own National Technical Team (e.g., a 4-mile no surface disturbance buffer as a Condition of 

Approval on current fluid mineral leases for active leks within Priority Habitats, apparently not considered 

in any alternative). Importantly, according to BLM, “The National Policy Team created the NTT in August 

of 2011 specifically to develop conservation measures based on the best available science.” DEIS at 1-7.

The agency must also consider all measures contained within the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative 

(Attachment 11) submitted earlier in this NEPA process; it is important to note that this alternative has been 

considered in detail for sage grouse plan amendments elsewhere within BLM purview. The agency should 

designate as Priority Habitat and General Habitat all lands identified as PPMAs and PGMAs, and in addition 

should expand Priority Habitat to include all 75% population areas 

Comment ID: 191 

Organization: 

Name: Mark Meeks 

Comment: In the plan that is being offered I find Alternative C most promising. I would like to see a strong 

priority for protecting habitat to allow for vibrant and growing sage-grouse numbers. I would hope that 

such habitat is governed by knowledge based on sound studies that recognize intrusions by human activities 

and limit those accordingly. For example, a limit of surface disturbance of core sagegrouse habitat to 3% 

per 640 acres is indicated by current research, as I understand it. Such research also supports buffers for the 

sage-grouse of four miles from energy development infrastructure. I hope we can put strong emphasis on 

maintaining these unique birds which would mean a stronger natural environment for us all to enjoy, which 

I fear will be increasingly put under pressures of new kinds due to climate change. Preservation is now 

more critical than ever, in my view. 

Comment ID: 183 

Organization: 

Name: Kerri Boxx 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-189

Comment: The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have an obligation to develop and 

implement adequate, consistent management prescriptions to protect and restore sage-grouse and their 

habitat on public lands. Please develop management plans that will protect sage-grouse and other important 

values on our public lands. 

Comment ID: 181 

Organization: 

Name: Susan O'Connor 

Comment: These birds should be safe. Please stand in their corner. 

Comment ID: 1669 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The Center believes it is important to state that human-induced landscape-scale changes to 

sagegrouse ecosystems pose a dire threat to the long-term continued existence of the species. We are not 

alone. Miller et al. noted that sagebrush habitats are severely stressed across much of the range, and their 

total area likely will decline in the relatively near future as a result of invasive species, fire, and climate 

change. 

Comment ID: 282 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Wyoming BLM Core Area strategy proscribes future leasing of fluid minerals in Core 

Areas, but only in areas of 11 contiguous square miles of unleased, BLM-managed minerals (BLM IM WY2012- 019). Current lease deferrals should be replaced with an outright closure to future fluid minerals 

leasing, regardless of whether there is contiguous unleased federal estate at present or not. It would further 

impair the viability of sage grouse populations to reverse the decreasing trend of Core Area acreage leased 

(due to deferrals under Wyoming Instruction Memoranda) by opening up Core Areas to fluid minerals 

leasing. 

Comment ID: 173 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: Also missing is a plan of action with goals and objectives that will provide the methods, 

practices, and resources to accomplish the goals and objectives needed in the effort to improve or restore 

important sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 1552 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: However, the Preferred Alternative E (the preferred alternative) fails to utilize the best available 

science or information in setting necessary future protections for the greater sage-grouse in the planning 

area in several ways. BLM must consider implementing key sage grouse protections recommended by 

USFWS and the BLM’s own National Technical Team (e.g., a 4-mile no surface disturbance buffer as a 

Condition of Approval on current fluid mineral leases for active leks within Priority Habitats, apparently 

not considered in any alternative). Importantly, according to BLM, “The National Policy Team created the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-190 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

NTT in August of 2011 specifically to develop conservation measures based on the best available science.” 

DEIS at 1-7. 

Comment ID: 148 

Organization: 

Name: Ed Close 

Comment: Is it thought this plan will do a lot of good in keeping Sage Grouse numbers higher and habitat 

intact? 

Comment ID: 144 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: The evaluation does not adequately consider that humans are part of the environment and the 

impact on the human environment of the proposed regulations and restrictions. 

Comment ID: 111 

Organization: 

Name: Harold Lonsdale 

Comment: I know how incredibly abused and severely degraded nearly all of our once vibrant grasslands 

are today. BLM facts support this conclusion! Let's protect the best of what little remains - the blueprint of 

this biodiversity, so that we might all benefit and pass on to future generations. Sage grouse are an indicator 

species of the health of these public lands and are a highly evolved, truly fantastic part of our natural 

heritage. 

Comment ID: 110 

Organization: 

Name: Sue Stoudemire 

Comment: PROTECTING WILDLIFE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME! WITH EVERY SPECIES WE 

ALLOW TO GO EXTINCT, WE TRAGICALLY LOSE YET MORE WONDROUS DIVERSITY OF 

OUR WORLD! 

Comment ID: 109 

Organization: 

Name: John Carter 

Comment: Industrial disturbance in these areas should not be allowed to exceed the 3% threshold 

established by scientists; This should include livestock allotment and pasture fences and habitat 

fragmentation due to these fences (figure 100' disturbance each side of fence, or 1 acre/200 feet of fence}, 

and include 200 acre disturbance area around each water development for livestock 

Comment ID: 108 

Organization: 

Name: Jim Steitz 

Comment: The conservation alternative would correctly require BLM o identify and protect their breeding, 

brooding and winter habitats. In these habitats, BLM must not allow human disturbance such as oil and gas 

drilling, power lines, and excessive cattle grazing that reduces the vegetation cover below what these 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-191

animals require. Excessive grazing in particular has dramatically altered the vegetation community of semiarid habitats through the Great Basin, for very little economic value in the forage utilized, representing a 

gross failure by the BLM to roughly balance the marginal values of competing uses. If the BLM is to uphold 

its mandate to provide an equitable and reasonable balance of values to the American people, it must protect 

these precious ecosystems and the Sage Grouse that lives among them, not strip them for the piddling bit 

of livestock-palatable biomass that provides their physical scaffolding. The Sage Grouse, from this time 

forward, must enjoy first right to the vegetation of these sparse habitats, not biologically foreign human 

livestock. Ultimately, the BLM must face the cold and plain reality that certain "no" decisions must be 

issued to those interests and parties wishing to appropriate the resources upon which the Sage Grouse relies. 

These include withdrawing sage grouse habitat from mining, from oil and gas drilling, from groundwater 

extraction, and from the invasive leveling of sagebrush and other woody semi-arid vegetation in service of 

cattle grazers. 

Comment ID: 107 

Organization: 

Name: Judith Castiano 

Comment: Oil, gas, mines, etc have destroyed or damaged so much of our beautiful land, we HAVE to 

protect the lands thus far untouched and those PRECIOUS nonhuman lives that inhabit these lands. 

Comment ID: 106 

Organization: 

Name: Karen Jacques 

Comment: sage grouse and other wildlife must be protected and the destruction of habitat caused by fossil 

fuel extracting and mining simply must stop. 

Comment ID: 104 

Organization: 

Name: Nancy Schultz 

Comment: If the necessary habitat can not be protected, then the BLM is managing for a minimum viable 

population (MVP). A MVP gives no assurances that the sage grouse populations can withstand the pressures 

they face; climate change (1/12/13 100,000 bats dies in Australia from a heat wave - an example of wildlife

under stress.) The sage grouse must have the best habitat, not the minimum. 

Comment ID: 102 

Organization: 

Name: Nancy Schultz 

Comment: Developments for a minimum viable population are not acceptable 

Comment ID: 97 

Organization: 

Name: Bruce Aird 

Comment: It seems to me that we have enough land overrun by ATVs and ORVs that we can afford to set 

aside some for these wonderful birds. 

Comment ID: 96 

Organization: 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-192 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Tom Grahame 

Comment: most bird species across the US are in decline, and we don't always know why, at least not at 

the beginning. If this keeps up, the logical end point would be a few grassland reserves, like the Nature 

Conservancy reserves, where a few thousand birds survive. Almost like a zoo. Surely we can do better? 

Does saving nature with at least a little of the abundance that we inherited not have any part in your 

deliberations? 

Comment ID: 95 

Organization: 

Name: DIANE KASTEL 

Comment: What’s at stake are the rapidly disappearing wide-open spaces of the American West needed by 

grouse to survive. The region is crisscrossed with roads, oil and gas wells, mining pits, and powerlines—

while the sagebrush habitat required by grouse is being overrun by cows, wild horses, ATVs, and invasive 

cheatgrass. Based on current trends, much more development and habitat degradation is on the way. Only 

by protecting the best remaining sage-grouse habitat, as recommended by the best available science, can 

we hope to conserve the species. 

Comment ID: 1671 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Restoring sage-grouse habitat that is degraded or fragmented might be useful tool for the 

benefitting the species. However, these programs are likely to be both difficult and expensive, and may take 

centuries to achieve a complete restoration of a functioning system of sagebrush habitats within a landscape 

mosaic.113 The obvious and best way to provide for the species at least in the short to intermediate term is 

to protect the remaining existing habitat, which is the intent of the Center’s proposed conservation reserve 

system. 

Comment ID: 1515 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Alternative E (the Preferred Alternative) to a large extent appears to adopt the state’s Core Area 

policy and 2012 BLM instruction memoranda to guide sage grouse management measures, while inserting 

additional loopholes. Sage grouse Core Area protections under state Executive Orders and Wyoming BLM 

Instruction Memoranda have failed to prevent significant impacts to sage grouse populations in Core Areas. 

In many cases, the BLM appears to have limited its own conservation measures for sage grouse under the 

Wyoming RMP to those included in state Executive Order 2011- 5 (“EO 2011-5”). This policy excludes 

many of the most important conservation measures recommended by the NTT. 

Comment ID: 281 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Buffers prescribed for leks outside Core Areas are even smaller and more inadequate. Both 

Wyoming strategies call for buffers of only 0.25 miles. The WGFD’s stated position is for 50 percent 

probability of lek persistence outside Core Areas (WGFD 2010 at 31). But this is the same level protection 

criticized by former Governor Freudenthal and former WGFD Director Cleveland as grossly inadequate in 

2007, and which were found to be inadequate by State fish and game biologists in 2008 (Christiansen and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-193

Bohne 2008, Attachment 12). BLM itself admits this buffer distance is inadequate. DEIS at 4-268. The 

BLM has implemented the 0.25-mile lek buffer, paired with a 2-mile seasonal restriction on development 

activities around sage-grouse leks for years in Wyoming (as prescribed in Instruction Memorandum WY2012-019), and significant impacts to sage-grouse populations have been documented where these

stipulations have been applied (Holloran 2005, Walker 2008, Holloran et al. 2007). Yet in the Preferred 

Alternative, BLM prescribes a 0.25-mile NSO buffer in General Habitats, a level of protection that is proven 

to be insufficient. 

Comment ID: 280 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Unfortunately, both the State and Wyoming BLM Core Area strategies (and Wyoming RMP 

Amendment Preferred Alternative) only require protective buffers of 0.6 miles around leks in designated 

core habitat (DEIS at 2-138); this corresponds to a 6% probability of lek persistence (Christiansen and 

Bohne 2008). Indeed, BLM itself points to the inadequacy of this regulatory mechanism: Studies have 

shown that greater distances, anywhere from two to four miles, are required for viable Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations to persist. DEIS at 4-335, citations omitted. By comparison, the NTT report recommends a 4-

mile lek buffer for siting industrial development in sage-grouse habitat (NTT 2011), a prescription in greater 

accord with the science. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) suggested that even larger buffers (10 km) are 

warranted. Males use shrubs <1 km (0.6 mi) from a lek for foraging, loafing, and shelter (Rothenmeier 

1979, Autenreith 1981, Emmons and Braun 1984); this does not make 0.6 mile the appropriate NSO buffer 

for preventing impacts even to breeding bird, much less nesting birds. In Wyoming, State and BLM policies 

have in the past (and in the Preferred Alternative for this EIS) erroneously use this as a basis for a 0.6-mile 

No Surface Occupancy buffer around leks. However, there is no science to indicate that preventing wells 

within 0.6 mile of a lek will eliminate or minimize negative population impacts on sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 278 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: It is critically important to maintain large leks, rather than allowing impacts from energy 

development to degrade them into small leks. When large leks are lost and only small leks remain, 

extirpation via West Nile virus, fire, or other stochastic disturbances becomes likely, perhaps only a matter 

of time. 

Comment ID: 272 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The BLM must therefore take a stronger and more protective approach to sage grouse

conservation than has the State of Wyoming, both inside and outside the Core Areas destined to be 

recognized federally as Priority Habitats. Alternative E (the Preferred Alternative) to a large extent appears 

to adopt the state’s Core Area policy and 2012 BLM instruction memoranda to guide sage grouse 

management measures, while inserting additional loopholes. Sage grouse Core Area protections under state 

Executive Orders and Wyoming BLM Instruction Memoranda have failed to prevent significant impacts to 

sage grouse populations in Core Areas. In many cases, the BLM appears to have limited its own 

conservation measures for sage grouse under the Wyoming RMP to those included in state Executive Order 

2011-5 (“EO 2011-5”). However, this policy excludes many of the most important conservation measures 

recommended by the NTT. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-194 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 271 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that neither Alternative D nor E will uphold BLM’s obligation to manage 

Sensitive Species to “minimize or eliminate threats,” either within or outside of Core Area habitats. As 

detailed elsewhere in these comments, mitigation measures applied under Alternatives D and E will 

inevitably lead to serious impacts to sage grouse populations within Priority Habitats. This result represents 

an unnecessary and undue degradation of key sage grouse habitats. 

Comment ID: 270 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The greater sage grouse is listed as a BLM Sensitive Species and is also a Candidate Species 

under the Endangered Species Act. BLM has the following responsibility with regard to sage grouse: “As 

a federal agency, the BLM is obligated to develop and implement a strategy to avoid having its management 

activities contribute to the need to list greater sage grouse under the ESA.” 

Comment ID: 254 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: According to the original mining regulations, “Unnecessary or undue degradation means impacts 

greater than those that would normally be expected from an activity being accomplished in compliance with 

current standards and regulations and based on sound practices, including use of the best reasonably 

available technology.” 43 C.F.R. § 3802.0-5(l) (emphasis added). In the Wyoming Amendment EIS, BLM 

has failed to apply in its preferred Alternative E the recommended sage grouse protections presented to it 

by its own experts (the BLM National Technical Team), and as a result development approved under several 

of the alternatives analyzed (and particularly Alternatives A, D, and E) will result in both unnecessary and 

undue degradation of sage grouse Priority Habitats and result in sage grouse population declines in these 

areas, undermining the effectiveness of the Core Area strategy as an adequate regulatory mechanism in the 

context of the decision. 

Comment ID: 1451 

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Name: Siva Sundaresan 

Comment: The goal for Alternative E should explicitly include language, “to manage Greater Sage grouse 

to meet the legal criteria to avoid listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” It is essential that the 

BLM and Forest Service protect sage grouse populations and habitats in order to preclude listing of 

Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. As currently stated, Alternative E incorporates guidance from 

the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (EO 2011-5). While this was a significant first step toward 

unifying and standardizing sage grouse conservation measures across the Wyoming, it is the minimum 

necessary to secure viable sage grouse. Further, currently this EO is already being implemented. Alternative 

E as currently construed relies strongly on the EO stipulations, is not sufficient to avoid listing of sage 

grouse under the ESA. The Wyoming Governor’s EO represents science that is now over three years old 

and not the best available information. A recent study (Copeland et al. 2013) demonstrates that even if the 

EO were fully implemented sage grouse populations would still decline, though to a lesser extent, within 

the state of Wyoming. Further, despite the EO directive for federal agencies to work collaboratively to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-195

ensure application of the EO, both the BLM and the Forest Service are bound by federal law and regulations 

that require management actions that ensure better conservation of sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1457 

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Name: Siva Sundaresan 

Comment: Inside sage grouse core and priority habitats Alternative E proposes No Surface Occupancy and 

surface disturbing activities (NSO) “within 0.6 mile of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage grouse leks.” 

A 0.6-mile buffer between the perimeter of occupied sage grouse leks and surface disturbing activities or 

surface occupancy will be inadequate to achieve the core-area goal of maintaining or enhancing sage grouse 

populations. Numerous studies show that areas up to 4 miles around leks are critical for sage grouse 

population persistence. About 80% of sage grouse nests are found within four miles of leks (Moynahan 

2004, Holloran and Anderson 2005). Lek persistence in influenced by disturbance activities up to 2 miles 

away from the perimeter (Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007, Aldridge & Boyce 2007; Doherty et al. 2008). 

We recommend increasing the distance from the perimeter of occupied leks to 4.0 miles. Further, we ask 

that the no surface occupancy requirement be extended to all identified winter concentration areas. 

Comment ID: 241 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Alternative E would apply a 3% limit on anthropogenic disturbance. Relevant to the issue of the 

3% disturbance cap, we ask the responsible official to make a formal determination concerning which of 

the available scientific information is the most accurate, reliable, and relevant in determining what 

percentage of land area should be allowed to be disturbed in order to achieve the stated goal of the RMP 

Amendment. We would further ask the Forest Service to determine whether a 3% disturbance cap or no 

disturbance cap (as proposed for Alternative E) is the scientifically supported measure to apply as a 

Condition of Approval to existing fluid mineral leases. 

Comment ID: 1495 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The Center is greatly concerned that the proposed Preferred Alternative and DEIS are 

fundamentally flawed and categorically inadequate to provide the needed protections to ensure the long 

term survival and recovery of the sage-grouse. Maintaining the status quo is not sufficient. 

Comment ID: 1497 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: We strongly encourage that federal agencies set aside a system of reserves, comprised of all 

Priority Habitats, including wintering habitats and connectivity corridors, where only activities 

scientifically show to be compatible with maintaining and restoring sage grouse populations to secure 

population levels permitted. In most cases, oil and gas leasing in the Core areas has been deferred in 

Wyoming. Yes, the Preferred Alternative opens Core Areas to leasing, reversing the conservation gains that 

have been made to date. The final Plan Amendment needs to include long-term closure of Core Areas to 

future leasing, and stringent limits on the development of existing leases as outlines in these comments. 

Comment ID: 1509 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-196 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Protections in the LUPA and DEIS must be strengthened to provide the required level of 

regulatory certainty consistent with a science-based approach to conservation and recovery. The newly 

formulated plan needs to include lease closures prioritizing large blocks of intact habitat, a Core Habitat 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern, and associated measures drawn from the National Technical Team 

recommendations that recognize the year-long habitat needs of this landscape-scale species. 

Comment ID: 1569 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The five percent disturbance threshold is not known to conserve sage-grouse long-term and is 

only a guess by agencies and others seeking to accommodate development in sage-grouse habitat. Past 

projects approved prior to implementation of the Wyoming Core Area strategies indicate that sagegrouse 

are adversely affected at lower levels of disturbance. For example, for the Continental Divide/Wamsutter 

II Natural Gas Project approved in 2000, 3,000 wells were proposed with 22,400 acres of new surface 

disturbance, representing 2.1 percent of the planning area (with an average well density of 4 wellsites per 

square mile) (BLM 2000); today, sagegrouse are functionally extirpated in this area. In the Atlantic Rim 

coalbed methane field, 2,000 wells were permitted at a density of eight wells per square mile, far above the 

threshold known to cause sage grouse declines. Today, sage grouse are essentially extirpated in developed 

portions of this field. Recent science in the western portion of the sage grouse range found that some 99 

percent of active leks were located in areas surrounded by lands with 3% or less surface disturbance from 

roads, power lines, pipelines, and other features (Knick et al. 2013). Furthermore, once the three percent 

limit is reached, additional surface-disturbing projects are precluded (with no exceptions in cases where 

off-site mitigation projects are undertaken), and in cases where the three percent limit is already exceeded, 

restoration must occur to meet this threshold under the NTT recommendations. BLM should cap 

disturbance at 3% on a per-squaremile basis at most in both Priority Habitats and Connectivity Areas. 

Comment ID: 1524 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The Final COT Report, published in February 2013, needs to be considered as BLM formulates 

and analyzes a stronger science-based alternative incorporating many of the protections in Alternative B. 

The COT Report further establishes that Alternative E is inconsistent with new science and biological 

recommendations. The Report provides that the first objective for Priority Areas for Conservation, such as 

Core Area habitat, is to “[r]etain sage-grouse habitats within PACs. This must be a priority. Restoration of 

these habitats, once lost, is difficult, expensive, and based on current knowledge, success may be limited.” 

COT at 37. By rejecting Alternatives B and C, the two approaches focused on retaining priority habitat, the 

DEIS fails to incorporate one of the central tenets of the COT Report. 

Comment ID: 1805 

Organization: 

Name: Marla Jones 

Comment: Please consider the proposed "alternative C", of reserving a block of habitat large enough and 

of the right conditions to support a healthy breeding population of Greater Sage Grouse. The numbers have 

been declining and the science shows that only a habitat protection like this will be effective in stopping 

that decline and stabilize the species for its preservation from extinction. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-197

Comment ID: 1550 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Following the 2010 USFWS determination5 and before the COT Report, BLM developed a 

comprehensive response to get in front of the curve. According to BLM’s fact sheet on the Planning 

Strategy: The BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy is a planning approach that provides 

the framework and structure for transparent interagency and stakeholder collaboration on long-term greater 

sage-grouse conservation and habitat restoration. Under the planning strategy, the BLM will review its 

principal, existing regulatory framework for sagegrouse conservation—the land use planning process—to 

determine the development and implementation of new or revised regulatory mechanisms. The focus will 

be on incorporating regionally-appropriate, science-based conservation measures into BLM land use 

planning efforts through coordinated, cooperative stakeholder engagement. Developing new or revised 

land-use plans is a key component of the range-wide strategy: The BLM is working in partnership with its 

sister agencies and the Western states to develop new or revised approaches to sage-grouse conservation 

through land-use plans. Working with our partners, we will use these land use plans to implement actions 

range-wide so we can conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on BLM lands over the 

short term and the long term. Accordingly, BLM recognizes the need for “new or revised regulatory 

mechanisms” to be grounded in “science-based conservation measures.” Id. at 1. However, the current 

preferred alternative in the DEIS does not reflect BLM’s commitment to science and acknowledgement of 

the need for regulatory certainty. 

Comment ID: 1547 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The BLM itself has been forced to admit that “New information from monitoring and studies 

indicate that current RMP decisions/actions may move the species toward listing...conflicts with current 

BLM decision to implement BLM’s sensitive species policy” and “New information and science indicate 

1985 RMP Decisions, as amended, may not be adequate for sage grouse.” Continued application of 

stipulations known to be ineffective in the face of strong evidence that they do not work, and continuing to 

drive the sage grouse toward ESA listing in violation of BLM Sensitive Species policy, is arbitrary and 

capricious and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedures Act. The agency, through the 

Wyoming RMP Amendment, needs to provide management that will prevent this decline of sage grouse 

across the planning area. 

Comment ID: 1538 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Where leasing proceeds, the Service recommended 2.5 or 3% ceilings for disturbance levels. 

“Because of the very high value of the priority habitat areas in the BLM’ s Lander resource area to sagegrouse conservation and because this area has relatively little resource development potential, the Service 

strongly recommends the BLM to adopt this conservation measure at the 3% level from the NTT Report 

and incorporate it into the Proposed Plan.” Id. The Service recommendation establishes that 3% disturbance 

ceilings are preferred for priority habitat. Minimizing total disturbance and intensity of disturbances (traffic 

and fragmentation impacts) will better meet conservation objectives. 

Comment ID: 1536 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-198 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: USFWS comments on the Lander DEIS/RMP (at 2) requested the closure of priority habitat 

areas to new oil and gas leasing based on “the very high value of the sage-grouse priority areas” and 

“relatively little resource development potential[.]” The Service strongly recommended that BLM should 

fully “adopt this conservation measure from the NTT Report” in the Proposed Plan (closing priority habitat 

to leasing). The Service stated a clear preference for Conservation Alternative B and designating the entire 

1,246,791 acre Government Draw/Upper Sweetwater ACEC, because the area “offers superb opportunities 

to proactively manage some of the last remaining optimal greater sagegrouse habitat but has relatively little 

resource development potential[.]” Id. At 3. These comments support the need for designating the Core 

Habitat ACEC proposed by Alternative B in the 9-Plan. 

Comment ID: 227 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM must evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation measures used to minimize adverse 

impacts to wildlife and sensitive species with the best available science. "The information must be of high 

quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to 

implementing NEPA." 

Comment ID: 1531 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The COT Report provides significant scientific support for the need to formulate grouse 

conservation measures informed by the best available science, such as those proposed in Alternative B. The 

current preferred alternative eschews avoidance for a risky roll of the dice on mitigation, when the science 

overwhelmingly emphasizes avoidance strategies in priority habitat. Additional leasing and development 

in core area PACs would further compromise management flexibility and options. The science compiled 

by BLM, the Forest Service, and USFWS comprehensively establishes the importance of maintaining large 

blocks of relatively intact priority habitat in its current state, rather than allowing new activities that would 

degrade such habitat and put grouse populations and recovery at risk. The agencies should adopt a version 

of Alternative B that closes the most valuable and sensitive sage-grouse habitat to new leasing, while 

allowing leasing subject to protective stipulations on less valuable priority habitat. Lease closures that avoid 

new disturbance and fragmentation are a readily available management tool for federal lands and split estate 

minerals where oil and gas leasing is fully discretionary. As stated in the Report, “The COT recommends 

the appropriate level of continued management to effectively conserve all current PACs[.]” Id. At 32. For 

unleased priority habitat, especially those in large intact blocks, no-leasing designations will best meet 

conservation objectives. The extensive scientific literature relied on by the COT Report is compiled therein 

at pages 37-44. The agencies need to ensure that the new plan provides certainty consistent with the sciencebased approach of Alternative B, informed by and consistent with both the COT Report and the original 

research contributing to the Report’s findings and recommendations. 

Comment ID: 1514 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The State of Wyoming has established, through Executive Order 2011-5, a policy to designate 

core habitats for sage grouse and accord them elevated levels of protection. The State is to be commended 

for recognizing that the greater sage grouse is a landscape species, and designating large areas dedicated to 

sage grouse conservation. However, the levels of protection accorded to grouse within Core Areas is almost 

uniformly inadequate when compared to the scientifically established thresholds at which permitted 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-199

activities begin to drive grouse populations downward. Given the tenuous status of sage grouse range-wide, 

we cannot afford to continue long-term population declines for the species. The BLM must therefore take 

a stronger and more protective approach to sage grouse conservation than has the State of Wyoming, both 

inside and outside the Core Areas destined to be recognized federally as Priority Habitats. 

Comment ID: 1523 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The specific criteria to be considered regarding the certainty that the conservation effort will be 

implemented are set forth at 68 Fed. Reg. 15115. Applying these criteria to the 9-Plan reinforce the need to 

adopt Audubon’s recommendations regarding the importance of protecting large blocks of undeveloped 

priority habitat and other critical habitat types. The lease closures and Core Habitat ACEC advocated by 

Audubon are crucial to meet certainty criteria for both implementation and effectiveness. For both leasing 

decisions and ACEC designations, the staffing, funding level, funding source, and other resources necessary 

to implement the effort are already provided for as part of this DEIS/LUPA planning effort. Legal authority 

is unquestioned and procedural requirements will be satisfied if the agencies address current NEPA 

deficiencies identified by comments. Voluntary participation is not needed for final, self-implementing plan 

decisions. The agencies’ authority is clear, and the effectiveness of the conservation strategies are 

conclusively established by the best and most recent scientific information. Lease closures and ACEC 

designations are straightforward actions that allow for immediately quantifying certain conservation 

benefits. By contrast, the approach outlined by the current preferred alternative is highly uncertain. Progress 

towards the conservation objectives would depend on a plethora of speculative future actions and 

discretionary decisions. Alternative E would initially depend on future nominations and bids for federal 

mineral leases, and the uncertain proposals to be submitted by lessees seeking to develop leaseholds and 

other new rights not authorized under Alternative B. Alternative E could ultimately depend on uncertain 

future decisions of responsible federal officials exercising significant discretionary authority and subject to 

political pressures – decisions that could be influenced by the creation of new lease rights and possibly 

future legal interpretations of the scope of such rights. Importantly, lessees are accustomed to fully 

developing leases based on economic concerns and lease covenants rather than the conservation goals of 

the federal lessor. The lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve sage-grouse and their habitats 

was the primary threat leading to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to make the greater 

sagegrouse a candidate for Endangered Species Act listing in 2010. Currently, the DEIS and preferred 

alternative will not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to conserve greater sage-grouse across the 

planning area in the State of Wyoming. Alternative E relies heavily on discretionary or uncertain 

conservation measures that do not satisfy the PECE criteria. Further, Alternative E deviates substantially 

from the National Technical Team recommendations for conservation measures relevant to the most 

significant threats. While purporting to adopt the Wyoming Strategy already being implemented to various 

degrees on some federal and other lands, the preferred alternative would abandon the most protective 

element of that strategy as implemented in recent years: deferring leasing in large blocks of relatively intact 

and undeveloped priority habitat. In so doing, the DEIS neglected to analyze the impacts of resuming 

leasing of these vital refugia. Ensuring the protection of the best and most expansive remaining habitat, 

consistent with the best available science and science-based recommendations, will best satisfy the entire 

set of PECE criteria. Great uncertainty will surround the best remaining intact habitat under the preferred 

alternative. The ten-year trend of significantly reducing the acreage of priority habitat subject to fluid 

mineral leases would be reversed, leading to highly uncertain impacts to population trends, persistence, and 

habitat. The object of fluid mineral leasing is to use occupy the surface by constructing infrastructure to 

support energy development. Direct and indirect disturbance from habitat loss and fragmentation is thus 

the inevitable result of leasing, with the only questions being the degree of exploratory drilling and fullfield development over what time frame. By contrast, continuing the current policy of not offering leases 

for the best remaining core habitat is certain to avoid the disturbance and fragmentation that is recognized 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-200 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

as the leading threat across the Rocky Mountain Region. The PECE criteria will not be met under the 

preferred alternative, which is a huge step back from current policies. By contrast, lease closures under a 

science-based approach grounded in Alternative B and Map 2-5 are far more likely to satisfy the criteria by 

establishing certainty as to how the leading threats will be mitigated during the life of these plans. 

Recommendations: Compared to the current preferred alternative, Alternative B is far more sure of 

satisfying the PECE criteria. Closures that consolidate and continue reductions in the acreage of the best 

priority habitat under lease are among the most important management strategies to meet the certainty 

criteria. Recent experience shows that these policies are compatible with the interest in balancing 

conservation and development. In light of the analytical shortcomings of the DEIS and substantive 

shortcomings of the proposed plan, the proposed conservation measures in Alternative E would not provide 

the level of regulatory certainty required to prevent the need for listing the species under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Comment ID: 1521 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: USFWS concluded that “Energy development is a significant risk to the greater sage-grouse in 

the eastern portion of its range [. . .], with the primary concern being the direct effects of energy 

development on the long-term viability of greater sage-grouse by eliminating habitat, leks, and whole 

populations and fragmenting some of the last remaining large expanses of habitat necessary for the species’ 

persistence.” Id. at 44 (emphasis added). Thus, the DEIS/LUPA must address both 1) direct disturbance, 

and 2) fragmentation, giving special attention to “the last remaining large expanses of habitat”. Habitat 

fragmentation receives inadequate consideration in the existing draft document. 

Comment ID: 1518 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: By failing to implement certain key scientific recommendations from the NTT Report, the 

current preferred alternative would result in a continuation of negative trends and adverse impacts. Instead 

of exposing priority habitat to renewed risks by reopening previously deferred lands to fluid minerals 

leasing, the DEIS needs to consolidate recent gains by choosing proven science-based strategies that reduce 

risk and uncertainty. This includes exploring meaningful options for preventing or limiting inappropriate 

new disturbances in priority habitat subject to existing rights. 

Comment ID: 1517 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The BLM Technical Team concluded that “the conservation strategy most likely to meet the 

objective of maintaining or increasing sage-grouse distribution and abundance is to exclude energy 

development and other large scale disturbances from priority habitats, and where valid existing rights exist, 

minimize those impacts by keeping disturbances to 1 per section with direct surface disturbance impacts 

held to 3% of the area or less.” Id. at 21 (emphasis added). Alternative B will better protect habitat needed 

to meet conservation and recovery objectives. The final plans need to heed the scientific consensus that the 

most valuable undeveloped habitat should be protected through leasing closures. 

Comment ID: 1516 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-201

Comment: Considering certain measures and incorporating some of them to “help” improve habitat is not 

enough. The purpose and need should better reflect the overarching goal of BLM’s range-wide planning 

effort: to conserve and restore the greater sage-grouse and its habitat on federal lands on a range-wide basis 

over the long term. 

Comment ID: 1555 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The DEIS appears to neglect one of the most significant management changes in the past ten 

years regarding sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse conservation. Since 2006, the total number of 

federal and gas lease acres within Wyoming Core Areas has decreased from almost 5,000,000 acres to 

approximately 3,000,000 acres: a difference of 2,000,000 acres. This change reversed previous trends. It 

offers the opportunity in the new plans for a heretofore unprecedented level of certainty for millions of 

acres of priority habitat. That certainty would be compromised under the current preferred alternative. 

Comment ID: 1532 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Although Alternative E would allow alteration of the large contiguous habitats needed for 

healthy populations of this landscape species, the DEIS has not taken a hard look at the potential adverse 

impacts of potentially leasing millions of acres of additional priority habitat. Direct disturbance and 

fragmentation would be inevitable, and the best available science offers no assurances that impacts would 

be consistent with conservation objectives. The science also warns that populations can crash several years 

after impacts occur, rather than immediately, raising the potential that strategies based on monitoring and 

adaptive management might not identify concerns or change course until it is too late. 

Comment ID: 35 

Organization: 

Name: Mary McKay 

Comment: By following the science and what is best for the grouse, you will be following what is best for 

all species, including humans. So many species are disappearing and with their disappearance, much of 

nature is impacted in negative ways because the interwoven dependence is turned upside down - things 

humans have not even recorded or discovered. 

Comment ID: 92 

Organization: 

Name: Lorraine Asturino 

Comment: The land we need to protect for the Greater Sage-Grouse's recovery is public land; therefore, 

protecting and preserving our native wildlife is paramount. 

Comment ID: 53 

Organization: 

Name: Eva Lydick 

Comment: The lekking of the greater sage-grouse is one of the world's spectacular animal display. It would 

be a shame for this species to disappear in a country that is so capable of ensuring its survival. Please don't 

let this bird go extinct. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-202 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 52 

Organization: 

Name: Lynne Miller 

Comment: I have friends who have a cabin near Bear Lake Utah, and they were not even aware of the 

decreasing populations, because they see 'plenty' of them near their property. Consequently they think 

nothing of killing them, if they are simply annoyed by the birds. Education and protection of habitat is 

critical to maintaining this native specie. Please consider additional conservation measures being put forth 

by the American Bird Conservancy. 

Comment ID: 50 

Organization: 

Name: John Thomlinson 

Comment: Please adopt the Conservation Alternative to ensure true protection for the Greater Sage-Grouse. 

The science shows that these wonderful birds need space to themselves, away from roads and oil wells, in 

fact from all damaging human activities. There are plenty of other places for hydrocarbon extraction and 

mining, but very few places for the Sage Grouse. In the future, which will be the greater loss - a few barrels 

of oil or this magnificent species? Preserve the land for the grouse, and the oil will still be there, but develop 

it for oil, and the bird will be gone. We have to stop pursuing short-term economic gain at the expense of 

everything else, and this would be a great place to start. 

Comment ID: 49 

Organization: 

Name: Jay Greenberg 

Comment: It is high time that the BLM gives more weight to wildlife conservation on public lands and does 

less catering to the fossil fuel industry, whose excesses have resulted in a multitude of problems, including 

global warming and horrific losses of wildlife habitat.

Comment ID: 47 

Organization: 

Name: Diane Verna 

Comment: As a resident of Wyoming where we have alot of sage and grouse, I continue to see the decline 

of the habitat as homes are built and paved over and oil and gas destroys all habitat for these iconic birds. 

Comment ID: 46 

Organization: 

Name: Sally Nunn 

Comment: I've seen this wonderful bird in action near the Malheur Field Station in Southeastern Oregon; 

shouldn't future generations be granted the opportunity also? 

Comment ID: 44 

Organization: 

Name: Dorothy Baker 

Comment: As I understand it, this bird is one of the keystone species in the ecology of the prairie. Let us 

protect it now, rather than bemoaning yet another species driven to extinction by the ignorance of humans. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-203

Comment ID: 43 

Organization: 

Name: Stuart Johnston 

Comment: I worked on sage-grouse lek surveys in the north-central parts of Washington some 35 years ago 

and they were already in obvious trouble at that time. ...We expect science to show you the way. 

Comment ID: 42 

Organization: 

Name: Ron and Jan Eckstein 

Comment: Please use science-based management and choose the "conservation" alternative for land 

management. Protected areas are critical to this endangered bird's population dynamics and survival. Our 

trips to sage grouse country would not be the same without having the ability to see the bird. The sage 

grouse is an icon of the west and it is a featured species for a whole suite of plants and animals that inhabitat 

the sage brush. Widespread development, especially the infrastructure for oil and gas, is a serious threat not 

only to the sage grouse but to the entire sage ecosystem. 

Comment ID: 41 

Organization: 

Name: Jane Fritz 

Comment: I work with American Indian tribes in the Columbia Plateau and Great Basin regions of the 

West, and this bird is so important to their cultures -- it is mimicked in their regalia and spiritual dances. 

Just yesterday I picked up a grouse feather from a bird killed by a car and put it in my medicine basket. The 

Indians know the value of wildlife. Our culture, maybe not so much. 

Comment ID: 40 

Organization: 

Name: Mike Mathis 

Comment: As a retired BLM wildlife biologist with more than 30 years of experience dealing directly with 

this and many other land management issues on public lands I know from personal experience that 

management priorities must change if viable populations of sage grouse and other sagebrush obligate 

species are to survive and thrive on our public lands. 

Comment ID: 38 

Organization: 

Name: Terry Dickey 

Comment: We're good at making up policy directives that don't do anything jive the real issues, but it would 

only take a little more effort to do a thorough job and protect the one thing that is critical to many all of 

us....protected habitat. Can't you put the sage-grouse habitat into a protected status? Do we have to see yet 

another bird species bite the dust and become extinct? Help us out. Please develop management plans that 

will protect sage-grouse and the important habitat they live in. 

Comment ID: 57 

Organization: 

Name: Dev and Harrier Joslin 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-204 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Surely, using the best wildlife science information, the BLM can come up with a plan that will 

encompass multiple land uses while at the same time conserving sufficient land for the species to thrive. 

Comment ID: 26 

Organization: 

Name: BRUNO F. CILIONE Vet 

Comment: You have the responsibility to protect the habitat & to increase sage-grouse numbers. 

Comment ID: 2092 

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Name: Dustin Van Liew 

Comment: Not only did the Washington Office Director require BLM to change regulatory mechanisms 

applicable to livestock grazing and range management, IM 2012-044 also assured that BLM Field Offices 

would adopt a variation of the NTT report as the preferred alternative in making those changes, in violation 

of NEPA and FLPMA. Preordaining the outcome of the LUPA/RMPA process is unlawful standing alone, 

however, it is particularly arbitrary here because neither the NTT report, nor BLM independently, ever 

analyzed the issue of whether existing regulatory mechanisms governing livestock grazing and range 

management were adequate to protect sage-grouse prior to developing alternatives. This is particularly 

troubling because the NTT report was not subject to public comment or participation and the NTT report 

was not subject to independent scientific peer review. It was arbitrary and capricious for BLM to not first 

evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulatory mechanisms with respect to range management prior to 

developing alternatives ordering all BLM field offices to incorporate the NTT reports’ recommendations 

into their respective LUPAs/RMPAs. By requiring BLM State Field Offices to rely on the NTT report as 

the “guiding philosophy” for devising sage-grouse specific standards and guidelines for livestock grazing 

and range management, BLM unlawfully narrowed its consideration of options for changing regulatory 

mechanisms such that the adoption of conservation measures based on the NTT report was preordained. 

Comment ID: 19 

Organization: 

Name: Avana Slyvok 

Comment: Habitat loss is one of the biggest threats to the Sage Grouse. As the habitat goes, so will the 

birds. The birds continue to decline in number every year. Disturbances on the land are power lines, and 

cell towers. Although it may appear benign, it is an encroachment. Human activity must be severely limited. 

Comment ID: 21 

Organization: Lane County Audubon Society 

Name: Debbie Schlenoff 

Comment: The conservation alternative will begin restoring balance to an iconic American landscape by 

identifying areas most appropriate for development and those that need to be protected. 

Comment ID: 2045 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Direct development to areas with low conflicts with Greater sage-grouse conservation. Direct 

new development to pre-disturbed areas. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-205

Comment ID: 22 

Organization: 

Name: Kendra Meinert 

Comment: Saving these natural habitats is not just good for the birds, it's good for all of us. 

Comment ID: 37 

Organization: 

Name: Shelly Binkley 

Comment: Stronger conservation methods are needed for the sage-grouse 

Comment ID: 23 

Organization: 

Name: Bobbiejeanne Kennedy 

Comment: Now if you do not know what will happen to our ecology if the sage grouse disappears, maybe 

you ought to help keep them around. 

Comment ID: 36 

Organization: 

Name: Wendy McKee 

Comment: The imperiled greater sage-grouse must be given protection in its losing competition with human 

encroachment on their land. 

Comment ID: 28 

Organization: 

Name: Glenn Metzler 

Comment: I am a biologist and have been involved in species surveys in the Eastern Sierra Nevada 

Mountain region and I know the problems this bird is facing. I am asking you to take special measures to 

protect all sage grouse populations and promote the recovery of this magnificent bird. 

Comment ID: 30 

Organization: 

Name: Marty Kay 

Comment: Many bird species have disappeared due to the same reasons the sage-grouse is in trouble. Please 

see that those remaining are protected and their habitat not destroyed by oil companies or any other source 

so that those remaining can survive and remain for the next generations. 

Comment ID: 31 

Organization: 

Name: Gail Walter 

Comment: Please do not put commercial interests ahead of conservation. 

Comment ID: 33 

Organization: 

Name: Eric Bindseil 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-206 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Absolutely, comprehensively protect sage grouse and their habitat for all our healthy futures 

depend on healthy intact functioning ecosystems. 

Comment ID: 34 

Organization: 

Name: RITA SMITH 

Comment: It is unacceptable to allow this iconic bird to perish due to lack of timely and thoughtful 

management. I urge you not to wait until it the species is classified endangered before implementing this 

plan. To think that we have all sat by while 90% of their range has been destroyed is very disturbing, and 

it is definitely time to address this and prove ourselves worthy of the "human" in humanity. 

Comment ID: 58 

Organization: 

Name: Nancy Eaton 

Comment: It frightens me to think that without federal and local protections these birds may soon be totally 

unavailable. 

Comment ID: 2041 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: The agencies should create management policies that will protect areas that may likely serve as 

transitional habitat due to the proximity of these areas to highly productive habitat and lek sites. 

Comment ID: 75 

Organization: 

Name: Julie O'Donald 

Comment: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT SAFE CORRIDORS OF NATURAL LANDSCAPE ARE LEFT 

FOR THE GREATER SAGEGROUSE. PRESERVING REFUGE AREAS AND CONNECTING 

CORRIDORS ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN LETTING DEVELOPERS AND ATVS HAVE 

FREE REIGN OVER THIS BIRD'S HABITAT! PLEASE DO ALL YOU CAN TO LEAVE THE LAND 

IN NATIVE PROTECTED VEGETATION. 

Comment ID: 1566 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Maintaining current populations, which have been in a continuous decline as discussed above, 

will not provide secure long term populations well distributed across the range. Indeed, if current 

populations were adequate, the greater sage-grouse would not have been found to be warranted for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. Given current levels of habitat fragmentation, individual populations 

will become increasingly isolated reducing genetic interchange. Smaller populations are at greater risk of 

extirpation. Further, given the pervasive spread of highly flammable invasive plants largely from grazing 

and the resulting increase in wildfire, sage brush habitat will be lost to fires over the next several decades. 

Therefore, recovery efforts must take stochastic events into account and aim to increase, rather than 

maintain sage-grouse populations.

Comment ID: 1807 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-207

Organization: 

Name: Marla Jones 

Comment: I urge you to please put aside some suitable habitat for the preservation of the Greater Sage 

Grouse species and also to consider the other measures I suggested to protect habitat. 

Comment ID: 90 

Organization: 

Name: Judith Fitzgerald 

Comment: Adopt the conservation alternative to ensure the future for this Greater Sage Grouse species. 

Comment ID: 88 

Organization: 

Name: Stanley Jones-Umberger 

Comment: We do not need ranchers or polluting extraction industries. 

Comment ID: 84 

Organization: 

Name: Diane Edgecomb 

Comment: Right now is a critical time for the Greater Sage Grouse and now is the time to act. But the 

actions taken must be more comprehensive and strategic than what is contained in your draft. 

Comment ID: 1835 

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Name: Shannon Anderson 

Comment: Alternative B considered in your EIS is based on the best available science and recommendations 

of the National Technical Team (NTT). Alternative C, proposed by citizen groups, also incorporates the 

best available science. Unfortunately, your preferred Alternative E opts to forgo incorporating the best 

available science in favor of consistency with Wyoming’s “core habitat” framework. 

Comment ID: 1838 

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Name: Shannon Anderson 

Comment: First, the agencies must prohibit new leasing in core areas. Stipulations can change and the only 

way to guarantee protection of the habitat is to not lease it in the first place. If federal agencies are truly 

going to prioritize protection of sage grouse and their habitat, the best way to do so is to prevent leasing in 

those priority habitat areas. 

Comment ID: 1839 

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Name: Shannon Anderson 

Comment: Second, the agencies must limit disturbance in core areas. The state imposes a disturbance cap 

of 5%. However, the best available science tells us that a disturbance cap of 3% is necessary. This is the 

recommendation from the NTT and is also recommended by the citizen group alternative. Please adopt the

3% disturbance cap in your final plan. Alternatively, if core areas/priority habitat areas are already over the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-208 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

3% disturbance level, please evaluate whether they are still appropriate priority habitat areas or if additional 

protections, including expedited reclamation plans and lease buyouts, are warranted. In areas where the 

disturbance threshold has been met, the NTT recommends removal and reclamation of surface disturbing 

features no longer in use prior to permitting of new projects. 

Comment ID: 83 

Organization: 

Name: Mary Lou Mellon 

Comment: The Greater Sage Grouse is one of the most spectacular birds in North America! Please save it 

by saving their habitat. 

Comment ID: 82 

Organization: 

Name: Marie Leven 

Comment: We have to leave some land protected from development of any kind. This protected land 

protects plants and animals not to mention water. It would be a shame if we loose the Sage Grouse. If you 

want to develop land how about starting with our cities? 

Comment ID: 81 

Organization: 

Name: Carol Halberstadt 

Comment: Greater sage-grouse will only survive if their habitat, which they sustain and are sustained by, 

survives. And that means protecting the wide-open spaces they need. Protecting large expanses of important 

sage-grouse habitat—as outlined in the conservation alternative—will help stem the decline of many 

species of wildlife across the American West. The conservation alternative will begin restoring balance to 

an iconic American landscape by identifying those areas that need to be protected, and protecting them 

permanently. No new public lands must be taken from sage-grouse habitat for the devastation of fossil fuel 

production and other commercial uses. 

Comment ID: 80 

Organization: 

Name: Valerie Miller 

Comment: I am very dismayed that pure scientific studies and recommendations are often discarded or 

overlooked when it comes to gas and oil company pursuits and following their agendas. 

Comment ID: 79 

Organization: 

Name: Cheryl Kindschy 

Comment: This is one species we must work to keep the numbers up. 

Comment ID: 56 

Organization: 

Name: karen scheuermann 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-209

Comment: I encourage BLM to adopt the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management to 

conserve the species. These include science-based recommendations to limit future development and to 

create protected areas. 

Comment ID: 67 

Organization: 

Name: Edward Newbold & Delia Scholes 

Comment: Please adopt the Conservation Alternative to ensure the long-term survival of the Greater Sage 

Grouse. 

Comment ID: 59 

Organization: 

Name: Ned Rollins 

Comment: I am pleased that BLM is leading the effort to conserve the Greater Sage-Grouse and to restore 

balance to an iconic American landscape by identifying areas most appropriate for development and those 

that need to be protected. 

Comment ID: 60 

Organization: 

Name: Benita Campbell 

Comment: The BLM is not doing enough to protect the American West's most iconic and imperiled bird 

species. BLM's plan doesn't measure up to the best available science or with standards that are required to 

do the job. 

Comment ID: 61 

Organization: 

Name: Laura Gooch 

Comment: Resources cannot be preserved once they are gone. This is the only opportunity that we have to 

save the Greater Sage Grouse and its remnant habitat. 

Comment ID: 63 

Organization: 

Name: Olaf Soltau 

Comment: We have the knowledge, capabilities and intelligence to protect these birds before they are 

completely gone. All it takes is the decision to do it, and to do it right! I therefore urge you to adopt the 

conservation alternative. 

Comment ID: 64 

Organization: 

Name: melinda ramsey 

Comment: Please save the Greater Sage-Grouse an iconic and most imperiled species!! This bird was here 

before we arrived on the continent and is being wiped out by us. We simply don't belong everywhere and 

have no need to run over and destroy everything. I am concerned that the BLM's draft preferred alternatives 

are insufficient and do not comply with the best available science or with standards necessary to stabilize 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-210 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and recover grouse populations I hope that the BLM is serious in leading the effort to conserve the Greater 

Sage-Grouse. 

Comment ID: 78 

Organization: 

Name: Julia Burgen 

Comment: Please adopt the conservation alternative and support the Greater Sage Grouse species. 

Comment ID: 66 

Organization: 

Name: Deirdre Brown 

Comment: It would be nice if you could save the Greater Sage Grouse and have development as well. In 

order to succeed , you have to be certain of how much land is needed for the bird and what can go on in its 

area. Otherwise, conservation is just a futile gesture, which is kind of sad. 

Comment ID: 76 

Organization: 

Name: Julie O'Donald 

Comment: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT SAFE CORRIDORS OF NATURAL LANDSCAPE ARE LEFT 

FOR THE GREATER SAGEGROUSE. PRESERVING REFUGE AREAS AND CONNECTING 

CORRIDORS ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN LETTING DEVELOPERS AND ATVS HAVE 

FREE REIGN OVER THIS BIRD'S HABITAT! PLEASE DO ALL YOU CAN TO LEAVE THE LAND 

IN NATIVE PROTECTED VEGETATION. 

Comment ID: 69 

Organization: 

Name: Kay Bird 

Comment: I seriously hope the BLM will adopt the conservation alternative by limiting future development 

and creating larger protected areas. Fossil fuels production and other commercial uses have dominated 

public land management across sagebrush habitats, resulting in a negative impact on wildlife, as well as air 

and water quality. Protecting large expanses of important sage-grouse habitat—as outlined in the 

conservation alternative —will help stem the decline of many species of wildlife across the American West. 

Comment ID: 70 

Organization: 

Name: Bob Nebel 

Comment: I encourage BLM to adopt the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management to 

conserve the species. These include science-based recommendations to limit future development and to 

create protected areas. A study by Copeland et al. (2013) assessing the Wyoming “core area” conservation 

strategy, which some BLM plans have also adopted, predicted that conservation measures it recommends 

will reduce the sage-grouse’s population decline, but will not stabilize grouse numbers or provide for the 

species’ recovery. Another study by Knick et al. (2013) found that sage-grouse appear to need greater 

protection than provided by the Wyoming core area strategy. 

Comment ID: 72 

Organization: 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-211

Name: Holly Van Dyk 

Comment: If you have ever flown over our great nation, and looked at the landscape out the window, you 

would see for yourself the maze of sites that have decimated the wild places. Even from 6-7 miles high, it 

is very plain to see, restoration is needed--and more so, protection of what remains unsullied.Protecting 

large expanses of important sage-grouse habitat—as outlined in the conservation alternative —will help 

stem the decline of many species of wildlife across the American West. 

Comment ID: 73 

Organization: 

Name: Jayne Chase 

Comment: Once the last remaining LARGE expanses that are ESSENTIAL for species to survive are gone, 

so too will be gone those iconic species that are barely hanging on: tragically, it will NOT be possible to 

restore such habitat. We NEED changes in land management policies! PLEASE prioritize changes that are 

in FAVOR of the Greater Sage-Grouse, and NOT in favor of the fossil-fuel industry which is necessarily 

on borrowed time since we MUST NOW move to cleaner sustainable energy practices! It makes NO 

SENSE to destroy the ONLY remaining lands that can allow the grouse to survive, for a few years of 

exploitation by a dying industry. 

Comment ID: 74 

Organization: 

Name: Louise Shimmel 

Comment: It is critical that protections are put in place to preserve this iconic species, so representative of 

the Great Basin type habitat. These birds need large expanses of habitat: no wind farms or other 

developments that impact these sensitive birds.

Comment ID: 91 

Organization: 

Name: Susan Dowds 

Comment: we need to leave their habitat, the beautiful land they occupy, in its natural state! Habitat is so 

critical to these beautiful animals. 

Comment ID: 65 

Organization: 

Name: Deirdre Brown 

Comment: It would be nice if you could save the Greater Sage Grouse and have development as well. In 

order to succeed , you have to be certain of how much land is needed for the bird and what can go on in its 

area. Otherwise, conservation is just a futile gesture, which is kind of sad. 

Comment ID: 370 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Provisions in the Preferred Alternative for General Habitat are a recipe for population extirpation 

should these habitats become developed. These General Habitats have been recognized as important for 

maintaining connectivity. BLM prescribes a 0.25-mile NSO buffer around leks in General Habitats, a 

measure known to be inadequate to protect sage grouse populations. BLM itself notes, “it is not of a distance 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-212 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

that is recommended by current science and may force sagegrouse away from leks to other areas of lower 

quality habitat and smaller populations of birds.” DEIS at 4-335. In fact, the General Habitat provisions do 

not depart from current management, in effect adopting the inadequate regulatory mechanisms under the 

old plans. 

Comment ID: 1187 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: WWP is concerned that no alternative, and certainly not the status quo preferred alternative, will 

uphold BLM’s obligation to manage Sensitive Species to minimize or eliminate threats and not contribute 

to the need for listing, either within or outside of sage-grouse Core Area habitats. As detailed elsewhere in 

these comments, mitigation measures applied under the proposed alternatives will inevitably lead to serious 

impacts to sage grouse populations within Core Areas and elsewhere and, for the most part are 

unenforceable, and therefore not “adequate regulatory mechanisms”. This result represents an unnecessary 

and undue degradation of key Greater sage-grouse habitats. 

Comment ID: 1129 

Organization: 

Name: Lawrence Thompson 

Comment: I encourage BLM to adopt the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management and 

to conserve the species. This includes recommendations to LIMIT future development and to create 

protected areas. 

Comment ID: 312 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: There are abundant opportunities for salable minerals extraction outside sage grouse habitats, 

and therefore all priority and general habitats should be closed to salable mineral operations in order to 

foster sage grouse population maintenance and recovery. 

Comment ID: 301 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We recommend that all Priority Habitats identified in this RMP amendment should be closed to 

future fluid minerals leasing, in order to head off future conflicts between fluid minerals development and 

sage grouse conservation. By sunsetting oil and gas leasing, BLM would give operators the opportunities 

to prove up leases that they already possess, and for those that are not developed, the lands would no longer 

be encumbered with valid existing rights which would allow at least limited industrial activity in some 

cases. 

Comment ID: 302 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Connectivity Areas need to be established to connect Priority Habitats. 

Comment ID: 381 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-213

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We support the 3% disturbance cap for disturbance (applied under Alternatives B and C), but it 

is unclear than any alternative fully implements this disturbance cap (e.g., in the context of mineral leasing 

or mining). However, human-caused disturbance impacts sage grouse and their habitats regardless of 

whether it occurs in the context of vegetation treatments and roads or mineral leasing and development, so 

this disturbance cap needs to be applied more broadly. In addition, all other permitted forms of surface 

disturbance also contribute to degradation of sage grouse habitats; it only makes sense to include (and limit) 

all forms of surface disturbance using the 3% cap. This approach would be consistent with the published 

science (Knick et al. 2013) and the opinions of the agency’s own experts in the NTT Report. There is no 

scientifically acceptable basis for approving exceptions to this disturbance cap. And in the absence of hard 

evidence that compensatory mitigation actually increases sage grouse populations to compensate for habitat 

and population losses elsewhere, there is no scientific basis for approving exceptions when they are paired 

with compensatory mitigation, either. 

Comment ID: 1148 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: WWP incorporates by reference all the issues and literature raised in the scoping comments 

submitted on March 22, 2012 to both the eastern and western regions of the planning project pursuant to 76 

F.R. 77008 and 77 F.R. 7178. WWP raised concerns about the modeling of core and other habitat, the need 

for stronger actions than the National Technical Team (NTT) Report; concerns about the sage-grouse 

habitat segregation schemes that break occupied sage-grouse habitat or habitat essential for restoration of 

populations into Priority and General Habitats; uncertainty over how the process would address livestock 

allocations; concerns about the need for immediate and strong action to heal native sagebrush communities 

and prevent or reverse plant community changes and irreversible cheatgrass invasion and other harms 

caused by aggressive treatments and grazing; the agency culture of deference to industry; and many other 

issues. The federal agencies have failed to meaningfully integrate these concerns and references in the 

current DLUPA/DEIS. 

Comment ID: 304 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We strongly urge the BLM that Priority Habitats should be withdrawn from future oil and gas 

leasing, allowing existing leases to lapse as they expire, as in Alternatives B and C. Existing leases should 

have all measures approved under the RMP revision applied as Conditions of Approval. However, 

Alternatives D and E would not apparently close all Priority Habitats to future oil and gas leasing. BLM 

should close sage grouse Priority Habitats, regardless of development potential, to future oil and gas leasing 

as a means of steering future land uses away from conflict in the future. 

Comment ID: 366 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Alternative D prescribes 0.25-mile NSO buffers in Priority Habitats, a measure which has been 

shown to be biologically inadequate by numerous studies and even WGFD reports, as discussed elsewhere 

in these comments (and even BLM’s own DEIS). Development under this buffer will result in major 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-214 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impacts to affected lek populations resulting in lek abandonment and population losses. This is one of the 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms that led to the “warranted but precluded” USFWS finding in 2010. 

Comment ID: 293 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Wyoming RMP Amendment should prevent these problems for BLM-managed lands and 

projects on BLM-managed minerals by establishing Priority and General Habitat boundaries as inviolate 

and permanent designations (at least throughout the life of the Plan) and by precluding exceptions or 

waivers of sage grouse measures within these respective habitats. 

Comment ID: 1257 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The preferred alternative is continuing the management policies and practices that got us into 

this problem in the first place. It is trying to strike a balance between conservation and resource extraction, 

but the time for such half-measures has passed. In choosing a lower level of habitat protection, 

implementing essentially status quo management but allowing continued livestock grazing, massive 

expansion of oil and gas development and other resource extraction, the agencies are hastening the decline 

of the sage-grouse and forcing even more restrictions on development in the future as these half-measures 

are shown to be ineffective. The wisest, most conservative course of action would be to manage for the best 

possible chances for sage-grouse recovery. If and when these measures prove effective, restrictions can be 

reviewed. 

Comment ID: 1189 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: According to BLM policy, “It is in the interest of the BLM to undertake conservation actions 

for such species before listing is warranted.” The sage-grouse is already nearing listing as an Endangered 

or Threatened Species, as shown by the “warranted but precluded” finding of the USFWS. The previous 

USFWS sage grouse “not warranted” findings were litigated and overturned by courts in the past, and there 

is every expectation that a “not warranted” finding would similarly be litigated if one is issued in 2015. 

Failure to implement the strongest conservation measures feasible needlessly exposes the sage-grouse to 

threats to its viability, even within Core Areas, which would strengthen the likelihood that the USFWS 

deems BLM conservation measures inadequate at the administrative stage or that a court would 

subsequently rule them inadequate and use this as the basis for the overturn or remand of a “not warranted” 

finding by the USFWS. 

Comment ID: 1184 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Nothing provided in the EIS would support a conclusion that BLM actions following RMP 

amendment implementation will not contribute to further declines in Greater sage-grouse habitat conditions 

and populations. In fact, the EIS specifically admits that further declines will occur. 

Comment ID: 379 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-215

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: There are no adequate conservation measures for sage grouse in General Habitat under the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Comment ID: 367 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Alternative D sets a maximum of 3 energy locations per square mile in Core Area habitat. DEIS 

at 4- 324. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, this is far above (indeed three times as great a density) 

as the one site per square mile threshold at which significant negative population-level impacts occur. As a 

regulatory mechanism, this in inadequate and fails to meet USFWS effectiveness requirements. 

Comment ID: 375 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The mining withdrawal is a key component of sage grouse Priority Habitat protection that needs 

to be implemented. It makes absolutely no sense to limit powerlines and oilfields if a major mining 

operation is allowed to move in and strip-mine the habitat. Also, we concur with the need to withdraw 

Priority Habitats from non-energy mineral leasing and salable mineral extraction as in Alternatives B and 

C for the same reason. 

Comment ID: 303 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition, it is critically important for BLM to identify and protect winter concentration areas. 

Thus far, the location of these habitats remains largely undetermined. DEIS at 4-2. These lands, once 

identified under the RMP amendment, should be withdrawn from future mineral leasing and entry of all 

kinds, with Conditions of Approval applying NSO stipulations inside and within 2 miles of these areas, 

disturbance limits of 3% per square mile and one wellpad per 640-acre section, exclusion of overhead 

powerlines, and seasonal road closures within the winter habitats. The proposal to simply apply timing 

stipulations to these areas as under the Preferred Alternative is insufficient because it allows construction 

of wellpads and roads known to be deleterious to wintering sage grouse inside these key habitats as long as 

construction/drilling occurs outside the winter season, and further allows production-related activities 

throughout winter. Thus, the sage grouse may return to their winter habitats to find an industrialized, 

fragmented habitat that no longer has any habitat function due to the birds’ avoidance of such areas. 

Comment ID: 1032 

Organization: 

Name: Reed Glenn 

Comment: Please adopt the conservation alternative -- Alternative C -- to protect our precious and 

DWINDLING wildlife habitats. 

Comment ID: 365 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-216 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Alternative D allows 9% surface disturbance in each 640-acre section in sage grouse habitats 

each year. DEIS at 2-11. The best available science (Knick et al. 2013) identifies 3% as the disturbance 

threshold that should not be exceeded, based on 99% of active sage grouse leks in the western half of the 

sage grouse’s range being sited in habitat surrounded by lands with less than 3% surface disturbance. 

Therefore, even if the disturbance cap were set cumulatively at 5% (existing disturbance plus all disturbance 

approved in all future years) this provision would not meet USFWS effectiveness criteria based on the best 

available science. 

Comment ID: 1298 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: These and other failings to comply with law and policy, including NEPA, NFMA and FLPMA, 

render the DLUPA/DEIS inadequate to protect the sage-grouse and insufficient to present the framework 

under which adequate regulatory mechanisms will guard against species extinction. 

Comment ID: 1335 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Stunningly, the DEIS propose is to basically continues status quo management, which has 

resulted in the significant declines of sage grouse throughout the analysis area, massively increase sources 

of the impacts such as oil and gas drilling, mining, etc., which will further increase the downward trend in 

sage grouse populations and habitat conditions yet nowhere in the DEIS is this directly addressed. In fact, 

the DEIS is completely silent on the effects of the various alternatives on the recovery of the species. 

Modeling or other means have been used to provide any kind of quantitative information regarding the 

likely outcomes of the proposed alternative. 

Comment ID: 1336 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: On page iv. The BLM states that one of the fundamental considerations in its amendment 

planning is the "consistency of existing land use plan decisions with the state of Wyoming Executive Order 

2011- 5" but this executive order fails to provide the requirements and protections needed for sage grouse 

recovery. The recent paper titled Measuring the Efficacy of Sage Grouse Conservation (Copeland et al. 

2013) shows that the application of the core area strategy in the Executive Order only slightly reduces the 

rate of decline of sage grouse in Wyoming. It does nothing to stabilize or recover sage grouse. The study 

found: “We estimate that the core area strategy alone reduces these declines statewide to 9–15% (95% CI: 

3–32%) and 6–9% (95% CI: 2–24%) within core areas.” So the very basis of the proposed action is 

insufficient. Starting on page 29 of the DEIS comments submitted by Wild Earth Guardians, there is a 

review of the flaws of the State of Wyoming’s core area strategy. We incorporate Wild Earth Guardians 

comments by reference. 

Comment ID: 380 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In order to successfully address the threats identified by USFWS to continued sage grouse 

existence, the closure to future mineral leasing should be extended to all sage grouse Priority Habitats, at 

minimum, and Conditions of Approval should be applied to existing leases as recommended by NTT 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-217

(2011): 4-mile NSO buffers, 3% disturbance caps, maximum one wellpad or other disturbance per squaremile section. 

Comment ID: 313 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition, we would expect that impacts from activity on developed sites would radiate into 

surrounding habitats as with other forms of mining and oil and gas development, causing habitat 

abandonment and declines in sage grouse populations in at least the 2-mile area surrounding mine sites. 

Core Areas should be closed to oil shale leasing and development under the Wyoming RMP Amendment. 

Comment ID: 311 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: As with fluid minerals, BLM should close all Priority Habitats to nonenergy leasable minerals 

leasing, as this does little to hinder minerals production but much to assure that adequate regulatory 

mechanisms are in place to address threats to sage grouse persistence. 

Comment ID: 372 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We support the management objectives under Alternative B, particularly those to maintain or 

restore to 70% land cover in adequate sage grouse habitat, and to prioritize and reclaim anthropogenic 

disturbances to 3% or less of the landscape within 10 years. DEIS at 2-13. The Alternatives D and E have 

hardly any objectives relating to sage grouse, and those that are present lack measurable benchmarks. DEIS 

at 2-14. 

Comment ID: 373 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The BLM has also not considered protections for sage grouse for lands outside Priority Habitats, 

and has not fully considered NTT or Sage-grouse Recovery Alternative measures proposed for sage grouse 

general habitats. What will be the impact of permitted activities on grouse populations that fall outside the 

Priority Habitats/ACEC boundaries under this plan? The DEIS is silent on this matter. 

Comment ID: 308 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: All priority habitats should be found unsuitable for coal leasing under the RMP amendment in 

order to prevent direct destruction of sage grouse habitats through strip mining and indirect impacts from 

grouse being driven away from otherwise suitable habitats adjacent to mine sites and associated access 

roads and facilities by increased industrial activity. 

Comment ID: 1305 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-218 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS also does not require that the agencies implement management that 

conserves, restores, and enhances GRSG habitat, only to analyze an alternative like that in subsequent 

NEPA processes. Thus, the DLUPA is not requiring the subsequent adoption of meaningful changes, only 

the consideration of something that might be better for GRSG, someday. This is utterly inadequate to 

conserve the species and demonstrates the agency’s lack of commitment to truly improving sagegrouse 

habitat. 

Comment ID: 1130 

Organization: 

Name: John Dantoni 

Comment: Save our Greater Sage Grouse by giving them large areas of undisturbed land. These magnificent 

birds require unspoiled areas to thrive and they are not being allowed this opportunity due to being placed 

on the back burner for short term gains in energy! Save our birds! 

Comment ID: 1144 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The proposed DLUPA/DEIS fails to adequately address the "present and threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the greater sage-grouse." In addition, DLUPA/DEIS 

fails to implement the "regulatory mechanisms" that would be necessary for the recovery of the species. 

Regulatory mechanisms under the ESA must be mandatory and enforceable. The vast majority of the 

proposed management actions of the LUPA do not address either of these requirements. The agency failed 

to take a hard look at whether livestock grazing is compatible with protecting and improving GRSG habitat. 

Comment ID: 2756 

Organization: 

Name: Dana Ward 

Comment: I hope that BLM works closely with Wyoming, Montana, Washington and other state 

Departments of Wildlife to assure recovering and thriving populations of Sage-grouse are protected. Thank 

you for considering these comments. 

Comment ID: 2249 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Page 2-20, 21): “Projects in designated corridors and along these routes will not be counted 

against the 5% disturbance cap (Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool Manual). We do not 

support new transmission lines in core habitat and support actions under Alternative B. 

Comment ID: 2246 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Table 2-5, Threats: NSO on Leased Fluid Minerals should follow Alternative B. 

Comment ID: 2232 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-219

Comment: appropriate for Action 66. 

Comment ID: 2236 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 69, page 2-77): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are most 

appropriate for Action 69. 

Comment ID: 2525 

Organization: 

Name: Patricia Valdata 

Comment: I encourage BLM to adopt the conservation alternative (Alternative C) to ensure sustainable 

management and to conserve the species. These include recommendations to limit future development and 

to create protected areas. 

Comment ID: 2243 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 76, page 2-83): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are most 

appropriate for Action 76. 

Comment ID: 2530 

Organization: 

Name: Kathryn Colestock-Burke 

Comment: Limit development. Protect habitat. Please go with "Alternative C" as you decide what to do to 

help this species. 

Comment ID: 2227 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: We do not believe that the preferred Alternative E meets this purpose and need to the extent 

necessary to preclude the need to list the species as threatened or endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). We do believe there are components in the preferred and other alternatives that, when 

combined, can result in an appropriate final alternative and proposed plan that will address threats such that 

the need to list the greater sage-grouse could be avoided. 

Comment ID: 2395 

Organization: 

Name: Kathleen Hartman 

Comment: I am ask that the BLM choose the conservation alternative, not the preferred alternative, which 

does not provide the standards necessary to stabilize and recover grouse populations. 

Comment ID: 2401 

Organization: 

Name: Corbett Kroehler 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-220 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Protecting large expanses of important sage-grouse habitat--as outlined in the conservation 

alternative--will help stem the decline of many species of wildlife across the American West. 

Comment ID: 2526 

Organization: 

Name: Frances Lamberts 

Comment: Please adopt the conservation measures with greatest likelihood of success, namely Alternative 

C (rather than the core-areas preferred alternative) in your upcoming, BML management decision in the 

states where the Greater Sage-Grouse lives. 

Comment ID: 2400 

Organization: 

Name: Mark Hunter 

Comment: Even your best alternative, from a conservation standpoint, does not do enough to turn around 

the sharp decline in their population. But if I must choose, I encourage you to implement Alternative C. 

Comment ID: 2403 

Organization: 

Name: arnold martelli 

Comment: I encourage BLM to adopt the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management and 

to conserve the species. 

Comment ID: 2590 

Organization: 

Name: Ana Arguelles 

Comment: I would like to encourage the Bureau of Land Management to designate protected reserves for 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations and sharply limit or ban oil and gas leases in key habitats. Livestock 

grazing should be managed to leave adequate ground cover in grouse nesting areas and to protect springs 

and other riparian habitats where these birds raise their young. On private lands used by the grouse, the 

federal government needs to keep encouraging ranchers and farmers to voluntarily protect important areas. 

Comment ID: 2244 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 84, page 2-95): We recommend that some of the most important and sensitive areas for 

sagegrouse be revisited and considered for protection under management actions such as ACECs or other 

designations employed by BLM. 

Comment ID: 2234 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: appropriate for Action 68. 

Comment ID: 2245 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-221

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Table 2-5, Threats: Areas closed to mineral leasing should follow Alternative B – no new areas 

leased in priority habitat. 

Comment ID: 2229 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 60, page 2-63): We do not believe the preferred alternative will protect sage grouse and 

reduce threats so as to preclude the need to list the species. We do not support developing minerals in sage 

grouse core/priority habitat. We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are most 

appropriate for Action 60. 

Comment ID: 2230 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: appropriate for Action 64. 

Comment ID: 2233 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: appropriate for Action 67. 

Comment ID: 2231 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: appropriate for Action 65. 

Comment ID: 2248 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Action 24, Page 2-17: “The Wyoming BLM typically manages the public lands to meet the State 

of Wyoming’s wildlife population objectives. The current population objective is to maintain at least 67% 

of the 2005-2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Population within the State of Wyoming. We would 

remind BLM that this is the “bottom” trigger and the goal should explicitly be to manage for long-term 

increases in habitat and populations. Maintaining only 67% of core habitat may sustain that particular 

population level, but this would not likely allow for expansion of the habitat and population thus further 

ensuring long-term increases and sustainable harvest opportunities for sportsmen. 

Comment ID: 2405 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: BLM Uses Flawed Science in Use of Habitat Classifications Information in the Draft EIS does 

not represent the best available science required by the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") or the standards 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-222 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

for quality, objectivity, and integrity required by the Data Quality Act ("DQA") and Office of Management 

and Budget ("OMB") Guidelines (44 USC 3504(d)(1), 3515(a)). 

Comment ID: 2769 

Organization: Santa Barbara Audubon Society 

Name: lee moldaver 

Comment: Please adopt the conservation Alternative to ensure sustainable management and to conserve the 

species. These include fair ways to limit future development and to create protected areas. USGS and other 

peer-reviewed research indicate that conserving the Greater Sage-Grouse will require both protecting large 

areas of habitat and making significant changes in land management to reverse population declines of this 

wide-ranging species. The Survey found that most priority sage-grouse habitat is already heavily degraded 

and that grouse are only persisting in large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat. 

Comment ID: 3088 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: In addition to the fluid mineral protections recommended by the NTT Report, the Core Habitat 

ACEC should provide for withdrawal from mineral entry, unavailable for mineral leasing, closure to 

disposal of mineral materials and saleable minerals, protective fire management provisions, preclusion of 

nonnative plant species, right-of-way exclusion area, closure to renewable energy development, and travel 

limitations. Where necessary to meet conservation objectives, oil and gas leases not held by production 

could be targeted for relinquishment, retirement, exchange or termination. A holistic, comprehensive 

approach will provide the most certainty and maximize the chances of meeting conservation goals and 

objectives. 

Comment ID: 3096 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: For energy development, two principles need to guide BLM’s decisions. First, all remaining 

sagegrouse strongholds in relatively large, intact blocks of habitat need to be protected. This will include a 

combination of 1) closed to leasing designations; 2) relinquishment or retirement of existing leases; and 3) 

No Surface Occupancy and other measures for existing leases not retired or relinquished. Where large intact 

blocks of habitat are in short supply, protecting remaining refugia is especially urgent. Designating the 

proposed Core Habitat ACEC will allow the agencies to extend protections as leases terminate or are 

otherwise retired, relinquished, or exchanged. 

Comment ID: 3097 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Large blocks of contiguous unleased habitat are addressed by BLM IM WY-2012-019, and have 

been identified by BLM in the course of quarterly lease sale reviews. The leasing screen described in BLM 

WY IM 2010-013 uses these large blocks (11 square miles) of “contiguous, manageable, unleased Federal 

minerals” as a criterion for protecting such important intact habitat from new leasing. These unleased blocks 

present existing opportunities for refugia and should therefore have stronger protections – through lease 

closures and avoidance measures. The identification and inclusion of large blocks of unleased contiguous 

habitat in non-core areas should be considered where core areas are compromised (like those in the Buffalo 

Field Office). 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-223

Comment ID: 3098 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Second, BLM should apply the heightened protections from Alternative B for proposed 

development outside large intact blocks within core and other occupied habitat important to conservation 

and recovery efforts. Where new leases issue for fragmented or already-disturbed sage-grouse habitat, these 

measure must be included in lease terms and stipulations. Areas for protection should include priority 

habitat that meet the needs of all life stages of the sage-grouse: breeding, brood rearing, summer habitat, 

winter concentration areas, and connectivity/corridors. Recovery depends on protecting priority habitat. In 

the absence of adequate priority habitat to meet recovery goals, protections must be extended to priority 

occupied habitat, specifically including breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, winter, and connectivity habitats. 

Adequate science-based protections, per the NTT-recommended conservation measures in Alternative B, 

are essential to achieving recovery goals and the many benefits flowing from healthy ecosystems and 

populations. Identification of unleased contiguous habitat and overlap of regional breeding densities (25%, 

50%, and 75% polygons) will be important tools in determining priority locations for heightened 

protections. Where populations are at risk and habitat is already significantly degraded, the need to fully 

conserve remaining intact habitat is magnified by the relative shortage of such large blocks. 

Comment ID: 2776 

Organization: 

Name: Mary Rosenfeld 

Comment: Please support Alternative C, so I and all the children I know can aways see and appreciate this, 

and other valuable species on these lands. 

Comment ID: 3105 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Connectivity areas are essential. “Genetic analyses are underway to identify areas important for 

connectivity, but until these linkage zones are identified, we recommend a cautionary approach to 

management to at least maintain as undeveloped habitat the connectivity corridors outlined in the Wyoming 

Governor’s Executive Order.” Taylor at 32. This establishes the need for fully protecting connectivity areas 

and the populations they link. This of course requires comprehensive identification and mapping of habitat 

with connectivity values. 

Comment ID: 2763 

Organization: 

Name: Brock Evans 

Comment: The above is why I am alarmed to to learn of the BLM's "Preferred Alternative" for managing 

what remains of the GSC and its special needs for large protected habitats -- for reproduction, food and 

shelter, and survival from predators. The Preferred Alternative simply does not -- can not -- accomplish 

these needed goals sufficiently to stabilize its numbers and eventually recover it to full sustainable health 

as a species. I urge that the BLM reconsider its position and to adopt the Conservation Alternative instead. 

NOW is the time to identify and set aside the best remaining largelandscape habitats that the Greater Sage 

Grouse needs to ensure healthy and sustainable populations for the future. 

Comment ID: 3109 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-224 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Current preferred alternative E includes the use of 0.6 mile NSO for core habitat and a 0.6 mile 

buffer around occupied leks. DEIS at 2-174 and 2-195. “Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities

would be prohibited or restricted on or within a 0.25 mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse 

leks (Map 2-3).” DEIS at 2-141. These provisions are inadequate to maintain lek activity, as studies have 

repeatedly confirmed (Holloran 200510, Walker et al. 2007).11 See previous discussion supra. The Lander 

FEIS/RMP and the Miles City RMP FEIS both recognized this. 

Comment ID: 3125 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Regulatory certainty depends on adopting science-based policies to achieve conservation and 

recovery goals. Alternative E is significantly weaker than current policies and lacks the requisite certainty. 

Alternative B and the Core Habitat ACEC would better provide certainty, consolidate recent conservation 

gains in priority habitat, and ensure the implementation of effective, science-based measures to achieve 

conservation objectives. Incorporating the recommendations provided above into the final 9-Plan and FEIS 

will provide regulatory certainty for long-term population stability and potential for recovery if habitat 

recovers. Thank you for considering these comments. Audubon Rockies looks forward to working with 

BLM, the Forest Service, and other stakeholders to develop and implement management strategies to 

achieve sage-grouse goals and objectives established by the agency’s national planning strategy. Deeper 

analysis and adoption of a science-based approach grounded in Alternative B is integral to the success of 

these efforts, and ensuring that the 9-Plan DEIS/LUPA does not further contribute to the need to fully list 

the Greater Sage-Grouse under ESA. Stronger conservation measures that further recovery and 

conservation will ultimately benefit all users and resource values. 

Comment ID: 3087 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: threatened by direct disturbance and habitat fragmentation. Alternative E would not designate 

ACECs or other Special Management areas. The Core Habitat ACEC is informed by the NTT, the COT 

Report, breeding density data, and other research. The highest protection of leasing and other closures are 

needed for the remaining large blocks of relatively intact, contiguous and manageable habitat. BLM has 

recently deferred leases to protect all such blocks of at least 7,040 acres, which should be the minimum size 

to trigger closures to leasing. For subregions and individual core areas with a paucity of blocks of this size, 

the plan should extend the higher level of protections to the largest and most valuable remaining blocks of 

habitat. NSO designations should be applied to ensure that adequate areas of vital habitat types are protected 

for the seasonal migrations and life cycle of the bird. Management of adjacent general habitat needs to be 

coordinated with provisions applying within the ACEC. 

Comment ID: 2770 

Organization: 

Name: Bettina Moser 

Comment: PLEASE DO NOT BOW TO $$ AND SHORT-TERM PROFIT OR CORPORATE AND 

POLITICAL PRESSURES. RATHER, PLEASE LEAD THE WAY AND ENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT 

NON-DEGRADED AND UNDISTURBED HABITAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE SAGE GROUSE. 

THIS IN TURN WILL BENEFIT ALL OF US FOR, ULTIMATELY, AN INTACT ENVIRONMENT IS 

THE MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE WE HAVE. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-225

Comment ID: 3099 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The 9-Plan and FEIS needs to reflect BLM interim guidance emphasizing three guiding 

principles for greater sage-grouse habitat consistent with BLM’s National Strategy: [E]mphasis for 

protecting and managing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat incorporates the following principles: 1) Protection 

of unfragmented habitats; 2) Minimization of habitat loss and fragmentation; and 3) Management of 

habitats to maintain, enhance, or restore conditions that meet Greater Sage- Grouse life history needs. 

Comment ID: 2768 

Organization: Animal Science Dept, California Polytechnic State University 

Name: Marc Horney 

Comment: I urge BLM and its partner agencies to work to protect these areas from disturbance and continue 

to increase the monitoring of GSG populations in a coordinated manner among state, federal, and local 

stakeholders across its range. Developing effective strategies for sustainable management of large expanses 

of important sage-grouse habitat is the best strategy for stemming the decline of many associated wildlife 

species across the American West. Increased monitoring of GSG populations and better collaboration 

among all those with interests in sagebrush-steppe ecosystems is the most effective way to accomplish this. 

Comment ID: 2767 

Organization: Animal Science Dept, California Polytechnic State University 

Name: Marc Horney 

Comment: I encourage BLM to continue coordinating with USFWS, USFS and NRCS in broad publicprivate efforts to conserve the species. Recent evidence does indicate that restricting expansion of mineral 

and fossil fuel extraction into good condition GSG habitats is necessary at this time to stabilize populations 

and reverse their declines. 

Comment ID: 2766 

Organization: 

Name: Robert Stalnaker 

Comment: Savings this species would help save many more that use the same habitat. Politicians receive 

kickbacks and under the table money from construction companies to build all sorts of crap, destroying 

unique habitats. There is more to life than greed, profit, politicians receiving kickbacks, etc. The beauty of 

natural lands and these magnificent species must be preserved. The US Government MUST preserve very 

large tracts of land for not only this species but many species that use the same habitat. There is one very 

clear visual that you need to look at, and that is the trend line of population for this species and hundreds 

of other species. Why would this generation want to facilitate the extinction of extirpation of these species? 

Why would the BLM want to play a role in the extinction of these species? These species have been on this 

planet since before Christ, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Why is this generation wanting to wipe out 

these iconic species? PLEASE preserve large tracts of land and stop the indiscriminate destruction of public 

lands. These public lands are for ALL the people of future generations, not just the type of people who 

think the only thing on earth should be more people, off-road vehicles, etc. We have destroyed far too much 

of our precious lands and species. We MUST protect what little is left, and hopefully provide habitat to 

start recovery of decimated populations 

Comment ID: 2753 

Organization: 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-226 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Peter Slattery 

Comment: Please stop destroying the sage brush biome. It's not pretty, just a monotonous gray. Our eyes 

and values aren't so important though; my childhood was spent in sagebrush, summer and winter, coyotes, 

mule deer sage, grouse up. Everyone should be so lucky, they just don't know it. Please safeguard what you 

can. 

Comment ID: 2755 

Organization: 

Name: Steve Semanchuk 

Comment: My financial situation may prevent me from ever seeing a Greater Sage-Grouse but I would find 

great satisfaction in knowing that efforts are being made to help them survive our expanding population. 

Please use Alternative "C" in your management program. 

Comment ID: 2765 

Organization: 

Name: Robert Stalnaker 

Comment: Savings this species would help save many more that use the same habitat. Politicians receive 

kickbacks and under the table money from construction companies to build all sorts of crap, destroying 

unique habitats. There is more to life than greed, profit, politicians receiving kickbacks, etc. The beauty of 

natural lands and these magnificent species must be preserved. The US Government MUST preserve very 

large tracts of land for not only this species but many species that use the same habitat. There is one very 

clear visual that you need to look at, and that is the trend line of population for this species and hundreds 

of other species. Why would this generation want to facilitate the extinction of extirpation of these species? 

Why would the BLM want to play a role in the extinction of these species? These species have been on this 

planet since before Christ, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Why is this generation wanting to wipe out 

these iconic species? PLEASE preserve large tracts of land and stop the indiscriminate destruction of public 

lands. These public lands are for ALL the people of future generations, not just the type of people who 

think the only thing on earth should be more people, off-road vehicles, etc. We have destroyed far too much

of our precious lands and species. We MUST protect what little is left, and hopefully provide habitat to 

start recovery of decimated populations. 

Comment ID: 2764 

Organization: 

Name: Stewart Wilber 

Comment: We need to keep in mind that these are not only beautiful creatures in their own right, they are 

also bellwethers for us. We need to stop ignoring what mother nature is trying to tell us through them about 

environmental damage, especially that caused by fossil fuel production and use. We too are at risk. 

Comment ID: 2760 

Organization: 

Name: Marie Leven 

Comment: Saving habitat for the grouse will also protect the land and the water tables. They should have 

unspoiled places to live and we as a nation need to realize that some places should never be developed. 

Comment ID: 2761 

Organization: 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-227

Name: Gail Mackiernan 

Comment: It is important to reverse the decline of Greater Sage-Grouse, which is one of this country's 

"natural treasures." My husband and I were amazed to watch this species display on one of its traditional 

leks in Colorado a few years ago; a lek which exists, by the way, on BLM lands. For that reason I encourage 

BLM to adopt Alternative C to ensure sustainable management and to conserve the species. These include 

recommendations to limit future development and to create protected areas, as well as encourage 

appropriate grazing strategies on BLM lands. 

Comment ID: 2762 

Organization: 

Name: Egret Plover 

Comment: Commerical building seems like such a good idea, especially because it helps stimulate the 

economy, creating more jobs and so on. But this is NOT about humans, this is about the birds of greater 

sage grouse. And are you knowing that birdwatching is increasingly becoming a steady source of money 

for the government? Are we willing to let them go extinct for our own good? 

Comment ID: 2775 

Organization: 

Name: Bill Thiessen 

Comment: I fully support the conservation alternative. It is necessary to retain what is left of wildlife in the 

U.S. Fort too long we have we have used up our resources like there was no end to them. 

Comment ID: 3083 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Science-based conservation strategies focused on the most valuable remaining intact habitat 

should be uniformly applied as range-wide planning proceeds. The highest level of protections should be 

provided for federal lands so that neighboring jurisdictions can build off conservation measures consistent 

with range-wide goals and objectives. 

Comment ID: 3067 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Although seasonal timing restrictions are stipulated in the preferred alternative, 

recommendations forwarded in the literature and the NTT report suggest seasonal timing restrictions are 

ineffective, especially relevant here as timing restrictions do not apply to operation and maintenance of 

production facilities. Eliminating human activity at infrastructure within seasonally protected areas may be 

necessary to achieve the objectives of seasonal closures. 

Comment ID: 3059 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: We believe that current management, which relies almost entirely on the EO stipulations, is not 

sufficient to ensure that sage-grouse do not become threatened or endangered under the currently proposed 

Alternative E. We request that BLM and the Forest Service consider the recommendations we have outlined 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-228 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

below to bolster protections and provide a management alternative with sufficient strength to protect sagegrouse from a potential listing of Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Despite the 

requirement of the EO that "State and federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies shall work collaboratively to ensure 

uniform and consistent application this Executive Order to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats and populations" (EO, Stipulation 12, p. 3), federal land management agencies are bound by a 

requirement, based on the above-cited authorities, to implement management policies that offer protection 

to candidate species based on the best currently available science. At this time, the science on which the 

EO was based is more than three years old, and it does not, in some cases, represent the current best available 

science. Considering that BLM and the Forest Service already implement the management stipulations 

outlined in the EO, we contend that actions under Alternative E would be nearly identical to Alternative A, 

essentially resulting in "no action." We see this as a flaw that can be fixed, and we request that the BLM 

revise the plan and propose an improved and meaningfully different alternative to the no action alternative 

that would better ensure sage-grouse conservation based on the current best available science, and better 

ensure that listing will not be necessary. As drafted, the plan states, "It is the policy of BLM Wyoming to 

manage Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitats and maintain connectivity in identified areas in support of 

the population management objectives set by the State of Wyoming" (9-Plan DEIS, 1-1). We believe this 

proposed management would be in conflict with federal requirements because it would not implement a 

level of habitat protection based on the current best available science. We believe this can be remedied if 

the goal of the 9-Plan DEIS would not solely support the management objectives of the State of Wyoming 

but also have the overarching goal of managing Greater Sage-Grouse in a way that meets the legal criteria 

necessary to avoid listing under the ESA. Agencies should abide by the federal agency requirements to 

meet the ESA legal criteria to avoid listing and to remain consistent with existing federal laws. 

Comment ID: 3080 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The Energy Development and Infrastructure section of the cumulative impacts analysis for the 

greater sage-grouse provides (DEIS at 4-489): The greatest cumulative effect to Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat would result from surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities in the form of direct habitat loss 

or habitat fragmentation, and would likely cause long-term displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse through 

habitat loss and lek abandonment. The lack of undisturbed habitat in the region and throughout the MZ 

places additional stress on remaining habitat and the birds that rely on the habitat. Oil, gas, and CBNG 

leases, in addition to infrastructure associated with these activities that are currently in production or would 

be developed on valid, existing rights would add to the habitat loss and fragmentation anywhere sagebrush 

habitat occurs. This supports the urgency of fully protecting the best remaining blocks of relatively intact 

and undisturbed priority habitat across the project area and the Rocky Mountain region. Avoidance and 

exclusion zones will be necessary to avoid these cumulative effects that, if allowed to continue, will have 

significant and possibly fatal impacts for continued habitat loss and lek abandonment. 

Comment ID: 2159 

Organization: The Cloud Foundation 

Name: Ginger Kathrens 

Comment: Other threats to sage grouse include the loss of habitat due to fossil fuel extraction. Alternatives 

should mandate a four mile no disturbance zone around all leks and also key brood rearing areas. Any EIS 

should contain a full and complete review of each and every fossil fuel extraction project and plans for 

restoration of habitat and removal of all high towers, poles, etc. where raptors can perch to prey on the 

grouse. No additional road building or other disruptions should be approved within four miles of areas 

determined to be critical sage grouse habitat. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-229

Comment ID: 2899 

Organization: 

Name: Narca Moore-Craig and Alan Craig 

Comment: I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO ADOPT ALTERNATIVE C!! SUBSTANTIAL AREAS OF 

GOOD SAGEBRUSH HABITAT ARE ABSOLUTELY WORTH SAVING. UNFORTUNATELY, 

UNDER EXISTING MANAGEMENT THEY HAVE BEEN SEVERELY DAMAGED IN FAR TOO 

MANY AREAS. 

Comment ID: 2902 

Organization: 

Name: Anita Welych 

Comment: We need to do all it takes to save such a bird; however, saving and restoring Sage-Grouse habitat 

does so much more than save a bird. At the same time we preserve habitat, we are maintaining old prairie 

growth - a critically endangered ecosystem. We are saving biodiversity at a time when humanity is 

essentially razing the earth. We can save habitat for endangered butterflies and other pollinators. We can 

save this land for uses and benefits we cannot even fathom yet. Most of all, we're saving a unique part of 

our world for our children and hopefully, their children. We need to use our BEST science, and implement 

our BEST plan - that would be the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management and to 

conserve the species. These include recommendations to limit future development and to create protected 

areas. We don't need to ruin this precious land for a few years' worth of oil or gas. Good grief! Fossil fuels 

are ruining the rest of the earth as it is - let's keep oil/gas production OFF Sage-Grouse land. Is anyone 

going to remember that one tank of gas or one day of heating, compared to the incomparable sight of a lek 

in full use by courting Sage-Grouse? 

Comment ID: 2700 

Organization: 

Name: Carol Halberstadt 

Comment: To achieve these goals, total protection from fossil fuel, ranching, livestock grazing, and any 

kind of "development" must never be allowed in those few large, relatively undisturbed habitat areas where 

the sage-grouse and all the life forms with which it shares these habitats still survive. Further, it is crucial 

that expanded habitat protection be established and that it be contiguous to those areas already still 

supporting sage-grouse populations and all the rapidly declining species of wildlife across the American 

West that desperately need protection. I specifically urge that the BLM adopt conservation measures--called 

the conservation alternative, or "Alternative C"--to ensure sustainable protection for the Greater SageGrouse and all the ecosystem that sustains this dangerously threatened species. 

Comment ID: 2147 

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter 

Name: Connie Wilbert 

Comment: Overall, we believe that Alternative E is not sufficient to protect or conserve greater sage grouse 

populations into the future, based on the best available science. At a minimum, changes must be made to 

Alternative E to correct inadequacies in the BLM's regulatory structure. 

Summary: Save and protect the sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. BLM and Forest Service should base 

their management alternatives on the best available science. The plan does not do enough to protect, 

stabilize or recover sage-grouse populations. More land should be closed to uses such as oil, gas, or other 

mineral development; livestock grazing, wind energy development, OHVs, or rights of ways. Large areas 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-230 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

of unfragmented habitat for sage-grouse, including winter, corridors/connectivity, and nesting should be 

protected and preserved, possibly as ACECs for sage-grouse and other wildlife. The conservation 

alternative (Alternative C) is the most protective and should be adopted by BLM and the Forest Service. 

Alternative B and the recommendations of the NTT Report should be adopted by the Forest Service and 

BLM. The COT report indicates that Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations must be maintained or restored 

to help support the species’ long-term persistence (COT 2013). The Wyoming Core Area Strategies will 

fail to achieve these goals. There are no adequate conservation measures for sage-grouse in General Habitat 

under the Preferred Alternative or Alternative D. The NSO/CSU of 0.25 to 0.6 miles from a lek in 

Alternatives D and E will likely result in major impacts to active leks within the core areas themselves and 

other populations as well, as this proximity results in significant impacts to breeding grouse on the lek and 

will result in development occurring in the midst of the most prime nesting habitats that surround the 

affected lek. These and other failings to comply with law and policy, including NEPA, NFMA and FLPMA, 

render the Draft LUP Amendment/Draft EIS inadequate to protect the sage-grouse and insufficient to 

present the framework under which adequate regulatory mechanisms will guard against species extinction. 

Commercial uses of the land should only be permitted if they are compatible with protection of the sagegrouse and other sagebrush species. Concerns about the modeling of core and other habitat, the need for 

stronger actions than the National Technical Team (NTT) Report; concerns about the sage-grouse habitat 

segregation schemes that break occupied sage-grouse habitat or habitat essential for restoration of 

populations into priority and general habitats; uncertainty over how the process would address livestock 

allocations; concerns about the need for immediate and strong action to heal native sagebrush communities 

and prevent or reverse plant community changes and irreversible cheatgrass invasion and other harms 

caused by aggressive treatments and grazing; the agency culture of deference to industry; and many other 

issues. Recovery efforts must take stochastic events into account and aim to increase, rather than maintain

sage-grouse populations. By sunsetting oil and gas leasing, BLM would give operators the opportunities to 

prove up leases that they already possess, and for those that are not developed, the lands would no longer 

be encumbered with valid existing rights which would allow at least limited industrial activity in some 

cases. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order (WY 

EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, IM 2012-019, and BLM WO IM 2012-044; the 

National Technical Team Report, the best available science, input from USFWS, the State of Wyoming, 

cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to both protect sage-grouse and 

allow for multiple use of public lands. Alternative E was changed between the Draft and the Final EIS to 

strengthen conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The combination of surface disturbance 

restrictions (see Management Actions 126 and 127), timing limitations (see Management Actions 129-134), 

limits on density of development (see Management Actions 126 and 127), and other management under the 

Proposed LUP Amendments would prevent habitat fragmentation, reduce multiple stressors to the species, 

allow the continued existence of the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming, and protect core, general, and 

seasonal sage-grouse habitat. All alternatives considered in the draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that 

comply with all laws and policy and include conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse while meeting 

the multiple use mandate of FLPMA and NFMA. ACECs were considered under Alternatives B and C; 

however, the protection of habitat under Alternative E will provide similar coverage of habitat viability for 

sagegrouse and other sagebrush species while continuing to allow for valid, existing rights of current 

leaseholders and other compatible uses of public lands. 

Sage-grouse

Sufficient funding for management and plan implementation

Comment ID: 177 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-231

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: Finally, more funds for solely research purposes is not what is needed. Many millions have been 

spent on research the last 13 years and more. Now is the time to put sufficient funds into the ground and 

obtain actual positive results. 

Comment ID: 1300 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The efficacy of any of the proposed changes depends on future planning processes – allotment 

management plans, permit renewals, etc. – that may or may not occur. The DLUPA indicates that 

implementation of the decisions in the alternatives would be contingent on the availability of needed budget 

and staffing resources. The federal agencies are chronically underfunded, which ensures that even the 

protective measures described in this planning document are not certain to occur, making them inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms to ensure GRSG survival and recovery. 

Comment ID: 176 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: A discussion identifying how obtaining sufficient funding is a key issue of vital importance in 

restoring important sage-grouse habitat by seeding as stated in above Item 1. This discussion should include 

specific sources and amount of funding to be obtained to reach the desired goals and objectives. Currently 

the funding for this extremely important purpose is woefully inadequate. 

Comment ID: 3033 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-15, actions 1-10: Overall very ambitious list of items agencies will do. How 

will these actions be paid for, what resources are available to accomplish especially with all the national 

cutbacks to budgets? 

Summary: Requests to identify sufficient funding for specific management within the plan as well as 

ensuring overall funding for plan implementation. 

Response: It is not possible to predict the actual availability of funding and personnel to carry out 

implementation; however, BLM and Forest Service intend to implement the plan as written. 

Sage-grouse

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management, questions, concerns

Comment ID: 1512 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-232 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Furthermore, the DEIS provides that the BLM, Forest Service, and the state of Wyoming will 

develop an adaptive management plan to “help identify if sage-grouse conservation measures presented in 

this draft EIS contain the needed level of certainty for effectiveness.” DEIS, at 2-7. However, the DEIS 

does not establish a deadline by which the adaptive management strategy will be completed and does not 

specify quantifiable thresholds (e.g., percentage of population decline) that would trigger BLM to adjust 

management activities or prohibit developments within the planning area DEIS, at 2-7. In addition, the 

DEIS mentions that the adaptive management plan will address how multiple scale data will be used to 

gauge when potential management changes are needed without further describing a methodology for doing 

so. DEIS, at 2-7. 

Comment ID: 1926 

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Name: Alex Schubert 

Comment: 2. The DEIS did not provide sufficient detail for us to fully evaluate the adequacy of several key 

components of the plan, including: adaptive management and mitigation. We are participating on national 

and local interagency teams associated with these plan components and will continue to provide input on 

these components through our membership on these teams. It is critical that the final EIS provide additional 

specificity in each of these areas. Specific areas of uncertainty include, but are not limited to: a. Triggers 

and responses for adaptive management; b. Methods of landscape-scale prioritization and implementation 

of step-down assessments for addressing threats from fire and invasive species; and, c. Details on how 

mitigation will be applied. 

Comment ID: 1850 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: The adaptive management strategy described in the LUPA/DEIS would identify “sciencebased” 

soft and hard adaptive management triggers; address how data from the Monitoring Framework will be 

used to gauge when triggers are met; and charter an adaptive management working group (“AMWG”) to 

assist with responding to soft triggers. More detail is needed to fully explain this proposed adaptive 

management process and where it has been successfully implemented. Further, BLM must clarify when, 

how or whether new field data will be collected and tracked by the agencies. The trigger structure needs to 

be more fully explained in the context of when NSO, TL, CUS or other measures will be imposed or relaxed 

based upon new findings. An AMWG will be comprised of BLM, FS, USFWS, local governments and 

applicable State Game and Fish agencies. We are concerned there is no indication whether public land 

users, including the oil and gas industry, will be represented on the AMWG, which is vitally important. Nor 

have the BLM/FS identified funding for the group. We question whether the BLM/FS may convene such a 

group with such enormous responsibility without clearly defined roles, adequate representation and specific 

statutory authorization. 

Comment ID: 982 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: The following adaptive management should be incorporated in BLM and USFS land and 

resource management plans for lands in Wyoming: Adaptive Management Plan The GSG adaptive 

management plan provides regulatory assurance that unintended negative impacts to GSG habitat will be 

addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible. This adaptive management plan: • uses 

science-based soft and hard adaptive management triggers • addresses multiple scales of data • uses an 

adaptive management working group. Adaptive Management Working Groups Wyoming's strategy is 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-233

implemented by the Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT). The SGIT was established in by EO in 

2008 and codified in 2014 by the Wyoming Legislature (see Wyoming Stat. § 9-19-101). The SGIT is a 

Governor appointed body with representation by federal agencies (BLM, USFS, FWS, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service), state agencies (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Environmental Quality, Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund, Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, and Office of State Lands and Investments), the Wyoming Legislature, county 

governments, energy developers, mining companies, landowners, and non-governmental organizations. 

Land and resource management plans are carried out by implementation teams. These implementation 

teams include cooperating agencies that participate in development of specific land and resource 

management plans and represent local, state, and federal agencies. The implementation teams and the SGIT 

will communicate and coordinate often on the development of project and implementation-level triggers 

and appropriate responses as well as reviewing monitoring data. An Adaptive Management Working Group 

will be established to be able to respond should hard triggers be tripped or soft triggers show a trend across 

a region. The Adaptive Management Working Group will include BLM, USFS, FWS, and the State of 

Wyoming. Adaptive Management Triggers Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying 

when potential management changes are needed in order to continue meeting GSG conservation objectives. 

The BLM and USFS will use soft and hard triggers. Soft and hard triggers are focused on three metrics: 1) 

number of active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 3) population trends based on annual lek counts. 

Soft Triggers Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be achieving 

intended conservation results. Soft triggers are any anomalies in the three metrics that occur on an annual 

basis, and should be identified and analyzed in the context of local, regional and statewide trends. For 

instance, a 10% decline in males on a single lek should be reviewed in the context of ail adjacent leks, and 

in the context of changes that may be anthropogenically driven. Changes in management actions or in 

project design would require determination of causal factor before cessation of activities unless a causal 

relationship can be determined. These adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership 

with the State of Wyoming, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders, incorporating the best available 

science. The purpose of these strategies is to address localized GSG population and habitat changes by 

providing a framework in which management will change if monitoring identifies negative population and 

habitat anomalies. Soft Triggers Response Soft triggers require immediate monitoring and surveillance to 

determine causal factors and may require curtailment of activities in the short- or long-term, as allowed by 

law. The project level adaptive management strategies will identify appropriate responses where the 

project's activities are identified as the causal factor. The management agency (BLM and/or USFS) and 

Adaptive Management Working Group will implement an appropriate response strategy to address causal 

factors not attributable to a specific project or to make adjustments at a larger local, regional or statewide 

level. Hard Triggers Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation 

results at any level. Hard triggers would be considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is not 

responding to conservation actions, or a negative effect of a larger-scale impact. Within the context of 

normal population variables, hard triggers shall be determined to take effect when two of the three metrics 

exceeds 60% of normal variability for the area under management in a single year, or when any of the three 

metrics exceeds 40% of normal variability for a three year time period within a five-year range of analysis. 

A minimum of three years is used to determine trends, with a five-year period preferred to allow 

determination of three actual time periods (YI-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-4-5). Note: The 60% and the 40% thresholds 

may change based upon continued review of the available data and scientific literature. Hard Trigger 

Response Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM and USFS will immediately 

suspend new actions potentially affecting GSG. Within 30 days of a determination that a hard trigger has 

been tripped, the Adaptive Management Working Group will convene and initiate an assessment to 

determine the causal factor or factors (hereafter called the causal factor assessment). The management 

agency (BLM and/or USFS) and adaptive management group will implement an interim response strategy 

to direct management until causal factors and appropriate responses can be determined. Recommendations 

of the adaptive management working group will be implemented immediately through the means most 

appropriate to the agencies in question. This may include cessation of activities, if supported by the best 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-234 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

available science. The causal factor assessment will be completed within 180 days of initiation. Once the 

causal factor assessment is completed by the Adaptive Management Working Group, the interim response 

strategy will be modified appropriately. If a causal factor or factors cannot be identified, the interim 

response strategy shall stay in place until such time a new long-term management or planning document 

can be implemented. The BLM and USFS will lift suspension of discretionary actions when: • The interim 

response strategy is put into effect. • The causal factor is determined by the appropriate Adaptive 

Management. • Working Group to not be within the auspices of the agency. • The proposed action is not 

related to causal factors. Small Lek Exception Small leks will be given special consideration. Due to 

geographic variations a definition of "small" is not provided, rather determination of "small" will be made 

by the adaptive management working group. Generally, "small" is considered 10 or fewer males for a three 

year time period within a fiveyear range of analysis. If a trigger is hit based upon such a lek. then the 

adaptive management working group will evaluate the site-specific circumstances and determine 

appropriate remedial action. Scope This adaptive management plan will be applied within core area, 

connectivity area, or to projects with reasonable potential to affect GSG core area populations. However, 

adaptive management responses for either soft or hard triggers may occur throughout the planning area. 

Comment ID: 866 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: NWF also urges the agencies to adopt an effective adaptive management strategy with 

meaningful triggers and mandatory responsive measures, including placing additional lands offlimits to 

damaging human disturbances. Best information regarding reclamation is essential to that effort. NWF 

hopes the agencies will take steps to ensure that data are readily available. We currently have no adequate 

understanding of what it might take to reconstruct Greater sagegrouse habitats. Biologists have estimated 

that it may require 50-100 years to restore sagebrush. Therefore, sage-grouse recovery strategies that rely 

upon compensatory mitigation through offsite restoration projects must be approached with caution and 

careful study. 

Comment ID: 500 

Organization: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Name: Philip Strobel 

Comment: We recommend that information be added in the Final LUPA/EIS describing the relationship 

between the adaptive management plans) and the State of Wyoming's mapping of Priority/Core GRSG 

Habitat. It would be helpful to explain the procedures and timing for incorporating updated information 

into the State's GRSG Core Area Policy and online Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool. For example, 

if conservation measures succeed and new leks are established, we recommend the Final LUPA/EIS identify 

when and how new lek areas may become Core GRSG Habitat. 

Comment ID: 1321 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS also fails to identify or analyze the extent of adaptive management’s reliance 

on monitoring which rarely gets done. The agencies are constantly failing to monitor in accordance with

BiOps, AMPs, or other regulatory frameworks that are supposed to assure the results that their plans always 

promise. An honest hard look at the realism of monitoring promises is important and would be revelatory 

as to the reality of this adaptive management scheme. The claim, monitoring data is collected across BLMadministered lands on a continual basis is only true if the geographic scope is expanded to the entire West. 

It is exceedingly rare for any allotment to have a consistent, systematic, and coherent set of monitoring 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-235

data. Claims like this are unsupported and misleading; the USFWS should be kept apprised of the inability 

of the agencies to conduct monitoring. 

Comment ID: 262 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are also concerned that adaptive management triggers will be tied to populations and 

demographics. DEIS at 2-8. It is a well-established principle that for sage grouse, there is a timelag for 

population responses to habitat impacts, taking two to ten years before population changes become 

measurable (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Harju et al. 2010). As a result, the appropriate decisionpoint for changing management strategies would actually be 2-10 years before population declines are noted 

(in the best-case scenario that monitoring reliably recognizes a downturn as caused by a management 

problem versus population cyclicity, which is also problematic), which means that by the time that adaptive 

management changes are adopted it is already too late, the damage has been done, and because industrial 

infrastructure is rarely removed once in place the damage has become effectively irreversible. 

Comment ID: 853 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Implementation of an effective monitoring and adaptive management process with performance 

based standards is critical to the success of the National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy and must 

be included in the RMPA. In addition to developing management prescriptions for sage-grouse, plans 

should establish triggers and thresholds for adaptive management throughout the range. Consequences that 

will result if triggers or thresholds are reached must be clearly outlined. In addition to a three percent cap 

on surface disturbance, triggers should include sagegrouse population target ranges, target levels of survival 

and recruitment in particular areas, and measures of well densities and other development in core areas. 

Consequences that would result if triggers are reached should include increases in protective measures. 

Monitoring should be required and adequately funded. 

Comment ID: 498 

Organization: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Name: Philip Strobel 

Comment: We support the commitment of the BLM and the Forest Service to develop an adaptive 

management plans). Because of the importance of adaptive management in ensuring that sage-grouse 

conservation measures are effective, we recommend that draft or example adaptive management plans) be 

included in the Final LUPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 861 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: While Alternative B comes closest to fulfilling NWF’s recommendations regarding mitigation 

and best management practices, none of the alternatives, including Alternative B, yet includes an adaptive 

mitigation and monitoring plan. None includes a strategy for identifying habitats at risk or a single database 

for compiling information on sagebrush reclamation. 

Comment ID: 674 

Organization: Anadarko 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-236 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: An adaptive management process is discussed within the Draft LUPA (See 2-7, 2-8). The 

proposed working group includes multiple agencies but no public stakeholders who have contractual 

agreements with the agencies or any membership by the general public. Adaptive management as outlined 

is a mechanism to simply change the “rules of the game” on an ongoing basis for those who engage in 

multiple-use activities on public lands. The Final LUPA should outline the specific habitat or sage-grouse 

population goals the adaptive management process is trying achieve. There is a significant lack of 

transparency on the adaptive management process as outlined and it appear the process will be used to make 

land planning amendments without the required public notification or public comment process. 

Comment ID: 1804 

Organization: The Wilderness Society 

Name: Nada Culver 

Comment: The preferred alternative incorporates adaptive management for important decisions, so the 

application of this tool should be addressed clearly in the EIS. We appreciate the approach to a monitoring 

framework set out in Appendix D to support adaptive management and the commitment to identify "hard" 

and "soft triggers." The agencies must provide a detailed plan and timeline for finalizing the monitoring 

framework (including which activity will be conducted by which agency) and finalizing the adaptive 

management plan (including setting out the actual specific management changes that soft and hard triggers 

may necessitate). The agencies should also incorporate cumulative impact analysis as part of any adaptive 

management program. The information derived from an adaptive management program can be extremely 

beneficial to better understand to full suite of impacts and potential management changes needed as 

mitigation. The agencies should ensure that the hard triggers envisioned in the adaptive management plan 

incorporate the actions already listed, such that the agencies commit to "take immediate action to stop the 

continued deviation from conservation objectives" through:. " Temporary closures (in accordance with 43 

CFR Part 8364.1, and as directed under BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-035) " Immediate 

implementation of interim management policies and procedures through the BLM or Forest Service 

directives system " Initiation of a new LUP Amendment to consider changes to the existing LUP decisions. 

(Draft EIS, p. 2-8). Additionally, the agencies should provide details regarding the costs associated with 

any adaptive management plan, including those incurred by state agencies, in order to clearly outline what 

can and cannot be done given current funding climates and projections, and define their commitments 

accordingly. 

Comment ID: 1322 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The intention for the composition of the adaptive management working group suggests strong 

political influences in the process instead of a strict scientific basis. DLUPA/DEIS at 2-7. 

Comment ID: 1320 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS also fails to identify or analyze the extent of adaptive management’s reliance 

on monitoring which rarely gets done. The agencies are constantly failing to monitor in accordance with 

BiOps, AMPs, or other regulatory frameworks that are supposed to assure the results that their plans always 

promise. An honest hard look at the realism of monitoring promises is important and would be revelatory 

as to the reality of this adaptive management scheme. The claim, monitoring data is collected across BLM-
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-237

administered lands on a continual basis is only true if the geographic scope is expanded to the entire West. 

It is exceedingly rare for any allotment to have a consistent, systematic, and coherent set of monitoring 

data. Claims like this are unsupported and misleading; the USFWS should be kept apprised of the inability 

of the agencies to conduct monitoring. 

Comment ID: 1319 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: This section also states that the purpose of "adaptive management" in the BLM's mind is only 

to provide "certainty that unintended negative impacts to sage grouse will be addressed before consequences 

become severe or irreversible." DLUPA/DEIS at 2-7. The entire purpose of this LUPA process is to recover 

sage grouse so that they do not need to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Merely monitoring for 

"severe or irreversible" impacts the sage grouse does not meet this need. Any downward trend for an atrisk species is cause for concern. Moreover, the language of the DLUPA itself suggests that there is no 

certainty to be had: “Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential 

management changes are needed...,” the agencies will “use a continuum of trigger points,” of which soft 

triggers will indicated when the agencies “will consider adjustments to resource/resource use,” and hard 

triggers will cause immediate action “which may require subsequent NEPA,” i.e. not very immediate action 

at all. This DLUPA is the place to identify the management triggers and to authorize the actions so that 

irreparable harms are not incurred. But since the supposed Adaptive Management Plan does not even exist 

neither the public nor the agency can determine its validity. 

Comment ID: 1341 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Beginning on page 2-7, the document discusses adaptive management but fails to define what 

the adaptive management plan is or how it relates to regulatory certainty. In addition, the adaptive 

management plan is supposed to provide "certainty that unintended negative impacts to sage grouse will be 

addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible" but this completely misses the issue, that the 

point of the amendments are to provide for recovery of the species. 

Comment ID: 2019 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Implementation of an effective monitoring and adaptive management process is critical to the 

success of the national greater sage-grouse management plan. In addition to developing management 

prescriptions for the bird, the final management plan should establish hard and soft triggers based on science 

and biology that set thresholds for adaptive management throughout the range. Consequences that will 

result if triggers/thresholds are reached must be clearly outlined including the timeline between when a soft 

trigger turns into a hard trigger. Also, give examples of what a soft and hard trigger are – “soft” could be 

mitigation/monitoring, painting of structures, hay bale usage, studies, etc. and “hard” could be no more 

leases, maintenance, development, look at causal factors, etc. Consequences that would result if triggers 

are reached should include increases in protective measures. Monitoring should be required and adequately 

funded. 

Comment ID: 1318 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-238 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS states that the agencies will be implementing adaptive management and 

using monitoring data to inform future management. DLUPA/DEIS at 2-7. Meaningful “adaptive 

management” requires clearly defined “if, then” statements with mandatory monitoring with defined 

statistical rigor. The EIS and proposed amendments failed to provide any of this. Once again, the BLM is 

planning to plan, developing the adaptive management plan at an unspecified later date. DLUPA/DEIS at 

2-7. The BLM claims it will use hard and soft triggers for change, but the BLM does not conduct sufficiently 

robust/quantitative monitoring of livestock impacts to provide data that can be used in this fashion. 

Rangeland health evaluations are conducted an irregular intervals and are highly subjective, making them 

inappropriate for use as measurements for conservation objectives. 

Comment ID: 3034 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: Triggers Once habitat and population thresholds have been established, two levels of triggers 

must be predetermined. If or when soft triggers are met, conditions have declined to a threshold where 

management must be adjusted and a plan of action must be implemented to halt habitat loss and population 

declines. If or when hard triggers are met, management must be drastically changed. Restrictions must be 

placed on land-use allocations, and surface uses which conflict with sage-grouse habitat and population 

management must be removed or reduced. a. Soft Triggers Based on monitoring and data analysis 

conducted on sage-grouse habitat and populations, soft triggers will need to be developed to address each 

attribute being monitored as well as the time period in the life cycle when changes in management must be 

focused. See Table 1 for examples. These recommendations are examples only, specific thresholds should 

be developed using local and scientific expert knowledge. [See full verbatim email attachment for table] 

Table 1: Soft Triggers (thresholds adapted from Governor's Federal Alternative for Greater SageGrouse 

Management in Idaho, 2012; Kaczor et al. 2011). An effective model for soft triggers will identify not only 

which biological thresholds are of primary importance to sage-grouse persistence, but at what life cycle 

stage. Management changes will be based on sage-grouse season of use and habitat requirements. Specific 

management actions that impact each life cycle stage must be categorized by timing and impact and 

correlated with specific thresholds, which-if met-will trigger management changes. An example of 

management changes during lekking may include adjusting grazing management plans to turn out cattle 

later in the year to promote forb and grass understory during brood rearing (Beck and Mitchell 2000), or 

changing grazing use from season-long to a rotational grazing system staggering season of use. To be 

effective, pre-planning for management changes must occur well before thresholds are met, and 

management changes must be faithfully implemented when necessary. h. Hard Triggers Hard triggers are 

established as a final, critical attempt to reverse trends of a crashing population. As such, management 

actions must impose significant restrictions on land use activities incompatible with sage-grouse biological 

and ecological needs. Thresholds for hard triggers will likely manifest at a first order spatial scale, 

representing drastic and widespread declines in habitat condition, habitat amount, or population numbers. 

Monitoring of thresholds at all spatial scales is essential for identifying if or when thresholds for hard 

triggers are reached and management actions are required. Management actions must be sufficiently 

aggressive to halt population declines and habitat loss. As such, we propose implementing the stipulations 

proposed under Alternative B of the DEIS. Of specific importance is the exclusion of transmission corridor 

development or meteorological towers, reduction in livestock forage utilization to 20% - 30% for grazing 

allotments not meeting standards, No Surface Occupancy (NSO) in winter concentration areas, 4-mile lek 

buffers around all leks within core areas, and no more than 3% disturbance and one disturbance per 640 

acres using the DDCT. We note, however, that disturbance calculations should be based on the DDCT, and 

not solely consider anthropogenic disturbance as identified in Action Numbers 126 and 127 (9-PLAN DEIS, 

2- 133 through 2-135). This will be discussed in more detail in Section II-B of these comments. In the event 

that hard trigger thresholds are met and more strict management actions must be implemented, 

socioeconomic and revenue sources will likely suffer. This is widely understood across the state of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-239

Wyoming, and creates incentive to provide the most protective management of sagegrouse at this time, so 

future management actions do not curtail the state's economy. Monitoring is critical to tracking progress, 

as are decisions for current protections to be implemented under Alternative E. 

Comment ID: 3056 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued guidance to the heads of all Federal 

Departments and Agencies for the appropriate use of mitigation and monitoring in agency NEPA processes. 

We believe this guidance is intimately connected to and is an appropriate element of adaptive management 

for the 9-Plan DEIS. We believe that mitigation is an essential part of Adaptive Management. Under the 

CEQ guidance agencies are to: (1) ensure mitigation commitments are implemented; (2) monitor the 

effectiveness of mitigation commitments; (3) remedy any failed mitigation; and (4) involve the public in 

mitigation planning. In an agency's NEPA process it must identify mitigation commitments it is making, 

the mitigation commitments must be carefully specified, there must be measurable performance standards, 

the expected results must be stated, clear performance expectations must be established, a timeframe for 

accomplishing the mitigation must be provided, and how the mitigation will be funded must be specified. 

The 9-Plan DEIS Adaptive Management plan should ensure all of these needs are met, as should the Record 

of Decision for the 9-Plan DEIS. The CEQ NEPA regulations require that "a monitoring and enforcement 

program shall be adopted ... where applicable for any mitigation." 40 C.F.R. § 1S0S.2(c). They also provide 

that agencies may "provide for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried out and should do so in 

important cases." Id. § 1505.3. We believe that the 9-Plan DEIS presents an "important case" and therefore 

the agencies must provide for effective monitoring of the mitigation resulting from this NEPA process. 

Under the CEQ guidance, "Agencies should also ensure that their mitigation monitoring procedures 

appropriately provided for public involvement." We believe it is critical that the agencies carefully and fully 

specify future public involvement opportunities that will be available under the adaptive management plan 

put in place for the 9-Plan Record of Decision. This will be discussed later in the comments. In addition, 

we believe that the agencies, as provided for in the CEQ guidance, must fully consider and specify what 

supplemental NEPA processes will be needed or required if the 9-Plan DEIS Adaptive Management plans 

and mitigation are not undertaken or do not prove to be effective. This potential supplemental NEPA 

analysis should be fully discussed and considered in this NEPA document. For the above reasons we urge 

the BLM to fully consider and adopt the CEQ mitigation guidance as components of the Adaptive 

Management plan for the 9-Plan DEIS The D.2.5 Effectiveness Monitoring section of Appendix D is 

designed to track biological monitoring within the framework of Adaptive Management. As outlined in the 

Appendix, the Effectiveness Monitoring protocols 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 ... [and] 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" (9-

Plan, D-6). Goals and objectives must be clearly developed and outlined to effectively determine the success 

of the Effectiveness Monitoring. The reporting schedule for monitoring must be more conservative (shorter) 

than the suggested five-year reporting schedule. In order for management to remain nimble, data must be 

analyzed and reported yearly, or more often, to inform management and allow for timely decision making. 

Collaborative stakeholder engagement is recommended to allow for the necessary agility of yearly collating 

data and implementing it in policy recommendations to the agency. 

Comment ID: 3070 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-240 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Under the current preferred alternative, a statewide “adaptive management” plan is to be 

developed outlining triggers, monitoring requirements, and appropriate mitigation, restoration and 

reclamation actions required to meet the Population Objective. Although the premise of a statewide adaptive 

management plan including proactive habitat management actions is necessary, it is important to note that 

the enhancement or restoration of sagebrush-habitats is not a trivial task. There is tremendous uncertainty 

as to the vegetative and sage-grouse population outcomes of habitat manipulations (Johnson and Holloran 

2010). Managers often justify habitat manipulations with potential long-term benefits, but the long-term 

effects to habitats and consequences to sage-grouse of most of the available habitat manipulation options 

are unknown. Extreme caution and discretion should be employed when proposing habitat treatments, 

especially on drier sites, sites where cheatgrass may invade, or sites with limited potential to produce 

sagebrush (e.g., the interface between the Wyoming Basin and the Great Plains; Cagney et al. 2010). 

Although mitigation plans should be developed at landscape spatial scales, development at these scales 

does not necessitate that treatments be implemented across these scales. Experience indicates that a smallscale, case-by-case treatment regime conducted over the long-term should be implemented. The plan needs 

to be generated rigorously from an analysis of all available information, and should set in motion a process 

whereby data from implemented actions are used to inform future actions in an iterative cycle where 

management actions are continually being evaluated and modified based on lessons learned through the 

evaluation of past management actions. The iterative evaluation is necessitated by the uncertainty 

surrounding sagebrush habitat management, and needs to be the central theme of implementation of any 

adaptive management plan. 

Comment ID: 2837 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: Item 3 also suggests that the Wyoming SGIT is the defining factor in developing plans and 

analysis for all of the alternatives, the narrative in previous sections indicates the Agencies will be the 

entities doing so. Clarification is needed as to the direction the Agencies will really take. Item 5 establishes 

a fairly labor intensive process which cause us the same concerns raised earlier as to the Agencies ability 

to complete their tasks which will in-turn open them up to legal action. Item 23 in Table 2-1 again discusses 

the role adaptive management will play with the implementation of the LUP. We again reiterate our concern 

over the lack of information on the model(s) which will be used to accomplish this process. 

Summary: In an agency's NEPA process, it must identify mitigation commitments it is making. The 

mitigation commitments must be carefully specified, there must be measurable performance standards, the 

expected results must be stated, clear performance expectations must be established, a timeframe for 

accomplishing the mitigation must be provided, and how the mitigation will be funded must be specified. 

Goals and objectives must be clearly developed and outlined to effectively determine the success of the 

Effectiveness Monitoring. The reporting schedule for monitoring must be more conservative (shorter) than 

the suggested five-year reporting schedule. In order for management to remain nimble, data must be 

analyzed and reported yearly, or more often, to inform management and allow for timely decision making. 

BLM must take into account the time lag for measurable population changes when monitoring is taking 

place. The final management plan should establish hard and soft triggers based on science and biology that 

set thresholds for adaptive management throughout the range; and consequences that will result if 

triggers/thresholds are reached must be clearly outlined, including the timeline between when a soft trigger 

turns into a hard trigger. The Final LUP Amendments should outline the specific habitat or sage-grouse 

population goals that the adaptive management process is trying achieve. We believe it is critical that the 

agencies carefully and fully specify future public/industry involvement opportunities that will be available 

under the adaptive management plan put in place for the Record of Decision. Adaptive management as 

outlined in the Draft LUP Amendments is a mechanism to simply change the “rules of the game” on an 

ongoing basis for those who engage in multiple-use activities on public lands. The intention for the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-241

composition of the adaptive management working group suggests strong political influences in the process 

instead of a strict scientific basis. The working group should include agencies, public, and industry. 

Response: The Adaptive Management approach (see Appendix D) has been modified in response to 

comments. Adaptive management is a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning 

from management outcomes. An adaptive approach involves exploring alternative ways to meet 

management objectives, anticipating the likely outcomes of alternatives based on the current state of 

knowledge, implementing one or more of these alternatives, monitoring to learn about the impacts of 

management actions, and then using the results to update knowledge and adjust management actions 

accordingly. Incorporating adaptive management into the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP 

Amendments will ensure a degree of certainty that the decisions in the plan will effectively contribute to 

the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. The 

adaptive management approach incorporates a set of triggers in the plan, a soft and hard trigger. These 

triggers were developed to inform the BLM/Forest Service as to when the Federal agency needs to respond 

(take action) to address a declining trend in sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat figures. Soft triggers 

represent an intermediate threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the 

project/implementation level to address habitat and population losses. Hard triggers represent a threshold 

indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe deviation from Greater Sage- Grouse 

conservation goals and objectives as set forth in the BLM/Forest Service plans. The adaptive management 

soft and hard triggers and land use planning responses to these triggers are described and analyzed fully in 

this EIS. The BLM Wyoming State Office worked with the State of Wyoming and the USFWS to develop 

a Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management strategy which is included in the Final LUP Amendments as 

management actions 137 and Appendix D. The agencies will use the data collected from monitoring 

(Appendix D) to identify any changes in habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan. 

The BLM/Forest Service will use the information collected through monitoring to determine when adaptive 

management triggers are met. Establishment of a working group can be done on a site-specific level and 

does not need to be designated in the LUP Amendments. 

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix A

Comment ID: 2726 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: A-1 Text: Discussion of Core Area Treatments. Comment: BLM must ensure that valid existing 

rights continue regardless of DDCT caps. Similarly, before BLM prescribes a treatment that will breach the 

DDCT caps, the BLM must determine what impact the treatment will have on valid existing property rights. 

Summary: BLM must ensure that valid existing rights continue regardless of DDCT caps. Similarly, before 

BLM prescribes a treatment that will breach the DDCT caps, the BLM must determine what impact the 

treatment will have on valid existing property rights. 

Response: MA 17 addresses this issue: "Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of core 

habitat areas are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as mineral leases or existing rights-of-way." 

Fluid mineral leases often will include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density 

requirements identified for consideration in this plan. Agencies (BLM/Forest Service) will work with 

proponents holding valid existing leases that include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, 

distance, and density restrictions described within this plan to ensure that measurable sage-grouse 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-242 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

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

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

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

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix B

Comment ID: 2017 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 1 “Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.” This requirement 

is vague and ambiguous. Clarification needs to be added as to what is meant by “important areas” and 

“habitats” and it must be predicated upon the preferences of landowners. 

Comment ID: 2011 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: B.1 INTRODUCTION, Page B-1, Paragraph 1 An explanation needs to be provided with regard 

to what is meant by “regulatory certainty” relative to sage-grouse conservation. It appears that these RDFs 

are expected to be effective in conserving sage-grouse, yet no scientific basis for including measures beyond 

those in the EO has been presented. As stated earlier in our comments, the USFWS has already endorsed 

the EO stating it is “an excellent model for meaningful conservation on sage-grouse”. Therefore, the EO 

should serve as the basis for sage-grouse management on all Wyoming lands. Any conservation measures, 

RDFs, BMPs or other mandated stipulations that go beyond the EO must be eliminated to establish 

consistency in GRSG management across the state. 

Comment ID: 1970 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. B-10 – In the middle of this page, it is proposed to establish “Mitigation Implementation 

Teams”. We support that concept but comment that the composition should include individuals 

recommended by “Cooperators” from science-based organizations outside the federal agencies. 

Comment ID: 2016 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page B-2, Paragraph 3 “Where existing leases or right-of-ways (ROWs) have had some level of 

development (road, fence, well, etc.) and are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features 

and restoring the habitat.” These requirements need to be subject to the preferences of landowners. On split 

estate lands where the surface is owned by private landowners, BLM must defer decisions with regard to 

such things as what remains on the land (e.g. size of ponds) to those private landowners. 

Comment ID: 2728 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-243

Comment: Pg B-2 Text: “Evaluate and take advantage of opportunities to remove or modify existing power 

lines within priority sage-grouse habitat areas. When possible, require perch deterrents on existing or new 

overhead facilities. Encourage installation of perch deterrents on existing facilities.” Comment: The BLM 

must clarify whether efforts to remove existing power lines and/or reclaiming unused features within 

existing leases or ROWs would be used as a means to offset the DDCT 5% disturbance threshold discussed 

in the Alternative E. 

Comment ID: 2015 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page B-2, Paragraph 2 An explanation needs to be provided as to whether efforts to remove 

existing power lines and/or reclaiming unused features within existing leases or ROWs would be used as a 

means to offset the calculated 5% disturbance threshold discussed in the preferred Alternative E. 

Comment ID: 2727 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Appendix B. Comment: While some of these design features may prove effective in many 

instances, they should rather be incorporated as “preferred” or “suggested”, and not “required.” Sitespecific circumstances may dictate that certain design features are not technically feasible, economic, or 

appropriate, and should not be assumed to be universally effective or applicable. The agencies should retain 

a list of practical best management practices (BMPs) that are effective and can be applied based on sitespecific circumstances, rather than required design features that may not be universally applicable. 

Evaluation of RDFs on a “site-specific basis” and applying them only when “reasonable” makes sense and 

is appropriate. We recommend that BLM revisit its design features and mitigation to ensure they are 

technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use 

is considered on a site-specific basis. In accordance with current law and regulation, it is inappropriate for 

the RMPs to establish site-specific requirements at a project level as is proposed in the LUPA/DEIS. 

Appendix B also contains design features found in the NTT Report, but no documentation is provided 

showing that any of these features have been proven effective over time. 

Comment ID: 2735 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg B-5 Text: Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or 

wintering season. Comment: BLM relies on highly criticized and absurd noise limits for the protection of 

GRSG habitat and simultaneously attempts to further restrict noise by requiring noise shields. In essence, 

the purpose of the noise shields are served by the extreme, and unfounded, noise limits. Moreover, noise 

shields create significant safety issues with regards to Hydrogen Sulfide and other production realities. This 

requirement should be deleted. Additionally, larger well pads may be needed to accommodate the 

configuration of a “shield”. 

Comment ID: 2013 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: B.1 INTRODUCTION, Page B-1, Paragraph 3 As discussed above, the USFWS has already 

adopted and endorsed the EO. As such, this should be consistently applied to all lands in Wyoming, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-244 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

including BLM-administered lands. Any RDFs that go beyond this have not been adequately justified and 

must be either explained, or modified and/or eliminated to establish consistency with the EO. If the BLM 

explains why any RDFs are to remain then the explanation needs to include the methods by which it will 

determine the effectiveness of these measures in minimizing environmental impact to sage grouse rather 

than focusing efforts on strict compliance with these measures. The emphasis should be on comprehensive 

monitoring programs, otherwise there are limited means by which to measure success and implement future 

adaptive management strategies. 

Comment ID: 1969 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. B-8, General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat – We again comment that BMP’s should NOT 

be mandatory. It’s interesting to us to read in the same sentence for making BMP’s “mandatory” the 

narrative continues by saying that BMP’s are “continuously improving”. Why would the BLM adopt a 

“mandatory” BMP requirement if they are continuously improving ? 

Comment ID: 2031 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 1 “Site and/or minimize linear ROWs or SUAs to reduce disturbance and 

fragmentation of sagebrush habitats.” This requirement needs clarification as to what type of sagebrush 

habitats it is referring to (i.e. winter, nesting, brood-rearing, etc.) Further, some surface or linear facilities 

would not present a problem for habitat if it occurred outside seasonally critical areas. This is not referenced, 

but should be included. 

Comment ID: 1995 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Appendix B—Required Design Features: WSGA understands the rationale for redefining many 

BMPs as Required Design Features to provide the regulatory certainty that is required by USFWS in 

assessing the need to list the species. However, not all BMPs are appropriate for this designation. As an 

example, “Work cooperatively with permittees, leases and other landowners to develop grazing 

management strategies that integrate both public and private lands into single management units.” While 

this approach should be fostered, it is dependent on a spirit of mutual respect and a mutual desire for 

collaboration. The inclusion of this item as a required design feature only serves to create a perception that 

the agencies will attempt to force cooperation (coercion?) upon private parties. 

Comment ID: 1961 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. B-1, Required Design Features – In the first paragraph, we comment that the BLM has no 

authority to use BMP’s which are “recommended” management practices, as “required design features” in 

this Draft. BMP’s are intended by definition to be “recommendations”, not “requirements”. BMP’s work 

best when they are voluntary, not when they are required. 

Comment ID: 1963 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-245

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. B-3 – In the 6th item on this page, why is there a prohibition to issue ROW’s or SUA’s to 

counties on energy develop roads ? 

Comment ID: 1964 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. B-4, West Nile Virus – We comment that the restrictions listed in this section are unrealistic 

and potentially very expensive in comparison to the potential benefits to the grouse from the application of 

these measures. For example, a “steep sided” water development to minimize mosquito breeding area 

precludes the purpose for the water development which is to provide access to drinking water for wildlife 

and livestock. 

Comment ID: 1448 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Name: Sara Brodnax 

Comment: Where impacts to sage-grouse habitat are unavoidable, we strongly recommend that BLM and 

USFS implement effective, consistent compensatory mitigation strategies to offset impacts. This approach 

is suggested in the Regional Mitigation Strategy in Appendix B of the DEIS. We believe a programmatic 

approach to mitigation designed to produce net benefits will be a critical part of successful conservation of 

the sage grouse. A robust compensatory mitigation program should: conditions and outcomes associated 

with impacts and offsets across the range of the species; mitigation projects and outcomes; impacts; 

mitigation program. We strongly suggest BLM and USFS include the above criterion in any Regional 

Mitigation Strategy designed to offset unavoidable impacts to sage-grouse habitat. A high quality 

programmatic compensatory mitigation framework such as a Habitat Exchange would meet these criteria. 

These recommendations are consistent with BLM’s interim Regional Mitigation Manual (MS 1794), which 

we support. We also note that proximity to impacts should not be the only factor in identifying mitigation 

sites. Rather, priority should be given to sites that present the best locations for long-term sage grouse 

conservation within the surrounding landscape, regardless of whether these sites are located on private, 

state or federal land. This is consistent with the BLM Regional Mitigation Manual, as it states “mitigation 

sites, projects and measures should be focused where the impacts of the use authorization can be best 

mitigated and BLM can achieve the most benefit to its resource and value objectives” (page 1-6). It is also 

consistent with the habitat selection of the greater sage grouse which selects habitat based not only on the 

characteristics of the site, but the landscape context in which it is situated. We also note the adoption of a 

compensatory mitigation framework that ensures transparent and consistent mitigation at the landscapescale would be consistent with the recent Secretarial Order “Improving Mitigating Policies and Practices 

of the Department of Interior” (Order No. 3330). 

Comment ID: 1967 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. B-7 – In the 7th item, we comment that the proposal to give priority to habitat restoration to 

“annual grasslands” is mis-placed because a) there are very few acres of “annual grasslands” in the planning 

areas covered by this draft and b) the BLM should place the priority on rangeland ecological sites that have 

the immediate capability to respond to restoration efforts. 

Comment ID: 1968 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-246 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: In the 10th item, pg. B-7, we comment that the BLM should not adopt policies that are singlespecies management. 

Comment ID: 2734 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Page B-5 Limit noise to less than ten decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise 

at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season (Patricelli et al. 2010, Blickley et al. 2012). Comment: We 

incorporate our discussion of noise and the NTT report from our cover letter here. --"The Draft EIS limits 

all anthropogenic noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (dBA) throughout each of the 

alternatives. The Draft EIS relies heavily on the NTT Report, which severely overstates and misrepresents 

the conclusion of the literature it cites. Jessica L. Blickley, et al. Experimental Evidence for the Effects of 

Chronic Anthropogenic Noise on Abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at Leks, Conservation Biology, 

Volume 26, No. 3, 461-471 (2012). To be fair, the Blickley study actually found that GRSG tolerated, and 

even showed no signs of behavior variation, when noise levels were increased by 30 dBA. In fact, the 

conclusions relied upon by the BLM were the result of noise levels reaching 70 dBA – the equivalent of 

standing next to an interstate. Further, the Blickley study assumed an ambient noise level of 35 dBA and 

the Draft EIS does not identify a specific background dBA. Ambient levels should not be determined before 

7 a.m., but should instead be averaged over a 24 hour period to reflect the highest and lowest GRSG 

tolerances. The Draft EIS also does not account for the location of GRSG leks, noise sources, geography, 

and wind direction. GRSG will display a greater aversion to noise depending on the predominant wind 

direction. Mathew J. Holloran, Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Natural Gas Field 

Development in Western Wyoming, (2005) (“Sound waves propagating upwind of the source enter a 

shadow zone >100 m from the source, resulting in substantial reductions (typically $20 dB) in sound 

intensity; downwind on the other hand, sound waves are bent in the opposite direction resulting in the 

opposite effect.”). The average library operates at 30 dBA , a regular human conversation generally occurs 

at 60 dBA, rural areas are within 39-44 dBA, and the Environmental Protection Agency sets noise levels 

for pristine wilderness areas at 35 dBA. See Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Noise 

Levels Document, 8*, Figure 4 (Nov. 1978). No human activity, even whispering at the edge of a Lek, 

could meet these standards if the BLM continues to use the 10 dBA increase for anthropogenic noises." 

Comment ID: 1461 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: We further noted that Appx A, Required Design Features, proposes numerous features for fluid 

minerals but is unclear on whether they would apply to wind energy, which the DEIS likens to oil and gas 

field development. This should be clarified in the final DEIS. 

Comment ID: 2733 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg B-4 Text: Design or site permanent structures to minimize impacts to sage-grouse, with 

emphasis on locating and operating facilities that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or attract frequent 

human use and vehicular traffic (e.g., fluid storage tanks) in a manner that will minimize disturbance of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-247

sage-grouse or interference with habitat use. Comment: BLM must provide the reports or information relied 

upon that indicate movement such as pump jacks adversely impact GRSG populations. 

Comment ID: 2732 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg B-4 Text: Restrict the construction of tall facilities, distribution powerlines, and fences to the 

minimum number and amount needed. Comment: It is unclear what is meant by “tall”. There are various 

examples of tall structures necessary for the development of fluid minerals to occur. This terminology does 

not give any explanation as to what constitutes a tall facility. Drilling rigs, some production and processing 

equipment, are all necessary for oil and gas development and could be considered “tall”. Fences are 

typically installed for reasons of security and safety. Although some flexibility is mentioned such as the 

“minimum number and amount needed”, this requirement is inviting possible conflicts due to the lack of 

specificity and the reality of what is needed to construct a facility. We strongly recommend this requirement 

be eliminated. 

Comment ID: 2010 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: APPENDIX B - REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES While some of these design features may 

prove effective in many instances, they should rather be incorporated as “preferred” or “suggested”, and 

not “required.” Site-specific circumstances may dictate that certain design features are not technically 

feasible, economic, or appropriate, and should not be assumed to be universally effective or applicable. The 

agencies should retain a list of practical best management practices (BMP) that are effective and can be 

applied based on sitespecific circumstances, rather than required design features that may not be universally 

applicable. Evaluation of RDFs on a “site-specific basis” and applying them only when “reasonable” makes 

sense and is appropriate. We recommend that BLM revisit its design features and mitigation to ensure they 

are technically feasible and appropriate and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their 

use is considered on a site-specific basis. In accordance with current law and regulation, it is inappropriate 

for the RMPs to establish site-specific requirements at a project level as is proposed in the LUPA/DEIS. 

Alarmingly, Appendix B contains design features found in the NTT Report, but no documentation is 

provided showing that any of these features have been proven effective over time. 

Comment ID: 2428 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: BLM has apparently relied on Required Design Features (RDF) and Best Management Practices 

(BMP) developed by the National Technical Team (NTT). Prior comments by the National Mining 

Association (March 23,2012) on BLM's EIS scoping process, incorporated by reference here, have 

extensively documented the lack of science supporting the RDF and BMP recommended by NTT for the 

GRSG and the improper reliance on a one-size-fits-all management approach that fails to account for local 

conditions and practical and economic feasibility . The following specific comments address specific issues 

with the RDF and BMP identified in the Draft EIS Appendix B for locatable minerals: • "Locate roads to 

avoid important areas and habitats" BLM fails to define what it considers "important areas and habitats." 

BLM also fails to acknowledge that some roads will be required to be located in habitat or "important 

areas," and thus this BMP, and many others, must recognize that BMPs should only be required when 

feasible and economically reasonable. When a project or activity cannot avoid "important areas," mitigation 

options must be available and should be practical and economical. • "Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-248 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

restoring original landform and establishing desired [vegetation)." Again, BLM fails to define what would 

be deemed "duplicate roads" and who would decide whether a road should be considered "duplicate." Some 

"duplicate" roads are used to allow mine equipment traffic to travel on a separate road from light vehicle 

and public traffic for the safety of personnel and the public. • "Place infrastructure in already disturbed 

locations where the habitat has not been restored." It is not clear how or when BLM will determine if this 

is required or practical. Often, infrastructure is needed in particular locations to minimize total disturbance 

or other activities. It is also unclear how locating infrastructure in habitat that has not been restored will be 

consistent with BLM's attempt to encourage reclamation and restoration of already disturbed habitat. • 

"Locate man camps outside of priority GRSG habitats." This fails to account for the fact that the location 

of some infrastructure, including man camps, may be limited by surface availability on existing claims. As 

noted above, BLM should acknowledge that BMPs can only be required when feasible and economically 

reasonable and should allow for mitigation when appropriate. • "Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation 

to pre-disturbance landform and desired plant community." This BMP may be nearly impossible in 

Wyoming, or at the very least completely uneconomical. It appears to be based on practices in other regions 

where pits are back-filled. However, in Wyoming, restoring disturbed areas to pre-disturbance landform 

and desired plant community would be a significant and radical shift over current BLM reclamation 

practices implemented through existing reclamation requirements. 

Comment ID: 2273 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Appendix B – Mitigation: This section currently is vague and incomplete to a large extent. We 

offer several suggestions below in regard to regional mitigation strategies for sage grouse: o We believe 

landscape mitigation policy must link pre-development planning and mitigation strategies on the front end 

and not the back as an afterthought. o Current lease nomination and permitting processes are in conflict 

with developing successful predevelopment planning and regional-scale mitigation and these policies 

should be revisited and adjusted accordingly. o Mitigation strategies and planning must have clearly stated 

goals, objectives and measurable outcomes. o Mitigation must be linked to meeting state agency population 

goals for greater sage-grouse. o BLM must define some maximum area/distance limitations when outside 

project area. Also, BLM must establish clear direction and criteria on when and how “feasibility” is 

determined and demonstrate that all efforts to avoid or mitigate onsite were exhausted before offsite 

considered. o Any mitigation policy should ensure recreational opportunities are considered as well as 

habitat values, especially when impacts occur on public and mitigation on private – no net loss of either 

habitat or hunting and fishing opportunity. o The underpinnings of “credits” and “debits” are critically 

important and will require extensive information and processes as to how they are determined and tracked. 

As such, expertise beyond the agencies listed as part of the Mitigation Implementation Teams will certainly 

be required. In establishing Mitigation Implementation Teams for the 6 WAFWA Management Zones, we 

strongly recommend the inclusion of a diversity of stakeholders to engage in development of regional 

mitigation approaches or some other public process by which stakeholders can engage and provide input. 

Comment ID: 2739 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg B-7 Text: Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 110 yards of occupied 

sagegrouse leks and other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of 

perch sites for avian predators, as resources permit. Comment: BLM implies here that trees across thousands 

of acres of GRSG habitat must be removed if those trees are within 110 yards of occupied nesting, 

wintering, or brood rearing habitat. This action alone is massive in scope and could entail significant 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-249

impacts. To the extent that BLM maintains this position, BLM must revise the FEIS to completely analyze 

this as a management action. The Coalition would suggest that this provision be deleted. 

Comment ID: 2297 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: B.2.7 – Regional Mitigation Strategy Encana is opposed to the BLM’s incorporation of the 

mitigation strategy described in BLM Draft Manual Section 1794. As this document has not been finally 

implemented or developed by the BLM and is only in draft form, it has no binding effect. The BLM should 

refrain from using non-final documents. 

Comment ID: 2298 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.1 Roads, No. 2, pg. B-3 The BLM needs to clarify 

the definition of “important areas and habitats.” This requirement also needs to be made subject to the 

preferences of landowners on split estate lands where the surface is owned by non-federal landowners. 

BLM must defer decisions regarding road location with those non-federal surface owners. Exceptions 

should also be allowed for topographical, archeological and other considerations. 

Comment ID: 3162 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: B.2.4 B‐ 5 Noise This ambient noise level is not accurate for the Pinedale Field Office, which 

is currently 39+ 10 or 49 dBA per 2008 PAPA SEIS ROD. To state the ambient level as less than 10 dBA 

above 20‐ 24 dBA is misleading and allows the reader to assume that this level has definitively been 

determined as the final baseline standard. Suggest removing (20‐ 24dBA), and re‐ write to read “Limit 

noise to less than ten decibels above ambient measures at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season.” 

Comment ID: 3163 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: B.2.4 B‐ 5 Noise The ambient measures (20‐ 24 dBA) are extremely quiet and may not be 

representative of many leks. Furthermore, the term “sunrise” provides for only a very brief period. Suggest 

deleting “(20‐ 24)” and further defining “sunrise” hours. 

Comment ID: 2518 

Organization: Converse County 

Name: Richard C. Grant 

Comment: We do not believe that minimizing the creation of new roads or the removal of roads, 

unimproved roads, and two-tracks in core sage-grouse habitat should be included in the Predator 

Management, Required Design Features, this has nothing to do with predators or the threat they pose on 

sagegrouse. 

Comment ID: 3152 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-250 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: B.1 B‐ 1 Paragraph 2, lines 2‐ 6 Requires inclusion of all appropriate measures as potential 

additional measures as warranted by site‐ specific analyses. While the inclusion of site‐ specific analyses 

to identify need is appropriate, prior rights require consideration. I would suggest this material be removed. 

Summary: Very specific wording changes, edits, and additional text provided for the appendix based on 

needs for clarity, accuracy, or preference of commenter. More general comments and questions about 

language; asking for clarification in meaning; general preferences/opinions in management; requests for 

management consistency with the Wyoming EO, COT report, or NTT; questions about required use of the 

management, effectiveness, and scientific basis for the management. Comments span all subjects: noise,

West Nile virus, ROWs/SUAs, seeding, structures, tall structures, fencing, powerlines, roads, energy , 

minerals, and rangeland. 

Response: The design features are clear as written. The BLM and the Forest Service will require application 

of all appropriate conservation measures, warranted by site-specific analysis, in order to avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Because of site-specific 

circumstances and regulatory constraints, some conservation measures may not apply to all activities (e.g., 

a resource or conflict is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations. Additional design 

features may be developed through consultation with other project proponents, federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies. Project proponents are encouraged to include all appropriate conservation 

measures in their proposals. Conservation measures not included in project proposals and determined 

appropriate from the site-specific analysis will be required as Conditions of Approval (COAs), stipulations, 

terms and conditions, etcetera. 

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix C

Comment ID: 2543 

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation 

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor 

Comment: Appendix C, Section C.2.4 (Reclamation Plan Requirements/Minimum Standards) incorporates 

by reference IM WY-2009-022 and the corresponding Forest Service Manual/Handbook and indicates "In 

the future, this will be supported with more detailed guidance such as new reclamation bond standards, a 

statewide monitoring and reporting strategy, and sample templates for both reclamation and non-native and 

invasive species management plans." The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Office 

of Surface Mining administer and oversee state and federal regulations and permitting for coal mining, 

which offer significant species protection and habitat enhancement requirements. For example, there is 

currently an effective reclamation bonding program, and a very extensive and well-practiced monitoring 

and reporting system through the Land Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality. It is 

strongly recommended that if new strategies are considered, they should be coordinated and integrated into 

existing programs within the state. Duplication of this effort is not needed. 

Comment ID: 1971 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-251

Comment: Pg. C-3, Pre-Disturbance Baseline Inventory – In general, the WSGB is in support of the 

development of baseline information but comment that this requirement might well become a reason to 

delay proposed projects should the BLM not be able to conduct these baseline inventories in a timely 

manner. We comment that this section should require the BLM to get this done in a timely manner, and if 

not done in a timely manner, the project can proceed. 

Comment ID: 1972 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. C-6, Sage-Grouse Habitat Requirements – In the first sentence, the narrative conveys that 

the average frequency of desirable forbs “must” be a minimum of 75% of the ESD reference sites. The 

WSGB is aware of the importance of a healthy forb community to grouse conservation, but this requirement 

is technically inappropriate for a number of reasons. We comment that while we are supportive of the 

development of quality ESD’s in Wyoming, at present their stage of development does not provide range 

or wildlife managers with a consistently reliable source as a science-based benchmark for plant community 

composition, and certainly not frequency. To our knowledge, ESD’s in Wyoming do not convey 

“frequency” information for forbs and range managers will confirm that the frequency of occurrence on a 

site is seldom, if ever, an appropriate baseline or trend objective. Because “frequency” is not now a part of 

ESD’s, then a 75% frequency requirement is an inappropriate objective for grouse habitats. In the last

paragraph, pg. C-6, we comment that it is again, unrealistic and probably unattainable, to require that the 

composition and total diversity of native forbs be equal to, or greater than, predisturbance composition. We 

comment that the local BLM Range Con and Wildlife Biologist, with consultation, coordination, and 

cooperation of the grazing permittee and local NRCS, be given the authority to determine the appropriate 

on-site criteria for the desired plant community. 

Comment ID: 991 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: There are two concepts that are used throughout the document that are often confused -

"reclamation" and "restoration" (i.e., pp. 2-10 I and 2-107). These concepts should be clearly defined and 

distinguished. Adequate reclamation will allow for bond release but may not be appropriate to remove from 

the disturbed calculation depending upon the soil productivity. Suitable habitat is a very specific definition 

and is generally a higher bar. Reclamation and restoration are both adequate goals, but they are not 

interchangeable. Appendix C, Reclamation Plan is unclear. I request that it be amended in collaboration 

with applicable local and state entities. 

Comment ID: 1973 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. C-7 – Under “Native Shrubs”, we comment that the BLM is setting itself up for lawsuits by 

a requirement that the frequency of shrubs be at least 80% of pre-disturbance composition. We also 

comment that it is technically inappropriate to use the terms “frequency” and “composition” in the same 

sentence because they two very different concepts with respect to rangeland evaluation. We have the same 

comment with respect to the “Native Grass” narrative. It is appropriate to convey “objectives” but it’s a 

failed strategy to convey hard and fast “requirements” for range plant compositions after disturbance. There 

are just too many variables in Mother Nature that influence the end results of plant community evolution. 

Comment ID: 1381 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-252 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Appendix C. provides a reclamation plan but nowhere within the document is there an analysis 

of the effectiveness of current proclamation efforts nor a comparison to the reclamation efforts proposed. 

Comment ID: 180 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: The "Appendix C-Reclamation Plan" in the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft EIS contains 

some very valuable ideas and direction for sage-grouse habitat restoration and is a very good component of 

the EIS. 

Comment ID: 2676 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page C-4, paragraph 3, bullet 3: Please provide further information with examples of what is 

meant by "seed mixes that will provide a height and cover ratio to provide the maximum nesting cover." 

Comment ID: 2675 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page C-3, Table C-l: Need to recognize that ecological site descriptions (ESDs) and soil maps 

are not currently available for all areas. 

Comment ID: 2673 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page C-l, paragraph 2-3: Requires a site-specific reclamation plan prior to disturbance: Is the 

intention that this plan be provided as a component/attachment to APDs/ROW PODs or will a fieldwide 

plan be acceptable? Many of the new requirements refer to site-specific plans, which we believe are not as 

effective as field-wide plans unless unusual circumstances exist. The Final EIS should specifically allow 

the utilization of field-wide plans. 

Comment ID: 2674 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page C-l, paragraph 3, lines 4-7: It is unclear due to the use of the word "should" whether 

postapproval Adaptive Management changes will only be required with proponent agreement. Please clarify 

that is the case. 

Comment ID: 2686 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-253

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 7: This canopy cover requirement (equal to or greater than pre-disturbance) 

will be unattainable within a reasonable timeframe. 

Comment ID: 2745 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg C-9 Text: A summary of monitoring data and results, including: – Individual site reclamation 

monitoring reporting data (Table A36-1) Comment: We are unable to locate this Table. 

Comment ID: 3185 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 7 This canopy cover requirement (equal to or greater than pre‐

disturbance) will be unattainable within a reasonable timeframe. 

Comment ID: 3176 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.2.3 C‐ 3 Table C‐ 1 Need to recognize that ESDs and soil maps are not currently available 

for all areas. 

Comment ID: 3177 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.2.5 C‐ 4 Paragraph 3, bullet 3 Please provide further information with examples of what is 

meant by “seed mixes that will provide a height and cover ratio (sic) to provide the maximum nesting 

cover.” 

Comment ID: 3181 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 2, Lines 1‐ 2 Further explanation/definition of the subjective term 

“desirable” is needed. Assuming all non‐ weedy forbs are desirable, a 75% criterion will be unattainable 

within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 5‐ 8 years). It is therefore recommended that this frequency be reduced 

to 35‐ 50%. 

Comment ID: 3182 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 2, lines 4‐ 5 This forb diversity criterion (greater than or equal to) is 

unattainable within a reasonable timeframe. The availability of area‐ appropriate forb species seed varieties 

is extremely limited. 

Comment ID: 3183 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-254 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 3, lines 1‐ 2 This forb frequency requirement will also be difficult to 

achieve within a reasonable timeframe. 

Comment ID: 2198 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Appendix C, Section C.2.4 (Reclamation Plan Requirements/Minimum Standards) incorporates 

by reference 1M WY-2009-022 and the corresponding Forest Service Manual/Handbook and indicates "In 

the future, this will be supported with more detailed guidance such as new reclamation bond standards, a 

statewide monitoring and reporting strategy, and sample templates far both reclamation and nonnative and 

invasive species management plans. " This discussion should include a statement that this future guidance 

will be applicable only to core area reclamation, similar to the scope of the current Appendix C, and will 

be subject to public review and comment processes separate from the actions addressed by this DEIS. If 

these new strategies are considered, they should be coordinated and integrated into existing programs within 

the state. There is currently an effective reclamation bonding program and a very extensive and wellpracticed monitoring and reporting for all mining interests through the Land Quality Division of the 

Department of Environmental Quality. Duplication of this effort is not needed. 

Comment ID: 3174 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: C.1 C‐ 1 Paragraphs 2‐ 3 Requires site‐ specific reclamation plan prior to disturbance: Is the 

intention that this plan be provided as a component/attachment to APDs/ROW PODs or will a field‐ wide 

plan be acceptable? 

Summary: Comments requesting further clarification of requirements such as how certain requirements 

would be met or measured; requests for additional information about the requirements; questions about 

specifics of the requirements; specific requests for clear definitions of terminology such as "reclamation" 

and "restoration". General comments and opinions about the appendix not being attainable, the 

requirements/management being good, and some of the management/requirements being unclear. 

Response: Terms used in the Appendix C reclamation plan are defined in the glossary. As stated a 

reclamation plan will be tailored to a specific surface disturbing activity. This appendix provides a 

framework for project-specific and site-specific reclamation actions and details the elements that need to 

be considered during project planning, project implementation. Most determinations regarding what is 

expected should be made before the reclamation plan is approved and implemented using the best available 

science. Many of the comments regard implementation level actions and decisions. The LUPA/EIS contains 

only planning actions and does not include any implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect 

the area come under consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include sitespecific project and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental 

descriptions would be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 

1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to 

participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. Comments simply stating a preference for or 

against a specific alternative or opinions without reasonable bias were considered non-substantive since 

they do meet they do not meet the substantive comment requirement of BLM Handbook H-1790-1, Section 

6.9.2.1. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-255

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix E

Comment ID: 2342 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: While preferred Alternative E restricts activities for winter concentration areas, Alternative E 

properly acknowledges that exceptions and modifications can be made on a case-by-case basis for 

"activities in unsuitable habitat." However, "unsuitable habitat" is never defined. Such a concept should not 

just include existing anthropogenic structures but should also account for the type of habitat present and 

any effects from wildfire or invasive species. Topographic features and current activities should be 

considered as natural buffers that may reduce the need for overly burdensome restrictions. 

Comment ID: 2130 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Management Action #128, Alternative E, Page E-12 “Surface disturbing and/or disruptive 

activities would be prohibited within connectivity habitat from March 1-June 30 to protect breeding, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats within 4 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied Greater 

Sage-Grouse lek within identified connectivity areas.” This TLS is inconsistent with the EO, which lists it 

as March 15 – June 30, and should be changed to maintain consistency in sage-grouse management 

practices throughout the state. “Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal 

restriction, dates could be expanded by up to 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates.” Justification 

must be given for providing for a 14 day extension either before or after the seasonal restriction. This 

provision has the potential to add an additional month to the timing restriction which, through this provision, 

has already been extended by half a month. If data is provided to show that the timeframes for the seasonal 

restriction need to be extended before or after, then the timeframe must subsequently be shortened on the 

other side (i.e., if justification is provided for a seasonal restriction to start 14 days earlier, the restriction 

should then end 14 days earlier.) We recommend this be changed to read, “Where credible data support 

different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be expanded or shortened by up to 14 days 

prior or subsequent to the above dates.” 

Comment ID: 2697 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Pages E-10, Action 127: Since no lek distance is specified it is recommended that suitable habitat 

be added to the text rather than identified as possible under exceptions/waivers. Since times may be 

expanded, it is suggested that time could also be contracted. QEP asks for more certainty on whether time 

could also be contracted. 

Comment ID: 2698 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Pages E-14, Action 129: Since times may be expanded, it is suggested that time could also be 

contracted. QEP asks for more certainty on whether time could also be contracted. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-256 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2699 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page E-16 - E-17, Action 130, Alternative E: Requires seasonal protection of winter 

concentration areas both inside and outside core areas (outside core if core-nesting birds winter in the 

outside concentration area). It is unclear whether it is lek attending or core area nesting birds that drives the 

requirement for areas outside core; this needs clarification. Additionally, how will this be determined? 

Comment ID: 2701 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page E-17, Action 132, Alternative E: This noise requirement needs to be applied at lek 

perimeter not at 0.6 mile from the lek. As is, the action could extend the effective NSO considerably farther 

afield. Additionally, there is no research showing that noise specifically affects anything other than lek 

attendance, and even that is debatable. Further definition is needed on how ambient noise levels will be 

determined and who will do/pay for this; noise levels vary dramatically based on time of day, season, and 

measurement equipment types. In any case existing ambient anthropogenic noise is an important 

consideration as are other variables including topography. 

Comment ID: 2129 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: APPENDIX E – FLUID MINERAL STIPULATIONS Justification must be given for providing 

for a 14 day extension either before or after the seasonal restriction. This provision has the potential to add 

an additional month to the timing restriction which, through this provision, has already been extended by 

half a month. If data is provided to show that the timeframes for the seasonal restriction need to be extended 

before or after, then the timeframe must subsequently be shortened on the other side (i.e., if justification is 

provided for a seasonal restriction to start 14 days earlier, the restriction should then end 14 days earlier.) 

We recommend this be changed to read, “Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal 

restriction, dates could be expanded or shortened by up to 14 days prior to, or subsequent to, the Greater 

Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting and early brood-rearing habitat inside designated core areas.” 

Comment ID: 2128 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: APPENDIX E – FLUID MINERAL STIPULATIONS Management Action #127, Alternative 

E, Page E-10 “Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from March 1-June 30 to 

protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat. This timing limitation 

would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats...” This TLS is inconsistent with the EO, 

which lists it as March 15 – June 30, and should be changed to maintain consistency in sage-grouse 

management practices throughout the state. 

Comment ID: 3196 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-257

Comment: Appendix E E‐ 16 through E‐ 17 Action 130, Alternative E Requires seasonal protection of 

winter concentration areas both inside and outside core areas (outside core if core‐ nesting birds winter in 

the outside concentration area). It is unclear whether it is lek attending or core area nesting birds that drives 

the requirement for areas outside core. Please provide clarification. Additionally how will this be 

determined? Collar studies are economically and technically impracticable. 

Comment ID: 3193 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Appendix E E‐ 14 Action 129 Since timing period expansion is allowed so would it be 

appropriate to allow for contraction. 

Comment ID: 3192 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Appendix E E‐ 10 Action 127 Since no lek distance is specified it is recommended that suitable 

habitat be added to the text rather than identified as possible under exceptions/waivers, and since timing 

period expansion is allowed so would it be appropriate to allow for contraction. 

Summary: Specific comments on management actions requesting the timing limitations be clarified or 

changed. Requests for clarification of where buffer distances should start. Other questions about 

management and clarification of other terminology (winter concentration and unsuitable habitat). 

Response: (2128) Alternative E , at management action 131 on page 2-145 in the DEIS, allows for the 

dates to be expanded or shortened by up to 14. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department and the core area strategy. (2129 and 2130)) The FEIS has been corrected to 

be in conformance with the recommendations of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department . (2342) 

Suitable habitat is defined. If an area does not meet the definition of "suitable habitat", it would be 

"unsuitable habitat". (3192) The stipulation is to apply to all nesting and early-brooding rearing habitats 

within the Core Area boundaries. Lek distance is purposefully not identified. (3193) A contraction of these 

dates could be provided for through the exception process. (3196) Lek attendance drives this requirement 

as indicated In the Management Action and the Stipulation. The Protected Resource wording will be 

changed to reflect the same. (2697) The stipulation is to apply to all nesting and early-brooding rearing 

habitats within the Core Area boundaries. Lek distance is purposefully not identified. (2698) A contraction 

of these dates could be provided for through the exception process. (2699) Lek attendance drives this 

requirement as indicated In the Management Action and the Stipulation. The Protected Resource wording 

will be changed to reflect the same. At present, the best way to determine if winter concentration areas are 

used by Core Area lek attending grouse is through radio collar studies. A more practical, less expensive, 

and less invasive to the sage-grouse approach would be welcomed, but the determination must still be made. 

(2701) The stipulation committee has determined that this management action does not require a stipulation. 

This management action captures an operational requirement only. This stipulation should be removed.

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix F

Comment ID: 2695 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-258 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page F-1, bullet 9: Predator inventory and monitoring belongs with agencies, not project 

proponents. Further definition on methodologies is also needed. 

Comment ID: 2819 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: Also on page ix of the Executive Summary the document acknowledges that predators can 

impact sage-grouse populations. However, the necessary process to address these impacts is not addressed. 

Appendix F - Predator management minimally addresses predators and how the Agencies will address them. 

Appendix F has nothing in it to address impacts of predators on sage-grouse such as skunks, raccoons, 

foxes, coyotes, ravens and crows, and numerous other predators of sage-grouse. Appendix F instead 

addresses disposal of animal carcasses and roads and vertical structures etc. These techniques will not 

adequately address the predator issue in any meaningful fashion. We recommend the Agencies replace 

Appendix F with a more realistic control effort that has a chance of addressing predation on sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 2131 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: APPENDIX F – PREDATOR MANAGEMENT F.2. REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

RELATIVE TO SAGE-GROUSE PREDATORS IN LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 3rd Bullet 

Point It is imperative that modifications are done in a way that is safe for both workers and the general 

public. Further, depending upon the modifications required, we remind BLM that eliminating critical 

processing equipment that is vertical could impede the ability to operate the well site. We suggest this 

requirement be changed to read, “Taking safety and operational considerations into account, construct or 

modify vertical structures in a manner that prevents nesting or perching by scavengers or raptors.” 

Comment ID: 3199 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: F.2 F‐ 1 Bullet 9 Predator inventory and monitoring belongs with agencies, not project 

proponents. Further definition on methodologies is also needed. 

Summary: Comments include: -Predator inventory and monitoring belongs with agencies, not project 

proponents. -Further definition on methodologies is also needed. Comments provided specific text changes 

to bullet points to provide flexibility for project proponents. Requests for different management to address 

predator control. 

Response: Comments 3199, 2695 - BLM and the Forest Service can require monitoring and inventory 

activities as part of the permitting process. 

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix I

Comment ID: 2971 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-259

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Appendix I states that the DDCT process is "evolving " and will "become outdated soon after 

publication of this amendment document." Appendix I goes on to refer to a website which will provide " ... 

the most up-to-date version of the DDCT manual ..... We contend that the DDCT is a critical component of 

the LUP and associated NEPA process and should be a relatively fixed methodology included within the 

LUP. It is impossible to provide meaningful comments, or even understand how the DDCT will impact our 

projects. based on a moving target. The BLM should publish a draft DDCT manual, as part of a revised 

draft LUP, which will not change without appropriate review and opportunity for public comment. Also, if 

the BLM's DDCT process is frequently changed it is likely it will begin to deviate from the state's DDCT 

process. Having two unique DDCT processes that must be implemented for a single project which spans 

both state and federal land will be burdensome and potentially counterproductive. The BLM should work 

in concert with the state to ensure the DDCTs are as uniform as possible. 

Comment ID: 2135 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: APPENDIX I - DISTURBANCE DENSITY CALCULATION TOOL MANUAL Appendix I, 

Page I-1 Appendix I does not explain how the perspectives outlined above (regarding potential for effects 

up to an 11-mile radius from a project boundary) intersect with DDCT requirements set forth in the EO. 

BLM must explain disparities between analyses required as part of the EO with requirements set forth in 

the LUPA/DEIS for projects on BLM/USFS administered land. As discussed throughout these comments, 

the EO should serve as the basis for GRSG management for all lands in Wyoming, including BLM and 

USFS administered public land. 

Summary: Page I-1 Appendix I does not explain how the perspectives outlined above (regarding potential 

for effects up to an 11-mile radius from a project boundary) intersect with DDCT requirements set forth in 

the Executive Order (EO). BLM must explain disparities between analyses required as part of the EO with 

requirements set forth in the draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS for projects on BLM/Forest Service 

administered land. We contend that the DDCT is a critical component of the LUP and associated NEPA 

process and should be a relatively fixed methodology included within the draft LUP Amendments. It is 

impossible to provide meaningful comments, or even understand how the DDCT will impact our projects 

based on a moving target. 

Response: There is no disparity between the requirements set forth in the EO and those represented in 

Appendix D because the BLM and Forest Service are adopting the DDCT in its entirety and were part of 

the development team. The Final EIS has been modified to integrate the DDCT process (Appendix I) into 

Appendix D. 

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix K

Comment ID: 2519 

Organization: Converse County 

Name: Richard C. Grant 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-260 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: In Appendix K the USFS makes a point to distinguish between Required Design Features 

(RDFs) and Best Management Practices (BMPs). Whereas BMPs are related to management as a whole, 

RDFs, as we understand them, are a more site-specific, flexible management response that is specifically 

designed to ensure regulatory consistency and the conservation of greater sage-grouse. In principal, we 

agree with incorporating such a mechanism into the Plan. However, as currently drafted, the language 

proves too restrictive, which will limit the effectiveness of the collaboratively developed adaptive 

management strategy resulting from this Plan Therefore, we suggest that the following change to the 

language in Appendix K under the definition for "Required Design Features" located on page K-4: It is 

anticipated that variations will be approved only in coordination with the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and in a manner that is consistent with existing, 

binding protocols established through the collaboratively developed State of Wyoming and appropriate 

Federal agency implementation team. We believe the change in language will provide a more responsive 

management scenario that will further ensure the continued viability of greater sage-grouse in the planning 

areas and further ensure continued economic development in the planning areas that is done in a smart, 

responsible way. The goals need not be mutually exclusive. 

Comment ID: 3201 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Appendix K General All previous comments on Chapter 2, Alternative E are also applicable 

here. Appendix K General Please correct numbering in this appendix so that it correctly corresponds with 

Chapter 2. 

Comment ID: 2209 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Appendix K The desired conditions in the USFS Plan Components as outlined in Appendix K 

do not address the requirement that the land should be managed for multiple uses. Many of the outlined 

objectives in Appendix K do not provide a clear view of what the objective is because the criteria has not 

been identified. Specific examples of missing criteria include the date that site specific conservation 

strategies are to be in place and the number of acres per year that habitat enhancements will be applied to 

have not been listed. Without the specific criteria being listed it is impossible to determine if these are 

reasonable objectives and where comments should be made regarding a specific objective. If this data is 

not provided prior to the end of the comment period, this portion of the plan should be reopened for 

additional comments when these specifics have been determined. There are also Management Actions 

USFS lists that are not consistent with the BLM Management Objectives. TBCC requests that BLM and 

Forest Service review the management strategies and coordinate and standardize between Federal and State 

Agencies. 

Comment ID: 2210 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Table K-2: Forest Service Objectives for Alternative E Objectives as Written in the DEIS USFS 

Objective #2: "Enhance an average of __ acres (insert quantity) per year of quality/suitable habitat to 

support the expansion of Greater Sage-Grouse populations on National Forest System Lands." USFS 

Objective #5: "Restore native (or desirable) plants and create landscape patterns which most benefit Greater 

Sage-Grouse on an average of __acres (insert quantity) per year." With USFS in control of only 8% of the 

land mass in Wyoming and checkerboard ownership, this may be an unrealistic goal, especially if there is 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-261

no set number of acres. USFS is a multiple use agency and must recognize the need for multiple uses for 

other species than sage-grouse and for economic development as well. These Management Actions do not 

provide for this. There are a number of acres, for example, in the Thunder Basin National Grassland that 

are being managed for the Blacktailed Prairie Dog and Black Footed Ferret reintroduction. Failure to 

acknowledge these other plans in USFS's management of these lands could result in improper management 

of these lands to attempt to manage them for sage-grouse habitat which is not there. TBCC recommends 

using the equivalent BLM language in the Objectives for USFS. Without the specific criteria being listed it 

is impossible to determine if these are reasonable objectives and where comments should be made regarding 

a specific objective. If this data is not provided prior to the end of the comment period, this portion of the 

plan should be reopened for additional comments when these specifics have been determined. 

Comment ID: 2520 

Organization: Converse County 

Name: Richard C. Grant 

Comment: Table K-2, p. K-2: Dates and acres are left blank in several places, thus making it impossible to 

comment on the likely effects, other than to say "too short" or "too long" of a time frame, or "too small" or 

"too large" of an acreage. Such ambiguities or yet to be determined scenarios could have significant impacts 

on the proposed action. Therefore, we urge the numbers to fill in these blanks, be developed in close 

coordination with those directly affected rather than arbitrarily, in the manner as stated in Table K-2, 

Objective 9, p. K-3 and re-stated in Table K-3, p. K-4, Management Action (MA) #2. 

Comment ID: 2136 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: APPENDIX K— DRAFT GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AMENDMENT FOR THE LAND 

AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS: BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST, MEDICINE 

BOW NATIONAL FOREST, THUNDER BASIN NATIONAL GRASSLAND PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE – ALTERNATIVE E The text of the LUPA/DEIS does not reference Appendix K, nor 

does the text discuss the purpose or context that would allow a reader to comment upon the language set 

forth in Appendix K. As such it is unclear how the information presented in this appendix is to be used or 

interpreted. BLM must provide an explanation in the description of Alternative E in Chapter 2 of how the 

contents of Appendix K would be applied to USFS administered public land, what this information means 

to GRSG management on USFS managed land, and if there would be restrictions or requirements on USFS 

managed land over and above the management actions set forth as part of Alternative E. 

Summary: Please correct numbering in this appendix so that it correctly corresponds with Chapter 2. Dates 

and acres are left blank in Table K-2. Suggested language change from “required design features” to more 

flexible management. Question about the link between Appendix K and Alternative E. Overall requests for 

clarity in the Appendix. 

Response: Appendix K— Draft Greater Sage-Grouse Amendment for the Land and Resource Management 

Plans for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest, Thunder Basin National 

Grassland has been revised to correctly correspond to the Proposed LUP Amendments displayed in Chapter 

2. Appendix K shows a crosswalk between the management actions in Alternative E and the suggested 

Forest Service required planning language. The Draft Greater Sage-Grouse Amendments for the BridgerTeton and Medicine Bow National Forests and the Thunder Basin National Grasslands displayed in 

Appendix K in the Draft EIS have been revised in response to public comment. The revised versions are 

displayed in Appendix K in the Final EIS. The desired conditions provide for multiple use management by 

continuing to allow commodity and amenity resource extraction and utilization while protecting and/or 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-262 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

improving sage-grouse habitat. It is true that moving existing habitat towards the desired conditions would 

result in some limits on, or decreased production of, commodity resources and some limits on amenity 

resource use. Objectives are projections of measurable and time-specific outcomes or accomplishments that 

if achieved would contribute to maintaining or reaching Desired Conditions during the plan period. An 

objective is not a required action, it is a potential outcome, a realistic check-in point along the way to gauge 

progress toward the future condition. The criteria that was not identified in the Draft EIS has been identified 

in the Final EIS in Appendix K. Accomplishments of objectives is dependent upon budget allocations and 

prioritization of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat improvement work in comparison to other resource recovery 

work. Comments on criteria described in the objectives in Appendix K in the Final EIS will be considered 

during the Protest Period following issuance of the Final EIS and before issuance of the Record of Decision. 

The Proposed LUP Amendments for the BLM and Forest Service units are similar but are not identical. 

The BLM Proposed LUP Amendments will comply with NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations at Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations at 43 CFR part 46 and 43 CFR part 1600; the 

2008 BLM NEPA Handbook (H–1790–1), and all other applicable BLM policies and guidance. The Forest 

Service Proposed LUP Amendments will comply with NFMA, Forest Service NEPA regulations found at 

36 CFR 220, and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture at 36 CFR 

part 219, and FSM 1920 and FSH 1909.12. Part of the difference between the BLM Proposed LUP 

Amendments language and the Forest Service Proposed LUP Amendments language is due to different 

requirements in the BLM versus Forest Service planning regulations. Differences also exist because of 

emphasis placed on resource management by BLM versus Forest Service Deciding Officers. To assist the 

reader in easily identifying the similarities and differences between the BLM and Forest Service Proposed 

LUP Amendments, the table in Appendix K displays the two versions side-by-side in correct numerical 

order. After the agencies make their respective plan amendment decisions, where management strategies 

differ, the BLM and Forest Service intend to coordinate differences across unit boundaries but do not intend 

to standardize them. The Forest Service Proposed LUP Amendments in the Final EIS no longer includes 

Required Design Features (RDF). The RDF displayed in Appendix B were reformatted as standards or 

guidelines in the Appendix K. Appendix B does not apply to the Forest Service Proposed LUP 

Amendments. 

Sage-grouse

Appendices

Comments on Appendix M

Comment ID: 2704 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Comments on Appendix M This Appendix is laden with typos, errors, inaccuracies, 

redundancies, and inappropriate references. Additionally it provides no new information. QEP asks this 

section be stricken and instead include BAs and BEs in FEIS. 

Comment ID: 3202 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Appendix M General This Appendix is laden with typos, errors, inaccuracies, redundancies, and 

inappropriate references. Additionally it provides no new information. Suggest removal and include BA 

and BE in FEIS. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-263

Summary: This Appendix is laden with typos, errors, inaccuracies, redundancies, and inappropriate 

references. Additionally it provides no new information. QEP asks this section be stricken and instead 

include BAs and BEs in the Final EIS. 

Response: Appendix M in the Draft LUP Amendments included the Draft Wildlife and Botany Report for 

the Forest Service Units. Appendix M in the Proposed LUP Amendments includes the Biological 

Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Report. These documents are necessary to evaluate the 

impacts to threatened and endangered species and management indicator species with respect to Forest 

Service policy. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Chapter 3 needs information on winter habitat, sensitive species, other baseline data

Comment ID: 1560 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: BLM Sensitive Species policy imposes additional requirements to provide baseline information. 

For BLM Sensitive Species, the agency is responsible for “Determining, to the extent practicable, the 

distribution, abundance, population condition, current threats, and habitat needs for sensitive species, and 

evaluating the significance of BLM-administered lands and actions undertaken by the BLM in conserving 

those species.” BLM Manual 6840.2(C)(1). Furthermore, the agency is responsible for “Monitoring 

populations and habitats of Bureau sensitive species to determine whether species management objectives 

are being met.” BLM Manual 6840.2(C)(3). The BLM must make up for the absence of population status 

and trend data for BLM Sensitive Species (i.e., greater sage grouse) by generating these data of its own 

accord where they are unavailable through Wyoming state agencies or other external sources. 

Comment ID: 1942 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: 3.14 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, Page 3-241 None of the literature cited reflects the latest 

information on GRSG and are based on studies that evaluated effects of energy development that do not 

reflect the most current technology associated with drilling, extraction, and transport or the mitigation 

measures now routinely utilized to minimize impacts to the GRSG. Reliance upon Holloran’s 2005 doctoral 

dissertation is inappropriate because it is outdated and flawed as its assumptions and predictions have been 

scientifically proven inaccurate and excessive. In general, the LUPA/DEIS cites numerous studies that are 

outdated and therefore fails to comply with the NEPA directive to utilize the best available information in 

the preparation of environmental documents. There are findings from GRSG research completed since the 

studies cited in the LUPA/DEIS that do not concur with the above statements. The BLM should also 

consider this research in its analysis. The BLM should consider the results of the studies conducted by 

Ramey et al [24 Ramey et al (2011)] and Taylor et al [25 Taylor et al (2007)] in addressing the effects of 

oil and gas development on GRSG and GRSG habitat. Consideration should be given to the potential for 

wide dispersal and migration of GRSG populations. Other research has pointed to the need for the use of 

an integrated approach to estimate GRSG populations given that lek counts vary because attendance at leks 

varies between age and sex classes of GRSG throughout the breeding season, time of day and other 

environmental factors (weather, etc.). 

Comment ID: 1307 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-264 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: None of the lands within the project area have been specifically assessed for sage grouse habitat 

conditions. In other words, the BLM know virtually nothing of current sage grouse habitat conditions, and 

has made no progress on this since the early 2000’s when the BLM pledged to do this. 

Comment ID: 236 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The BLM must make up for the absence of population status and trend data for BLM Sensitive 

Species (i.e., greater sage grouse) by generating these data of its own accord where they are unavailable 

through Wyoming state agencies or other external sources. 

Comment ID: 1946 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Chapter 3, Casper Field Office, Greater Sage-Grouse, Page 3-284 “The number of males per lek 

has declined by 31% since 1958.” This discussion of GRSG populations does not indicate the period of 

record for this analysis. Apparently, the earliest data on lek attendance was obtained in 1958; but the 

discussion fails to present the latest lek count data. We recommend the analysis include a graph that depicts 

GRSG lek attendance over the period of record to assess if the population is cyclical, as has been clearly 

demonstrated in statewide data on trends in lek counts. Several studies have indicated climactic and 

landscape variables, such as weather, significantly influence GRSG population trends. 

Comment ID: 200 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Text on Affected Environment with regard to sage grouse habitat failed to discuss the winter 

habitat needs of the birds, in spite of clear scientific evidence that impacts to sage grouse by oil and gas 

development on winter ranges can have profound effects on the birds (Walker 2008). 

Comment ID: 1837 

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Name: Shannon Anderson 

Comment: Alternative E adopts the state’s “core areas” as “priority habitat” for the plan. However, there is 

no analysis in the EIS that verifies or discloses whether the core areas are sufficient to protect sagegrouse 

populations and keep them off of the Endangered Species List. Please fully review the scientific basis for 

the core areas in light of new data and information since the Executive Order was adopted. Notably, there 

is a lack of core areas in certain areas of the state, and some core areas do not have many leks or even the 

best habitat worthy of protection. In your final EIS, please carryout a review of all of the core areas and 

disclose their current development status, population numbers, and habitat availability. If these areas should

no longer be designated as “priority habitat,” please designate new areas of priority habitat sufficient to 

achieve the core area framework’s goal of protecting 80% of sage-grouse habitat and populations. 

Comment ID: 1293 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-265

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: WWP raised the issue of the need for a solid baseline (including lek counts and locations, habitat 

conditions, rangeland health conditions by allotment, date of most recent monitoring data, etc.) in scoping 

comments in March 2012. The agency largely ignored this request for clear and comprehensive information 

about current conditions, and this plan amendment fails to provide an adequate description of the affected 

environment on which to project the impacts of a range of alternatives. In fact, the EIS presents no 

information whatsoever regarding the relationship between current condition and the well-researched 

habitat requirements of sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 232 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Text on Affected Environment with regard to sage grouse habitat failed to discuss the winter 

habitat needs of the birds, in spite of clear scientific evidence that impacts to sage grouse by oil and gas 

development on winter ranges can have profound effects on the birds (Walker 2008). 

Comment ID: 1563 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Projections and predictions from the RFD discussion (DEIS at 3-101) generally lack analysis of 

whether future development is expected on existing or new leases, or on priority, general, seasonal, or nonhabitat. Similarly, the Rawlins Field Office discussion of leasable minerals and oil and gas is replete with 

statistics, but lacks qualitative analysis or projections on how past development has impacted sage-grouse, 

which habitat has been impacted, and how future development could additionally impact various habitats. 

DEIS at 3-120 to 122. Why the DEIS appears to omit discussion of leasing trends and future development 

projections in priority habitat is unknown, but the significance of this aspect of sage-grouse conservation 

efforts is apparent. 

Comment ID: 1340 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: One of the fundamental issues regarding sage grouse habitat is the widespread conversion from 

midstature cool season bunchgrasses to short stature grazing tolerant species which do not provide for sage 

grouse habitat. No information whatsoever has been provided in the document so it is impossible to know 

from the document as to the effects of this widespread conversion has had on the species. The BLM does 

possess this data within its SVIM database which is the most up-to-date information regarding range 

condition that the BLM has but this information was not provided. 

Comment ID: 1557 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Importantly, 40 C.F.R. §1502.15 requires agencies to “describe the environment of the areas to 

be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration.” Establishment of baseline conditions is a 

requirement of NEPA. In Half Moon Bay Fisherman’s Marketing Ass’n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9 

th Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit states that “without establishing . . . baseline conditions . . . there is simply 

no way to determine what effect [an action] will have on the environment, and consequently, no way to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-266 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

comply with NEPA.” The court further held that, “The concept of a baseline against which to compare 

predictions of the effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives is critical to the NEPA process.” 

Text on Affected Environment with regard to sage grouse habitat failed to discuss the winter habitat needs 

of the birds, in spite of clear scientific evidence that impacts to sage grouse by oil and gas development on 

winter ranges can have profound effects on the birds (Walker 2008).

Comment ID: 2997 

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association 

Name: Jennie Trefren 

Comment: The necessity of the need for the BLM to revisit their inventory information and update their 

inventories is further highlighted by divergences between the BLM’s and WWA’s existing inventory data. 

While the BLM does have recent inventories on record for these areas, their inventory findings diverge 

from WWA’s inventory findings. Upon review of the BLM inventory documents, it is clear that the 

difference in inventory findings is likely a result of a difference in procedure. These differences are detailed 

below. 

Comment ID: 2942 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Map 3-19 and Winter concentration areas cited throughout the document Map 3-19 identifies 

"Regional Winter Habitat." Map 3-19 is not referenced in the document and "Regional Winter Habitat" is 

not adequately defined anywhere in the document. No reference is provided for the modeling parameters 

and processes to delineate/extrapolate "Regional Winter Habitat." A reference for the seasonal habitat 

definitions and for the use of spatial data is needed in the document. The data source for the map is likely 

based on landscape-level models developed under the unpublished manuscript and data series, State-wide 

Seasonal Habitat Selection in Wyoming Greater Sage-grouse (Fedy et al. 2012). This manuscript and USGS 

data series is currently under peer review, but has not been made available for public use. Because the report 

has not been accepted by the scientific community and is not available to tile public, the BLM may not rely 

upon it as best available scientific data and information. Any analysis and mapping relying upon Fedy et 

al. 2012 must be deleted from the LUPA/EIS and any management actions based upon the report must not 

be carried forward to the final LUPA/EIS. Winter habitat for greater sage-grouse has been previously 

modeled using sagebrush patch size, sagebrush height, elevation, and surface roughness/topography as 

input variables to inform model selection (Doherty et al. 2008; Carpenter et al. 2010; Dzialak et al. 2013). 

Although seasonal selection models have been developed to identify/predict local winter use areas, these 

models show high variability, do not correlate well with telemetered relocation data, and provide poor 

extrapolative value across varying landscapes for regional interpretation. In its use of the models for impacts 

analysis and proposed management actions, BLM must consider and disclose the quality and scientific 

uncertainty associated with the models. 

Comment ID: 2576 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 3-239 Text: Greater Sage-Grouse discussion. Comment: This discussion lacks any mention 

of drought on GRSG and is seriously concerning since the BLM relies on supposed drought conditions to 

emphasize impacts from surface-disturbing activities. The BLM may not select particular conditions to suit 

its analysis. Text omits both disease and predation, both of which are documented threats to sage-grouse 

viability. 75 Fed. Reg. 13910, 13966-13969 (2010). Predation is the most documented cause of mortality. 

Id. at 13969-13973. The common predators for sage-grouse have increased in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-267

Idaho and the rest of the western states. Even though USFWS dismissed this as a significant factor, the 

USFWS discussion omitted increased number of predators, including wolves, coyotes, fox and ravens. 

While it is very difficult to estimate the number of coyotes, DWR reports a take of more than 10,000 a year 

and concludes it barely dents the populations. 

Comment ID: 3071 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The DEIS has little or no discussion of actual habitat and population conditions and trends in 

the individual Core Areas within the planning area. This omission must be remedied. Absent such analysis, 

BLM’s broad conclusions regarding impacts and ability to achieve conservation objectives are unsupported. 

Priority habitat is the cornerstone of most conservation efforts in Wyoming. Because core and priority 

habitat are used interchangeably in the DEIS, a rigorous analysis of all such habitat is needed to inform the 

planning effort. 

Summary: The BLM must make up for the absence of population status and trend data for BLM Sensitive 

Species (i.e., Greater Sage-Grouse) by generating these data of its own accord where they are unavailable 

through Wyoming state agencies or other external sources. A solid baseline (including lek counts and 

locations, winter habitat, habitat conditions, habitat conversion, rangeland health conditions by allotment, 

date of most recent monitoring data, etc.) is needed. The EIS presents no information whatsoever regarding 

the relationship between current condition, trends, and the wellresearched habitat requirements of sagegrouse. In your final EIS, please carry out a review of all of the core areas and disclose their current 

development status, population numbers, and habitat availability. The best available science and data should 

be used to provide this information. 

Response: The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to "succinctly describe the 

environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration. The description 

shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a 

statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall 

concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR 1502.15). Additionally, the Wyoming SageGrouse LUP Amendments is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

across a broad geographic area. As such, the BLM and the Forest Service described the current conditions 

and trends in the affected environment broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate to program-level 

land use planning actions. This amendment addresses changes in management of sage-grouse habitats under 

the jurisdiction of the land management agencies not bird populations. Managing and monitoring 

population changes are the responsibility of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The actions and the 

analysis in this document are limited to habitat management changes not population changes. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Comments on Chapter 1 and Executive Summary

Comment ID: 2917 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: National GRSG Planning Strategy Cp. 1-7 and 1-8) The text in this section incorrectly states 

"the planning decisions/conservation measures in this plan are intended to address the long-term population 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-268 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

trends in each of the seven Management Zones (Map 1-4)." In fact, the planning decisions for this plan are 

not intended to address the long-term population trends in all Management Zones but rather population 

trends in MZ I and MZ II, according to Table 1-2, Threats by Management Zone and Population, which 

also is not referenced or described in the text. The text should be corrected. 

Comment ID: 2823 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: On page 11 of Chapter 1 the document maintains that all activities and uses within Greater SageGrouse habitats will conform to existing land health standards. However, the document does contain an 

analysis between current land health standards and sage-grouse requirements. This analysis should occur 

and the results need to be provided. 

Summary: Changes were suggested to correct text to accurately depict which Management Zones are 

included in the 9 Plan document, and to either correct text that “all activities and uses within Greater SageGrouse habitats will conform to existing land health standards” or include analysis to support the statement. 

Response: The text in question on page 1-11 is not appropriate as an issue and has been moved to the 

Planning Criteria section 1.8. The text was intended to address a concern that all alternatives utilize the 

Standards and Guidelines for livestock grazing in site specific assessment for non-achievement of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat objectives. The residual impacts to sage-grouse habitat after the application of the

Standards and Guidelines are reflected in the impact analysis contained in Chapter 4 for Alternative E. The 

text on page 1-8 has been modified to be clear that it is the strategy that addresses all management zones, 

not this plan. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Comments on Chapter 3

Comment ID: 1644 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Where are the sage grouse winter areas, what are the conditions of these areas, and what impacts 

is grazing and energy development having on these areas; (2) in the Pinedale, where are grazing and energy 

development adversely affecting sage grouse habitat, how, in what respect, and what are the current 

conditions; and (3) how are grazing and energy development “synergistically interacting” to impact sage 

grouse habitat within the Pinedale field office, as well as the Kemmerrer and other neighboring field offices. 

Comment ID: 127 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: The EIS must evaluate and acknowledge that close range viewing of sage grouse leks produces 

significantly more impacts on sage grouse than motorized recreation which is located some distance away. 

The EIS must include an accurate inventory of all viewing activity in order to reasonably assess this activity 

and its impact. Examples of the popularity and magnitude of the lek viewing activity include: 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-269

• http://www.craigdailypress.com/news/2011/mar/01/local-environmental-groupsorganizing- sage-grouse-

/

• http://www.siskadee.org/view.htm • http://www.gorp.com/parksguide/ travel-ta-birdwatching-la-juntacomanche-and-cimarron-national-grasslands-golden-spikenational- historic-site-sidwcmdev_055433.html

• http://coloradobirdingsociety.net16.net/zsbirdingspots.htm 

• http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=150579

• http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife_management/sagegrouse/index.asp

• http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN424.pdf

• http://wildlife.state.co.us/Viewing/EventsFestivals/Pages/ViewingEvents.aspx

•http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/blm-wgf-holds-sage-grouse-lek-viewingtrip/ 

article_d3f3abe0-d2ec-56b1-9eb9-3cfad0a1d561.html?print=1 

• http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/wildlifesociety/NewSite/photo_gallery/LekViewing/LekViewing.htm • 

BLM Buffalo Field Office Hosts Sage-grouse Lek Viewing Trip 

Comment ID: 637 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Impacts to Sage-Grouse Will Be Reduced During Future Development Due To Technological 

Changes In How Reservoirs Are Targeted, Wells Are Drilled, And Field Operations Are Conducted. The 

Draft LUPA (See page 3-241) uses research references that draw from outdated development scenarios that 

do not account for significant technological changes in how oil and gas resources are accessed and 

recovered. 

Comment ID: 1889 

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Name: Mark Konishi 

Comment: Page 3-240, First full paragraph: There are eight local sage-grouse working groups in Wyoming, 

not nine. 

Comment ID: 345 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM lists six categories of management for off-road vehicle use. DEIS at 3-338. The Draft EIS 

does not disclose the acreage of lands “open” to cross-country vehicle travel that overlaps with Priority, 

General, or Connectivity sage grouse habitats, how close major and minor roads are to sage grouse leks, 

nor does the agency present baseline information regarding road density in existing Core Areas or other 

grouse habitats. This is important baseline information for the NEPA analysis. Off-road vehicle “play areas” 

designated open to off-road travel should be closed where they occur in sage grouse habitats of any kind. 

BLM has failed to disclose the positive environmental impacts of closing open ORV play areas within sage 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-270 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

grouse Priority Habitats on sage grouse under the alternatives where this is prescribed, in violation of 

NEPA. See, e.g., DEIS at 4-280. 

Comment ID: 358 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Wyoming DEIS does not disclose the current thresholds of surface disturbance by 

population area as baseline information, nor does it estimate the projected disturbance percentage by area 

for each alternative. This information is critical to determine how the alternatives compare in terms of 

resulting in significant impacts to sage grouse based on exceedences of varying disturbance thresholds 

under each alternative. This key analysis is missing from the DEIS. 

Comment ID: 1875 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM must also discuss in the DLUPA/DEIS the baseline conditions and impacts associated 

with hunting, predation, and disease on sage-grouse populations. BLM’s failure to include these conditions 

and impacts results in an incomplete alternatives analysis. The DLUPA/DEIS must be revised to include a 

complete discussion of hunting, predation, and disease in the Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences chapters. 

Comment ID: 657 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The agencies need to define “occupied lek,” a term used throughout the Draft LUPA, and the 

process by which leks are deemed unoccupied. In particular, the agencies appear to be applying stipulations 

to leks where male-grouse have not been observed for many years. Does lek monitoring continue when a 

lek nears a status of being non-occupied to allow determination of unoccupied status? How and who makes 

a determination of how a lek is going to be monitored? Recommendation: The agencies should include in 

the Final LUPA a table indicating the status of all leks. Leks that have had no birds in attendance for three 

years should be considered unoccupied when applying timing stipulations. Anadarko also recommends the 

agencies include in the Final LUPA a map indicating all unoccupied leks. If leks that have had no birds in 

attendance for multiple years are still treated as occupied, Anadarko recommends the Final LUPA include 

an explanation for that determination. 

Comment ID: 1903 

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Name: Mark Konishi 

Comment: Page 3-284, Greater Sage-Grouse, second paragraph: The information presented is 9 years old; 

more recent information is available upon request. Page 3-284, Greater Sage-Grouse, third paragraph: There 

is no Powder River Basin Local Working Group. This should be changed to the Northeast Local Working 

Group. Page 3-284, Greater Sage-Grouse, third paragraph: Both the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin and Northeast 

Local Working Groups completed conservation plans in 2007-08. Those plans were revised in 2013- 14. 

Comment ID: 2630 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-271

Comment: Page 3-240, paragraph 1, line 6: "Declines of sage-grouse near oil and gas fields in this area 

have been well documented (Lyon 2000; Holloran 2005; Holloran and Anderson; Kaiser 2006)." More 

recent studies have been conducted that suggest a decline in male attendance at a particular lek does not 

indicate overall population declines. QEP asks that the BLM consider studies released by Ramey et al 

(2011) and Taylor et al (2007). 

Comment ID: 2330 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Nevertheless BLM goes on to rely on such data to demonstrate population declines (“an 

increasing population trend during 2004 to 2007 is indicated by an increase in the average number of males 

per lek and males per complex since 2003. The 2008 to 2010 lek monitoring data indicate a declining trend 

in males per lek compared to 2007” Ch. 3 at3-288), which seems a bit duplicitous. AEMA contends that

lek data does not provide reliable information, is not substantially reproducible as required by the DQA, 

provides only a snapshot of habitat use during the breeding season and ignores all other seasonal habitat 

uses. Thus any conservation measures or objectives that rely solely on lek data should be removed from the 

DLUPA/DEIS analysis. 

Comment ID: 2874 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: On page 335 of Chapter 3 the second paragraph references a graph which we could not find. 

This graph was supposed to show the fluctuations in male sage-grouse attendance per lek and would be 

helpful information. 

Comment ID: 2881 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: A correlation between high sheep numbers between the 40s to 60s could well have contributed 

to the high numbers of sage-grouse because of the widespread predator control efforts that occurred during 

that period. Certainly some of those efforts had an impact on predators of sage-grouse. The same 

consideration could be made when discussing conversions from sheep to cattle and vise versa. This same 

consideration should be discussed in the document on page 258. [Chapter 3] 

Comment ID: 3076 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: DEIS Figure 3-50 depicts the “General Location of Designated Greater Sage-Grouse Core 

Habitats in the Thunder Basin National Grassland,” but the DEIS appears to lack any additional analysis 

and does not even state the name of this Core Area. For other priority habitat, the only maps are those 

showing the core area outlines on statewide maps. Not even names of the Core Areas are provided, let alone 

raw data, inventory information, or analysis. Audubon comments to the Buffalo DEIS suggested how to 

approach the analysis of individual core areas. To assist BLM in this analysis, the following information is 

extracted from WGFD survey data. BLM should also analyze and incorporate data from WGFD Sage 

Grouse Job Completion Reports for core areas subject to the DEIS. A starting point for the analysis of 

individual core areas to be included in the FEIS follows. The Thunder Basin Core Area is 770,784 acres in 

size, making it the third largest in the state. It is largely located in the Thunder Basins National Grasslands. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-272 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

According to WGFD analysis, it had 59 occupied leks in 2010, averaged 996 peak males from 2008-2010 

and 604 in 2011, and had an average male population per lek of 16.9 based on 2008-10 data. 

Comment ID: 3073 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The agencies need to incorporate and analyze additional site-specific information for each 

individual core area, based on a search of existing WGFD data and scientific research. However, the DEIS 

appears to lack any analysis specific to individual core areas, and has not specified which of the extensive 

scientific literature listed in the “Literature Cited” section, and relied on for specific decisions, pertain to 

which sub-region, planning area, or core area. The analysis should encompass both priority and general 

habitat outside the planning area that could be impacted by management decisions in the DEIS. 

Comment ID: 2469 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Chapter 3 - Special Status Species Page 3-327 TBNG Introduction: The first sentence of the first 

paragraph the word "predominately" should precede private and state ownership. In Table 3-92 Acreage 

and Designated Greater Sage-Grouse Core Habitat Acres in the TBNG the number of Core Habitat Acres 

does not appear to jive with previous numbers in the analysis (402,890 acres)? 

Comment ID: 2470 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Chapter 3, Special Status Species - Federally listed Species Pages 3-328 and 329 - The 

discussion of the "overlap" of the Greater Sage-Grouse core area with black tailed Prairie dog and black 

footed ferret habitat should be expanded in the Final EIS. The "possible management issues" should be 

addressed in the Final EIS and/or Record of Decision (ROD). One such approach may be to identify that 

one habitat (GSG) is being replaced by another (BFF) and the related effects are disclosed. It appears that 

the Forest Service is not amending their LUP for the TBNG as part of the EIS process. The last two 

sentences in the first paragraph on Page 3-329 are confusing seeming there should be a period after 

"habitat". The second paragraph merely describes the management actions the USFS is implementing on 

"this management area". Would it be possible to enlarge the discussion as to what additional management 

actions could be taken to reduce the effects of the USFS management on the reduction of core Greater SageGrouse habitat in the TBNG? 

Comment ID: 3133 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: 3.14.1 Multiple Page 3‐ 259, last paragraph & page 3‐ 260 paragraph 1 Suggest deleting 

“However, with oil and gas prices reaching all--‐ time highs and with strong support for the current political 

administration,” as well as the last sentence in the paragraph. The first statement is no longer applicable 

and the second is entirely subjective. 

Comment ID: 2471 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-273

Comment: Page 3-334 and 335: Greater Sage-Grouse. The first sentence may need to be tenured by a 

possible migrating sage-grouse population in the northern portion of the grasslands. The second paragraph 

and third paragraph of Page 3-335 have some issues as to sentence structure (This can be compared trends 

.... ) and references made to figures and graphs that are not present with the text. Also in the last paragraph 

the word "reflexes" needs to be replaced. 

Comment ID: 3074 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The discussion of each Core Area encompassed by the plans should include: • A quantitative 

discussion of the most recent survey data regarding leks and bird numbers. • A qualitative discussion of the 

resource values and current condition of the Core Area, including trends, threats, and direct, indirect and 

cumulative impacts. • Relatively large blocks of intact habitat that can serve as refugia and strongholds. o 

For each core area, how many large blocks of substantially intact and undeveloped habitat remain. o Where 

these remnant blocks are located (including maps), and what is happening adjacent to them. o Imminent or 

potential threats to the Core Area as a whole, and large blocks of intact habitat within each core area –

including valid existing rights and the proximity of any projects specified in the DEIS cumulative impacts 

analysis and the RFD. • Other issues and special resource values in the Core Area relevant to the leasing 

proposal, including migration corridors, connectivity, breeding density, special habitat types such as broodrearing or winter habitat, existing disturbance levels and percentages (DDCT calculations), etc. • This 

analysis will reflect the best current scientific information, and the fact that all core areas may not be 

“created equal” with regard to habitat quality and importance to conservation and recovery efforts. 

Summary: Very specific wording changes and edits of chapter text for accuracy or preference of 

commenter, most within Section 3.14 regarding sage-grouse; requests for definitions; and requests for use 

of other scientific studies within specific text. More general comments and questions about language: 

requests for additional baseline information for resources such as wildlife, OHV, special status species and 

the overlap of these resources with sage-grouse habitat; requests for additional information regarding 

numerous aspects of sage-grouse; and suggestions on how to organize and present information on sagegrouse and habitat. 

Response: Comments 127, 345, 358, 637 - The Proposed LUP Amendments provide an adequate discussion 

of the environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. As 

required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Proposed LUP Amendments provide a discussion of the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be 

avoided should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. 

The Proposed LUP Amendments provide sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to 

proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner 

such that the public could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the 

alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and 

qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land 

Management Planning). The Proposed LUP Amendments contain only planning actions and do not include 

any implementation actions. Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse population levels are not required to be 

quantified as part of the impact analysis. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be 

required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may 

affect the area come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA 

analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-274 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis when more specific information is

known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for implementation actions. Comment 1644 - Question 1 - BLM and the Forest Service will 

rely on WGFD to delineate winter concentration areas for sage-grouse. Questions 2 and 3 - The Proposed 

LUP Amendments provide an adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the 

cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Proposed LUP 

Amendments provide a discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed 

action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be implemented, 

the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be 

involved in the proposal should it be implemented. The Proposed LUP Amendments provide sufficiently 

detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a 

reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an understanding 

of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. 

Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on sitespecific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, 

B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning). The Proposed LUP 

Amendments contain only planning actions and do not include any implementation actions. Effects on 

Greater Sage-Grouse population levels are not required to be quantified as part of the impact analysis. A 

more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision 

included implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the 

BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and 

implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the 

environmental analysis when more specific information is known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the 

public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for implementation actions. 

Comments 1889, 1903 - Revisions made based on comment. Comment 2469- Acres were verified as part 

of the final review. Comment 2470 - Discussion of management specific to other species can be found in 

each offices’ RMP/LRMP. The management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate 

protections for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Comment 3076 - The Proposed LUP Amendments 

provide an adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of 

the presented alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Proposed LUP Amendments provide a 

discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship 

between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the 

proposal should it be implemented. The Proposed LUP Amendments provide sufficiently detailed 

information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned 

choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an understanding of the 

environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use 

plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on site-specific 

actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning). The Proposed LUP Amendments contain 

only planning actions and do not include any implementation actions. Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse 

population levels are not required to be quantified as part of the impact analysis. A more quantified or 

detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation 

actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest 

Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level 

actions. The site-specific analyses will tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis 

when more specific information is known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the 

opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for implementation actions. Comment 2874 - The graph 

was available and is part of the overall document. The figure can be found on page FIG-48. Comment 2881 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-275

- The CEQ regulations require an EIS to "succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected 

or created by the alternatives under consideration. The description shall be no longer than is necessary to 

understand the effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in an EIS shall be commensurate with the 

importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. 

Agencies shall avoid useless bulk in statements and shall concentrate effort and attention on important 

issues" (40 CFR 1502.15). Additionally, the Proposed LUP Amendments are a programmatic NEPA effort 

to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat across a broad geographic area. The BLM and the Forest 

Service described the current conditions and trends in the affected environment broadly, across a range of 

conditions, appropriate to programlevel land use planning actions. The BLM and the Forest Service 

complied with these regulations in describing the affected environment. The requisite level of information 

necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope and nature of 

the proposed decision. The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various appendices is sufficient 

to support, at the general land use planning-level of analysis, the environmental impact analysis resulting 

from management actions presented in the Proposed LUP Amendments. Programmatic documents are 

regional in scope and place emphasis on developing broad environmental policies, programs, or plans. Sitespecific data is important during implementation level decisions, which may be tiered to the decisions made 

in this document. Data scales include broad-scale, mid-scale, fine-scale, and site-scale. For this planning 

document, it is appropriate to utilize data at the mid-scale (e.g., WAFWA management zones) and finescale (e.g., sub-region data). For this document, the best available information was used as generated and 

provided by the organizations and agencies with authority and special expertise to provide that information 

on a planning scale. Comment 3073, 3074 - The Proposed LUP Amendments provide an adequate 

discussion of the environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented 

alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Proposed LUP Amendments provide a discussion of the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects 

that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of 

man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible 

or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. 

The Proposed LUP Amendments provide sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to 

proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner 

such that the public could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the 

alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and 

qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land 

Management Planning). The Proposed LUP Amendments contain only planning actions and do not include 

any implementation actions. Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse population levels are not required to be 

quantified as part of the impact analysis. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be 

required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may 

affect the area come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA 

analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will 

tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis when more specific information is 

known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for implementation actions. Comment 2630 - The Proposed LUP Amendments provide an 

adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented 

alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Proposed LUP Amendments provide a discussion of the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects 

that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of 

man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible 

or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. 

The Proposed LUP Amendments provide sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to 

proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner 

such that the public could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-276 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and 

qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land 

Management Planning). The Proposed LUP Amendments contain only planning actions and do not include 

any implementation actions. Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse population levels are not required to be 

quantified as part of the impact analysis. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be 

required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may 

affect the area come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA 

analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will 

tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis when more specific information is 

known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for implementation actions. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Leks, lek data

Comment ID: 2408 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Inappropriate focus on leks. The Draft EIS should address the significant limitations associated 

with relying primarily upon lek counts as the preferred methodology to determine GRSG populations and 

the efficacy of subsequent conservation measures. Lek counts have been in use since 1952 and have been 

found to be a remarkably inconsistent tool when attempting to estimate population sizes. Of primary 

concern is that the data collected are really non-random samples of sage grouse leks which fail to account 

for male GRSG at unknown leks, ignoring the fact that males move between leks and ignoring females or 

juveniles. Consequently, counting only males results in an unknown proportion of the total GRSG 

population. Indeed, Connelly et al. (2004), which is relied on by the BLM in the Draft EIS, used data for 

275 leks from 1965 to 2003 and found that lek size has decreased but that populations have increased overall 

by 1 % annually from 1965 to 2003. BLM must distinguish between low-performance habitat for nesting 

and brood rearing and highperforming habitat, and not simply set-aside broad swaths of land with minimal 

conservation value simply because of a link to a current or historical lek location. There is also no evidence 

that bentonite mining activities adversely affect sage-grouse leks, or that buffer areas as great as 4 miles are 

warranted. Active leks have coexisted with mining activities for decades, and some leks appear to thrive in 

open and disturbed areas, and even have inhabited roads. Bentonite mining activities have been active at 

BPM's Colony Plant since 1947. Additionally, BPM has a mining claim located on BLM surface and a 

portion of this claim has been reclaimed without sagebrush establishment and currently a lek has been 

established and is active in this reclaimed area. 

Comment ID: 2334 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The Draft EIS should address the significant limitations associated with relying primarily upon 

lek counts as the preferred methodology to determine GrSG populations and the efficacy of subsequent 

conservation measures. Lek counts have been in use since 1952 and have been found to be a remarkably 

inconsistent tool when attempting to estimate population sizes. Of primary concern is that the data collected 

are really non-random samples of sage grouse leks which fail to account for male GrSG at unknown leks, 

ignoring the fact that males move between leks and ignoring females or juveniles. Consequently, counting 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-277

only males results in an unknown proportion of the total GrSG population. Indeed, Connelly et al. (2004), 

which is relied on by the BLM in the DLUPA/DEIS, used data for 275 leks from 1965 to 2003 and found 

that lek size has decreased but that populations have increased overall by 1 % annually from 1965 to 2003. 

Comment ID: 2335 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The BLM must have a mechanism to distinguish between low-performance habitat for nesting 

and brood rearing and high-performing habitat, and not simply set-aside broad swaths of land with minimal 

conservation value simply because of a link to a current or historical lek location. 

Summary: The BLM must have a mechanism to distinguish between low-performance habitat for nesting 

and brood rearing and high-performing habitat, and not simply set-aside broad swaths of land with minimal 

conservation value simply because of a link to a current or historical lek location. The Draft EIS should 

address the significant limitations associated with relying primarily upon lek counts as the preferred 

methodology to determine Greater Sage-Grouse populations and the efficacy of subsequent conservation 

measures. Lek counts have been in use since 1952 and have been found to be a remarkably inconsistent 

tool when attempting to estimate population sizes. Of primary concern is that the data collected are really 

non-random samples of sage-grouse leks which fail to account for male Greater Sage-Grouse at unknown 

leks, ignoring the fact that males move between leks and ignoring females or juveniles. Consequently, 

counting only males results in an unknown proportion of the total Greater Sage-Grouse population. Indeed, 

Connelly et al. (2004), which is relied on by the BLM in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, used data 

for 275 leks from 1965 to 2003 and found that lek size has decreased but that populations have increased 

overall by 1 % annually from 1965 to 2003. 

Response: BLM, Forest Service, the State of Wyoming, USFWS, and WGFD considered many ways to 

protect habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse; the management alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments 

contain mechanisms that the agencies consider the best protections for sage-grouse and their habitat. WGFD 

coordinates and manages all of the lek data for the state of Wyoming including data collected by BLM and 

Forest Service. In Wyoming, a component of monitoring breeding sage-grouse is also to find new leks. In 

addition, part of the breeding bird monitoring on the leks is to count females, as well as males. During the 

late brood rearing season there is also an effort to determine chick hatch and survival. All of this data goes 

into the WGFD JCR reports on Greater Sage-Grouse. To date, these methodologies combined with the 

existing research on how sage-grouse use the sage steppe habitats for breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

now wintering have been how the Wyoming core habitats have been established. Since sage-grouse are a 

landscape species and in some cases are migratory, there will be portions of the habitat are considered low 

and high performance. A consideration of why this habitat is of high and low can be attributed to many 

factors. The setting aside of these broad swaths of land is important to capture all of the habitats necessary 

for the sagegrouse life stages and, to date, the leks counts are still the most efficient and effective way of 

determining population estimates for sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Maps

Comment ID: 1035 

Organization: American Colloid Company 

Name: Melody Smith 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-278 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Restrictions based on broad scale habitat mapping with no site specific consideration options: 

Not all area within broad scale habitat mapping is suitable and/or critical habitat and management as such 

places an unnecessary burden on operations and socioeconomics. 

Comment ID: 501 

Organization: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Name: Philip Strobel 

Comment: Map 3-8: Sage-grouse Habitat shows the location of leks, Priority/Core Habitat and General 

Habitat, and Map 3-19: Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat shows regional winter, nesting, and summer habitats. 

When comparing these two maps with the core habitat areas mapped by the State of Wyoming, it appears 

that there are a number of leks and some nesting and summer habitat areas that are not included as core 

habitat. In addition, we note that much of the winter habitat is located outside of core areas. This is 

understandable as the State determined the areas to be identified as core habitat based on lek locations in 

areas with relatively little development. However, we are concerned that the use of mapped core/priority 

areas as a basis for GRSG protection may not fully protect substantial winter habitat as well as potentially 

some occupied leks, nesting and summer habitat that have not been included in the core habitat areas. We 

recommend adding additional information to the Final LUPA/EIS to examine whether the lesser protections 

planned for general sage-grouse habitat compared to core/priority area sufficient to contribute to sustainable 

or increasing populations of sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1037 

Organization: American Colloid Company 

Name: Melody Smith 

Comment: Numerous references are made to restrictions on general habitat, outside of areas identified as 

core, connectivity or priority areas in the DEIS. Where is this area mapped? Lack of area definition poses 

unknown short term, long term and cumulative effects. 

Comment ID: 2724 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-455 Comment: BLM should match traditional EIS practices and provide a map of the 

impact area and describe the impact area in reasonable detail. 

Comment ID: 310 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that there are problems with the DEIS analysis regarding lands proposed for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Map 2-23 appears to portray a misleading picture of locatable 

mineral withdrawals, showing substantial areas withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. However, the 

impacts table for Alternative E states that impacts are the same as Alternative A, and the Actions for 

Alternative E states that no additional proposals for withdrawal are included in this alternative. And see 

Map 2-19. We agree with the direction in Map 2-23 as t 

Comment ID: 3042 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-279

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-19, action 30, alt E: Map showing area indicates mitigation will be required 

in PAPA, which is outside core areas. Is this correct? 

Comment ID: 2943 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Map 2-13. "Alternative E ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas" The Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision for Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of 

Land Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western States (BLM 2009) designated a Section 368 

Energy Corridor through the Planning Area in the Rawlins Field Office (segment 78-138), which roughly 

parallels 1-80 to the south and then continues west through the area covered by the RMP. There is also a 

designated utility corridor that runs south from segment 78- 138, referred to as Segment 138-143. Therefore, 

none of the lands along these Section 368 Corridors should be classified as "ROW Avoidance Areas," as 

portions of these corridors are currently so designated on Map 2-13. This map must be updated. Further, 

there is no science or logic to support including a map that designates sage-grouse habitat ROW avoidance 

areas based on the location of historic trails. In addition, we suggest adding a new map that specifically 

shows the Section 368 Energy Corridors throughout the Planning Area, in addition to the transmission 

corridors identified in the Wyoming EO 2011-5. 

Summary: Questions, comments, suggested edits on the Draft EIS maps: We are concerned that there are 

problems with the Draft EIS analysis regarding lands proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. 

Map 2-23 appears to portray a misleading picture of locatable mineral withdrawals, showing substantial 

areas withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. However, the impacts table for Alternative E states that 

impacts are the same as Alternative A, and the Actions for Alternative E states that no additional proposals 

for withdrawal are included in this alternative. See Map 2-19. Table 2-1, page 2-19, action 30, alt E: Map 

showing area indicates mitigation will be required in PAPA, which is outside core areas. Is this correct? 

We are concerned with restrictions based on broad scale habitat mapping with no site-specific consideration 

options. Map 2-13. "Alternative E ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas" A Section 368 Energy Corridor 

through the Planning Area in the Rawlins Field Office (segment 78-138), which roughly parallels 1-80 to 

the south and then continues west through the area covered by the LUP Amendments and a designated 

utility corridor that runs south from segment 78-138, referred to as Segment 138-143. None of the lands 

along these Section 368 Corridors should be classified as "ROW Avoidance Areas." This map must be 

updated. There is no science or logic to support including a map that designates sage-grouse habitat ROW 

avoidance areas based on the location of historic trails. Map 3-8: Sage-grouse Habitat shows the location 

of leks, Priority/Core Habitat and General Habitat, and Map 3-19: Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat shows 

regional winter, nesting, and summer habitats. When comparing these two maps with the core habitat areas 

mapped by the State of Wyoming, it appears that there are a number of leks and some nesting and summer 

habitat areas that are not included as core habitat. In addition, we note that much of the winter habitat is 

located outside of core areas. We are concerned that the use of mapped core/priority areas as a basis for 

Greater Sage- Grouse protection may not fully protect substantial winter habitat as well as potentially some 

occupied leks, nesting and summer habitat that have not been included in the core habitat areas. There 

should be maps for the cumulative impact area. 

Response: Map 2-23 has been clarified to depict areas “considered for withdrawal” and areas 

“recommended for withdrawal.” Map 2-13: There are portions of the Pinedale Anticline primarily along 

the flanks as well as Section 368 of the energy corridor within the Rawlins Field Office that are within the 

core area boundary, which is why it is included in the ROW restriction areas, all of the restrictions for these 

maps were clipped to the core area boundary that was developed by the State of Wyoming. The broad scale 

mapping is due to the allocation decisions concerning core habitat and therefore, the restriction includes all 

of the core habitat boundaries. Map 3-18/3-19: The map on 3-19 was developed by a model by the USGS 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-280 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

in order to map all of the breeding, nesting, brood rearing and wintering habitat of sage-grouse throughout 

Wyoming. Unfortunately some of the data sets that informed the model were more complete than others, 

meaning the WGFD has limited data on habitat types such as wintering. Unfortunately, because of the 

nature of a model this leads to inaccuracies in habitat designations. The map on 3-18 is based on known 

datasets which is why there is a discrepancy between the two maps. As WGFD and other entities collect 

seasonal habitat data over time the USGS model will become more accurate, unfortunately we are still 

collecting data on winter habitat use which is why this information is so limited at this time. Maps on the 

cumulative impact area are provided as part of the cumulative impact analysis in the Final EIS. This report 

analyzed the data from all of the LUP Amendments and revisions within WAFWA Management Zones I 

and II and is included in the Final EIS. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Other questions about document

Comment ID: 1487 

Organization: 

Name: Denise Langley 

Comment: What years or the proximity thereof are the BLM, USFWS and the FS using for a PreDisturbance Baseline inventory? The FS likes to state the historical baseline as the year 1999 or close 

proximity to that. I disagree with that assessment and like to refer to at least 70 years ago as a scientific 

basis within the TBNG. In the mid-1940’s there were 3 small prairie dog towns that were on private lands 

and the landowners managed to keep the rodents at a controlled size and in a specific area. Actual Historical 

Basis for monitoring should mean a much larger time line difference from the present day and as a solid 

basis for monitoring you will be able to compare more aerial photos for sagebrush vegetation and grouse 

habitat 

Comment ID: 1483 

Organization: 

Name: Denise Langley 

Comment: How does a pipeline have a negative effect on SG habitat if the construction is started after July 

1 and finished for grow back the following growing season? Does the pipeline construction be it water, gas 

or oil count against the 5% only during the year of construction—this is not specified. If there will be a 

forced year or two of nonuse by the lessee will there be a cost reduction in fees to the lessee and other grass 

available for use? Will the decrease be for just during the construction phase? Will the pasture be available 

for that winter or the following year? 

Comment ID: 1288 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Sage-grouse as a BLM "Special Status Species" is subject to protection under Manual 6840, the 

2004 Strategy, unnecessary and undue degradation provisions under FLPMA §302(b), and the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA,16 U.S.C. §1531, et seq.), and Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines for 

Surface-disturbing and Disruptive Activities among others. AEMA acknowledges that BLM recognizes the 

existence of Manual 6840 (Ch. 3 at 3-235), but BLM fails to discuss whether BLM has implemented the 

policy or whether conservation actions pursuant the policy have been tracked or whether they have been 

effective or not. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-281

Comment ID: 1840 

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Name: Shannon Anderson 

Comment: Third, your plan amendments must be fully enforceable. Reliance on best practices or voluntary 

management attributes is not enough. BLM and the Forest Service must have the staff in place to enforce 

this plan and the political will to make it happen. Specific best management practices must be identified 

and required as lease stipulations and conditions of approval for permitting, and permitting must stop if 

disturbance thresholds are reached. Please detail what management practices will be required and how BLM 

and the Forest Service will enforce this plan. 

Summary: BLM recognizes the existence of Manual 6840 (Ch. 3 at 3-235), but BLM fails to discuss 

whether BLM has implemented the policy for sage-grouse or whether conservation actions pursuant the 

policy have been tracked or whether they have been effective or not. Please detail what management 

practices will be required and how BLM and the Forest Service will enforce this plan. 1) Where are the 

sage-grouse winter areas, what are the conditions of these areas, and what impacts is grazing and energy 

development having on these areas; (2) in Pinedale, where are grazing and energy development adversely 

affecting sage-grouse habitat, how, in what respect, and what are the current conditions; and (3) how are 

grazing and energy development “synergistically interacting” to impact sage-grouse habitat within the 

Pinedale field office, as well as the Kemmerer and other neighboring field offices. How does a pipeline 

have a negative effect on SG habitat if the construction is started after July 1 and finished for grow back 

the following growing season? Does the pipeline construction be it water, gas or oil count against the 5% 

only during the year of construction—this is not specified. If there will be a forced year or two of nonuse 

by the lessee will there be a cost reduction in fees to the lessee and other grass available for use? Will the 

decrease be for just during the construction phase? Will the pasture be available for that winter or the 

following year? 

Response: The implementation of existing policies (the 6840 manual) regarding sage-grouse management 

is addressed in the analysis of the alternatives. All of the management actions outlined for each program 

area in this plan will be required upon completion of the ROD. Most of the sage-grouse winter areas 

throughout the State of Wyoming are currently being mapped by the WGFD, BLM and the Forest Service, 

therefore habitat conditions of these areas and the impacts of grazing and energy development have not 

been determined to date. BLM field offices such as Pinedale have been mapping these areas for the last 

several years, and are now in the process of collecting field data on the habitat conditions. Impacts to sagegrouse from pipelines and linear disturbances are described in Chapter 4.14. Any surface disturbing activity 

or removal of sagebrush habitat could impact sage-grouse. Areas where sagebrush has been removed will 

take more than one growing season to be reclaimed/restored, and will count against the 5% cap until such 

time that it is determined to be suitable sage-grouse habitat. The noise and human presence from any 

construction activities would be restricted during lekking or nesting/brood-rearing seasons, but sage-grouse 

using those habitats outside those restrictions may be forced to move to other habitat to avoid the 

construction activities.

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Tall structures and fences

Comment ID: 883 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-282 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Tri-State requests that the BLM acknowledge in the Final EIS/Final LUPA that additional 

research is required to better understand the impacts of overhead facilities and other aboveground structures 

on sage-grouse populations, encompassing the potential for increased predation from raptor perching, rightof-way avoidance, collision risk, and habitat fragmentation. There are very few peerreviewed, experimental 

studies designed specifically to evaluate the landscape effects of tall structures on sage-grouse according to 

a review conducted by Utah Wildlife in Need, a non-profit foundation working in cooperation with Utah 

Department of Natural Resources and Rocky Mountain Power (2010). The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan acknowledges that "there are few studies in peer-reviewed research that clearly address 

the impacts from overhead taller structures (such as raptor predation)". Despite this lack of information, the 

NTT report specifically identifies transmission lines as a significant threat to sage-grouse conservation. The 

significance of any impacts associated with transmission lines and their support structures are still unknown, 

and management recommendations in the revised Final LUPA/Final EIS should reflect this uncertainty. 

Comment ID: 101 

Organization: 

Name: Nancy Schultz 

Comment: The effects of structures, even fences are well documented. Above-ground power lines, 

communication towers, and other tall structures should be excluded from priority sage grouse areas to 

prevent the abandonment of important habitats; 

Comment ID: 885 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Another issue that would benefit from additional research is the incidence of GrSG collisions 

with power lines. Collision events with transmission lines do occur and can result in the death of individual 

grouse, but population-level impacts have not been studied. Research has shown that fences seem to be of 

greater collision concern for grouse species than do overhead power lines. Tri-State supports fence 

markings as a mitigation measure for sage grouse, and has actively implemented this mitigation measure 

where applicable. Tri-State requests that the Agencies' Final EIS and Final LUPA consider the results of 

more recent and prospective studies on GrSG and power lines, and in the future utilize the principles of 

adaptive management to revise the management direction and recommendations as additional information 

becomes available. The availability of the science to date does not provide sufficient information for land 

management agencies across the West to make educated decisions relative to sage-grouse responses to 

aboveground structures. This lack of data has resulted in and could continue to exacerbate agency decisions 

that are not only infeasible for the electric utility industry (e.g., burying power lines), but also are not 

structured to support grouse in the long term. Increased communication among all the stakeholders is 

encouraged in order to identify how this process to obtain the applicable data should move forward. 

Comment ID: 363 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Some conclusions of BLM analysis are misleading or downright erroneous. For example, BLM 

states that “Buffer distances between 0.25 mile and one mile from occupied leks could prevent perceived 

or actual threats to Greater Sage-Grouse from overhead predation from raptors or other predatory birds.” 

DEIS at 4-257. There are no published studies that indicate placement of a tall structure as close as 0.25 

mile from an active lek will prevent increases in avian predation. Indeed, scientific studies referenced 

elsewhere in these comments and indeed recounted in other BLM impacts analyses indicate the negative 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-283

effects from raptors using tall structure can extend for four miles or more into surrounding habitat from 

these structures. 

Comment ID: 2533 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Sage-grouse collisions with power lines are uncommon, possibly due to the low flight behavior 

of the species. The UWIN sage-grouse/tall structures literature review documented incidental reports of 

sagegrouse mortality from power line collisions, but did not find any studies reporting collision mortality 

at a population level (UWIN 2010). Despite long-term surveys to evaluate avian electrocution and collision 

risks of power lines in sagebrush habitats throughout the Intermountain West, no collisions of sagegrouse 

have been documented (PacifiCorp, unpublished data, 2001-2013). Because of the low risk of collision, 

large-scale power line marking in sagebrush habitats is not likely to provide a measurable conservation 

benefit. However, if collisions are documented on a particular section of line, appropriate line marking 

methods could be implemented as part of a company's APP. 

Comment ID: 2514 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Recent studies have used radio-telemetry to assess impacts of energy infrastructure on sagegrouse. LeBeau (2012) investigated the impacts of wind facilities and an associated transmission line in 

Wyoming, and Nonne et al. (2013) released a final report of a lO-year study of a transmission line in 

Nevada. The Nonne study is currently the only long-term study conducted that specifically evaluates 

potential impacts of a power line on sage-grouse. The LeBeau study indicated that habitat quality is a 

significant influencer of sage-grouse occupancy, regardless of the presence of a transmission lin e. Sagegrouse selected for nesting habitat closer to transmission lines at Simpson Ridge, where the lines have 

existed for over 10 years and are within quality habitat. Also, female survival in the study area was greatest 

at closer proximity to the transmission lines. In February 2013, Nonne et al. released the final progress 

report of a 10-year research study of sagegrouse near the Falcon-Gondor transmission line in central 

Nevada. This report noted correlations between annual plant production, related to annual climatic 

fluctuations, and sagegrouse survival, reproductive success, and population growth. Wildfire impacts on 

habitat also influenced the population. The report found "no negative effects on demographic rates (i.e., 

male survival and movement, female survival, pre-fledging chick survival, and nest surviva l) that could be 

explained by an individual's proximity to the transmission line." Messmer et al. (2013), summarizes 

stakeholder workshop results and a literature related to sagegrouse and tall structures. The paper concludes 

that there are no peer-reviewed, published papers that address sage-grouse interactions with power lines 

using experimental design. Preliminary studies of radiotagged sage-grouse in Utah, also conducted by Utah 

State University, do not support a power line avoidance theory. The 2013 proposed Bi-State sage-grouse 

listing decision continues to reiterate anecdotal information and opinion, and misrepresent information in 

cited literature concerning sage-grouse and tall structures. APLIC encourages the BLM to consider the 

UWIN (2010) literature review and 2013 update (Messmer et al. 2013), as well as Walters et al. (2014) and 

apply valid scientific data in its review of the literature related to sage-grouse and tall structures. 

Comment ID: 2532 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Sage-grouse collisions with power lines are uncommon, possibly due to the low flight behavior 

of the species. The UWIN sage-grouse/tall structures literature review documented incidental reports of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-284 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

sagegrouse mortality from power line collisions, but did not find any studies reporting collision mortality 

at a population level (UWIN 2010). Despite long-term surveys to evaluate avian electrocution and collision 

risks of power lines in sagebrush habitats throughout the Intermountain West, no collisions of sagegrouse 

have been documented (PacifiCorp, unpublished data, 2001-2013). Because of the low risk of collision, 

large-scale power line marking in sagebrush habitats is not likely to provide a measurable conservation 

benefit. However, if collisions are documented on a particular section of line, appropriate line marking 

methods could be implemented as part of a company's APP. 

Comment ID: 2513 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: In 2010, Utah Wildlife in Need (UWIN), in partnership with the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR), Rocky Mountain Power, and Utah State University (USU), conducted a literature 

review and held stakeholder workshops to identify existing science, document stakeholder concerns and 

research needs regarding sage-grouse and tall structures. UWIN found that, despite frequent references to 

tall structure impacts on sage-grouse, there were "no peer-reviewed, experimental studies designed 

specifically to evaluate the landscape effects of tall structures on sage-grouse." Rather, much of what has 

been cited is based on anecdotal information, opinion, or conclusions drawn from other grouse species in 

different habitats or with different energy industries. The stakeholder workshops identified a strong need 

for research to better understand the potential impacts of tall structures, and to identify appropriate and 

effective mitigation measures. The results of this UWIN effort, as well as a summary of literature related 

to sage-grouse and tall structures, were published by Messmer et al. (2013). Likewise, Walters et al. (2014) 

examined literature related to tall structures. They "did not detect any consistent response to tall structures" 

and did not find evidence to support the hypotheses that birds may respond negatively to novel tall structures 

on the landscape or that such structures pose an increased perceived predation risk. 

Summary: There are no published studies that indicate placement of a tall structure as close as 0.25 mile 

from an active lek will prevent increases in avian predation; buffer distances required are much larger, up 

to four miles. Above-ground power lines, communication towers, and other tall structures should be 

excluded from priority sage-grouse areas to prevent the abandonment of important habitats. Additional 

science should be included to support this. Sage-grouse collisions with power lines are uncommon, possibly 

due to the low flight behavior of the species. Additional science should be included to support this. Nonne 

et al. 2013 found "no negative effects on demographic rates (i.e., male survival and movement, female 

survival, pre-fledging chick survival, and nest survival) that could be explained by an individual's proximity 

to the transmission line. 

Response: The buffer distance for tall structures in addition to the other management in the LUP 

Amendments will provide habitat protection for sage-grouse populations and sage-grouse habitat. In 

November 2014 the USGS released Open-File Report 2014-1239 Conservation Buffer Disturbance 

Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review. There is science to show that sage-grouse will avoid areas 

with tall structures since most Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is void of tall trees where predatory avian 

species perch and hunt. Avoidance is greater in areas where surface disturbance has taken place and 

adequate cover habitat is not present (Hagen 2011). Sage-grouse collisions with powerlines do occur, 

especially in areas with variable terrain; however collisions with fences and guy-wires are more frequent. 

The available version of the Nonne et al. study from 2013 cautioned that “many of the results we presented 

have not been subjected to peer review and should be considered preliminary” and therefore not considered 

in the LUP Amendments.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-285

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Use, consider, include specific research in the document

Comment ID: 1174 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: In 2004, BLM published its National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (“Strategy”).2 

Among other commitments, this policy binds the BLM to “use the best available science and other relevant 

information to develop conservation efforts for sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats.”3 WWP has referenced 

a number of scientific studies, compiled in the Literature Cited section of these comments, which BLM 

must read and consider in order to meet its obligation to “use the best available science” including 

publications specifically mandated under the Strategy. 

Comment ID: 397 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Yates urges BLM to considered results of studies conducted by Ramey et al (2011) and Taylor 

et al (2007) in addressing the effects of oil and gas development on sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 263 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: we ask the BLM to gather each of the scientific articles referenced in the Literature Cited section 

of these comments, review them thoroughly and incorporate their findings into the EIS, and add them to 

the administrative record for this RMP revision. 

Comment ID: 316 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: There has been significant new information since the adoption of the 2013 Record of Decision 

on the Oil Shale – Tar Sands Programmatic EIS regarding the efficacy of State of Wyoming sage grouse 

conservation measures, in the form of the approval of the Lost Creek In-Situ Uranium Mine inside a 

designated sage grouse Core Area. This is significant new information not considered by BLM in its OSTS 

PEIS, and which renders invalid the BLM’s 2013 OSTS PEIS conclusion that state protocols for sage grouse 

protection could be relied upon to prevent significant impacts to sage grouse in the context of oil shale 

leasing and development. 

Comment ID: 1180 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service will consider the Policy for Evaluating Conservation Efforts 

(“PECE Policy”) as the yardstick to determine the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms when 

considering whether listing is warranted. Implementation must be certain and the proposed plan in question 

must be known to be effective. According to the PECE policy, “We will make this evaluation based on the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-286 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

certainty of implementing the conservation effort and the certainty that the effort will be effective.”5 The 

BLM must incorporate this certainty into the current planning effort. 

Comment ID: 2058 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM states that: ...Fragmentation causes a reduction in usable ranges and the isolation of 

smaller, less mobile species; a loss of genetic integrity within species or populations; and an increase in 

abundance of habitat generalists that are characteristic of disturbed environments (i.e., competitors, 

predators, and parasites) (Harris 1984)...(Ch.4 at 4-243, emphasis added) While the above statement may 

be true, the level of fragmentation which results in the adverse effects described by BLM varies widely 

among species; and it is inappropriate to assume that all fragmentation will result in adverse impacts to 

sage-grouse, especially in light of recent work conducted by Dr. Robert Zink which shows that genetic data 

do not support the population predictions cited in the NTT Report and the DLUPA/DEIS. Zink’s study, 

currently undergoing peer review, is the first study to link estimates of population trends with available 

genetic data and reveals that common genetic expectations of population reductions were not observed in 

the data.20 

Comment ID: 1177 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The BLM National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy is entitled “Guidance for the 

Management of Sagebrush Plant Communities for Sage-Grouse Conservation,” and hence is directly 

applicable to the instant planning area. The Strategy includes a host of enforceable limitations and 

requirements on livestock grazing to protect sagebrush habitats, and to maintain, enhance or restore 

sagebrush habitat, including: • Avoid constructing livestock management facilities (i.e., corrals, tanks, 

troughs, pipelines, fences, etc.) next to leks; • Design and locate the placement of fences for livestock . . . 

so as not to disturb important sagegrouse habitat areas; • Consider seasonal closures to protect priority sagegrouse habitat if other alternatives will not achieve desired objectives; • Use grazing practices that promote 

the growth and persistence of native shrubs, grasses and forbs needed by sage-grouse for seasonal food and 

concealment. . . Vegetation structure (height) should be managed so as to provide adequate cover for sagegrouse during the nesting period; • Maintain seeps, springs, wet meadows, and riparian vegetation in a 

functional and diverse condition for young sage-grouse; • Maintain sagebrush and understory diversity . . . 

adjacent to crucial season sage-grouse habitat unless removal is necessary to achieve sage-grouse habitat 

management objectives; 18 • Where other grazing management options are not achieving, or cannot 

achieve, the desired objectives, a short-term option may be livestock exclusion.4 These measures must be 

directly incorporated in the current plan for the DLUPA/DEIS to comply with the agency’s own regulation. 

Comment ID: 243

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We would ask the responsible official to consider the findings of Kirol (2012), which found for 

his study area immediately north of the planning area that surface disturbance greater than or equal to 4% 

of the land area had a significant negative impact on greater sage grouse brood rearing habitat. 

Comment ID: 655 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-287

Comment: The agencies have added a number of sage-grouse non-core mitigation measures for which no 

analysis is provided. The agencies do not analyze the reduced access or operational windows associated 

with these restrictions. The agencies have a duty as stewards of public lands to manage those lands on a 

multi-use basis and in accordance with sound science and information. Anadarko finds certain management 

stipulations, further outlined in the following comments, which are not based on sound science or facts and 

extend beyond necessary protections to the detriment of the potential recovery of public oil and gas 

resources. 

Comment ID: 356 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that BLM has inappropriately relied heavily on unpublished WGFD 

recommendations that have not passed peer review (Bohne et al. 2007) to inform its management of 

livestock grazing. See, e.g, DEIS at 3-240. Bohne et al. (2007) is not the best available science on the 

subject matter in question, and indeed is not itself science but a review of published science. Published 

articles (Gregg et al. 1994, Connelly et al. 2000a, Hagen et al. 2007, Kaczor 2008, Kaczor et al. 2011) 

recommend a minimum of at least 18 cm stubble height to provide cover for sage grouse, and these represent 

the best (indeed, only) available science on that subject. 

Comment ID: 541 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Current scientific information discussed herein establishes that sage-grouse populations in the 

planning area are not at as great a risk as once considered. This updated and crucial information must be 

incorporated in to the planning decisions and proposed mitigations of the Draft LUPA. 

Comment ID: 543 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Review of available lek count data and historical hunting harvest rates indicate sage-grouse 

populations are stabilizing and, in fact, are likely to increase in the future without further restriction on oil 

and gas activity and development. This is due to a combination of factors including: (1) the Wyoming Core 

Area Policy, (2) BMPs used by the oil and gas industry, and (3) changes in the management of hunter 

harvest rates as implemented since the mid-1990s, which are discussed in more detail below. The 

foundational study3 referenced in multiple locations throughout the Draft LUPA and supporting studies 

and information drawn from in developing the Draft LUPA predicting future decreasing population trends 

for sage-grouse is demonstrably flawed and fails to account for historical hunting harvest data. The agencies 

must recommend land management practices not derived from past flawed data, but on current more 

accurate data as presented herein. 

Comment ID: 544 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Anadarko suggests that historical sage-grouse population estimates developed by Garton et al. 

(2011) correlate with periods of potential overharvest as shown in Figure 2. Unfortunately upon review 

significant changes in hunting regulations which changed overall hunting related mortality from additive to 

compensatory was not considered in projecting future populations. Garton’s 2011 work presents a “static” 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-288 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

scenario whereby ecological pressures of the past are expected to remain stable throughout time. This 

assumption warrants significant caution in the reader’s interpretation of results and certainly the agencies 

should conservatively evaluate its applicability in management decisions. 

Comment ID: 398 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Yates urges BLM to considered results of studies conducted by Ramey et al (2011) and Taylor 

et al (2007) in addressing the effects of oil and gas development on sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 603 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Sage-grouse population modeling data relied upon in the Draft LUPA is inaccurate, raising 

concerns that the management decisions based on the modeling is overly burdensome and unreasonable 

given the actual facts.One important observation from the reported data is the low r2 values for bestfit 

models selected. Each of the models used has an r2 value less than 0.5, indicating per the authors that “Even 

the best stochastic growth models in our analyses did not explain 50% of the variation in annual rates of 

change.” Table 2 further demonstrates that sage-grouse population changes are not well-represented over 

the last two decades by a constant rate of decline curve. Table 2 compares sage-grouse males counted at 

leks in 2007 versus the estimated number of males as predicted by the statistical modeling exercise. 

Illustrative of the flaws of the Garton modeling that has been used to predict sage-grouse population 

viability, Table 2 shows that the modeled lek count value for the Wyoming Basin SMZ is 21,954 male sagegrouse in 2007, when in reality the actual count of sagegrouse males in 2007 was 42,429 – nearly twice as 

high as the modeled value. 

Comment ID: 1472 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: An agency has a duty to adequately ensure the professional and scientific integrity of the 

discussions and analyses in an EIS. See 40 CFR 1502.24. However, this DEIS relies on outdated data or 

methodologies and does not sufficiently quantify or detail information to support scientific and other impact 

analysis conclusions and discussions in the DEIS. In particular, the DEIS relies on incomplete information 

to make conclusions. Agencies must make clear if they lack complete information for the EIS. See 40 CFR 

1502.22. Where information is needed, agencies must obtain the information unless the means to obtain it 

are unknown or is prohibitively expensive to obtain. Id. At 1502.22(b). The final EIS should make this 

ambiguity clear in light of the duty to adequately disclose or describe the limitations, assumptions, and 

applicability of modeling or methodologies used in the EIS. See, e.g., Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 

1019, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005) 

Comment ID: 596 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The agencies imposing management structures and mitigation for the species must consider the 

data Anadarko presents here -- that simply combines published datasets in a format that should have been 

explored earlier by the FWS. Reliance solely on Garton et al. (2011) modeling conclusions renders 

arbitrary, scientifically erroneous, management decisions.. Forward looking projections based on that 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-289

modeling effort are predicated upon an assumption of decline constancy that correlates well with the 

significant pressures of past overharvest but which appear overly pessimistic in light of more recent changes 

in species harvest rates. The fundamental nature of the modeling exercise and assumptions it is built upon 

demand caution in its utilization as a tool by which management decisions should be based. 

Comment ID: 605 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: In summary, earlier scientific information based population predictions on a constant rate of 

decline that in retrospect is flawed. This constancy is represented in Figure 5 above, where the log linear 

decline curve of negative 3.4 percent as suggested by Garton et al (2011) is employed to project forward 

populations, hardwiring the population to go to extinction levels in the future. If historical decline rates 

have not been constant, then future rates of annual decline cannot be based on an assumption of a constant 

rate of decline over the previous 42-year period. Garton et al. (2011) recognized this limitation when they 

noted “Forecasting future viability requires the assumption that future conditions will continue the same 

trajectory or trend observed in the past. We reiterated this assumption repeatedly in our presentation of 

results.” The agencies have incorrectly relied on Garton et al. (2011) for modeled future population trends 

and fashioned mitigation measures to address supposed downward trends. See Draft LUPA at 4-489, 4-

492. With the information presented herein, the agencies should re-examine the necessary mitigation 

measures based on the updated information on sage-grouse populations. 

Comment ID: 396 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Other, more recent GSG research has been completed that is inconsistent with (or contradicts) 

several findings and conclusions contained within the studies relied upon by the BLM in the development 

of the Alternatives provided in the Draft LUPA and EIS. A review of recently conducted research evaluating 

the impact of oil and gas operations on GSG behavior and GSG habitat clearly indicates there is 

disagreement as to the extent of such impacts. Yates urges BLM to consider all sources and research in its 

analysis. 

Comment ID: 873 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 6. Taylor, R. L., J. D. Tack, D. E. Naugle, L. S. Mills. 2013. Combined effects of energy 

development and disease on greater sage-grouse. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71256. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071256. Available at 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071256. • The predicted 

cumulative impact of dense fluid minerals development (3.1 wells/km2) and West Nile virus outbreaks on 

greater sage-grouse quadrupled inactivity at leks in northeast Wyoming compared to the individual impacts 

of development or disease. Noting the deleterious effects of cumulative impacts on sage-grouse, the 

researchers concluded that "conservation measures should maintain sagebrush landscapes large and intact 

enough so that leks are not chronically reduced in size due to energy development, and therefore vulnerable 

to becoming inactive due to additional stressors." They also advised “placing new developments outside of 

core [habitat] areas has the greatest likelihood of sustaining [sage-grouse] populations.” 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-290 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 601 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Another critical set of data that must be considered is hunting harvest rates. Taking historical 

hunting harvest rates into account, the trends forward from 1995 may represent the best scientifically 

available data from which to make persistence projections. As indicated above on Figures 1a and 1b, this 

more recent data suggest that sage-grouse populations overall are relatively stable to increasing. In fact, the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (“WGFD”) has produced analyses that run counter to the Garton et 

al. (2011) projections. 

Comment ID: 874 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 7. Blickley, J. L., K. R. Word, A. H. Krakauer, J. L. Phillips, S. N. Sells, C. C. Taff, J. C. 

Wingfield, G. L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental chronic noise is related to elevated fecal corticosteroid 

metabolites in lekking male greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). PLoS ONE 7(11): e50462. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050462. • Anthropogenic noise from energy development and roads can cause 

greater sage-grouse to avoid otherwise suitable habitat and increase stress responses in birds that do remain, 

which could affect disease resistance, survival and reproductive success. The effects of noise from many 

common activities in the sagebrush biome significantly expands the human footprint on the landscape and 

impacts on sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1493 

Organization: Larson Livestock, Inc. 

Name: Carl Larson 

Comment: Predators – The Uinta County Predator Management Board, the Lincoln County Predator 

Management Board and the Predatory Animal District of Sweetwater County are cooperating in studies 

with Dr. Michael R. Conover and the Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan 

Utah. The purpose of these studies is to understand the relationship of predators to the Greater Sage-Grouse 

in southwestern Wyoming. Two published reports are available and we request these reports be included in 

the information used to complete your Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments (SGLUPA) and the EIS. 

These reports are as follows: 1. “GREATER SAGE-GROUSE SELECT NEST SITES TO AVOID 

VISUAL PREDATORS BUT NOT OLFACTORY PREDATORS” - Michael R. Conover, Jennifer S. 

Borgo, Rebekah E. Dritz, Jonathan B. Dinkins and David K. Dahlgren. 2. “GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

(CENTROCERCUS UROPHASIANUS) SELECT NEST SITES AND BROOD SITES AWAY FROM 

AVIAN PREDATORS” - Jonathan B. Dinkins, Michael R. Conover, Christopher P. Kirol and Jeffrey L. 

Beck. There was a report of another study which may be underway in the Big Horn Basin of northern 

Wyoming, and which we request also be a part of the information you use in your SGLUPA & EIS. This 

report was in the July 23, 2011 edition of the “Wyoming Livestock Roundup”. The article was called 

“Tracking Predators”. The first three paragraphs of the article state, “Beginning as a simple suggestion from 

area conservation districts, a Wildlife Services-led study in the Big Horn Basin looking at predators and 

sage grouse has now become a multi-agency effort with the potential to be a five-year project. Although 

the study just began last April, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) Northwest District Manager, Jim 

Pehringer says they’ve already collected a lot of information. The purpose of the project is to identify the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-291

major predators of sage grouse in every phase of the year, says Pehringer, adding that the study also assesses 

the affects of human impacts on sage grouse, as well as what habitats the birds prefer.” 

Comment ID: 875 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 8. Howe, K. B., P. S. Coates, D. J. Delehanty. 2014. Selection of anthropogenic features and 

vegetation characteristics by nesting Common Ravens in the sagebrush ecosystem. Condor 116: 35-49. • 

The proximity of transmission lines was, among other factors, predictive of nest location for common 

ravens in/near sagebrush steppe. The research supports other findings that transmission lines subsidize 

ravens, a predator of sage-grouse. 9. Arkle, R. S., D. S. Pilliod, S. E. Hanser, M. L. Brooks, J. C. Chambers, 

J. B. Grace, K. C. Knutson, D. A. Pyke, J. L. Welty, T. A. Wirth. 2014. Quantifying restoration effectiveness 

using multi-scale habitat models: implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin. Ecosphere 5(3): 1-32. 

Available at www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/ES13-00278.1. 

Comment ID: 872 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate.5. Copeland, H. E., A. Pocewicz, D. E. Naugle, T. Griffiths, D. Keinath, J. Evans, J. Platt. 2013. 

Measuring the effectiveness of conservation: a novel framework to quantify the benefits of sage-grouse 

conservation policy and easements in Wyoming. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67261. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067261. Available at 

www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone. 

0067261&representation=PDF. • Modeling indicates that the Wyoming sage-grouse core area conservation 

strategy, fully applied, plus $250 million invested in targeted conservation easements, would slow, but not 

stop projected sage-grouse population declines in the state. The Wyoming core area policy prohibits or 

restricts surface occupancy within 0.6 miles of sage-grouse leks, generally limits development to one site 

per 640 acres, and limits cumulative surface disturbance to 5 percent per 640 acres in core habitat. 

Comment ID: 871 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 4. Reisner, M. D., J. B. Grace, D. A. Pyke, P. S. Doescher. 2013. Conditions favouring Bromus 

tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, available at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12097/pdf. • Cattle grazing exacerbates cheatgrass 

(Bromus tectorum) dominance in sagebrush steppe by decreasing bunchgrass abundance, shifting and 

limiting bunchgrass composition, increasing gaps between perennial plants, and trampling biological soil 

crusts. Grazing was also not found to reduce cheatgrass cover, even at the highest grazing intensities. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-292 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 870 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 3. Patricelli, G. L., J. L. Blickley, S. L. Hooper. 2012. The impacts of noise on greater 

sagegrouse: a discussion of current management strategies in Wyoming with recommendations for further 

research and interim protections. Unpublished report. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 

Lander Field Office and Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne and Wyoming Game and Fish Department; 

available at http://www.wy.blm.gov/jiopapo/papo/wildlife/reports/sagegrouse/ 2012sgNoiseMon.pdf. • 

Maximum noise levels from land use and development allowed under the Wyoming state sagegrouse core 

area policy near sage-grouse leks and other habitat are untested, may be difficult to measure, and may be 

too high to support sage-grouse conservation within and outside core areas. 

Comment ID: 868 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 1. Beschta, R. L., D. L. Donahue, D. A. DellaSala, J. J. Rhodes, J. R. Karr, M. H. O'Brien, T. 

L. Fleischner, C. Deacon-Williams, Cindy. 2012. Adapting to climate change on western public lands: 

addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. Environmental Management, 

available at http://fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/PDFs/Beschta/ 

Beschta_2012EnvMan.pdf. • Domestic livestock and other ungulates alter vegetation, soils, hydrology, and 

wildlife species composition and abundances that exacerbate the effects of climate change on western 

landscapes. Removing or reducing livestock grazing across large areas of public land would alleviate a 

widely recognized and long-term stressor and make ecosystems less susceptible to the effects of climate 

change. 

Comment ID: 869 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: This effort should include consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse 

and sagebrush steppe. The following new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was 

published during preparation of the draft Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as 

appropriate. 2. Knick, S. T., S. E. Hanser, K. L. Preston. 2013. Modeling ecological minimum requirements 

for distribution of greater sage-grouse leks: implications for population connectivity across their western 

range, U.S.A. Ecology and Evolution, available at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.557/pdf. • Sage-grouse require sagebrush-dominated 

landscapes containing minimal levels of anthropogenic disturbance. Ninety-nine percent of remaining 

active sage-grouse leks were in landscapes with less than 3 percent disturbance within 5 km of the lek, and 

79 percent of the area within 5 km was in sagebrush cover. 

Comment ID: 641 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-293

Comment: Although CBNG development due to its localized nature throughout the range of sage-grouse is 

not a good indicator of range-wide gas development activities in the past or the foreseeable future, one area 

of Wyoming where this type of gas development was significant is the PRB. Hence, a detailed analysis of 

oil and gas activity as it relates to sage-grouse populations and lek persistence is warranted to clarify actual 

impacts from outdated assumptions. 

Comment ID: 454 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Defenders urges the BLM to adopt adequate conservation measures based on the best available 

science in the final plan to conserve sage-grouse and their habitat in Wyoming. This effort should include 

consideration of important, new information concerning sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe. The following 

new information related to sage-grouse and sagebrush steppe was published during preparation of the draft 

Wyoming plan and should be considered in the final plan, as appropriate. 1. Beschta, R. L., D. L. Donahue, 

D. A. DellaSala, J. J. Rhodes, J. R. Karr, M. H. O'Brien, T. L. Fleischner, C. Deacon-Williams, Cindy. 

2012. Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, 

wild, and feral ungulates. Environmental Management, available at 

http://fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/files/PDFs/Beschta/ 

Beschta_2012EnvMan.pdf. 2. Knick, S. T., S. E. Hanser, K. L. Preston. 2013. Modeling ecological 

minimum requirements for distribution of greater sage-grouse leks: implications for population 

connectivity across their western range, U.S.A. Ecology and Evolution, available at 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.557/pdf. 3. Patricelli, G. L., J. L. Blickley, S. L. Hooper. 

2012. The impacts of noise on greater sagegrouse: a discussion of current management strategies in 

Wyoming with recommendations for further research and interim protections. Unpublished report. Prepared 

for the Bureau of Land Management, Lander Field Office and Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne and 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department; available at http://www.wy.blm.gov/jiopapo/ 

papo/wildlife/reports/sagegrouse/ 2012sgNoiseMon.pdf. 4. Reisner, M. D., J. B. Grace, D. A. Pyke, P. S. 

Doescher. 2013. Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe 

ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-

2664.12097/pdf. 5. Copeland, H. E., A. Pocewicz, D. E. Naugle, T. Griffiths, D. Keinath, J. Evans, J. Platt. 

2013. Measuring the effectiveness of conservation: a novel framework to quantify the benefits of 

sagegrouse conservation policy and easements in Wyoming. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67261. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067261. Available at

www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone. 

0067261&representation=PDF. 6. Taylor, R. L., J. D. Tack, D. E. Naugle, L. S. Mills. 2013. Combined 

effects of energy development and disease on greater sage-grouse. PLoS ONE 8(8): e71256. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071256. Available at 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071256. 7. Blickley, J. L., K. 

R. Word, A. H. Krakauer, J. L. Phillips, S. N. Sells, C. C. Taff, J. C. Wingfield, G. L. Patricelli. 2012. 

Experimental chronic noise is related to elevated fecal corticosteroid metabolites in lekking male greater 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). PLoS ONE 7(11): e50462. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050462. 

8. Howe, K. B., P. S. Coates, D. J. Delehanty. 2014. Selection of anthropogenic features and vegetation 

characteristics by nesting Common Ravens in the sagebrush ecosystem. Condor 116: 35-49. 9. Arkle, R. 

S., D. S. Pilliod, S. E. Hanser, M. L. Brooks, J. C. Chambers, J. B. Grace, K. C. Knutson, D. A. Pyke, J. L. 

Welty, T. A. Wirth. 2014. Quantifying restoration effectiveness using multi-scale habitat models: 

implications for sage-grouse in the Great Basin. Ecosphere 5(3): 1-32. Available at 

www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/ES13-00278.1. 

Comment ID: 2586 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-294 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Greater Sage-Grouse, Chapter 4.14, Special Status Species Page 4-257 contains the following 

paragraph: Greater Sage-Grouse will avoid and abandon areas where overhead structures, such as power 

lines, occur due to the increased risk of predation from raptors; and are also at risk of collisions with 

vehicles, guy-wires, and fences (Walker et a1. 2007). Habitat that Greater Sage-Grouse use for leks is within 

elevated or flat grassland sites with few vertical obstructions, areas that are also prime lands for the 

installation of wind turbines (Strickland et a1. 201l). Although there is no conclusive evidence that wind 

energy developments cause reductions in Greater Sage-Grouse lek numbers, because the species is sensitive 

to disturbance and habitat fragmentation, there is a high likelihood that Greater Sage-Grouse would be 

impacted by wind energy development. First, there is no scientific support or citations to back up the claim 

that "there is a high likelihood that Greater Sage-Grouse would be impacted by wind energy development," 

which should be addressed in the Final LUPA/EIS or deleted. Second, as documented by Terry A. Messmer 

et al in Stakeholder Contemporary Knowledge Needs Regarding the Potential Effects o/Tall Structures on 

Sage-Grouse (Messmer et al. 2013) there are no peer-reviewed, experimental studies reported in the 

scientific literature that specifically document increased avoidance or predation on sage-grouse because of 

the construction, operation, and maintenance of tall structures, such as transmission lines or wind turbines; 

however, recent unpublished reports have begun to address this issue, A recent report (Nonne et al. 2013) 

from the University of Nevada at Reno discussed impacts to sage-grouse from the Falcon-Gondor 

transmission line in Nevada. Messmer et a1. (2013) summarizes the results of the study as follows: Nonne 

et al. (2013) reported the results of a study that used pre- and post-construction telemetry data to assess the 

potential impacts of a transmission line on sage-grouse populations. They conducted a 10-year study of 

sage-grouse dynamics in response to a transmission line in central Nevada and reported that habitat 

conditions had the greatest effect on sage-grouse nest and brood success and overall survival in their study 

areas than did proximity to the power line. The report found "no negative effects on demographic rates (i.e., 

male survival and movement, female survival, pre-fledging chick survival, and nest survival) that could be 

explained by an individual's proximity to the transmission line." They found no evidence that predation 

increased close to the line, as nest survival and female survival were similar across all distances evaluated 

(Nonne et a1. 2013). The role of micro-habitat structure and annual landscape-scale v3liatioD in weather 

in sage-grouse nest and brood site selection and nest and brood success in xeric habitats has also been 

reported by Coates and Delehanty (2010), Kirol et al. (2012), LeBeau (2012), Guttery et al. (2013), and 

Robinson and Messmer (2013). By not considering Messmer et a1. (2013) and Nonne et al. (2013), the 

Draft LUPNEIS fails to use best available scientific information. BLM also fails to consider and discuss 

opposing, responsible scientific views. For the Final LUPA/EIS, BLM must consider and incorporate all 

best available scientific information including Messmer et al. (2013) and Nonne et al. (2013). Third, as the 

BLM notes, "there is no conclusive evidence that wind energy developments cause reductions in Greater 

Sage-Grouse lek numbers." As we noted in our previous comments, neither has the BLM disclosed the 

relatively limited surface disturbance associated with wind projects. 111US the necessary data has not been 

presented that justify a management action of precluding or reducing wind turbines in habitats as outlined 

in Management Objectives for Alternatives D and E, page 2-14. 

Summary: Please use the scientific information, studies, protocols, strategy, and other documentation listed 

in the comment letters. 

Response: 2550: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Strategy bases the surface disturbance cap on 

using the DDCT to analyze existing surface disturbance. Kirol et al 2012 Microhabitat selection for nesting 

and brood-rearing by the Greater Sage-Grouse in xeric big sagebrush paper found that sage-grouse 

inhabiting xeric sagebrush habitats rely on sagebrush cover and grass structure for nesting as well as broodrearing and that at the microhabitat scale these structural characteristics may be more important than forb 

availability. Therefore, in xeric sagebrush, practices designed to increase forb production by markedly 

reducing sagebrush cover as a means to increase sage-grouse productivity, may not be justified. This study 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-295

was not designed to determine a disturbance cap in sage-grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat. 2551, 

2554 and 2557: We have included the most recent research in the administrative record. BLM and Forest 

Service used the best available science to prepare and analyze the LUP Amendments. Some 

science/information provided was published following the preparation or release of the LUP Amendments. 

The new information does not present a seriously different picture of the impacts, and/or that the 

information submitted/used in the Proposed LUP Amendments would not result in impacts that were not 

previously considered and analyzed within the spectrum of the alternatives in the Draft EIS. 2552: p 2-2 

and 2-3 address the Oil Shale PEIS and states that: "limit the scope of the decisions supported by the 

development of the PEIS to an allocation decision." This land use allocation does not authorize any future 

lease or development proposal. The current experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does 

not allow the LUP Amendments to include sufficient specific information or cumulative impact analyses 

to support future leasing decisions within these allocated lands. Accordingly, both the 2008 and 2013 Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands PEISs make clear that prior to any actual oil shale leasing, additional NEPA and other 

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

or to lease in particular areas with stipulations, such as stipulations precluding surface disturbance. 2553: 

The Chapter 4 special status species section for Greater Sage-Grouse has included the research results of 

the Connelly and Hagen papers in the analysis. The BLM believes that a better approach of addressing the 

stubble height issue is ensuring that the standards and guidelines under our rangeland management 

regulations as well as the new management actions using ESDs in our monitoring protocols is a better 

course of management than a one size fits all stubble height requirement on our rangelands across the State 

of Wyoming where we have varying rangelands conditions and moisture regimes that could accommodate 

such a stubble height regardless of the potential pressures of livestock grazing. 2558: The assessments of 

the population trends have been addressed by the WGFD and included in our Chapter 3 analysis. The 

function of this document is to address the new management actions regarding sage-grouse and analyze 

their impacts to current and future management on BLM/Forest Service lands. 2559, 2560, 2563, 2064: The 

population trend data is provided by the WGFD, wildlife management. The core area strategy takes into 

account current and future land management techniques that account not only for the conditions and amount 

of intact habitat across the landscape for future population changes as well as direct and indirect impacts to 

sage-grouse throughout their life history. The population trends as well as the current management situation 

has been taken into account by the State of Wyoming as well as the USFWS in the pending listing decision. 

2561, 2562, 2563, 2564: The WGFD and the USFWS are analyzing all components of risks to sagegrouse 

and population trends, not solely hunter harvest data; the largest component in the State of Wyoming is 

habitat loss and degradation. The lack of appropriate regulatory mechanisms in the BLM and Forest Service 

plans was effectively one of the most compelling reasons under the ESA listing requirements to consider 

Greater Sage-Grouse for listing under the ESA. The BLM and Forest Service have no authority to regulate 

hunting seasons or set hunting numbers, this is strictly a function of each state.The information is still valid 

to cite despite that the measures in this plan are projected to change those outcomes because they haven't 

been fully implemented on federal lands. These models and research cited represent the current conditions 

on a landscape basis and are projecting the population levels within the Management Zone. 2565: This plan 

does analyze the impacts of oil and gas development, we have provided the RFD for conventional oil and 

gas development in table 2-3 and analyzed this information in Chapter 4. This project area does have limited 

CBM potential but the analysis does not overshadow that of the conventional oil and gas development. The 

Powder River Basin CBM development and the impacts to this project area will be further analyzed in the 

cumulative impacts report that will be available in the Final EIS. 2566: p 4- 104 through 112 of the minerals 

and energy section does analyze the impacts of management actions that are applied to general habitat 

within this plan. 2572, 2574: The BLM complied with these regulations in describing the affected 

environment. The requisite level of information necessary to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives 

in an EIS is based on the scope and nature of the proposed decision. The affected environment provided in 

Chapter 3 and various appendices in the Draft EIS is sufficient to support, at the general land use planninglevel of analysis, the environmental impact analysis resulting from management actions presented in the 

LUP Amendments/EIS. The analysis of economic impacts of management alternatives through effects on 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-296 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the oil and gas industry is based on projected development over the planning horizon, not on the baseline 

data used. The baseline data serves as a reference for the relative magnitude of impacts and BLM and Forest 

Service do not expect the difference in impacts across alternatives to be meaningfully altered by updating 

the baseline. 2576: The management action in the Preferred Alternative E contain these themes in the 

livestock grazing management sections MAs 44-54 and the Riparian Management section MAs 55-57. 

2577: The USFWS is a cooperator on this plan and has been reviewing and providing input on the 

management actions and the certainty of the implementation of these management actions throughout the 

development of the Draft EIS and now the Final EIS. 2580: The CEQ regulations require an environmental 

impact statement to "succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the 

alternatives under consideration. The description shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the 

effects of the alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement shall be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall 

avoid useless bulk in statements and shall concentrate effort and attention on important issues" (40 CFR 

1502.15). Additionally, this EIS is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its 

habitat across a broad geographic area. The BLM and the Forest Service described the current conditions 

and trends in the affected environment broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate to programlevel 

land use planning actions. The BLM has done the comparative analysis required by the CEQ by analyzing 

all alternatives against the baseline Alternative A. In order to comply with the CEQ guidance to avoid 

useless bulk analysis may reference back to analysis already described for previous alternatives rather than 

repeat the same analysis and add additional bulk to the document (e.g., Alternative E impacts are similar to 

Alternative B). The BLM and the Forest Service gathered the necessary data essential to make a reasoned 

choice among the alternatives analyzed in detail in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, and provided an 

adequate analysis that led to an adequate disclosure of the potential environmental consequences of the 

alternatives in Chapter 4. As a result, the BLM and the Forest Service have taken a "hard look," as required 

by the NEPA, at the environmental consequences of the alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS to enable the decision maker to make an informed decision. Finally, the BLM and the Forest Service 

have made a reasonable effort to collect and analyze all available data. Absolutely essential habitat areas 

were identified in the Wyoming Governor's Core Area strategy as core habitat areas. Further identifications 

included connectivity and general habitat areas. 

Sage-grouse

Best available information-baseline data

Wild horses are compatible with sage-grouse

Comment ID: 94 

Organization: 

Name: Kay Lightner 

Comment: Further, this does not mean this is an excuse for the BLM to round up the wild horses and burros 

-- they are not the problem. Commercial use and petroleum ventures are the culprits. 

Comment ID: 85 

Organization: 

Name: Elizabeth Watts 

Comment: Please also know that wild horses and burros can live in harmony with these birds, so please do 

not allow support for the birds negatively impact the wild horses. 

Comment ID: 51 

Organization: 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-297

Name: Cheryl Sloan 

Comment: PLEASE NOTE...WILD HORSES AND SAGE GROUSE HAVE LIVED TOGETHER FOR 

CENTURIES..HOWEVER YOU MIGHT CHECK FOR CATTLE... AND PEOPLE...AN OBVIOUS 

ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT. 

Comment ID: 2759 

Organization: 

Name: Carol Kyer 

Comment: Stop round ups now and forever, stop selling our wild horse to kill buyers, stop letting cattle 

graze on public land. Let the ranchers feed their own cattle on their own land and pay property tax like the 

rest of us have to. If the horse is a problem as you say it is for the grouse ( a lie ) well then the cattle that 

out number the horse 50 to 1 will even do more damage to the grouse than the horse has , as you and the 

cattle ranchers say is being done, but I am not buying it! If that were even near true, then why are grouse 

still here today thriving and hunters kill them by the 1000's???! Stop destroying our wild mustangs and get 

the cattle ranchers and cattle out of our parks! 

Comment ID: 2786 

Organization: 

Name: peggy conroy 

Comment: Rounding up the few wild horses left who are bothering nobody by your big moneyed corporate 

puppeteers, will do nothing to help the grouse. Taking livestock off the land will. Getting the drilling/mining 

interests off our public lands will. getting developers (desecrators) off out public lands will. 

Summary: Wild horses and burros are not the problem; they can live together in harmony with sage-grouse 

and have been for centuries. 

Response: Wild horses are not listed within any management zone as a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse, nor 

are they present throughout the planning area in large enough numbers to be considered an issue to sagegrouse habitat. Management actions in the LUP are included for wild horses as a safeguard to ensure that 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat is protected from any major disturbances. 

Sage-grouse

Cumulative impact analysis

Comments on cumulative impacts

Comment ID: 355 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that the BLM and Forest Service have not fully considered the cumulative 

impact of exurban development on adjoining private lands, which might combine with impacts of permitted 

activities on federal lands to extirpate sage grouse breeding populations. Please provide analysis of private 

lands that meet or exceed the 4 person per km2 and 25 persons per km2 countywide thresholds that are 

inside Priority or General Habitats and in proximity to federal lands, and analyze the cumulative impacts 

that exurban development may have under each alternative when combined with reasonably foreseeable 

consumptive uses on nearby federal lands. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-298 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2541 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: APLIC is concerned that this LUP revision does not adequately consider neighboring states in 

its planning process. The proposed Gateway South transmission line originates in Wyoming, crosses 

through northwest Colorado, and terminates in Utah. APLIC requests that BLM consider how decisions 

made for this LUP would affect those decisions in neighboring states. For example, BLM should consider 

that if the proposed avoidance and exclusion areas in Wyoming require shifting, this may affect the routing 

efforts that have taken place between the agencies and electric utility companies in Utah and Colorado. 

Additionally, APLIC requests that the routes proposed in our Gateway South Draft EIS be considered 

existing/planned actions and exempt from the decisions made in the LUP Amendment. 

Comment ID: 1314 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS fails to sufficiently look outside of the planning area for cumulative impacts. 

The BLM’s National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy calls for a regional analysis, and the 

DLUPA/DEIS should have looked outside of the RMP area in the cumulative impacts discussion. See WWP 

v Salazar, No. 04.08-cv-516-BLW (D. Idaho September 28, 2011). 

Comment ID: 1315 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS fails to consider the number of roads and the extent of vertical structures 

relating to livestock grazing operations that pose threats to GRSG, and no reductions in these impacts are 

proposed under any of the management alternatives. See Manier et al 2013, Howe et al. 2013. The failure 

to analyze the impacts of roads and livestock-related traffic on sage-grouse leks is just one of the failures 

to take a hard look at cumulative impacts of this activity. In particular, the effect of early morning traffic 

near lek sites for livestock water hauling, sheep trucking operations, supplemental feeding, etc. should have 

been analyzed. Additionally, the presence of vertical structures increases the likelihood of nesting by 

ravens, which also increases the problem of raven predation on sagegrouse. Id. An analysis of this 

cumulative impact of transmission lines in sage-grouse habitat is necessary, and the buffer zone overlays 

for utility impacts must consider these linear features. The DLUPA/DEIS specifies a limit on surface 

structures related to nonenergy leasables (mining) and requires a buffer around leks, but the DLUPA/DEIS 

does not apply these limits to livestock developments or analyze the existing windmills, powerlines, fence 

posts, corrals, handling chutes, or other livestock related insfrastructure throughout the planning area inside 

and outside of core. 

Comment ID: 3082 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: BLM concludes that (DEIS at 4-491): Habitat conservation through regional efforts, threat 

reduction as identified in the Greater Sage- Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives 

Final Report (USFWS 2013), and management proposed in this amendment (including the Wyoming Core 

Area Strategy) could help prevent or reduce habitat fragmentation and habitat loss. Alternative C would 

provide the greatest protection of habitat, followed by Alternative B. Alternatives A, D, E vary in 

protections, although Alternative A protects the smallest acres of habitat of the three, with D and E 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-299

comparatively close in acres protected from surface disturbance among resources. The assertion that various 

efforts “could help prevent or reduce habitat loss” falls far short of the regulatory certainty needed to avoid 

a listing or meet recovery goals and objectives. This broad language violates NEPA and establishes the 

inadequacy of the cumulative impacts analysis. The cumulative impacts section lacks any analysis of how 

the cumulative impacts of the massive list of pending projects could impact the greater sage-grouse, its 

habitat, and recovery efforts. Landscape context planning for this landscape scale species will create 

resiliency as habitat and species respond and adapt to climate change, which is expected to increase 

ecosystem vulnerability. BLM needs to better incorporate recommendations from large-scale regional 

planning and assessments by ensuring that conservation measures will advance regional conservation and 

rangewide recovery. The Wyoming Basin Rapid Ecological Assessment should be considered in the 

FEIS/LUPA and integrated into management decisions. 

Comment ID: 3104 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: NSO designations relied on by the current preferred alternative fail to provide the requisite 

regulatory certainty. (DEIS at 4-489). This broad brush analysis is helpful regarding the broad 

generalizations, but says next to nothing about specific impacts by field office, watershed, or core area. It 

offers no concrete examples – let alone a comprehensive discussion -- of specific threats and anticipated 

impacts from linear and other disturbances (such as transmission lines or oil and gas fields) that don’t end 

at state lines. This analysis suffers from a lack of recognition of the limitation of NSO designations or the 

biological imperatives of effective sage-grouse conservation. It appears to assume that NSO means NSO, 

although that designation is subject to waivers, exceptions and modifications. The small NSO parcels 

proposed in Alternative E will not prevent fragmentation, and proposals to rely on NSO for blocks of habitat 

too large to be developed from outside the NSO area create rights that will be difficult if not impossible to 

exercise without NSO waivers. The ability to grant waivers, exceptions and modifications reduces 

regulatory certainty. 

Comment ID: 3077 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: BLM needs to improve its cumulative impacts analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative 

impacts to sage-grouse conservation. Conservation actions need to be coordinated with other RMPs and 

jurisdictions both within Wyoming and across state borders. The agencies need to ensure that decisions 

provide for coordinating conservation activities across the state and the Rocky Mountain Region. Many of 

the delineated core areas extend across Field Office, Forest, Grasslands, and State boundaries. 

Comment ID: 3081 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The DEIS (at 4-489) lacks any analysis to support its assertion that seasonal restrictions will 

slow rates of adverse impacts, or whether or why that would matter for habitat over the long run if all wells 

are eventually drilled. It acknowledges that the restrictions will not prevent additional habitat destruction. 

Comment ID: 3103 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-300 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The DEIS (at 4-490) notes that “Required design features in Appendix B of this document 

describe the management that would be required to reduce or prevent the introduction and spread of West 

Nile virus.” It is incumbent on the cumulative impacts section to address the efficacy of these design 

features, whether they can actually prevent or only reduce West Nile risks, and whether and how the greater 

protections in the conservation alternatives can be expected to alleviate this threat. Experience, science, and 

common sense dictate that all alternatives are not equal. Under Alternatives A, D, and E: more lands will 

be open for development, and more overall development is forecast. How does this correspond to the risk 

of significant and cumulative impacts from West Nile virus? 

Comment ID: 3107 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Regarding Conversion to Agriculture, the cumulative impacts analysis appears to be a 

submission from the Powder River Basin portion of the planning area and Management Zone. DEIS at 4-

490. The FEIS should analyze all lands within the planning area, and threats from outside if they might 

impact populations and habitat within the planning area. Within the Powder River Basin portion of MZ I, 

the threat from conversion to agriculture is not a major management concern and is not addressed in the 

RMP and LRMP amendments. There is no management variation other than restriction to surface disturbing 

activities in proximity to leks that would apply to this threat. 

Summary: Comments that the cumulative impact is inadequate: it does not consider neighboring states, the 

analysis is too broad, lacks regulatory certainty, and the analysis is not conclusive. Specific requests to 

consider the impacts of exurban development, livestock grazing, energy development and infrastructure, 

West Nile virus, predators, roads, and conversion to agriculture. 

Response: The cumulative impact analysis has been updated in the Final EIS. Cumulative data and maps 

have been added and the analysis has been expanded to include greater detail of recommendations provided 

by the commenters. Some data requested is not available or quantifiable. The BLM determined that the 

appropriate geographic scope for the cumulative impacts analysis was the WAFWA Management Zone. 

Neighboring states were considered in the analysis, where appropriate. 

Sage-grouse

DDCT

Inconsistencies, issues with DDCT

Comment ID: 1573 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Scientific research has determined that one energy site per square mile is the density threshold 

at which significant impacts to sage-grouse populations begin to be measured (Copeland et al. 2013). Tack 

(2009) found that this study in Montana’s Milk River Basin, well densities of one per square mile also we 

correlated with a very low probability of a lek being large (see Figure 9, p. 43). The analysis of Copeland 

et al. (2013) found that a statewide analysis of well densities revealed population decline curves very close 

to the earlier studies by Holloran (2005), but also noted that a 1 wellpad per square mile density of 

development correlated to approximately 18% decline in sage grouse lek population (see Figure 4). So one 

wellpad per square mile definitely is not a zero-impact threshold. In accordance with these findings, the 

Wyoming Core Area strategies set a limit of one energy development site per square mile in core habitat, 

but use a Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool (“DDCT”) to generate the well density figure. This is also 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-301

reflected in Alternatives D and E. The same DDCT area used to determine a project’s disturbance limit is 

also used to calculate the density of sites (e.g., number of wellsites) that may be developed per square mile. 

But the DDCT only calculates site density per square mile, rather than capping density at one site per 

squaremile of land. In cases where the DDCT area is very large, the Core Area strategies may allow more 

than one well or mine site to be developed in a given square mile as long as the surrounding Core Area 

lands are relatively free from other development disturbance. This can result in a density of well sites that 

exceeds science-based thresholds at which significant impacts to sage grouse inhabiting the habitat in 

question begin to occur. By contrast, all available science that has evaluated impacts of well density on sage 

grouse has done so on a per-square-mile basis, and not one has ever evaluated the impact when calculating 

disturbance using the DDCT or any method similar to it. If BLM has published science that supports a well 

pad density or disturbance percentage that is based on a DDCT or similar are, please produce this in the 

Final EIS. There is at present no scientific basis for thresholds of well density and their effect on sage grouse 

using a DDCT calculation. Even well densities less than one per square mile can have a negative effect on 

sage grouse. According to Taylor et al. (2012: 28, emphasis added), “Two scenarios include decisions on 

whether to develop a landscape from 0 to 4 wells per section (0 to 1.5 wells/km2), and then from 4 to 8 

wells per section (1.5 wells/km 2 to 3.1 wells/km 2 ). In both cases, the total northeast Wyoming lek count 

decreased by ~ 37% (1- 2,876/4,537 and 1- 1,768/2,876, Table 3), leaving only 39% of the original number 

of males on leks (1,768/4,537, Table 3) when development reached 8 wells per section (80 ac spacing).” 

Comment ID: 421 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: A major discrepancy between Alternatives B and E, and EO 2011-5 is use of the language “the 

core landscape” (Alternative E), “total sage-grouse habitat” (Alternative B) and “suitable sage-grouse 

habitat” (EO 2011-5). EO 2011-5 establishes a process for application of the density of disturbance 

stipulation (i.e. 5% surface disturbance per 640 acres) that is applied only to suitable sage-grouse habitat; 

acres of development in “unsuitable habitat” are not considered disturbance acres. On the other hand, 

Alternative E appears to apply the density of disturbance stipulation to all habitat within the “core 

landscape.” How BLM defines core landscape and applies the DDCT process is not clearly defined in 

Appendix I. As currently written, Alternative E would potentially include both suitable and unsuitable GSG 

habitat in the 5% disturbance calculation. This application is scientifically flawed because it will potentially 

result in the protection of sagebrush habitat that is unsuitable GSG habitat – not all sagebrush habitat is 

suitable GSG habitat. As a result, well locations will be unnecessarily restricted by the presence of 

unsuitable GSG habitat in the area, and such a restriction will not provide additional benefits to GSG 

populations. As such, Yates requests the BLM modify this density of disturbance stipulation such that it is 

consistent with EO 2011-5 (i.e. change “core landscape” to “suitable GSG habitat”). This will help ensure 

that only sagebrush habitat determined to be suitable GSG habitat will be considered in the density of 

disturbance calculation. Alternative E is otherwise consistent with EO 2011-5 in that the surface disturbance 

stipulation is a cap of 5% disturbance per 640 acres within the DDCT analysis area and that this stipulation 

is restricted to GSG Core Population Areas. Yates supports GSG density and disturbance stipulations within 

core habitat areas consistent with EO 2011-5. 

Comment ID: 2554 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: BLM must explain the order in which applications (ROW, APD, etc.) and surface disturbing 

uses will be approved and prioritized, as well as managed within the surface disturbance cap. In order to 

reasonably conduct ongoing NEPA processes, BLM must hold disturbance cap space (sufficient for their 

implementation) available for long-running processes, particularly ROW applications that have been filed 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-302 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and where NEPA is underway. If not, projects that have been designed to fit within the available disturbance 

limitations (under a particular zone's cap) could find that their disturbance can no longer be accommodated 

(under the cap) once BLM is ready to issue a decision at the end of the NEPA process. This is particularly 

the case for complex projects such as Gateway South. This type of "cap erosion" would further delay (or 

entirely prohibit) larger and more complex projects, and must be avoided. 

Comment ID: 512 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Name: John Hay III 

Comment: Since its adoption in 2008, RSGA has witnessed seen the application of DDCT and concludes 

that it is too complex and difficult to apply. The examples below demonstrate the need for the DEIS to fully 

disclose the impacts of DDCT on valid existing rights and land uses. The DEIS omits these impacts entirely 

due to the cited unknowns about the DDCT. Example #1. A reclaimed area is still included in the DDCT 

on the basis that it was seeded with crested wheatgrass. While it is not a native grass and scores zero for 

rangeland species analysis under NRCS guidelines, it provides excellent wildlife habitat and useful winter 

forage for livestock. Therefore in the context of sage grouse habitat, BLM erred in giving it a zero score. 

Example #2. There is a lot of confusion as to what qualifies as disturbance. Recently, BLM treats livestock 

trailing as disturbance even though it is a temporary use of public land. Example #3. In counting the 

disturbance for transmission lines, the DEIS analysis assumes no impact on habitat or DDCT because it is 

built within the right-of-way. For instance the Gateway West Transmission line ROD was recently signed 

without addressing the DDCT calculation. The FEIS assumed no direct impact on sage grouse core because 

the right-of-way itself was not in core habitat. The company however must build roads adjacent to the 

transmission line outside the rightof- way but in core habitat. These roads will likely exceed DDCT. This 

is also true for other planned transmission lines. 

Comment ID: 2055 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: In addition, it is unclear whether the proposal to limit disturbance within core habitat to three 

disturbances per 640 acres is supported by science or is arbitrary. BLM must provide a citation in support 

of this restriction, or it must be removed from consideration. 

Comment ID: 245 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM argues that the 5% DDCT limit on surface disturbance corresponds to 2-3% surface 

disturbance using the Knick et al. (2013) protocol. This is a false assertion. Knick et al. (2013) measured 

disturbance across an area much smaller than a DDCT area, which can exceed 225 square miles based on 

BLM analysis of the Lost Creek uranium project. See Attachment 88. Therefore, 5% surface disturbance 

as measured across a DDCT area is an even higher percentage of surface disturbance when calculated using 

the Knick et al. protocol. 

Comment ID: 2061 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Moreover, the USGS Report indicates that habitat fragmentation “generally begins to have 

significant effects on wildlife when suitable habitat becomes less than 30 to 50 percent of the landscape” 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-303

(USGS Report at 26), which directly contradicts the threshold stating that 70% of the landscape must be 

suitable habitat in order for the sage-grouse to persist, as required under Alternatives B (Ch.2 at 2- 13). In 

addition, the BLM fails to show how the goal of 70% sagebrush cover in priority habitat and the 3% 

disturbance cap are necessary, reasonable, and achievable, or how they would actually benefit sage-grouse 

and not result in unintended adverse consequences to sage-grouse or other species. AEMA contends that 

the habitat disturbance thresholds proposed throughout the DLUPA/DEIS (3% Alternatives B and C; 9% 

Alternative D; and 5% Alternative E) are not scientifically supported, and are based on opinions and invalid 

assumptions that temporary displacement of sage-grouse in a developed area equates to a population 

decline, or that sage-grouse avoidance of an area equates to a population decline. 

Comment ID: 1608 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The Lost Creek Uranium In Situ Recovery Project exemplifies how development can exceed 

disturbance and density limits under the DDCT. The 4,254-acre permit area is located inside a Core Area, 

and it intersects the 4-mile buffers of 15 sage-grouse leks. 4 The DDCT area for this project is 147,060 

acres, almost 230 square miles. If this were a hypothetical oil and gas project with the same 147,060-acre 

DDCT area, 229 wells would be allowed in the 4,254-acre permit area, for a density of 34.4 well sites per 

square mile within the permit area. Within the actual Calculations derived from data presented in the Lost 

Creek In Situ Recovery Project Final EIS at ES-2, 4.9-8, 4.9- 27, and Appendix D. perimeter of 

development, well site density will exceed 50 wells per half-section, or 100 well sites per square mile. This 

extreme density would destroy habitat function for sage-grouse locally, even though well density for the 

DDCT area would still be within the one well per square-mile limit in the Core Area strategies. In the case 

of the Lost Creek project, the extra-large DDCT area allowed intense development within the permit area. 

The project expects to disturb (i.e., bulldoze) 345 acres, which, when combined with preexisting 

disturbance, amounts to less than one percent for the DDCT area, but when compared to the 4,254-acre 

permit area, would yield 8.1 percent disturbance, far above the limit in the state and federal Core Area 

strategies. Note that virtually all development in this project will be along the ore trend (shown in 

Attachment 88), meaning that the actual density within the developed portion of the Permit Area will be 

much greater than 8.1%. The DDCT area for this project, by contrast, totals 147,060 acres (see Attachment 

88), yielding a percent disturbance of less than 1% when considering the existing and proposed disturbance. 

The 345- acre development area also violates the strategies’ limitation on site density. The DDCT assumes 

individual development sites (like oil and gas wells) will only each affect 4-5 acres. But for this project, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has classified the entire 4,254-acre development area as a 

single “site,” which, although it meets the one site per square mile requirement in the Core Area strategies, 

will eliminate half of a square mile section of directly bulldozed land within the 4,254-acre project area 

where it is located, and certainly have deleterious effects on sage-grouse for miles around. The Wyoming 

RMP Amendment needs to be crafted to prevent this type of monkey business 

Comment ID: 279 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In the case of the Lost Creek project, the extra-large DDCT area allowed intense development 

within the permit area. The project expects to disturb (i.e., bulldoze) 345 acres, which, when combined with 

preexisting disturbance, amounts to less than one percent for the DDCT area, but when compared to the 

4,254-acre permit area, would yield 8.1 percent disturbance, far above the limit in the state and federal Core 

Area strategies. Note that virtually all development in this project will be along the ore trend (shown in 

Attachment 88), meaning that the actual density within the developed portion of the Permit Area will be 

much greater than 8.1%. The DDCT area for this project, by contrast, totals 147,060 acres (see Attachment 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-304 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

88), yielding a percent disturbance of less than 1% when considering the existing and proposed disturbance. 

The 345- acre development area also violates the strategies’ limitation on site density. The DDCT assumes 

individual development sites (like oil and gas wells) will only each affect 4-5 acres. But for this project, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has classified the entire 4,254-acre development area as a 

single “site,” which, although it meets the one site per square mile requirement in the Core Area strategies, 

will eliminate half of a square mile section of directly bulldozed land within the 4,254-acre project area 

where it is located, and certainly have deleterious effects on sage-grouse for miles around. The Wyoming 

RMP Amendment needs to be crafted to prevent this type of monkeybusiness. 

Comment ID: 511 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Name: John Hay III 

Comment: The DEIS fails to provide any information regarding operation of DDCT. Appendix I consists 

of one page and the DEIS does not address resolution of conflicts between pipelines or transmission lines 

and oil and gas fields. 

Comment ID: 242 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We would ask the Forest Service to consider the findings of Knick et al. (2013), which concluded 

in relevant part that 99% of the active leks in the study area (encompassing the entire western range of the 

greater sage grouse) were surround by habitat with 3% surface disturbance or less. See Attachment 1. 

Comment ID: 1376 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Page 4-466 provides a very interesting insight into the disturbance calculations. For the NPL 

project the BLM is proposing 3500 new wells to be drilled within that project area and yet the disturbance 

calculation results in only 4.7%. So here you have an intensely developed oil and gas field that like the 

PAPA and Jonah Fields which have nearly eliminated sage grouse, under the proposed disturbance 

calculations would be permitted. Clearly if this level of development does not trigger the disturbance cap, 

it will not provide sage grouse anything than further declines. If the BLM wanted to be honest it could 

analyze the disturbance calculations of areas in which sage grouse have been researched and comparing 

those densities with sage grouse population dynamics to provide some rational basis for its disturbance cap 

but it has refused to do this basic analysis. As such the EIS is flawed. 

Comment ID: 1338 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Nowhere within the EIS is there any scientific discussion on the impacts to sage grouse 

populations and habitat from the 3 and 5% disturbance caps. We also note that the DEIS stats that the 3% 

cap actually is equivalent to the 5% cap proposed because of different methods of calculations, but no 

details were provided that would allow for an analysis of the veracity of the statement. 

Comment ID: 551 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-305

Comment: The Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) exposes its flaws almost 

immediately....First, and most obviously, project proponents will prefer areas that have the least amount of 

disturbance. If an existing project uses the allotted disturbance acreage, other project proponents will 

necessarily need to look to lesser or completely undisturbed areas. Even if an extremely small portion of 

one examination area overlaps with another, and the disturbance in one area is already breaching the 5% 

threshold, then the new project proponent must move the project to another area. Incidentally, the DDCT 

method actually promotes sprawling development and habitat fragmentation. Further, certain resources may 

remain undeveloped and the local economies will suffer the consequences. 

Comment ID: 1575 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The Lost Creek Uranium In Situ Recovery Project exemplifies how development can exceed 

disturbance and density limits under the DDCT. The 4,254-acre permit area is located inside a Core Area, 

and it intersects the 4-mile buffers of 15 sage-grouse leks. 4 The DDCT area for this project is 147,060 

acres, almost 230 square miles. If this were a hypothetical oil and gas project with the same 147,060-acre 

DDCT area, 229 wells would be allowed in the 4,254-acre permit area, for a density of 34.4 well sites per 

square mile within the permit area. Within the actual Calculations derived from data presented in the Lost 

Creek In Situ Recovery Project Final EIS at ES-2, 4.9-8, 4.9- 27, and Appendix D. perimeter of 

development, well site density will exceed 50 wells per half-section, or 100 well sites per square mile. This 

extreme density would destroy habitat function for sage-grouse locally, even though well density for the 

DDCT area would still be within the one well per square-mile limit in the Core Area strategies. In the case 

of the Lost Creek project, the extra-large DDCT area allowed intense development within the permit area. 

The project expects to disturb (i.e., bulldoze) 345 acres, which, when combined with preexisting 

disturbance, amounts to less than one percent for the DDCT area, but when compared to the 4,254-acre 

permit area, would yield 8.1 percent disturbance, far above the limit in the state and federal Core Area 

strategies. Note that virtually all development in this project will be along the ore trend (shown in 

Attachment 88), meaning that the actual density within the developed portion of the Permit Area will be 

much greater than 8.1%. The DDCT area for this project, by contrast, totals 147,060 acres (see Attachment 

88), yielding a percent disturbance of less than 1% when considering the existing and proposed disturbance. 

The 345- acre development area also violates the strategies’ limitation on site density. The DDCT assumes

individual development sites (like oil and gas wells) will only each affect 4-5 acres. But for this project, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) has classified the entire 4,254-acre development area as a 

single “site,” which, although it meets the one site per square mile requirement in the Core Area strategies, 

will eliminate half of a square mile section of directly bulldozed land within the 4,254-acre project area 

where it is located, and certainly have deleterious effects on sage-grouse for miles around. The Wyoming 

RMP Amendment needs to be crafted to prevent this type of monkey business. 

Comment ID: 554 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Notice also that the DDCT exposes potential and authorized users and permittes to significant 

vulnerability since radical activists may use arson or other surface disturbances to push the examination 

area over the disturbance cap in order to close the area to future disturbances. 

Comment ID: 880 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-306 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The NTT report approaches the management of GrSG and sagebrush habitat through the 

perspective of limiting surface disturbances in priority habitat. The use of a surface disturbance cap to limit 

sage brush habitat fragmentation and degradation may be a useful methodology to conserve GrSG 

populations but, as presented, the proposed approaches in all the action alternatives are poorly defined and 

lack a reasonable scientific justification. The goal of managing sagebrush habitat to a total surface 

disturbance regardless of surface ownership fails to explain how the chosen limit is appropriate or sufficient 

to conserve sage grouse populations. There are several critical details about the functionality and application 

of the disturbance cap management concept proposed in the DLUPA/DEIS, and they present numerous 

challenges that may prevent a clear and consistent implementation of the measure. The information 

presented in the DLUPA/DEIS does not adequately demonstrate that the disturbance caps are scientifically 

supported or would result in stable populations for GrSG. The functionality of this tool must be more 

thoroughly developed and presented to those that will be impacted by it before anyone will have a chance 

of understanding the impacts of its implementation. The goal of managing sagebrush habitat to a total 

surface disturbance regardless of surface ownership fails to explain how the chosen limit is appropriate or 

sufficient to conserve sage grouse populations. 

Comment ID: 881 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: The NTT report places a 3% limit on surface disturbances and that limit is tracked in the 

DLUPA/DEIS Alternative B. Alternative D relies upon a 9% limit for surface disturbances in all sagebrush 

habitats and the preferred alternative, Alternative E, changes the upper limit to 5% of the core landscape. 

The Agencies and the NTT report provide no justification for the selection of the limits on surface 

disturbance. Limiting surface disturbances in sagebrush habitat may be a pragmatic approach to conserving 

sage grouse, but the Agencies must provide a sufficient basis for doing so. 

Comment ID: 882 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: the DLUPA/DEIS does not detail how the caps will be implemented on a project by project 

basis. As disturbance cap limits are approached, there is likely to be a rush of project proposals and the 

authorized officer may consider a variety of criteria on which to base a decision to approve or reject a given 

proposal. Proposals may be deferred or rejected because the authorized officer determines through 

environmental documentation that the project is not a prudent use of cap space. Tri-State requests that the 

Agencies develop a process to identify projects that may not be approved, due to limited cap space or 

disproportionate adverse impacts, prior to completion of the final LUPA/EIS. Tri- State appreciates the 

commitment to developing a structure for determining the appropriate sage grouse mitigation by a 

Mitigation Implementation Team, but it does not provide enough relief from the unknowns of this strategy. 

Comment ID: 2552 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: As proposed, disturbance caps are unworkable and violate BLM's responsibility to provide 

ROWs in the public interest under FLPMA. BLM must provide utilities and other entities the details of a 

workable system that they can use to plan and secure ROW approvals. APLIC directs BLM to Appendix F 

of the Northwest Colorado LUPA DEIS. The Wyoming LUP FEIS should include a similar appendix 

detailing how the disturbance caps would be allocated, tracked, and monitored. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-307

Comment ID: 277 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In accordance with these findings, the Wyoming Core Area strategies set a limit of one energy 

development site per square mile in core habitat, but use a Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool (“DDCT”) 

to generate the well density figure. This is also reflected in Alternatives D and E. The same DDCT area 

used to determine a project’s disturbance limit is also used to calculate the density of sites (e.g., number of 

well sites) that may be developed per square mile. But the DDCT only calculates site density per square 

mile, rather than capping density at one site per square mile of land. In cases where the DDCT area is very 

large, the Core Area strategies may allow more than one well or mine site to be developed in a given square 

mile as long as the surrounding Core Area lands are relatively free from other development disturbance. 

This can result in a density of well sites that exceeds science-based thresholds at which significant impacts 

to sage grouse inhabiting the habitat in question begin to occur. By contrast, all available science that has 

evaluated impacts of well density on sage grouse has done so on a per-square-mile basis, and not one has 

ever evaluated the impact when calculating disturbance using the DDCT or any method similar to it. If 

BLM has published science that supports a wellpad density or disturbance percentage that is based on a 

DDCT or similar are, please produce this in the Final EIS. There is at present no scientific basis for 

thresholds of well density and their effect on sage grouse using a DDCT calculation. 

Comment ID: 557 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Finally, the DDCT may require that non-core habitat is managed as core habitat. For example, 

if a lek is within the examination area, but is not within a core population area, the DDCT will prescribe 

certain actions. The result is that non-core habitat becomes de factor core habitat. These plain absurdities 

in the implementation of the DDCT counsel against a blanket application of the method. Instead, the BLM 

must carefully tailor disturbance calculations to the specific sites and conditions under consideration. 

Comment ID: 2551 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: More detail should be provided in the FEIS regarding the ways in which the disturbance caps 

would be monitored and implemented. Specifically, APLIC would like to request the following information 

be included in the FEIS: • The proposed alternatives conflict in regard to co-location of facilities and 

disturbance caps. If co-location of a new utility line in an existing corridor resulted in a project exceeding 

the disturbance cap, a project proponent may seek to site the infrastructure in an area with no existing 

disturbance or on adjacent private land. This could "push" projects to areas where impacts to sage-grouse 

could be greater. APLIC requests that the BLM describe how they would address such situations to prevent 

unintended negative impacts to sage-grouse habitat, e.g., where siting new development in undisturbed 

areas would result in increased negative impacts to sagegrouse habitat compared to developing in areas 

where disturbance thresholds have already been exceeded. 

Comment ID: 2549 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: More detail should be provided in the FEIS regarding the ways in which the disturbance caps 

would be monitored and implemented. Specifically, APLIC would like to request the following information 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-308 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

be included in the FEIS: • BLM must account for prior decisions in Resource Management Plans in 

allocating remaining disturbance. Specifically, BLM has designated utility corridors and their use must be 

assumed by setting aside disturbance "credits" under each cap where utility corridors exist. If not, BLM is 

voiding implementation of a previous decision. The effects of this action must be avoided or analyzed . 

Without addressing the above points, alternatives using disturbance caps must be considered infeasible. 

Comment ID: 555 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The DDCT is also inconsistent in its prescriptions. According to EO 2011-5, prescribed fires are 

not included as part of a disturbance calculation. Wildfires, however, do constitute part of an areas 

disturbance allowance. The BLM admits in the DEIS that prescribed fires provide substantial beneficial 

effects to GRSG habitat. It makes little sense then, that a wildfire, with identical beneficial effects, would 

be counted against the disturbance cap. 

Comment ID: 2547 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: More detail should be provided in the FEIS regarding the ways in which the disturbance caps 

would be monitored and implemented. Specifically, APLIC would like to request the following information 

be included in the FEIS: BLM fails to account for valid existing rights under their caps. Valid rights must 

be defined and quantified (disturbance allowances) for each management zone in the FEIS. BLM must 

quantify what rights lease holders have to disturbance under each cap, and quantify this disturbance for 

each management zone. 

Comment ID: 556 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Sagebrush treatment is an important part of this DEIS and whether the treatment occurs 

intentionally or otherwise is not important. See Management Action 26. Nor is there any discussion with 

regards to how disturbance areas will be monitored, updated, and disseminated to the public. Considering 

BLM’s difficulty in fulfilling other management obligations (i.e. wild horse gathers), the BLM may not be 

able to effectively implement the DDCT process. 

Comment ID: 2546 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: More detail should be provided in the FEIS regarding the ways in which the disturbance caps 

would be monitored and implemented. Specifically, APLIC would like to request the following information 

be included in the FEIS: • How would the overall disturbance "remaining" under each cap be tracked? This 

information is needed in order for the public and project proponents to adequately plan projects to avoid 

areas with no remaining cap without the burden of conducting site-specific studies for each project. 

Comment ID: 244 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-309

Comment: We would ask the responsible official to consider the findings of Copeland et al. (2013), which 

found that if all of the State of Wyoming sage grouse policy provisions (which include a 5% disturbance 

cap calculated using a Disturbance Density Calculation Tool) were implemented fully and to the letter, that 

a 9 to 15% decline in greater sage grouse populations would still occur statewide, including a 6 to 9% 

decline within designated Core Areas (where the 5% disturbance cap would be applied). We would ask the 

responsible official also to render the same determination regarding the accuracy, reliability, and relevance 

of science supporting the 3% disturbance cap proposed for implementation as a Condition of Approval for 

existing fluid mineral leases under Alternatives B and C. Please also make a formal determination regarding 

the disturbance cap in the context of sagebrush canopy cover, and if 3% is not the scientifically defensible 

threshold, then where that threshold should be set, for the same reasons as noted above for the 3% and 5% 

disturbance caps. 

Comment ID: 553 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Variable GRSG lek locations, migratory habits, evolving habitat selection patterns, and 

temporary disturbances will also change the boundaries of the examination areas under the DDCT over the 

course of time. The BLM may not ignore these plain realities by adopting blanket assumptions and rules 

that do not account for local or landscape scale changes in circumstances. By the BLM’s own admission, 

the DDCT method will only augment these issues since the DDCT manual continues to morph (due to 

unidentified influences) and “would become outdated soon after publication of this amendment document.” 

See Appendix I. The BLM’s admission is significant when, as here, landowners, permittees, local 

governments and other important entities depend on accurate and consistent information and regulatory 

guidance when planning new projects. 

Comment ID: 552 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) exposes its flaws almost immediately...as 

new projects are proposed, examination areas begin to overlap between projects if the 5% disturbance 

threshold has not been met. For example, if the initial examination area has 3% disturbance, another 

examination area with 4% disturbance may overlap its boundaries. See EO 2011-5 at 7. The problem, 

however, is whether the overlap area is managed under the 3% or the 4% or in the alternative, a cumulative 

or completely distinct disturbance calculation. Put simply, surface disturbances in one examination area 

will impact the calculation of surface disturbances in another examination area and the BLM has not 

accounted for this error in the DDCT method. 

Comment ID: 204 

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company 

Name: Doug Cooper 

Comment: The use of the DDCT demonstrates an over reliance on one time data, especially in using GPS 

coordinates to locate leks. A single GPS point should represent a general location but has now become the 

cornerstone of sage grouse management even though the grouse have been observed at times strutting a 

half mile away. 

Comment ID: 1420 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-310 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Alternatives, Density and Disturbance, Pages 2-133 and 2-134, Item #126. Alternative B does 

not support the BLM’s policy of multiple use as stated “In priority habitats where the 3% disturbance 

threshold is already exceeded from any source, no further anthropogenic disturbances would be 

permitted...” If Alternative B is considered in the final LUP, a socioeconomic analysis of the impact to 

mining should be considered and added to Appendix N. Further, the 3% density disturbance limit is not 

widely supported by science and its use by BLM would result in inconsistent restrictions across the range, 

and could result in increased impacts on State and Private lands. 

Comment ID: 247 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Preferred Alternative would not apply appropriate density limits for wellpads and other 

surface disturbances as Conditions of Approval on existing fluid mineral leases, pursuant to National 

Technical Team recommendations. NTT (2011) recommendations would limit surface disturbances to no 

more than one per section on existing fluid mineral leases. This should be implemented for all leases (future 

if allowed, and existing) and for other types of similar disturbance in the final plan. Please review the best 

available science and make a determination regarding whether one wellpad/disturbance per section, or no 

limit at all, is the most scientifically supported approach or whether no limit on wellpad density would best 

achieve the purpose and need of the plan amendment. Please consider the following studies which directly 

address the threshold of well density at which impacts to sage grouse occur: Holloran (2005), Doherty 

(2008), Walker et al. (2007), Tack (2009), Taylor et al. (2012), and Copeland et al. (2013). Attachments 3, 

4, 5, 21, 6, and 7, respectively. Each of these studies find significant declines of sage grouse populations as 

well densities exceed one pad per square mile, and some of these studies indicate negative effects on sage 

grouse at lower wellpad densities. 

Comment ID: 2319 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Moreover, the USGS Report indicates that habitat fragmentation “generally begins to have 

significant effects on wildlife when suitable habitat becomes less than 30 to 50 percent of the landscape” 

(USGS Report at 26), which directly contradicts the threshold stating that 70% of the landscape must be 

suitable habitat in order for the sage-grouse to persist, as required under Alternatives B (Ch.2 at 2- 13). In 

addition, the BLM fails to show how the goal of 70% sagebrush cover in priority habitat and the 3% 

disturbance cap are necessary, reasonable, and achievable, or how they would actually benefit sage-grouse 

and not result in unintended adverse consequences to sage-grouse or other species. AEMA contends that 

the habitat disturbance thresholds proposed throughout the DLUPA/DEIS (3% Alternatives B and C; 9% 

Alternative D; and 5% Alternative E) are not scientifically supported, and are based on opinions and invalid 

assumptions that temporary displacement of sage-grouse in a developed area equates to a population 

decline, or that sage-grouse avoidance of an area equates to a population decline. 

Comment ID: 2956 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Several of the alternatives discuss maximum disturbances per 640 acres. While some 

clarification is provided at the bottom of page 2-133 under the Density and Disturbance section, it is not 

clear in the LUP if the BLM will be calculating the disturbance area and percentage of disturbance in the 

same manner as the State of Wyoming Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) established by the 

Governor's Executive Order. NEPA requires that BLM disclose and explain its methodologies. The method 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-311

of calculation is extremely important and Ur-Energy may desire to comment on the methodology once it is 

made available. Ur-Energy respectfully requests that the BLM explain its methodology in a revised or 

supplemental draft LUP/EIS and make it available for comments from the public on this critical aspect of 

the various alternatives. Similarly, will the BLM utilize the State of Wyoming Density Disturbance 

Calculation Tool (DDCT) in the same fashion as the state or will the BLM have its own procedures on how 

to use this tool? If BLM plans to deviate from the state's methods, please disclose and explain the basis for 

this in the revised or supplemental draft LUP/EIS. The revised draft LUP/EIS should also clarify that the 

density of well pads for an in situ uranium project is not limited to an average of one per 640 acres of the 

DDCT but instead, the acreage of total disturbed area is divided by the acreage of the DDCT to ensure the 

disturbance does not exceed the percentage limit, which is different for each alternative, of the DDCT area. 

This clarification is important to distinguish between calculation methodologies for oil and gas and an in 

situ mining project. In fact, the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-S addresses mining specific 

issues in Attachment B Mining Stipulations. Ur-Energy encourages the BLM to adopt the EO language in 

the final LUP so that the unique issues surrounding mining, and in situ mining in particular, are clearly 

addressed. If these matters aren 't specifically addressed there may be attempts to regulate in situ mining in 

the same manner as oil and gas which would be arbitrary, unreasonable and inappropriate since the activities 

are quite different. 

Comment ID: 2329 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The NTT report approaches the management of GrSG and sagebrush habitat by limiting surface 

disturbances in priority habitat. The use of a surface disturbance cap to limit sage brush habitat 

fragmentation and degradation may be a useful methodology to conserve GrSG populations but, as 

presented, the proposed approaches in all the action alternatives are poorly defined and lack a reasonable 

scientific justification. The goal of managing sagebrush habitat by limiting surface disturbance regardless 

of surface ownership fails to explain how the chosen limit is appropriate or sufficient to conserve sage 

grouse populations. There are several critical details about the functionality and application of the 

disturbance cap management concept proposed in the DLUPA/DEIS, and they present numerous challenges 

that may prevent a clear and consistent implementation of the measure. The information presented in the 

DLUPA/DEIS does not adequately demonstrate that the disturbance caps are scientifically supported or 

would result in stable populations for GrSG. The functionality of this tool must be more thoroughly 

developed and presented to those that will be impacted by it before anyone will have a chance of 

understanding the impacts of its implementation. The goal of managing sagebrush habitat to a total surface 

disturbance regardless of surface ownership fails to explain how the chosen limit is appropriate or sufficient 

to conserve sage grouse populations. The NTT report places a 3% limit on surface disturbances and that 

limit is tracked in the DLUPA/DEIS Alternative B. Alternative D relies upon a 9% limit for surface 

disturbances in all sagebrush habitats and the preferred alternative, Alternative E, changes the upper limit 

to 5% of the core landscape. The Agencies and the NTT report provide no justification for the selection of 

the limits on surface disturbance. Limiting surface disturbances in sagebrush habitat may be a pragmatic 

approach to conserving sage grouse, but the Agencies must provide a sufficient basis for doing so. Several 

questions arise in the review of this new approach that deserves consideration and response. The disturbance 

cap concept proposed in the DLUPA/DEIS could result in the denial of projects simply because other

disturbances have decreased available cap space, ultimately denying valid existing mineral rights. To the 

extent non-anthropogenic disturbances, such as wildfire, could consume cap space, the cap proposal 

potentially interferes with valid existing rights in: an unpredictable manner. The DLUPA/DEIS fails to offer 

or analyze viable alternatives to disturbance caps that do not impair existing rights, such as mitigation for 

no net loss. Additionally, it is unclear how and when the BLM will issue credits for reclamation to reduce 

disturbance considered in the disturbance cap. Certainly industry should get credit for reclamation when 

evaluating any disturbance under a cap. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-312 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2424 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Arbitrary disturbance caps. Nearly all the Alternatives present disturbance caps, with a range 

from 3% to 9% per 640 acres without adequate explanation or scientific, practical, or legal basis. Because 

the 5% cap in the preferred Alternative E wholly fails to consider the location of minerals and valid existing 

rights, it is inconsistent with BLM's multiple-use mandate and imposes unnecessary restrictions on nondiscretionary BLM actions. The 5% disturbance cap is therefore arbitrary, unnecessarily harsh, and beyond 

BLM authority. BLM never explains how the disturbance cap will be assessed, and it fails to adequately 

describe what is included or excluded in the cap calculations. The Draft EIS states "[t]he 5% disturbance 

cap in Alternative E is based on using the DDCT [Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool] calculation 

method, which is a more fine-scale process." Draft EIS at 4-329. It also provides that "the DDCT process 

described in Appendix 1." Id. However, Appendix I has no information on how the disturbance cap is 

calculated using the DDCT. Instead, it refers to another set of materials referencing the DDCT and suggests 

that the LUPA will change as the DDCT materials change. But the DDCT is just a tool for helping project 

proponents assess impacts, and agencies could change it at any time in ways that could arbitrarily affect 

how projects affect the 5% cap. The referenced materials also provide minimal input on how existing 

anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic disturbances will be considered in the proposed disturbance cap. 

BLM's failure to quantify current conditions and existing disturbance thresholds underscores the lack of 

information included in the Draft EIS. An existing lessee or claimant cannot determine, based on the Draft 

EIS, whether certain areas have already met their 5% cap, and thus whether BLM is proposing to 

immediately limit further activity in those areas. Critical missing information deprives industry, the public, 

and the decision maker from understanding the impacts of these alternatives and is a violation of BLM 

regulatory policy requiring a clear statement of the available alternatives. See 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). BLM 

alludes to a study suggesting that oil and gas density affects leks but it never cites any scientific support for 

a 5% disturbance cap. BLM appears to settle on a middle number of 5% for Alternative E without any 

scientific or reasoned justification other than 5% being part of the existing Wyoming Executive Order and 

without fully incorporating all of the Executive Order 2011-5 provisions related to cap calculations, 

including allowing case-by-case exceptions. Any cap that fails to account for local habitat conditions, and 

that relies on landscape level mapping tools, suffers from the same flaws discussed above regarding 

inappropriate use of the landscape level maps. Not only does the science not support a 5% disturbance cap, 

a blanket condition ignores important distinctions such as habitat quality or disturbance type and/or timing 

that likely play a much greater role in GRSG success. Ultimately, the 5% disturbance cap is an arbitrary, 

one-size-fits-all approach that is not tailored to address many of the major threats identified in the Draft 

EIS which, in part, include wildfire, loss of native habitat to invasive species, and predation. This has no 

scientific basis. BPM strongly encourages that any disturbance cap account for all potentially unsuitable 

habitat in calculating disturbance and that existing disturbance not be counted in a new cap. At a minimum, 

BLM should provide for case-by-case exceptions for projects that can be shown not to adversely affect 

GRSG populations. A fundamental flaw in any disturbance cap is the inadequate consideration of how it 

will impact valid existing rights. The disturbance cap concept proposed in the Draft EIS could result in the 

denial of projects simply because other disturbances have decreased available cap space, ultimately denying 

valid existing mineral rights. To the extent non-anthropogenic disturbances, such as wildfire, could 

consume cap space, the cap proposal also potentially interferes with valid existing rights in an unpredictable 

manner. BLM fails to offer or analyze viable alternatives to disturbance caps that do not impair existing 

rights, such as mitigation for no net loss. To the extent the 5% disturbance cap will limit all activity managed 

by BLM in particular areas once a cap is reached, this proposal is inconsistent with BLM's multiple use 

mandate. See 42 U.S.C. § 1732(a). Furthermore, elevating GRSG protection above all other activities 

ignores the BLM mandate to manage its resources "in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for 

domestic sources of minerals." 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701(11)-(12). It is no comfort to industry to suggest that 

additional cap space can be provided once land is reclaimed. Reclamation can take many years to complete 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-313

Comment ID: 2359 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: In addition, AEMA believes that the various disturbance threshold proposed under all the Action 

Alternatives, puts an overly restrictive and unrealistic burden on mining operators exercising their rights 

under the General Mining Law, and creates a de facto withdrawal which is outside BLM’s authority and 

contrary to law. Furthermore, BLM’s proposal that anthropogenic disturbances be limited to 3%, 5%, and 

9% are derived from flawed studies, and in some cases are completely arbitrary.34 BLM must provide how 

and where these thresholds were determined, and re-evaluate the impacts they will have on other resources 

in the planning area as well as the socioeconomic impact they will have on the planning area, or else the 

Final EIS documents will not likely withstand legal or scientific scrutiny. 

Summary: The goal of managing sagebrush habitat by limiting surface disturbance regardless of surface 

ownership fails to explain how the chosen (DDCT) limit is appropriate or sufficient to conserve sagegrouse 

populations. The information presented in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS do not adequately 

demonstrate that the disturbance caps are scientifically supported or would result in stable populations for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. All available science that has evaluated impacts of well density on sage-grouse has 

done so on a per-square-mile basis, and not one has ever evaluated the impact when calculating disturbance 

using the DDCT or any method similar to it. Further, the 3% density disturbance limit is not widely 

supported by science and its use by BLM would result in inconsistent restrictions across the range, could 

result in increased impacts on state and private lands, and it does not support BLM’s multiple use policy. 

We would ask the responsible official to consider the findings of Copeland et al. (2013), which found that 

if all of the State of Wyoming sagegrouse policy provisions (which include a 5% disturbance cap calculated 

using a Disturbance Density Calculation Tool) were implemented fully and to the letter, that a 9 to 15% 

decline in Greater Sage- Grouse populations would still occur statewide, including a 6 to 9% decline within 

designated Core Areas (where the 5% disturbance cap would be applied). The use of the DDCT 

demonstrates an overreliance on one time data, especially in using GPS coordinates to locate leks. A 5% 

surface disturbance as measured across a DDCT area is an even higher percentage of surface disturbance 

when calculated using the Knick et al. protocol. The DDCT is too complex and difficult to apply. As 

currently written, Alternative E would potentially include both suitable and unsuitable Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in the 5% disturbance calculation. The 5% disturbance cap is an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all approach 

that is not tailored to address many of the major threats identified in the Draft EIS which, in part, include

wildfire, loss of native habitat to invasive species, and predation. This application is scientifically flawed 

because it will potentially result in the protection of sagebrush habitat that is unsuitable Greater SageGrouse habitat. Yates requests the BLM modify this density of disturbance stipulation such that it is 

consistent with EO 2011-5 (i.e. change “core landscape” to “suitable Greater Sage-Grouse habitat”). A 

fundamental flaw in any disturbance cap is the inadequate consideration of how it will impact valid existing 

rights. Certain resources may remain undeveloped and the local economies will suffer the consequences. A 

socioeconomic analysis of the impact to mining from the DDCT should be considered and added to 

Appendix N. The Draft EIS fails to provide any information regarding operation of DDCT. Appendix I 

consists of one page and the Draft EIS does not address resolution of conflicts between pipelines or 

transmission lines and oil and gas fields. What qualifies as disturbance: reclaimed areas, livestock trailing, 

ROWs? It is unclear how and when the BLM will issue credits for reclamation to reduce disturbance 

considered in the disturbance cap. Certainly industry should get credit for reclamation when evaluating any 

disturbance under a cap. Project proponents will prefer areas that have the least amount of disturbance, and 

the DDCT method actually promotes sprawling development and habitat fragmentation. Surface 

disturbances in one examination area will impact the calculation of surface disturbances in another 

examination area and the BLM has not accounted for this error in the DDCT method. Wildfire should not 

be counted against the disturbance cap if prescribed fire isn’t. BLM must hold disturbance cap space 

(sufficient for their implementation) available for long-running processes, particularly ROW applications 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-314 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

that have been filed and where NEPA is underway. Large projects, such as the Lost Creek project, may be 

able to disturb a larger area than the DDCT actually discloses. An existing lessee or claimant cannot 

determine, based on the Draft EIS, whether certain areas have already met their 5% cap, and thus whether 

BLM is proposing to immediately limit further activity in those areas. Radical activists may use arson or 

other surface disturbances to push the examination area over the disturbance cap in order to close the area 

to future disturbances. The proposed alternatives conflict in regard to co-location of facilities and 

disturbance caps: please describe how BLM/Forest Service would address such situations to prevent 

unintended negative impacts to sage-grouse habitat, e.g., where siting new development in undisturbed 

areas would result in increased negative impacts to sage-grouse habitat compared to developing in areas 

where disturbance thresholds have already been exceeded. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service are committed to providing contiguous, unfragmented habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse to support the survival of the species throughout Wyoming. A range of allowable 

disturbance densities were considered in the Draft EIS under a reasonable range of alternatives. The density 

limitations, combined with the other management for sage-grouse habitat would provide the habitat 

protection necessary for the continued existence of sage-grouse. The well density per-square mile restriction 

is part of the management prescription for MA 126. The DDCT manual was created by the BLM, Forest 

Service, and the State of Wyoming. This methodology for calculating disturbance, project-by-project, 

across the landscape has been approved within the auspices of the National Greater Sage-Grouse Strategy. 

The Knick et al 2013 paper used a different scale of analysis/modeling that the Wyoming DDCT strategy, 

as well as which anthropogenic disturbances were used in the analysis (i.e.. the DDCT method considers 

the disturbance of roads, mines, wells, farmsteads, treated habitats, wildlife, urban areas etc.); whereas the 

Knick et al method considered developed urban, suburban, interstate, and state highways. Both methods 

are correct; however, the DDCT methodology provides a finer scale disturbance analysis than the Knick 

method. Current science has not caught up with this new disturbance cap strategy, so it is not appropriate 

to discount its use at this time. What we do know is that fragmentation and habitat disturbance is one of the 

leading causes for sage-grouse declines throughout its range and this methodology has merits in maintaining 

habitat continuity. Valid existing rights, existing disturbances, and how they fit into the implementation of 

a disturbance cap will be addressed on a project-by-project basis upon project implementation. The entire 

state of Wyoming has not been currently digitized to determine where the 5% disturbance cap has already 

been exceeded and where it has not, these issues are being taken into consideration into MA 2, 17, 30, 34, 

63 etc. The application of reclamation credits when applying the DDCT methodology will also be 

determined by the BLM, Forest Service, the State of Wyoming, and the project proponent on a project-byproject basis, subject to the mitigation and monitoring strategies outlined in this plan. 

Sage-grouse

Impact Analysis

Comments and changes to Chapter 4 Impact analysis

Comment ID: 1406 

Organization: Cloud Peak Energy Resources 

Name: Bob Green 

Comment: EIS Should Recognize Independent Grass-roots Efforts Considerable grass-roots conservation 

initiatives have been independently developed and/or implemented for Greater Sage-Grouse. Some of these 

are part of Candidate Conservation Agreements or Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances 

that are in place or being developed. The EIS should clearly delineate that where specific conservation 

measures have been developed that are pertinent to greater sage-grouse that those will take precedence over 

any conservation measures developed as a result of the Nine-Plan Land Use Plan Amendments. In the 

structure of the EIS this recognition would likely be best incorporated into Subsection 4.14.7 Special Status 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-315

Species – Greater Sage-Grouse discussions, as well as Appendix 3 discussions of Reclamation Plans and 

specific metrics. 

Comment ID: 374 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The DEIS does not provide sufficient detail in its analysis to determine the impacts of permitted 

activities on sage grouse under either alternative. Will either alternative maintain or recover current sage 

grouse populations inside Priority Habitats, and if not, how steep will be the declines? Similarly, what will 

be the impact of permitted activities on sage grouse populations outside Priority Habitats? And how do 

these two population trend series interact to affect the overall viability of sage grouse in Wyoming? Will 

loss of sage grouse populations outside Priority Habitats affect population trends inside Priority Habitats? 

Will sage grouse be displaced from lands outside Priority Habitats and into Priority Habitats by 

development, and what will be the survival rate of these displaced birds? Would the resulting competition 

with resident sage grouse decrease their ability to survive inside Priority Habitats? These questions need to 

be addressed so that BLM can make an informed choice among alternatives. 

Comment ID: 1407 

Organization: Cloud Peak Energy Resources 

Name: Bob Green 

Comment: EIS Should Recognize Existing Regulatory Frameworks The EIS does not address the 

significant species protection and conservation measures already involved in state and federal mine 

permitting and operational regulations via Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Office 

of Surface Mining. These are substantial and need to be discussed as ameliorating aspects of any anticipated 

environmental consequences, and should be incorporated into Chapter 4 text. 

Comment ID: 1435 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Environmental Consequences, page 4-489. A reference is made as follows, “It is estimated there 

is an 11% chance that the population of Greater Sage-Grouse could fall below 200 males by 2037 and a 

24% chance the population could fall below 200 males by 2107 (Garton et al. 2011).” The referenced study 

was a comprehensive scientific study on sage-grouse across its entire range. It is important to note however, 

that this particular reference is not specific to the Wyoming Basin population, but rather across the entire 

range. Furthermore, it is worth noting that at least for the Wyoming Basin population as described in Table 

15.18 of the study, the number of leks counted increased from 130 in 1965-1969 to 1149 in 2000-2007, and 

the number of males per lek over the same time frame remained much the same from 29 to 24, respectively. 

Also, the number of active leks increased from 91 to 807, however, the sheer magnitude of surveying 

increased 10 fold. It is also very important to note that the study points out its own statistical deficiencies; 

case in point the r2 values are in the range of 0.188 which indicates that there is a very low likelihood of 

accurate prediction from the model/study. 

Comment ID: 249 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In Priority Habitats, Alternative E relies in large part (outside the 0.6-mile NSO buffer) on timing 

limitation stipulations on exploratory drilling to prevent surface disturbance. This allows roads, wellpads, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-316 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

reserve pits, and other infrastructure to be built close to leks and within nesting habitats as long as 

construction activity occurs outside the breeding/nesting seasons. The BLM has relied heavily on timing 

limitation stipulations to mitigate impacts to breeding and nesting sage grouse, and the developments 

constructed using these timing limitations have had scientifically documented track records in terms of 

significant impacts to sage grouse breeding and nesting populations. Please evaluate the scientific basis for 

the effectiveness of timing limitation stipulations as an alternative to no surface occupancy stipulations, 

using the scientific studies cited in these comments and any other studies that examine the changes in sage 

grouse populations when drilling and construction activities are allowed within 4 miles of sage grouse leks, 

but construction and drilling activities are prohibited during the breeding and nesting seasons. 

Comment ID: 296 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Under Alternative D, BLM would apply a 9% disturbance cap in the context of vegetation 

treatments. DEIS at 4-316. Please provide scientific justification for this threshold. The scientific basis for 

many such projects (which include prescribed burns and mechanical or herbicidal thinning or removal of 

sagebrush) is extremely shaky, and given the lack of familiarity of the project proponents with basic sage 

grouse habitat requirements, such projects may unintentionally cause additional damage to sage grouse 

habitats. The impacts (positive and/or negative) of such projects have not been rigorously tested, and thus 

their results for improving (or harming) sagebrush habitats remain open to speculation. 

Comment ID: 1633 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The threats from energy developments are many pronged. In addition to the direct impacts of 

destruction of actual habitat by the footprint of the project, secondary and indirect impacts due to energy 

development include avoidance of previously used areas due to species psychology, increased predation, 

traffic-associated mortality, increased chance and spread of diseases such as the West Nile virus. 

Comment ID: 283 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: A significant quantity of Core Area is already leased. Yet the BLM in its Affected Environment 

section has failed to analyze the amount of acreage leased currently within Core Areas, and in its impacts 

analyses the agency has not determined what acreage of Core Areas would be ineligible for withdrawal 

from future leasing under Alternative E. It is reasonable to expect BLM to perform this analysis in the EIS, 

due to the ready availability of the GIS data to support it and the fact that BLM performs exactly such an 

analysis for each lease parcel for every quarterly lease sale Environmental Assessment; failure to present 

this analysis represents a critical failure to take the ‘hard look’ required by NEPA. 

Comment ID: 1371 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Many of the impact assessments are specious and unsupported. For instance the statement that 

"Forest Service livestock grazing practices provide adequate forage, cover and other habitat needs for 

greater sage grouse could provide forage and cover for other sagebrush dependent species" but most of the 

Forest Plans allow up to 60% of the annual production to be removed by livestock which in no way provides 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-317

"adequate forage, cover and other habitat needs". In addition the document states that "implementation of 

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would ensure that impacts are not significant" but current 

impacts from livestock grazing are significant both in terms of the amount of utilization that takes place 

failing to provide annual habitat needs as well as the widespread conversion to short stature and grazing 

tolerant species which do not provide long-term habitat needs either. Further, the document states "adverse 

impacts of fences on wildlife within the planning area would be minimal because of requirements that 

fences are located so as to not impede wildlife movement....” but this does absolutely nothing for the tens 

of thousands of miles of fence that is currently in place and the document is entirely silent as to the current 

impacts of these fences. 

Comment ID: 198 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In the Wyoming RMP Amendment DEIS, BLM must take the legally required ‘hard look’ at the 

efficacy of sage grouse conservation measures, particularly those applied within Priority Habitats. We are 

concerned that the agency’s examination of impacts to sage grouse is rudimentary in Priority Habitats and 

in many cases absent outside them in the DEIS. 

Comment ID: 360 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that although BLM has included some vague, qualitative descriptions of the 

benefits of various mitigation measures for sage grouse, that the agency has failed to address impacts to the 

sage grouse when these mitigation measures are applied in the context of reasonably foreseeable, BLMpermitted development under the plans. For example, the agency lists the types of impacts that will not be 

allowed within 0.25 mile of leks under existing management (Alternative A)(DEIS at 4-255), but fails to 

note that this NSO buffer is inadequate to prevent significant declines in sage grouse lek populations 

(Holloran 2005). 

Comment ID: 359 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM’s analysis of impacts to sage grouse by alternative is flawed because it incorporates 

inappropriate assumptions. First, BLM assumes that sage grouse use riparian habitats within Core Areas 

“very little.” DEIS at 4-242. In fact, riparian areas are used heavily by sage grouse during the early and late 

brood-rearing periods, and in fact are a key if not the key habitat features used by sage grouse during this 

phase of their life cycle. See DEIS at 4-260. Secondly, BLM correctly points out that sage grouse use 

wooded habitats very little or not at all (DEIS at 4-242), which is correct, but appear to assume that impacts 

that occur in wooded areas can have noise, dust, vehicle and human activity impacts that extend for miles 

into surrounding habitats (including occupied sagebrush habitats)(see, e.g., Holloran 2005 for distance 

effects or roads, drilling, and production activities at wellpads, and Patricelli et al. 2012 for noise impacts). 

Thus, impacts that occur in nonhabitat can have impacts that extend into occupied habitats, potentially 

rendering them uninhabitable by sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 199 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-318 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: BLM also must take the legally required ‘hard look’ at direct or cumulative impacts to sage 

grouse wintering habitat under the various alternatives; since the impact of development approved under 

the RMP Amendment on breeding and nesting sage grouse matters little if sage grouse populations do not 

survive the winter. 

Comment ID: 2003 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page 4-242 “Prohibiting all disturbing and disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

habitats is more beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse than avoiding these activities.” BLM must clarify the 

term “disruptive activities” to make sure it does not include operator well visits and routine maintenance. 

Comment ID: 467 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Name: John Hay III 

Comment: Sage grouse core habitat areas make up substantial portions of the White Mountain, Salt Wells 

and the Great Divide Basin HMAs in the Rock Springs Field Office. See WGFD, Wyoming Sage Grouse 

Core Area Maps. Elsewhere in Wyoming, the sage grouse core areas overlap HMAs. E.g. Conant Creek, 

Dishpan Butte, Lost Creek, Muskrat Basin, Green Mountain and Crooks Mountain HMAs. Many sage 

grouse leks and associated nesting habitat are found outside the core areas and throughout the HMAs and 

the surrounding lands. See e.g., EA, Adobe Town and Salt Wells Creek HMAs (Complex) Wild Horse 

Gather, WY-040-EA 13-82, at 25 (May 2013). Despite the overlap between HMAs and core strategy areas, 

the DEIS does not identify or analyze adverse impacts. 

Comment ID: 2008 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page 4-335, Paragraph 3, Sentence 3 "Buffer distances from 0.5 to two miles from oil and gas 

infrastructure have been shown to be inadequate to prevent declines of birds from leks (Walker et al. 2007). 

Studies have shown that greater distances, anywhere from two to four miles, are required for viable Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations to persist (Connelly et al. 2000, Holloran and Anderson 2005, Walker et al. 

2007)." Page 4-335 "a buffer distance for oil and gas infrastructure of 0.25 miles has been suggested to be 

insufficient (Walker et al. 2007)." We point out that this study was conducted in the Powder River Basin in 

an area with extremely high well densities that are now prohibited under both the EO and Alternative E. Its 

findings are completely irrelevant to other areas in the state. Further, we remind BLM that the EO provides 

for buffers of 0.6 miles inside core areas and 0.25 miles from leks outside of core areas, a limitation that 

has been supported in writing by the USFWS as “a sound framework for a policy by which to conserve 

greater sage grouse”. 

Comment ID: 460 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Name: John Hay III 

Comment: Significantly, the Wyoming Executive Orders assume that livestock grazing has de minimus 

impact on sage grouse and sage grouse habitat. Ex. O. 2011-5, Att. C at 16, #3; 2013-3. The DEIS fails to 

follow those findings, instead attributing livestock grazing to adverse impacts to sage grouse habitat and 

applying the same management to wild horses as to livestock grazing. DEIS 2-15, 2-55; 4-500. The DEIS 

entirely omits the findings that equids have direct adverse impacts on sage grouse habitat. The DEIS refers 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-319

generally to impacts of livestock grazing and does not distinguish between sheep and cattle grazing or 

different seasons of use. See e.g. DEIS 2-55. While Chapter 3 does disclose different seasons and livestock 

types, the DEIS does not acknowledge or analyze the differences in impacts in either Chapter 2 or 4. The 

DEIS use of generalized statements reflects this lack of precision and results is that the discussion involving 

the Wyoming Checkerboard is largely inaccurate. 

Comment ID: 1556 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: BLM must evaluate the effectiveness of the conservation measures used to minimize adverse 

impacts to wildlife and sensitive species with the best available science. “The information must be of high 

quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to 

implementing NEPA.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b) (2009). “For this reason, agencies are under an affirmative 

mandate to ‘insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses 

in environmental impact statements[,] identify any methodologies used and . . . make explicit reference by 

footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions[.]’" Envtl. Def. v. U.S. Army Corps 

of Eng’rs, 515 F. Supp. 2d 69, 78 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 1502.24 (2009)). In the Wyoming RMP 

Amendment DEIS, BLM must take the legally required ‘hard look’ at the efficacy of sage grouse 

conservation measures, particularly those applied within Priority Habitats. We are concerned that the 

agency’s examination of impacts to sage grouse is rudimentary in Priority Habitats and in many cases absent 

outside them in the DEIS. BLM also must take the legally required ‘hard look’ at direct or cumulative 

impacts to sage grouse wintering habitat under the various alternatives; since the impact of development 

approved under the RMP Amendment on breeding and nesting sage grouse matters little if sage grouse 

populations do not survive the winter. 

Comment ID: 2004 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Page 4-256 “Winter concentration areas are documented areas where large numbers (25 to 50 

or more) of Greater Sage-Grouse consistently use habitat during the winter months and contain sagebrush 

as described for winter habitat (BLM 2009b).” BLM needs to further clarify the distinction of “25 to 50 or 

more.” IM WY2010-012 states that the number is dependent upon the total population size in the area; 50 

or more birds in an area of winter habitat would constitute a winter concentration area in areas where the 

total GRSG population size is large and 25 or more birds in an area of winter habitat would constitute a 

winter concentration area in areas where the total GRSG population is marginal. Such a distinction must be 

made. Also, clarification needs to be added to the term “consistently”. Is it a timeframe of 5 years, 10 years, 

etc.? Certainly 1 or 2 years does not satisfy the requirement of consistent use. As a comparison, it takes 10 

years of continual data to demonstrate a lek has been abandoned. We again recommend that language be 

added clarifying that winter concentration areas are areas that have been or will be scientifically verified 

by field assessments on a site-specific basis and that they support biologically significant numbers of GRSG 

that nest in core areas. 

Comment ID: 1290 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: The No Action Alternative analysis in the DLUPA/DEIS should quantify the impacts associated 

with ongoing implementation of the many existing local, state, and federal conservation measures and the 

existing BLM policies to protect sage-grouse habitat. Some of the impacts that could result from 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-320 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

continuation of the existing regulatory framework and conservation measures that should be evaluated in 

the EIS documents include the future, long-term habitat improvements that could occur with ongoing 

implementation of the existing sage-grouse habitat conservation measures in the Planning Area. For 

example, any Federal, state, local, private, and Tribal efforts to conserve sagegrouse through voluntary 

conservation agreements and/or strategies, and BMPs should be thoroughly analyzed. However, BLM fails 

to fully analyze other management actions or conservation measures currently in effect in the Planning Area 

that would have a positive impact on wildlife, such as habitat conservation improvements and the various 

conservation measures implemented on a local scale. While BLM may not have jurisdiction over these 

actions it is still imperative that they be fully considered in the impact analysis. 

Comment ID: 2006 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Chapter 4, Page 4-329 “Leks have been shown to go inactive when well pad densities exceed 

one per 640 acres.” The source of this information needs to be cited. It is unlikely that a density of more 

than one well pad per 640 acres would result in lek abandonment in all locations with this well density. 

Comment ID: 457 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Name: John Hay III 

Comment: RSGA strongly recommends the following changes in the DEIS: (4) Produce a supplemental 

document fully disclosing the impacts that implementation of the Wyoming sage grouse strategy has had 

and the potential conflicts with other agency objectives, such as promoting wind energy; and transmission 

lines that have potentially significant impacts on sage grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 2007 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Chapter 4, Page 4-335 “Holloran’s (2005) study showed that male Greater Sage-Grouse were 

negatively influenced when well densities exceeded one per 699 acres.” Notwithstanding our previous 

comments on Holloran 2005, clarification needs to be added describing exactly what is meant by the term 

“negatively influenced” leks as this term could imply a wide range of influence, from slight reductions in 

male lek attendance to total abandonment. 

Comment ID: 1558 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The FEIS needs to take a hard look at issues including: 1) the potential impacts of significant 

growth in the number of Core Area acres to be held by development; 2) the potential for full-field 

development in priority habitat; 3) the likelihood of development in the hundreds of thousands of acres of 

core area lands proposed for leasing by industry in recent years, but deferred by BLM; 4) what impacts 

could result from 10% or more of core being held by production, let alone subject to full-field development; 

and 5) whether and how such leasing and development could affect progress towards conservation 

objectives and the need for a full ESA listing. The FEIS needs to take a hard look at these questions. 

Comment ID: 1246 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-321

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS’s preferred alternative allows for higher levels of disturbance to the 

watersheds than grouse populations can tolerate. For example, proposed alternative proposes a five percent 

cap on anthropogenic disturbance only within core areas The DLUPA/DEIS contains no analysis of the 

actual footprint of these disturbances in terms of edge effects, increased likelihood of non-native species 

infestations, fire, predation, access, etc. By carving out 5 percent of the area to have surface area 

disturbance, the BLM and FS are neglecting to analyze the watershed impacts away from well pads, utility 

corridors, pipelines, etc. Both direct and indirect impacts should be considered in the disturbance cap. 

Additionally, the failure to consider livestock water developments as surface disturbances contributing to 

the overall impact is a serious oversight. 

Comment ID: 300 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Alternatives B, D, and E involve the widespread creation of fire breaks. These fire breaks could 

be allowed to reduce sagebrush canopy cover below 15%, thereby negatively impacting sage grouse use of 

these habitats. In addition to habitat loss, fuel breaks cause habitat fragmentation. DEIS at 4-311. Creating 

firebreaks in sagebrush steppe is a practice unsupported by science. BLM touts various benefits of fire 

breaks in reducing the extent of catastrophic fires, provides no supporting scientific evidence for this 

assertion. DEIS at 4-295. Please provide peer-reviewed, scientific literature that demonstrates that such fuel 

breaks in sagebrush steppe habitat have been demonstrated to reduce fire. 

Comment ID: 2151 

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter 

Name: Connie Wilbert 

Comment: This DEIS generally fails to analyze the impacts of proposed actions on sage grouse populations 

and their habitat. The chapter on environmental consequences describes the proposed actions but fails to 

assess if sage grouse populations would continue to decline or reach some unstated population objective. 

Because the DEIS does not address the effects that the proposed actions will have on sage grouse 

populations, it must be ranked as environmentally unsatisfactory and the proposed actions should not be 

approved. For many key resources, BLM's proposed action will continue to violate national environmental 

standards on a long-term basis. As is well documented, the severity, duration and geographic scope of 

impacts on sage grouse warrant special attention that is not afforded through this draft plan and DEIS. The 

potential environmental impacts proposed by this decision are of national importance because of the threat 

not only to sage grouse but also to other wildlife, ecological values, and land uses. This DEIS does not 

adequately assess the identified potential significant environmental impacts. 

Comment ID: 2939 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Chapter 4, Alternative D (P. 4-312) The claim is made that "Some smaller prey species will 

avoid and abandon areas where overhead structures are present, such as power lines and towers, due to the 

increased risk of avian predators." BLM must provide citations and science-based rationale for this claim, 

as this statement is very imprecise and speculative, or delete the sentence altogether. If retained in the 

LUPA/EIS, BLM should list which species avoid areas under transmission lines, and what "increased risk" 

in this context means, based upon best available scientific information and data. Tills same comment applies 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-322 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

across the majority of BLM's analysis. There are very few citations throughout that identify the basis of the 

claim and that validate the interpretations by BLM. 

Comment ID: 2940 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Chapter 4. Alternative E (p.4-325) The claim is made that "Requiring all new transmission and 

distribution towers/structures to be designed to include raptor perching deterrents could protect special 

status species from predation by raptors, ravens or crows." Again, BLM must provide citations supporting 

these claims, or delete the sentence altogether. Without citations supporting these claims, these analyses 

are speculative and do not rely on best available science. Little evidence exists to support that transmission 

lines impact greater sage-grouse. Further, we are unaware of any evidence to support that perch deterrents 

are suitable to mitigate for any impacts that might occur. As documented by Terry A. Messmer et al in 

Stakeholder Contemporary Knowledge Needs Regarding the Potential Effects of Tall Structures on SageGrouse (Messmer et al. 2013) there are no peerreviewed, experimental studies reported in the scientific 

literature that specifically document increased avoidance or predation on sage-grouse because of the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of tall structures, such as transmission lines; however, recent 

unpublished reports have begun to address this issue. A recent report (Nonne et al. 2013) from the 

University of Nevada at Reno discussed impacts to sage-grouse from the Falcon-Gondor transmission line 

in Nevada. Messmer et al. (2013) summarizes the results of the study as follows: Nonne et al. (2013) 

reported the results of a study that used pre- and post-construction telemetry data to assess the potential 

impacts of a transmission line on sage-grouse populations. They conducted a 10-year study of sage-grouse 

dynamics in response to a transmission line in central Nevada and reported that habitat conditions had the 

greatest effect on sage-grouse nest and brood success and overall survival in their study areas than did 

proximity to the power Line. The report found "no negative effects on demographic rates (i.e., male survival 

and movement, female survival, pre-fledging chick survival, and nest survival) that could be explained by 

an individual's proximity to the transmission line." They found no evidence that predation increased close 

to the line, as nest survival and female survival were similar across all distances evaluated (Nonne et al. 

2013). The role of microhabitat structure and annual landscape-scale variation in weather in sage-grouse 

nest and brood site selection and nest and brood success in xeric habitats has also been reported by Coates 

and Delehanty (2010), Kirol et a1. (2012), LeBeau (2012). Guttery et al. (2013), and Robinson and Messmer 

(2013). By not considering Messmer et al. (2013) and Nonne et al. (2013), the Draft Bureau of Land 

Management March 26, 2014 Page 15 LUPA/ElS fails to use best available scientific information. BLM 

also fails to consider and discuss opposing, responsible scientific views. For the Final LUPA/EIS, BLM 

must consider and incorporate all best available scientific information including Messmer et al. (20\3) and 

Nonne et al. (2013). 

Comment ID: 2715 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Text: Declines of Greater Sage-Grouse populations following energy development have been 

shown through numerous scientific studies (Braun 1986, Remington and Braun 1991, Braun et al. 2002, 

Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007) and a buffer distance for oil and gas infrastructure of 0.25 miles has 

been suggested to be insufficient (Walker et al. 2007). Comment: Both the Data Quality Act and the Office 

of Management and Budget Guidelines implementing it require agencies to “ensure and maximize” the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. DQA §515(a), 

OMB Guidelines, § 11(2), 67 Fed. Reg. at 8458. The Walker study was completed in the Powder River 

Basin with well densities that are not allowed under either EO 2011-5 or Alternative E. Furthermore, the 

industry has developed best practices that have made this study largely irrelevant. Thus, the utility of the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-323

Walker study is absent and the integrity of the BLM’s citation tot that study here is severely compromised. 

BLM must provide additional information for the .25 buffer distance. 

Comment ID: 3119 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: In addition to Map 3-19 depicting winter habitat, the FEIS needs to analyze the conditions of 

winter habitat, and assess impacts and trends with regard to the impacts from energy development, grazing 

and other threats. BLM should adapt Alternative B Action Numbers 65 and 134 for Winter Concentration 

Areas, DEIS at 2-76 and 2-162 to 163. 

Comment ID: 2717 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: 4-342 Comment: Interim Reclamation is a best management practice with agency-wide 

emphasis. See BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2010-098. Throughout the DEIS, BLM has failed to 

adequately implement interim reclamation and should include interim reclamation as a basic management 

assumption that will reduce surface disturbance and habitat impacts. Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development. 

Comment ID: 2941 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Chapter 4. Alternative E (p. 4-336) This following sentence must be supported with science or 

deleted: "The ability to expand timeframes 14 days could add additional time for protection of habitat, 

delaying surface disturbing activities, and disruption from human or vehicle disturbance." Surmising that 

expansion by 14 days will protect more grouse is no different than stating that expansion by 60 days will 

protect more grouse. Neither value is supported by literature, and both are speculative and arbitrary. 

Comment ID: 2580 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-2 Text: Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this plan amendment 

because inventories either have not been conducted or were incomplete. Some of the major types of 

incomplete and unavailable data include, but are not limited to, incomplete information on the location and 

size of the following Greater Sage-Grouse habitat types: • Winter concentration areas • Nesting/early broodrearing habitat • Connectivity habitat. As a result of these missing data, some of the impacts that result from 

proposed management actions presented in the alternatives cannot be quantified. In these cases, impacts are 

projected in qualitative terms. Subsequent project-level analyses will provide the opportunity to collect and 

examine the site-specific inventory data necessary for determining the appropriate application of the Land 

Use Plan (LUP)-level guidance. In addition, ongoing inventory efforts within the planning area will serve 

to update and refine the information used to implement this plan amendment. Comment: Although the BLM 

discloses an apparent deficiency in the type or amount of information regarding GRSG habitat types, the 

BLM may not rely on such a disclosure to obviate further analysis of the impacts of the alternatives to these 

habitat types. 40 C.F.R. §1502.22; Lands Council v. Vaught, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1239 (E.D. Wash. 

2002) (general disclosure of incomplete or unavailable data is fatal to an EIS). Here, the BLM attempts to

augment “quantitative” data with “qualitative” evaluations. For example, in its socioeconomic evaluation 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-324 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

of livestock grazing, BLM states that “the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing 

cannot be quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later.” DEIS at 4-156. During its 

qualitative evaluation of Alternative E, the BLM offers general statements as to potential impacts without 

providing any analytic substance. See DEIS at 4-198. For example, BLM states that several actions may 

have an impact, but does not describe the impact nor the logic behind its conclusion. See Robertson v. 

Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332 (1989) (cursory discussion based on incomplete information 

is fatal to an EIS). The Coalition also notes that the BLM has not met the commands of Section 1502.14 of 

the CEQ regulations – “the heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. §1502.14. Based on 

the conclusions drawn about the affected environment, the BLM must “present the environmental impacts 

of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a 

clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.” Id. (emphasis added). These 

comparisons should be based on a discussion of environmental effects of the alternatives. 40 C.F.R. 

§1502.16. The BLM does not describe the impacts of each alternative but instead describes the impacts of 

one alternative and then describes the remaining alternatives in relation to the first alternative (i.e. 

Alternative E is similar to Alternative A). Thus, the only real indicator of the impacts of each alternative is 

a cross reference to what the BLM considers to be the next most relatable alternative. Not only does this 

method appear intentionally misleading, but it also shallows the analysis by reciting the conclusions drawn 

about the impacts of one alternative and offering those conclusions for a subsequently discussed alternative. 

This analysis falls short of NEPA “hard look” standards. We also note that the DEIS does not adequately 

define absolutely essential GRSG habitat areas. Winter concentration areas, nesting/early brood-rearing 

habitat, and connectivity habitat are lacking important data points and the BLM, without these data, cannot 

properly evaluate the full spectrum of impacts that will result for any of the alternatives to these habitats. 

The decision maker cannot proceed on the basis of fundamentally flawed data. 

Comment ID: 3064 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The potential indirect effects of infrastructure on sage-grouse were not addressed by the 

preferred alternative. Several authors have reported a “distance-effect” associated with the infrastructure of 

energy fields whereby sage-grouse on leks are negatively influenced to a greater extent if infrastructure is 

placed near the lek with the response diminishing as distances from lek to infrastructure increase (Manier 

et al. 2013). Additionally, the distance-effect of infrastructure with higher levels of human activity may be 

larger than that of infrastructure with lower levels of activity. Here, it should be noted that multi-well pads 

designed to recover the minerals from 640 or more acres of mineral estate can be expected to have 

significantly higher activity levels than pads draining smaller areas. In any case, the FEIS needs to take a 

hard look at these issues. 

Comment ID: 2652 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 4-335, paragraph 1: After the language "may not exceed 5% loss" the language "according 

to the WY DDCT Calculation" should be added to be consistent with the EO. 

Comment ID: 3148 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-325

Comment: 4.13.4 4‐ 271 Second paragraph 49 dBA (10 dBA above background) noted noise restriction 

March 1‐ June 15 within two miles. Point at which the noise measurements are to be taken should be stated 

(edge of active lek). 

Comment ID: 3149 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: 4.14.4 4‐ 272 Second paragraph ALT B, C, D and E State time period for which landscape scale 

restoration/conservation and maintenance strategies will be developed and how they will be implemented 

financially and by whom. 

Comment ID: 2714 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-335 Text: Buffer distances from 0.5 to two miles from oil and gas infrastructure have been 

shown to be inadequate to prevent declines of birds from leks (Walker et al. 2007). Studies have shown that 

greater distances, anywhere from two to four miles, are required for viable Greater Sage- Grouse 

populations to persist (Connelly et al. 2000, Holloran and Anderson 2005, Walker et al. 2007) Comment: 

Both the Data Quality Act and the Office of Management and Budget Guidelines implementing it require 

agencies to “ensure and maximize” the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information 

disseminated by federal agencies. DQA §515(a), OMB Guidelines, § 11(2), 67 Fed. Reg. at 8458. The 

Walker study was completed in the Powder River Basin with well densities that are not allowed under either 

EO 2011-5 or Alternative E. Furthermore, the industry has developed best practices that have made this 

study largely irrelevant. Thus, the utility of the Walker study is absent and the integrity of the BLM’s 

citation tot that study here is severely compromised. BLM must provide additional information for .5 buffer 

distances. 

Comment ID: 2323 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: For example, the assumption that a canopy cover of at least 15% is representative of habitat 

health (See Ch. 4 at 4-407) is narrow and one-sided, and does not take into account understory health or the 

seral stage of the sagebrush stand, or use/function for a particular sage-grouse population. BLM must fully 

analyze and articulate the possibility that the “ideal” habitat condition may actually exacerbate the wildfire 

threat to sage-grouse, which raises the question of whether the canopy cover goal is adequate or appropriate 

in light of the threats. If reducing canopy cover would reduce the risk of fire and still provide functionality, 

then BLM must consider this as a better management option. BLM must explain the benefit of increasing 

the threat of fire to sage-grouse across seasonal habitats, in order to provide “ideal” conditions for one 

seasonal habitat. Moreover, BLM has failed to take into account that habitats are ever changing, and that 

these “ideal” conditions would be temporary in light of natural vegetation succession. 

Comment ID: 3085 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Core areas require protection commensurate with their biological values. Where development 

occurs – including operations and maintenance -- conservation measures must be tailored to the duration, 

intensity and nature of impacts of that particular development. The Lander PRMP notes that “wildlife 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-326 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

seasonal protections from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities apply to maintenance and operations 

actions when the activity is determined to be detrimental to wildlife.” Lander FEIS at 117. This is an 

important issue due to the longer period of time associated with maintenance and operations actions, beyond 

the usual development-specific stipulations. BLM supports this, “Beyond initial exploration (including 

geophysical activities), land clearing, and aboveground facility construction, continued human disturbance 

to special status wildlife could occur from activities such as equipment maintenance and site operations, 

which are especially disruptive during sensitive times (wintering, breeding, and nesting).” Lander FEIS at 

931. 

Comment ID: 2709 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-256 Text: Winter concentration areas are documented areas where large numbers (25 to 50 

or more) of Greater Sage-Grouse consistently use habitat during the winter months and contain sagebrush 

as described for winter habitat (BLM 2009b). Comment: The DEIS defines Winter Concentration Area as: 

“Sage-grouse winter habitats which are occupied annually by sage-grouse and provide sufficient sagebrush 

cover and food to support birds throughout the entire winter (especially periods with above average snow 

cover). Many of these areas support several different breeding populations of sage-grouse. Sage-grouse 

typically show high fidelity for these areas, and loss or fragmentation can result in significant population 

impacts.” The glossary makes no mention of the required number of birds and it also does not use the term 

“consistently.” The BLM must clarify which definition is will apply. Certainly a handful of birds will not 

create a winter concentration area and similarly, the presence of birds over one or two years should not 

create a winter concentration area. We would suggest that a winter concentration area would be verified 

with scientifically based field assessments in coordination with landowners, permittees, and state, local and 

federal government entities. 

Comment ID: 2660 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-111 Text: Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 304,970 acres (Map 2-3) would be 

the same type of impacts as described in Alternative A, except 236,420 more acres (more than 4 times as 

many as Alternative A) would be prohibited. Comment: This statement is misleading and should be revised 

to disclose the difference in amount and type of impacts between the two alternatives. The purpose of the 

analysis is to demonstrate the incremental changes from alternative A. The BLM should use a uniform 

method to show what alternative A is, and how Alternative E is different. Please refer to our comment 16. 

Summary: Specific comments for text changes to improve clarity, accuracy, or to support an opinion or 

viewpoint. Comments correct assumptions for analysis, needs for literature citations, definitions for “winter 

concentration areas” and “disruptive activities,” and correction of acres. More general questions about: 

definitions, terminology, and scientific basis for analysis. Comments that the analysis is vague or 

inadequate, that legal requirements were not met with the analysis, suggestions for additional areas of 

analysis, and the need for expanded analysis of leks and other sage-grouse habitat. 

Response: BLM believes that the analysis in Chapter 4 is sound and appropriately addresses the impacts to 

sagebrush habitat from wildland fire, energy development, and wild horse and livestock grazing 

management in Chapter 2. BLM and Forest Service have followed NEPA and the impact analysis in the 

LUP Amendments fulfill the requirements of NEPA and discloses impacts to the various resources to the 

level of detail possible using the available information, resources, data, and science. The combination of 

surface disturbance restrictions, timing limitations, limits on density of development, and other 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-327

management under Alternative E will prevent habitat fragmentation, reduce multiple stressors to the 

species, allow the continued existence of the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming and protect core, general, 

and seasonal sage-grouse habitat. The phrase “(more than 4 times as many as Alternative A)” was deleted 

from page 4-111 to improve clarity in the sentence. BLM and Forest Service used the best available science 

to prepare and analyze the LUP Amendments. There is ample science to show that sage-grouse will avoid 

areas with tall structures since most Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is void of tall trees where predatory avian 

species perch and hunt. Avoidance is greater in areas where surface disturbance has taken place and 

adequate cover habitat is not present (Hagen 2011). The definition of winter concentration areas on page 4-

256 was removed. A more accurate definition is in the glossary. The sentence on page 4-329 “Leks have 

been shown to go inactive when well pad densities exceed one per 640 acres.” has been removed. The 

assumption on page 4-242 is not a management action, merely a basis for the analysis. Changes have been 

made to address the comment regarding perch deterrents. Chapter 4 only analyzes impacts from the 

management actions contained in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2. Including analysis of other management (such as 

grass roots conservation initiatives or existing regulatory frameworks) would not be an appropriate NEPA 

analysis and would be outside the scope of the LUP Amendments. Appendix L contains laws, regulations, 

policy, and guidance that BLM and Forest Service follow in their management of public lands. Due to the 

scale of the planning area and inherent nature of land use planning, quantitative measures of impacts such 

as sage-grouse population numbers, actual types of habitat loss, and specific locations of disturbance are 

not always available for the analysis. Qualitative analysis is used where quantitative data is not available. 

The management analyzed on page 4-336 regarding expanding timeframes by 14 days has been revised in 

Chapter 2 and the analysis in Chapter 4 reflects the changes. Page 4-335, paragraph 1. The language 

regarding the 5% loss according to the DDCT has been revised to reflect the EO. The assumption regarding 

sage-grouse use of riparian habitat has been removed (page 4-260). 

Sage-grouse

Impact Analysis

Impacts to sage-grouse from oil and gas development are exaggerated, incorrect, etc.

Comment ID: 705 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, Wildlife Science International, and Lex Ivey, Terracognito GIS Services, 

compiled and analyzed 100 years of data on oil and gas development in the Pinedale Anticline Project Area 

(PAPA). Rob Roy Ramey, Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Oil and Gas Development, Mitigation, and 

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Attendance in the Pinedale Planning Area, Wyoming 1990-2012 (2014)(On file 

with author). The study also considered data on recent mitigation efforts to benefit GRSG, spatial and 

temporal changes in oil and gas development, reclamation and restoration, along with GRSG responses 

(based on 22 years of male GRSG lek attendance data). Not only does Dr. Ramey utterly refute the NTT 

report and several studies relied upon in the NTT report (i.e. Holloran, 2005), but Dr. Ramey suggests a 

paradigm shift in the relationship between oil and gas development and GRSG habitat selection and 

population viability. The force of Dr. Ramey’s report is easily summarized. Data from 1990 to 2012 do not 

indicate GRSG population decline nor widespread lek abandonment throughout the PAPA. In fact, lek 

attendance in the PAPA population was consistently above statewide averages and even more poignantly, 

lek attendance did not decline in areas with 3% disturbance within 4 miles of the lek. Going further, Dr. 

Ramey unilaterally states that studies currently being used for regulatory decisions with regards to GRSG 

are outdated and no longer relevant. Dr. Ramey also directly addresses Holloran’s 2005 study and found 

no evidence of a population decline or population extirpation in the PAPA as predicted by Holloran in 2005. 

We strongly encourage BLM to utilize this information in the current GRSG management action. BLM is 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-328 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

obligated to utilize the best information available and it is clear that the NTT report be discarded as flawed, 

dated, stale, and fatally comromised. 

Comment ID: 654 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran study from 2005 and it should not be 

cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily causes adverse impacts to GRSG given 

the limitations of the study. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-241. In discussing the Holloran study, and any 

potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should specifically disclose the fact that the BLM 

purposely waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally associated with GRSG leks and specifically 

allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active lek during the strutting season in order to 

assess the potential impacts. Additionally, the BLM should remember that the Holloran study was based on 

data from only two leks and, again, the BLM's normal timing restrictions were not applied. Further, the data 

was obtained in 2004 during a state-wide decline in GRSG populations that is attributable to drought and 

other factors. Finally, BLM should not place significant emphases on the Holloran study given the fact the 

study's overall conclusions and predictions have been demonstrated to be untrue. Holloran predicted 

population declines between 8.7% to 24.4% annually within the Pinedale Field Office. Despite Holloran's 

predictions of catastrophic population declines in the unmitigated area, this prediction has been clearly 

refuted by the data. Instead, GRSG in the Pinedale Area are above statewide averages in Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 622 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The characterization of energy impacts on sage-grouse impacts as “wide-spread” across 

Wyoming’s sage-grouse habitat is not consistent with the best scientific and commercially available data. 

As presented below, peer-reviewed literature indicates that 75 percent of all leks (current and historic, active 

and inactive) in Wyoming are not expected to have discernible impacts from oil and gas activities according 

to the criterion of less than 12 wells within a two-mile buffer surrounding a lek. Moreover, no less that 89 

percent of all Wyoming leks are expected to persist given current levels of oil and gas development. 

Comment ID: 625 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: In summary, oil and gas impacts to sage-grouse in Wyoming are not uniform across its entire 

range and depend heavily on the density of development. Suggesting oil and gas development has led to 

wholesale sage-grouse population declines across Wyoming is not supported by the degree of historic 

development in comparison to the overall sage-grouse range using the peer-reviewed methodology of 

Doherty et al. (2010). 

Comment ID: 646 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Oil and gas impacts to sage-grouse from dense vertical development have been welldocumented. This type of development has not occurred on a range-wide basis in Wyoming. As documented 

in these comments the extent of high density energy development (not a defined term by the FWS but 

demarcated herein as development greater than 60 oil and gas well pads within a two-mile buffer 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-329

surrounding a lek) is not range-wide or wide-spread, and in fact impacts approximately only 11 percent of 

all historical leks in Wyoming. Hence, oil and gas development does not currently threaten sage-grouse 

persistence in Wyoming, home of nearly 40 percent of all sage-grouse. Lek abandonment (approximately 

35 percent of all historical leks) occurs across Wyoming and although some portion of this abandonment 

(perhaps ten percent) in areas of high density development can be explained by oil and gas development, a 

larger percentage (perhaps as much as 25 percent) is not readily explained by the presence of oil and gas 

activities. The degree of lek abandonment caused by natural variations in population cycles, historic fires, 

predation, climate change, and anthropogenic impacts other than oil and gas development is an area ripe 

for investigation. 

Comment ID: 1211 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Anschutz is very concerned about the onerous mitigation measures BLM intends to impose 

under all alternatives in order to protect sage-grouse. Anschutz is particularly concerned because the BLM 

is utilizing oil and gas development in places such as Pinedale, Wyoming as the basis for the imposition of 

COAs and other lease stipulations. The oil and gas development that took place in the Pinedale Anticline 

and the Jonah Fields is unlikely to be repeated across much of Wyoming especially given improvements in 

technology since those fields were developed. The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran 

study from 2005 and it should not be cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily 

causes adverse impacts to GRSG given the limitations of the study. . Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-241. In 

discussing the Holloran study, and any potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should 

specifically disclose the fact that the BLM purposely waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally 

associated with GRSG leks and specifically allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active 

lek during the strutting season in order to assess the potential impacts. When discussing the potential 

impacts of fluid minerals on GRSG, the BLM often overstates potential impacts to the GRSG. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 3-241 – 3-2-42. The BLM’s statements are contradicted by other reports that have been 

prepared regarding GRSG. Ramey (2011). Additionally, Taylor et. al., in 2007 

Comment ID: 645 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The Taylor et al. (2013) analysis does not account for ongoing efforts to control mosquitos and 

more importantly does not explain why the outbreak of WNv in 2003 and 2007 in the PRB resulted in lek 

abandonment rates basin-wide that are nearly identical to rates in non-outbreak years. Figure 11 graphically 

represents lek abandonment within the PRB (same data as Table 5), and importantly highlights those years 

where WNv was denoted to occur. Years following WNv outbreaks show no increase in basin-wide lek 

abandonment rates irrespective of well density. This is to say that the PRB sage-grouse viability analysis 

presents a worst case scenario that does not reflect a) current development activity rates, b) ongoing 

mosquito control efforts, or c) the empirical data from actual outbreak years on basin-wide lek abandonment 

rates. Models are useful tools but they need to be verified and the assumptions they are built upon reviewed 

thoroughly to understand their limitations and usefulness as a management tool. Basinwide lek 

abandonment did not double in 2004 or 2008 (See Figure 11) from one third of the total lek count to twothirds of all leks as suggested by the Taylor et al. (2013) modeling. Taylor et al. (2013) also does not explain 

why their modeled predictions of lek extirpation far exceed what was actually observed in 2004 and 2008 

after WNv outbreak years. While the predictive ability of the Taylor et al. model in relation to oil and gas 

impacts and lek attendance appear to be well-correlated and reproducible, the impacts of WNv on lek 

attendance and abandonment at a basin-wide scale do not appear to be correlated to any actual outbreak 

year. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-330 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 644 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Actual Lek Abandonment Versus Modeled Predictions: The 2012 Report by Taylor et al. later 

published in journal format as Taylor et al. (2013) suggests sage-grouse viability in the PRB is threatened 

by the dual threats of CBNG development and WNv. Their analysis confirms the hazards of trying to predict 

oil and gas development outside the context of market drivers and fails to represent a foreseeable future in 

two fundamental respects: (1) It assumed CBNG development would continue at levels projected in the 

2003 EIS; and (2) It over-stated historical impacts from WNv outbreaks. First, new CBNG drilling has 

virtually ceased in the PRB as witnessed by CBM well completion data from the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (Figure 10). Well locations are now being reclaimed at rates that exceed the rate 

of new completions. Second, given the error range in the Taylor et al. (2013) WNv paper, there is little 

evidence that WNv is a substantial threat to sage-grouse populations as suggested on a basin-wide basis. 

The Northeastern Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (page 6) embraces the Taylor et al. (2013) 

predictions and states: “The low elevation population in northeastern Wyoming is most threatened by WNv. 

Two outbreak years, 2003 and 2007, resulted in a significant number of leks with no male attendance in the 

following years in localized areas. An outbreak year is predicted to decrease the area lek counts by 60% 

due to an increase in lek extirpations” (Underline added, scale of “area” undefined). 

Comment ID: 1553 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: EOG is very concerned about the onerous mitigation measures BLM intends to impose under 

all alternatives in order to protect GRSG. EOG is particularly concerned because the BLM is utilizing oil 

and gas development in places such as Pinedale, Wyoming as the basis for the imposition of COAs and 

other lease stipulations. The oil and gas development that took place in the Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah 

Fields is unlikely to be repeated across much of Wyoming especially given improvements in technology 

since those fields were developed. The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran study from 

2005 and it should not be cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily causes adverse 

impacts to GRSG given the limitations of the study. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-241. In discussing the 

Holloran study, and any potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should specifically disclose the 

fact that the BLM purposely waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally associated with GRSG 

leks and specifically allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active lek during the strutting 

season in order to assess the potential impacts. Additionally, the BLM should remember that the Holloran 

study was based on data from only two leks and, again, the BLM‘s normal timing restrictions were not 

applied. Further, Mr. Holloran‘s data was obtained in 2004 during a state-wide decline in GRSG 

populations that is attributable to drought and other factors. Finally, BLM should not place significant 

emphasis on the Holloran study given the fact the study‘s overall conclusions and predictions have been 

demonstrated to be untrue. Holloran predicted population declines between 8.7% to 24.4% annually within 

the Pinedale Field Office. Despite Holloran‘s predictions of catastrophic population declines in the 

unmitigated area, this prediction has been clearly refuted by the data. Instead, GRSG in the Pinedale Area 

are above state-wide averages in Wyoming. When discussing the potential impacts of fluid minerals on 

GRSG, the BLM often overstates potential impacts to the GRSG. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 3-241 – 3-2-

42. The BLM‘s statements are contradicted by other reports that have been prepared regarding GRSG. 

Ramey (2011). Additionally, Taylor et. al., in 2007. Continually allowing hunting within the Planning Area 

may negate many of the mitigation measures currently proposed in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. 

Comment ID: 643 

Organization: Anadarko 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-331

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The percentage of leks abandoned in CBNG development areas within the PRB over the entire 

period of significant development activity (1997 through 2012) was approximately ten percent greater than 

the lek abandonment rate outside of intensive CBNG development areas (defined herein as leks with less 

than 12 wells within a two-mile buffer surrounding a lek where a 30 percent abandoned rate was observed). 

In the context of this analysis, the degree of impact from CBNG development, while not insignificant, is 

certainly less than that suggested by the FWS Listing Decision introductory paragraph on energy 

development impacts to sage-grouse. For example, 12 years of coal-bed methane gas development in the 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming has coincided with 79% decline in the sage grouse population (Emmerich, 

pers. Comm.). USFWS Listing Decision, page 32. It is unclear based on the population estimates by Garton 

et al. (2011) and others (Taylor, et al. 2012) how the 79 percent decline estimate was derived, or for that 

matter if the use of the phrase “coincided with” was meant to obfuscate the fact that lek abandonment is not 

correlated with high wells counts within a two-mile buffer surrounding a lek. The conclusion that some 

degree of sagegrouse declines in the PRB have been caused by CBNG development is not debatable. 

However, other causative factors have received little to no attention fromresearchers or wildlife 

management agencies, with the exception of the threats posed by West Nile Virus (“WNv”) (Taylor, et al. 

2012.). In fact, the work by Taylor et al. (2012) confirmed the independent lek analyses presented above 

when they derived from their population modeling effort that “Increasing well-density had a negligible 

effect on lek extirpations, which remained between 25% and 33% regardless of the intensity of oil and gas 

development.” 

Comment ID: 642 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: While lek abandonment has occurred across Wyoming both within and outside of areas impacted 

by oil and gas development (see earlier Table 3), a significant and apparently isolated degree of lek 

abandonment (in comparison to other sage-grouse breeding populations across the western range) occurred 

in the PRB in the 1990s. Causative factors explaining lek abandonment and sage-grouse population declines 

in the PRB during the 1990s has incorrectly been tied to extensive CBNG development, however, as 

discussed earlier, there is no causal tie between CBNG development and wholesale declines in sage-grouse 

populations upon review of the decline plotted temporally against timing of the onset of CBNG 

development, with CBNG following some years after precipitous declines in sage-grouse numbers in the 

PRB. 

Comment ID: 640 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Finally, the heavy reliance by the agencies on Halloran (2005) indicates a lack of rigorous 

analysis. The results from the Holloran’s (2005) Pinedale gas field study are not consistent with the work 

by Garton et al. (2011) which indicates increasing sage-grouse populations across the Wyoming Basin SMZ 

from 1995 forward. The agencies need to compare localized impacts to a lek (Holloran 2005) with the 

broader landscape level analysis done by Garton et al. (2011). The landscape level increasing sage-grouse 

population trend over the period of heightened oil and gas activity in southwest Wyoming encompasses the 

same evaluation period as the Halloran’s (2005) analysis. Furthermore, field development activities in 

Pinedale shifted to directional drilling since the Holloran field work and there has been no effort by the 

agencies to determine if predictions have been validated. 

Comment ID: 787 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-332 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran study from 2005 and it should not be 

cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily causes adverse impacts to GRSG given 

the limitations of the study. Sage-Grouse DLUPA pg. 3-241. In discussing the Holloran study, and any 

potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should specifically disclose the fact that the BLM 

purposely waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally associated with GRSG leks and specifically 

allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active lek during the strutting season in order to 

assess the potential impacts. Additionally, the BLM should remember that the Holloran study was based on 

data from only two leks and, again, the BLM's normal timing restrictions were not applied. Further, Mr. 

Holloran's data was obtained in 2004 during a state-wide decline in GRSG populations that is attributable 

to drought and other factors. Finally, BLM should not place significant emphases on the Holloran study 

given the fact the study's overall conclusions and predictions have been demonstrated to be untrue. Holloran 

predicted population declines between 8.7% to 24.4% annually within the Pinedale Field Office. Despite 

Holloran's predictions of catastrophic population declines in the unmitigated area, this prediction has been 

clearly refuted by the data. Instead, GRSG in the Pinedale Area are above state-wide averages in Wyoming. 

When discussing the potential impacts of fluid minerals on GRSG, the BLM often overstates potential 

impacts to the GRSG. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 3-241 - 3-242. The BLM's statements are contradicted 

by other reports that have been prepared regarding GRSG. Ramey (2011), Taylor et. al. (2007 ) 

Comment ID: 797 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: When discussing the potential impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from fluid mineral development, 

the BLM unnecessarily relies on a few isolated studies and greatly overestimates the impacts of oil and gas 

development on sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1822 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT, 

MITIGATION, AND GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LEK ATTENDANCE IN THE PINEDALE 

PLANNING AREA (PPA), WYOMING: 1990-2012 (2014) (In Press) This soon to be published study by 

Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, Wildlife Science International, and Lex Ivey, Terracognito GIS Services, compiled 

and analyzed 100 years of data on oil and gas development in the PPA. The study also considered data on 

recent mitigation efforts to benefit GRSG, spatial and temporal changes in oil and gas development, 

reclamation and restoration, along with GRSG responses (based on 22 years of male GRSG lek attendance 

data). It is critical to note that this comprehensive, site-specific study found no evidence of a GRSG 

population decline in the PPA, specifically as a result of oil and gas development. Based upon these 

scientifically documented, site-specific findings, the assumptions and directions contained in the NTT 

report are inappropriate and excessive because they are predicated upon flawed scientific methods and the 

inaccurate hypothesis that oil and gas development “impacts are universally negative and typically severe.” 

Therefore, we strongly recommend that BLM modify its current approach to future management of GRSG 

and its habitat to ensure it does not unnecessarily restrict uses that have been demonstrated not to have the 

presumed impact of the NTT and COT reports. 

Comment ID: 2295 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-333

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: When discussing the potential impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from fluid mineral development, 

the BLM unnecessarily relies on a few isolated studies and greatly overestimates the impacts of oil and gas 

development on sage-grouse. The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran study from 2005. 

The study should not be cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily causes adverse 

impacts to sage-grouse given the limitations of the study. In discussing the Holloran study, and any potential 

conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should specifically disclose the fact that the BLM purposely 

waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally associated with sagegrouse leks and specifically 

allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active lek during the strutting season in order to 

assess the potential impacts. Additionally, the BLM should remember that the Holloran study was based on 

data from only two leks and, again, the BLM’s normal timing restrictions were not applied. Further, Mr. 

Holloran’s data was obtained in 2004 during a state-wide decline in sage-grouse populations that is 

attributable to drought and other factors. Finally, BLM should not place significant emphases on the 

Holloran study given the fact his overall conclusions and predictions have been demonstrated to be untrue. 

When discussing the potential impacts of fluid minerals on Sage-grouse, the BLM often overstates potential 

impacts to the Sage-grouse. The BLM’s statement is contradicted by other reports that have been prepared 

regarding Greater Sagegrouse. Ramey (2011). Additionally, Taylor et. al., in 2007. 

Summary: Oil and gas impacts to sage-grouse in Wyoming are not uniform across its entire range and 

depend heavily on the density of development. Suggesting oil and gas development has led to wholesale 

sage-grouse population declines across Wyoming is not supported by the degree of historic development in 

comparison to the overall sage-grouse range using the peer-reviewed methodology of Doherty et al. (2010). 

Oil and gas development does not currently threaten sage-grouse persistence in Wyoming, home of nearly 

40 percent of all sage-grouse. The degree of lek abandonment caused by natural variations in population 

cycles, historic fires, predation, climate change, and anthropogenic impacts other than oil and gas 

development is an area ripe for investigation. BLM unnecessarily relies on a few isolated studies (Holloran 

2005; Taylor et al 2013) and greatly overestimates the impacts of oil and gas development on sage-grouse. 

Response: Impacts from oil and gas activity on Greater Sage-Grouse used in the Draft and Final EIS are 

based on peer reviewed scientific literature specific to oil and gas activity; most of these studies have been 

conducted in Wyoming and are applicable to this project. Generally, the scientific literature suggests that 

sage-grouse need contiguous, unfragmented habitat in very large expanses for breeding, nesting, feeding 

and cover. Anthropogenic disturbance from roads, powerlines, energy development, and other activities all 

fragment sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming. 

Sage-grouse

Impact Analysis

Livestock grazing impacts sage-grouse

Comment ID: 976 

Organization: 

Name: Rosalie More 

Comment: Save the Sage Grouse by removing all the cattle and sheep from the public lands where 

endangered species reside. 

Comment ID: 105 

Organization: 

Name: Lynn Anderson 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-334 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: SAGE GROUSE ARE INFINITELY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME, AND TO MANY OTHER 

PEOPLE, THAN OVER-GRAZING COULD EVER BE. 

Comment ID: 1254 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The preferred alternative does not seriously address the primary source of degradation within 

Greater sage-grouse habitat in the project area: livestock grazing. It fails to resolve the conflicts between 

livestock grazing uses and the other users of the project area, namely, Greater sage-grouse and the citizens 

who want them recovered on the landscape. 

Comment ID: 151 

Organization: 

Name: bk1492@aol.com 

Comment: deny new leases to robber baron cattle ranchers and to miners and drillers. the grouse can come 

bac k if tyou leeav ethem alone. 

Comment ID: 71 

Organization: 

Name: Paul Richey 

Comment: It is a conflict of interest that BLM has the power to help the Greater Sage-Grouse while it also 

rents land for destructive cattle grazing. 

Comment ID: 162 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Voluntary livestock allotment retirement should be encouraged 

Comment ID: 155 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Prevent livestock grazing from degrading sage-grouse habitat, and facilitate voluntary retirement 

of federal grazing permits in sage-grouse range. 

Comment ID: 2788 

Organization: 

Name: christine macmurray 

Comment: The Bureau of Land Management/Wyoming's plan to protect sage grouse, a seriously threatened 

ground-dwelling bird, on 16.2 million acres of public land in the state, does not incorporate the devastating 

impact of livestock grazing on sagebrush habitat, which the bird depends on for survival 

Comment ID: 2951 

Organization: 

Name: Beth Levine 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-335

Comment: Please stop allowing cattle ranchers to graze their cattle on public lands and protect the sage 

grouse. 

Summary: Prevent livestock grazing from degrading sage-grouse habitat, and facilitate voluntary retirement 

of federal grazing permits in sage-grouse range and priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Response: The State of Wyoming considers proper livestock grazing a de minimus practice within 

sagebrush habitat. On February 5, 2015 the USFWS released a memo detailing its position on livestock 

grazing and sage-grouse habitat management. This memo outlines the potential positive and impacts of 

grazing management. As with all resource uses, proper livestock grazing must be carefully managed to 

provide adequate habitat for sage-grouse and other native wildlife species. Areas of most concern are 

sensitive seasonal habitat for sage-grouse such as early brood-rearing, nesting, and winter ranges. Within 

seasonal habitat, vegetation height for sage-grouse cover and forage is necessary for species survival. The 

Proposed LUP Amendments include grazing management actions, including voluntary relinquishment of 

grazing permits, to ensure that livestock grazing continues to be a de minimis practice in sage-grouse habitat 

on public lands in Wyoming. 

Sage-grouse

Mitigation measures

Mitigation, reclamation: questions, concerns, comments

Comment ID: 846 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: mitigation 

should be required to take place in the same eco-region or within the same habitat quality that is a functional 

unit (a contiguous parcel of land providing habitat for a particular group of sagegrouse during their annual 

life cycle) as the project site. 

Comment ID: 845 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: site 

mitigation for impacts which cannot be mitigated on-site, or where landscape approaches to mitigation offer 

opportunities to address conservation needs on a larger scale while generating net conservation benefits for 

sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1576 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: EOG is opposed to the BLM‘s incorporation of the mitigation strategy described in BLM Draft 

Manual Section 1794. As this document has not been finally implemented or developed by the BLM and is 

only in draft form, it has no binding effect. The BLM should refrain from using non-final documents. 

Comment ID: 828 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-336 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: In addition, BLM now has guidance on regional or landscape-level mitigation.12 In this 

guidance, BLM formally acknowledges that it can condition approval of uses on sufficient off-site 

mitigation and provides detailed standards for designing appropriate mitigation. The final RMPA should 

identify specific off-site mitigation measures to offset development impacts that cannot be mitigated within 

a project area. 

Comment ID: 826 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: As the agencies establish management guidelines for sage-grouse habitat, they should apply the 

BLM’s habitat mitigation policy, codified at 43 C.F.R. § 1508.20. This policy lists habitat mitigation actions 

in descending order of preference: avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction, and compensation. As 

the agencies engage in the difficult act of balancing development with conservation of sage-grouse and 

other sagebrush obligate species, they must keep in mind this mitigation hierarchy and consider “avoidance” 

the foremost objective, especially in sage-grouse priority habitat. BLM and USFS should strongly consider 

closing large areas in important sage-grouse habitat to anthropogenic disturbance. In the event that 

development occurs in sage-grouse habitat, the agencies are legally required to apply mitigation to lessen 

impacts on the species. 

Comment ID: 1008 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg. 2-8: The BLM continues to implemented inconsistent mitigation measures. BLM must 

clarify whether it will follow established mitigation measures or Draft – Regional Mitigation Manual 

Section 1794 and BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-142. MS 1794 includes substantial derivations 

in practice and it is our position, however, that IM No. 2013-142 must undergo notice and comment 

procedures before it can be implemented as part of the BLM’s Final EIS and ROD. Furthermore, the BLM 

must consider a management action developed to include mitigation banking to more adaptively manage 

the impacts of a project where the goal is to replace the exact function and value of the specific habitat that 

would be adversely affected by a proposed activity or project. Habitat banking more closely ties the impact 

to the mitigation in both location and purpose. 

Comment ID: 800 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon is opposed to the BLM's incorporation of the mitigation strategy described in BLM Draft 

Manual Section 1794. This document has not been finally implemented or developed by the BLM and is 

only in draft form, it has no binding effect. The BLM should refrain from using non-final documents. 

Comment ID: 1860 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Notwithstanding our comment above that points out that BLM MS 1794 must go through the 

regulatory review process, we question the need to establish six new Mitigation Implementation Teams 

when BLM is currently short-staffed and short-budgeted and most of the western states are already 

establishing their own teams for managing impacts on GRSG, including mitigation measures. There is 

certainly no need for such a team in Wyoming because it would confuse and complicate the current role of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-337

the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT), in which both agencies participate. Moreover, 

the State of Wyoming has convened several local working groups that also coordinate activities with the 

SGIT. The SGIT must remain the primary authority in determining how best to manage Wyoming’s GRSG 

core area strategy and activities therein. We recommend that BLM/FS abandon the establishment of 

redundant Mitigation Implementation Teams and focus their efforts in coordinating with the SGIT. 

Comment ID: 798 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: The BLM indicates in section 4.14.4 that it intends to rely on a significant level of compensatory 

offsite mitigation in order to maintain or improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

4-271. The BLM needs to ensure that its proposed requirements for compensatory offsite mitigation are 

voluntary and consistent with existing BLM policy. 

Comment ID: 1803 

Organization: The Wilderness Society 

Name: Nada Culver 

Comment: The Draft EIS states that this team will make recommendations on compensatory mitigation, 

including structure for determining appropriate mitigation. We recommend that the final amendment 

incorporate more specific direction on use of compensatory mitigation. As noted in tehe Draft EIS, BLM 

now has guidance on regional mitigation in effect. See, BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-142 and 

Draft Manual Section 1794 (Regional Mitigation) 25 

[http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruc 

tion/2013/IM_2013-142.html]. In this guidance, BLM formally acknowledges that it can condition approval 

of uses on sufficient off-site mitigation and provides detailed standards for designing appropriate 

mitigation. BLM should use this current guidance to develop and incorporate regional mitigation 

approaches that will meaningfully address development and other damaging activities that may continue in 

sage-grouse habitat, and that benefits multiple resources that might otherwise be harmed by the same 

activities, such as energy development. BLM should comply with its guidance on regional mitigation to 

avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to sage-grouse and other resources through planning and management 

decisions. BLM’sregional mitigation guidance, as well as the recent secretarial order, provides a framework 

for accomplishing these goals. 

Comment ID: 361 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We call upon the Forest Service to reach a determination regarding the effectiveness of each 

category of compensatory mitigation to result in no net loss of sagebrush populations for the area in 

question, pursuant to NFMA. Please document any and all scientific studies that conclude that 

compensatory mitigation efforts have yielded an increase in sage grouse populations for the area to which 

mitigation efforts apply. We are unaware of any cases in which a compensatory mitigation program has 

resulted in a significant increase in sage grouse compared to an untreated landscape. The fact that 

“compensatory mitigation” funding frequently is used to purchase conservation easements is problematic, 

because this is a paper transaction with legal ramifications preventing future potential losses, but can never 

yield population gains to offset the very real and immediate losses of sage grouse habitats and populations 

incurred as a result of industrial development. BLM asserts increases in habitat values from mitigation 

(DEIS at 4-255) but fails to document populationlevel benefits for sage grouse. The proposition that the 

details of mitigation will be deferred to subsequent implementation teams (DEIS at 2-9) is also problematic 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-338 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

because it prevents the Wyoming EIS from analyzing the impacts of alternatives taking into account 

“offsetting” mitigation, and fails to analyze the effectiveness of mitigation measures, both of which appear 

to violate NEPA. 

Comment ID: 1836 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: The BLM/FS need to discuss how they will handle monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation 

practices. Given the various mitigation policies being adopted through this LUPA/DEIS, the effectiveness 

of such practices must be an integral part of any monitoring program. Of particular concern is that no 

provision is included for those measures which reclaim or enhance habitat either onsite or offsite related to 

a project. A tracking system for identifying habitat improvements must be included in the implementation 

plan, one which does not rely exclusively or extensive on the Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) 

because it would be managed by a federal agency with tight budgets and limited staff hours for database 

management. Given funding constraints, we question whether staff or critical technology updates will be 

available for a new tracking database. 

Comment ID: 886 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Tri-State encourages the Agencies to include new research and research funding as a legitimate 

and approved compensatory mitigation option, and to develop options to compare costs and assign value to 

research that can be conducted to further the understanding of how grouse respond to activities in their 

habitat and the mitigation measures used to benefit them. Additional research is required to better 

understand the implications of overhead facilities and other aboveground structures on the potential for 

increased predation, right-of-way avoidance, collision risk, and habitat fragmentation. Mitigation in the 

form of funding for further research studies that could be mutually agreed upon would be beneficial to both 

the Agencies and industry in helping to understand the issues, as well as identifying what is effective. The 

effect of predation on the fluctuation and viability of sage-grouse populations has never been investigated 

(Connelly and Braun 1997, Connely et al, 2000). Even the BLM has acknowledged in public meetings that 

natural predation could be a significant factor in sagegrouse mortality, yet there is still no clear 

understanding of the extent of these impacts on overall sage-grouse populations. Additional research funds 

could be used to better understand natural mortality rates from predation, and would enable us to better 

understand how relative raptor predation from increased perching on power poles affects sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 984 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: Several management actions within the Draft LUP Amendment give indication that mitigation 

may be used in place of meeting EO 2011-5 stipulations. All efforts should be made to meet the Disturbance 

Density Calculation Tool (DDCT) thresholds and other stipulations. Only when there are no options 

because of legal or other unusual circumstances should additional mitigation be considered. If additional 

mitigation is necessary, then it should be subject to the following application priority: onsite, within the 

area of the DDCT, within the core area, adjacent to the core area, and, finally, outside of the core area. The 

use of additional mitigation has a role–to minimize impacts. If used improperly, it also has the potential to 

undermine efforts to protect intact habitat. It is important to work col1aboratively to determine if mitigation 

is warranted while also maintaining a degree of siting flexibility in order to address local situations. 

Mitigation should only be considered as a credible alternative where mitigation actions can be shown to be 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-339

effective prior to the actual disturbance. Mitigation must recognize all life cycle needs of GSG and be 

implemented on a time and scale that adequately addresses any habitat loss due to the activity and 

subsequent reclamation. 

Comment ID: 1458

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: As to mitigation, NEPA requires that an EIS contain “a reasonably complete discussion of 

possible mitigation measures” and that they “be discussed in sufficient detail to ensure that environmental 

consequences have been fairly evaluated.” NEPA implementing regulations recognize a diverse set of 

mitigation classes which include “[c]ompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments” and “[r]ectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the 

affected environment.” The final EIS should include more alternative design features and mitigation 

measures that: 1) recognize sage-grouse habitat quality and protection in proportion to potential sagegrouse 

conservation; 2) recognize the efforts of local, regional, statewide, and private conservation initiatives; and 

3) provide for compensatory on-site and off-site mitigation (such as mitigation banks). In our experience, 

onsite mitigation options are often limited because BLM appears to believe that sage-grouse will disappear 

from the project area of a wind farm. If the term mitigation is used in its classic sense, as defined by the 

FWS and Corps of Engineers, mitigation includes (in this order) avoidance, minimization, and 

compensation. Using this definition, avoidance of as much impact through project siting, design and/or 

operation should constitute an onsite mitigation action, as would minimizing other impacts through project 

design or operation. Offsite mitigation options should include compensatory mitigation, in which sagegrouse habitat would be improved in some substantial way to provide a net benefit. Compensatory 

mitigation options include, but are not limited to, juniper removal, marking fences and transmission lines, 

decommissioning existing roads, replanting burned areas, controlling nonnative species, managing 

livestock, restoring higher quality native vegetation, and limiting public access to important areas, including

lekking, nesting, and winter ranges. Offsite mitigation can also most easily be accomplished on private 

lands through conservation banking or through Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances 

(CCAAs) and on public lands (if feasible) through Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs). 

Comment ID: 246 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Finally, we would ask the responsible official to render a formal determination regarding any 

scientific support for allowing exceptions to the disturbance cap to be granted with or without mitigation 

when sage grouse populations are at or above population targets and stable. Please cite to scientifically 

valid studies that provide examples of mitigation that have increased the populations of sage grouse where 

they have been implemented, to offset losses to sage grouse populations in developed areas. 

Comment ID: 248 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We call upon the Forest Service to reach a determination regarding the effectiveness of the 

proposed compensatory mitigation to result in no net loss of sagebrush populations for the area in question. 

Please document any and all scientific studies that conclude that compensatory mitigation efforts have 

yielded an increase in sage grouse populations for the area to which mitigation efforts apply. We are 

unaware of any cases in which a compensatory mitigation program has resulted in a significant increase in 

sage grouse compared to an untreated landscape. The fact that “compensatory mitigation” funding 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-340 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

frequently is used to purchase conservation easements is problematic, because this is a paper transaction 

with legal ramifications preventing future potential losses, but can never yield population gains to offset 

the very real and immediate losses of sage grouse habitats and populations incurred as a result of industrial 

development. 

Comment ID: 712 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The BLM provides a revealing example of its out-of-kind mitigation logic. Posed with the 

disturbance of sage-grouse winter habitat in Area (A), the BLM would mitigate that loss by reclaiming 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat in Area (B). Draft at 1-9, Section 10(b). This management principle 

is fatally flawed. As sage-grouse rearing habitat works to increase the overall population of individual 

animals, winter range plays the opposite part. Thus, when winter range is disturbed, the carrying capacity 

of the landscape is decreased. Regardless of the number of individual birds that survive through the broodrearing period, it is the winter range that caps the population. Mitigating Area (B) in this example would 

only exacerbate the disturbance in Area (A). Finally, the BLM states that “[o]ne acre of mitigation outside 

the area of impact may not necessarily be sufficient to compensate for one acre of direct onsite surface 

impact.” Id. at 1-12. Instead, the BLM suggests that multiplying the number of acres actually impacted by 

three may be necessary to mitigate the impacts of a project. Id. BLM, however, makes no mention of the 

process it used to formulate the 3-to-1 ratio nor does BLM rely on peerreviewed research for its 3:1 ratio. 

The BLM’s suggestion appears especially irrational since agencies and courts have concluded that a 1:1 

mitigation ratio is sufficient. Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Jewell, 2013 WL 4616972, 5* (D. D.C. Aug. 

30, 2013). 

Comment ID: 1859 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: We oppose BLM’s attempt to adopt and implement the concept of regional mitigation through 

this planning process because its purpose is to extend BLM’s management authority beyond public lands. 

Including Regional Mitigation in the GRSG plan amendments is premature, at best. Therefore, we strongly 

advise that all references to regional mitigation be qualified in the final environmental impact statement 

and subsequent records of decision that this aspect is still under review by the agency. 

Comment ID: 1422 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Onsite and Offsite Mitigation, pages 2-135 and 2-136, Item #128. As stated under 

Alternative E, “Within sage-grouse core habitat when mitigation is required, the agencies in coordination 

with the State of Wyoming and its agencies and partners, would use the following mitigation hierarchy: 1. 

In-kind and onsite (on lease) mitigation would be first priority; 2. In-kind mitigation offsite within the 

project DDCT analysis area would be second priority; 3. In-kind mitigation offsite within the core area 

boundary would be third priority; 4. In-kind mitigation adjacent to the affected core area within general 

sagegrouse habitat would be fourth priority.” This mitigation strategy is consistent with the EO, Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department guidance, and USFWS guidance. We appreciate the concept that mitigation is 

a potential opportunity, however we would like to point out the fact that not all core areas are created equal. 

Some core areas provide better habitat than others, and this is a function of differences in habitat across the 

range, and the fact that the core boundaries were basically developed in good-faith, but based on simply 

drawing lines on a map to encompass lek groupings and best estimates on habitat. Based on the fact that 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-341

some areas are simply better habitat than others, mitigation in highly functional habitat as opposed to 

mitigation adjacent to sub-optimal habitat, although next to a project, may provide improvements overall 

for the species. As a recommendation, the BLM’s mitigation hierarchy should also consider the relative 

value of a nominated mitigation projects that provide relative benefits to the species, whether onsite, 

adjacent, or offsite. 

Comment ID: 1399 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: BLM needs to reconsider the BLM‘s appeal policy regarding offsite mitigation in the SageGrouse DLUPA for several reasons. Sage-Grouse DLUPA pgs. 2-8 – 2-9. First, the BLM needs to ensure 

that its proposed requirements for off-site or voluntary mitigation are consistent with existing BLM policy. 

This provision is inconsistent with the BLM‘s current policy regarding off-site mitigation as expressed in 

BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-204.Further, throughout section 2.3.3 the BLM refers to BLM‘s 

regional mitigation manual section 1794. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-8 – 2-9. To date, however, the BLM 

has not released BLM Manual 1794 in a final format. Instead, the BLM has merely released a preliminary 

draft section of the manual for public review and comment. It is wholly inappropriate for the BLM to rely 

upon this draft Manual in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA until it has been finally promulgated. 

Comment ID: 2049 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Require off-site mitigation for impacts which cannot be mitigated on-site, or where landscape 

approaches to mitigation offer opportunities to address conservation needs on a larger scale while 

generating net conservation benefits for sage grouse. Off-site mitigation should be required to take place in 

the same eco-region or with the same habitat quality that is a functional unit (a contiguous parcel of land 

providing habitat for a particular group of sage-grouse during their annual life cycle) as the project site. 

Comment ID: 2051 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Reclamation should be a mandatory stipulation for all development in sage-grouse habitat and 

managers must recognize that methods for achieving success vary by region and are site-specific. 

Reclamation efforts should be monitored and results maintained in a single database to improve public 

understanding and effectiveness of efforts. The agencies should establish a process to identify and address 

failed reclamation projects. 

Comment ID: 2743 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg B-9 Text: Discussion of Regional Mitigation Strategy. Comment: We incorporate our 

discussion of MS 1794 and Regional Mitigation here. 

Comment ID: 2340 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-342 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: To the extent the DLUPA/DEIS pursues offsite or other mitigation requirements, Western Fuels 

urges that any required mitigation allow for flexibility in implementing required mitigation, including 

consideration of private mitigation banking options and credit exchanges. Flexibility should be used to 

encourage project proponents to adopt voluntary mitigation; flexibility should not be used by the BLM to 

allow districts to require arbitrary mitigation beyond levels established by the BLM on a project-specific 

basis using best available scientific data. Western Fuels appreciates the commitment to developing a 

structure for determining the appropriate sage grouse mitigation by a Mitigation Implementation Team, but 

it does not provide enough relief from the unknowns of this strategy. 

Comment ID: 2321 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM should be compelled to provide evidence that supports the land use restrictions, and habitat 

thresholds proposed in the DLUPA/DEIS in light of more recent scientific points of view as presented by 

the USGS, another Department of the Interior agency. In addition, it is not clear whether the disturbance 

thresholds consider or account for off-site mitigation. It is BLM’s policy to consider mitigation outside the 

area of impact when it is not feasible or practical to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level in the same area 

as the use authorization (BLM Regional Mitigation Manual Section MS-1794) (See Appendix L at L-18). 

BLM must clarify how mitigation is accounted for in the disturbance calculations. 

Comment ID: 2183 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: The BLM makes it clear in section 2.3.3 that it intends to rely on a significant level of off-site 

mitigation in order to protect and improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. BLM needs to reconsider the 

BLM’s appeal policy regarding offsite mitigation in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA for several reasons. First, the 

BLM needs to ensure that its proposed requirements for off-site or voluntary mitigation are consistent with 

existing BLM policy. The BLM cannot require offsite mitigation for all oil and gas development. Such a 

policy ignores the fact that oil and gas development is an appropriate use of federal lands. Further, 

throughout section 2.3.3 the BLM refers to BLM’s regional mitigation manual section 1794. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 2-8 – 2-9. To date, however, the BLM has not released BLM Manual 1794 in a final format. 

Instead, the BLM has merely released a preliminary draft section of the manual for public review and 

comment. It is wholly inappropriate for the BLM to rely upon this draft Manual in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA 

until it has been finally promulgated. 

Comment ID: 2562 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: APLIC urges the BLM to apply the definition of successful reclamation/restoration to all 

alternatives. Measures of successful reclamation/restoration must be included in the final decision so project 

proponents can accurately plan for project costs. 

Comment ID: 2561 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Successful reclamation of sagebrush habitat can take a considerable amount of time, depending 

on site conditions, annual weather variations, and the sagebrush subspecies planted. APLIC suggests the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-343

BLM define a maximum timeframe or cost ceiling requirement for reclamation in sage-grouse habitat. 

Without this, project proponents cannot accurately plan for costs associated with reclamation. It is unclear 

in the DEIS whether temporary disturbances, such as staging areas and pulling and tensioning sites 

associated with transmission construction, would accumulate against the disturbance cap limit. Clarification 

should be added stating that temporary disturbance in sagebrush habitat (i.e ., any disturbance undergoing 

reclamation within one-year of vegetation clearance) is considered an exemption to the disturbance cap. 

Comment ID: 2421 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Need for flexible mitigation approaches. To the extent BLM pursues offsite or other mitigation 

requirements, BPM urges that any required mitigation allow for flexibility in implementing required 

mitigation, including consideration of private mitigation banking options and credit exchanges. Flexibility 

should be used to encourage project proponents to adopt voluntary mitigation; flexibility should not be used 

by BLM to allow districts to require arbitrary mitigation beyond levels established by BLM on a projectspecific basis using best available scientific data. 

Comment ID: 2420 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Lack of justification for new mitigation requirements. BLM arbitrarily requires new mitigation 

and conservation measures in addition to the Wyoming Executive Order without any justification. BLM 

and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have already endorsed the state's conservation program. As part of 

the Executive Order, industry is already required to comply with numerous conditions and best management 

practices through existing BLM rules. By adopting new mitigation requirements through the Draft EIS, 

BLM is circumventing legal requirements by establishing these new procedures as a matter of policy 

interpretation rather than regulatory changes adopted with full procedural protections and regulatory 

review. 

Comment ID: 2419 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: The Executive Oder also allows mining operations to submit a conservation plan to the Sage 

Grouse Initiative Team to mitigate surface disturbing issues that fall within the .25 mile No Surface 

Occupancy buffer around leks. BLM fails to address how it will mitigate activities on BLM surface that are 

"restricted" within the .25 mile No Surface Occupancy property. Moreover, the Draft EIS fails to define 

what "restricted" means and how it will be implemented in a No Surface Occupancy area. Companies 

cannot be expected to be required to agree to mitigation without more detail regarding the levels of 

mitigation that would be required or how it could be achieved. Moreover, to the extent BLM has not even 

specified what levels of mitigation will be required, BLM could not have possibly met requirements to 

properly analyze the economic costs and cost effectiveness of its preferred alternative. See 43 C.P.R. § 

1610.4-4. 

Comment ID: 2283 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-344 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Encana is very concerned about the onerous mitigation measures BLM intends to impose under 

all alternatives in order to protect sage-grouse. Encana is particularly concerned because the BLM is 

utilizing oil and gas development in places such as Pinedale, Wyoming as the basis for the imposition of 

COAs and other lease stipulations. The oil and gas development that took place in the Pinedale Anticline 

and the Jonah Fields is unlikely to be repeated across much of Wyoming especially given improvements in 

technology since those fields were developed. The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran 

study from 2005 and it should not be cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily 

causes adverse impacts to GRSG given the limitations of the study. When discussing the potential impacts 

of fluid minerals on GRSG, the BLM often overstates potential impacts to the GRSG. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 3-241 – 3-2-42. The BLM’s statements are contradicted by other reports that have been 

prepared regarding GRSG. Ramey (2011). Additionally, Taylor et. Al., in 2007. Although the State of 

Wyoming has taken a number of steps to reduce the number of Greater Sage-Grouse harvested annually, a 

significant number of birds are still lost to hunting each year. Continually allowing hunting within the 

Planning Area may negate many of the mitigation measures currently proposed in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. 

Summary: Please document any and all scientific studies that conclude that compensatory mitigation efforts 

have yielded an increase in sage-grouse populations for the area to which mitigation efforts apply. BLM 

should not use a draft manual (1794) as the mitigation strategy for this document. The fact that 

“compensatory mitigation” funding frequently is used to purchase conservation easements is problematic, 

because this is a paper transaction with legal ramifications preventing future potential losses, but can never 

yield population gains to offset the very real and immediate losses of sagegrouse habitats and populations 

incurred as a result of industrial development. Reclamation should be mandatory, results should be 

monitored, and failed projects should be addressed and rectified. The agencies should use 43 C.F.R. § 

1508.20 which describes a mitigation hierarchy. We recommend that BLM/Forest Service abandon the 

establishment of redundant Mitigation Implementation Teams and focus their efforts in coordinating with 

the SGIT. The BLM needs to ensure that its proposed requirements for compensatory off-site mitigation

are voluntary and consistent with existing BLM policy. BLM should apply the definition of successful 

reclamation/restoration to all alternatives and measures should be included so proponents can accurately 

plan for project costs. BLM should also define a maximum timeframe or cost ceiling requirement for 

reclamation in sage-grouse habitat. BLM must clarify how mitigation is accounted for in the disturbance 

calculations. BLM cannot require offsite mitigation for all oil and gas development. Any required 

mitigation should allow for flexibility in implementing required mitigation, including consideration of 

private mitigation banking options and credit exchanges. Mitigation in the form of funding for further 

research studies that could be mutually agreed upon would be beneficial to both the agencies and industry 

in helping to understand the issues, as well as identifying what is effective. BLM’s mitigation hierarchy 

should also consider the relative value of a nominated mitigation projects that provide relative benefits to 

the species, whether onsite, adjacent, or offsite. -Require off-site mitigation for impacts which cannot be 

mitigated on-site, or where landscape approaches to mitigation offer opportunities to address conservation 

needs on a larger scale while generating net conservation benefits for sage-grouse. -Off-site mitigation 

should be required to take place in the same ecoregion or within the same habitat quality that is a functional 

unit (a contiguous parcel of land providing habitat for a particular group of sage-grouse during their annual 

life cycle) as the project site. 

Response: Mitigation will be applied to all implementation actions/decisions that take place on Federal 

lands within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during the life of this plan. Mitigation has been further defined 

as Regional Mitigation and the Implementation Framework is in Appendix D in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS. The Regional Mitigation Framework was developed to follow the BLM’s Regional 

Mitigation Manual MS-1794, Forest Service Handbook FSH 1909.15, and CEQ 40 CFR 1508.20. The 

Mitigation Framework, through the mitigation hierarchy, guides the BLM and Forest Service. The hierarchy 

direction is to first avoid impacts entirely by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; second, if 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-345

unable to avoid, minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action or parts of an action; 

and lastly, if avoidance or minimizing is not possible, compensate impacts associated with future 

implementation actions. If residual impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from implementation-level actions 

remain after applying avoidance or minimization measures, then compensatory mitigation projects will be 

used to offset the residual impacts in an effort to achieve the land use plan goals and objectives. As 

articulated in Appendix D, compensatory mitigation will occur on sites that have the potential to yield the 

greatest conservation benefit to the Greater Sage- Grouse, regardless of land ownership. These sites should 

be sufficiently “durable.” According to BLM Manual Section 1794, durability is defined as “the 

administrative, legal, and financial assurances that secure and protect the conservation status of a 

compensatory mitigation site, and the ecological benefits of a compensatory mitigation project, for at least 

as long as the associated impacts persist.” Specific mitigation strategies, based on the Framework, will be 

developed by regional teams (at the WAFWA Management Zone level) within one year of the issuance of 

the Record of Decision. These strategies will guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy to address 

Greater Sage-Grouse impacts within that WAFWA Management Zone. The WAFWA Management Zone 

Regional Mitigation Strategy will be applicable to BLM and Forest Service lands within the zone’s 

boundaries. Subsequently, the BLM/Forest Service’s NEPA analyses for implementation-level decisions 

that might impact Greater Sage-Grouse will include analysis of mitigation recommendations from the 

relevant WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy(ies). 

Sage-grouse

Monitoring

Appendix D is indefensible, violates NEPA, other comments

Comment ID: 1744 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: ConocoPhillips applauds the BLM’s decision to develop a monitoring framework for sagegrouse as part of the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Unfortunately, in its rush to release the supplement to the SageGrouse DLUPA, the BLM may have violated the terms of NEPA. The BLM indicates that it will include a 

new monitoring framework in the proposed RMPs and Final EIS. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-6 – 2-7. If 

the monitoring framework will be included in the proposed RMPs for the first time, ConocoPhillips will 

not have an opportunity to review or submit comments regarding any of the specific monitoring criteria 

before they were proposed for inclusion in the Final EIS. It is inappropriate under NEPA for the BLM to 

introduce radically new and different concepts and procedures in the Final EIS for the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, especially given the limited ability for companies such as ConocoPhillips to submit comments or 

react to the new measures once a proposed RMP has been issued. Further, the BLM’s inclusion of a new 

monitoring framework in the proposed RMPs may violate FLPMA because the public was not provided a 

meaningful opportunity to comment upon the monitoring framework. Because the monitoring framework 

is unquestionably a “substantial change” when compared to any of the alternatives included in the Draft 

EIS, the BLM should prepare and release for comment a supplement to the Draft EIS. 

Comment ID: 1382 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Appendix D. provides the monitoring framework in which the BLM proposes to monitor sage 

grouse at the PAC scale through such incredibly crude parameters as "percent of sagebrush per unit area" 

completely ignoring the well delineated parameters for sage grouse habitat that can be monitored at that 

level. In section D .2 .3 we see that the disturbance monitoring completely ignores all aspects of livestock 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-346 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

related impacts from its disturbance monitoring. Given that livestock grazing is the primary impact to sage 

grouse over most of the analysis area this is indefensible. 

Comment ID: 1386 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: EOG applauds the BLM‘s decision to develop a monitoring framework for GRSG as part of the 

Sage- Grouse DLUPA. Unfortunately, in its rush to release the supplement to the Sage-Grouse DULPA, 

the BLM may have violated the terms of NEPA. The BLM indicates that it will include a new monitoring 

framework in the proposed RMPs and Final EIS. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-6 – 2-7. If the monitoring 

framework will be included in the proposed RMPs for the first time, EOG will not have an opportunity to 

review or submit comments regarding any of the specific monitoring criteria before they were proposed for 

inclusion in the Final EIS. It is wholly inappropriate under NEPA for the BLM to introduce radically new 

and different concepts and procedures in the Final EIS for the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, especially given the 

limited ability for companies such as EOG to submit comments or react to the new measures once a 

proposed RMP has been issued. 

Comment ID: 1387 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: Further, the BLM‘s inclusion of a new monitoring framework in the proposed RMPs may violate 

FLPMA because the public was not provided a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the monitoring 

framework. Because the monitoring framework is unquestionably a "substantial change" when compared 

to any of the alternatives included in the Draft EIS, the BLM should prepare and release for comment a 

supplement to the Draft EIS. 

Comment ID: 818 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Appendix D - Monitoring Framework Devon applauds the BLM's decision to develop a 

monitoring framework for sage-grouse as part of the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Because Appendix D of the 

DLUPA only contains the "major components" of the framework, however, Devon is unable to consider 

the details of the framework and provide informed comments. Furthermore, Appendix D should identify 

the entity that will be charged with collecting the monitoring data on oil/gas leases, and explain how this 

data could be used to adaptively feed back into the monitoring process and refine adaptive management 

needs on a planning area basis. This discussion should also explain what types of findings, or more 

specifically, what type of numeric thresholds (both hard and soft), might trigger adaptive management. 

Table D-1 outlines "Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of Decisions, Sagegrouse Habitat, and Sagegrouse Populations at the Broad and Mid Scales", but does not specify how thresholds are defined or what 

numeric measurements might constitute an "ecological threshold". 

Comment ID: 588 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: Samson applauds the BLM's decision to develop a monitoring framework for sage-grouse as 

part of the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Unfortunately, in its rush to release the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM 

may have violated the terms of NEPA. The BLM indicates that it will include a new monitoring framework 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-347

in the proposed RMPs and Final EIS. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-6 - 2-7. If the monitoring framework 

will be included in the proposed RMPs for the first time, Samson will not have an opportunity to review or 

submit comments regarding any of the specific monitoring criteria before they were proposed for inclusion 

in the Final EIS. It is wholly inappropriate under NEPA for the BLM to introduce radically new and 

different concepts and procedures in the Final EIS for the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, especially given the 

limited ability for companies such as Samson to submit comments or react to the new measures once a 

proposed RMP has been issued. If the BLM does not allow public comment on the monitoring framework, 

the BLM may be required to issue a supplement to the Draft EIS. 

Comment ID: 1974 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. D-1, MONITORING FRAMEWORK While the WSGB understands the desire of the BLM 

to convey to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service that the BLM intends to adopt programs to provide 

"regulatory certainty" with respect to grouse conservation, we comment that LUP’s are not in and of 

themselves, a "regulatory" process. The narratives under this "Monitoring" appendix convey that the BLM 

intends to conduct a level of monitoring we have yet to observe and which may be beyond the Bureau’s 

capability. We comment that the BLM may have "promised" more than they can deliver which, in our 

opinion, is worse than not making the promise in the first place. 

Comment ID: 1919 

Organization: Wyoming Game and Fish 

Name: Mark Konishi 

Comment: Appendix D In order to better facilitate the implementation of the Core Area Strategy, all federal 

reporting should be done in conjunction with the State of Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 1834 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: We recognize the need to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the LUPA/DEIS. 

However, we are concerned that the agencies have not provided adequate specificity. The LUPA/DEIS 

merely describes the type of approach that will be taken to implement a monitoring framework. Without 

something closer to a final product, it is impossible to clearly understand and comment on such a policy. 

This approach is contrary to the disclosure and public involvement requirements under NEPA--particularly 

when results from the monitoring framework will lead to management changes through adaptive 

management. The final sentence of Appendix D states, "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." It is unclear how the commenting process will be handled; 

i.e., will BLM provide a Federal Register notice of availability for comment? Or will public meetings be 

held across the state or region to receive input to from industry and interested citizens? Further, once a final 

Monitoring Plan is developed, will an amendment to the LUPA be required? Again, we have serious 

procedural (and substantive) concerns with how BLM is handling this critical issue. We are concerned that 

these monitoring tools are intended to be the measure of success regarding implementation of the DEIS. 

We strongly recommend that the numerous ecological sites throughout core areas and non-core areas that 

do not contain GRSG habitat for a variety of other reasons be recognized and incorporated into the initial 

monitoring baseline to ensure they are accounted for and not counted as habitat disturbance. As previously 

discussed in these comments, the COT Report fails to meet the best available science standard of the ESA 

and the standards of objectivity, utility and transparency required by the Data Quality Act. For example, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-348 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the “threats” identified by the USFWS were combined into three simple categories: sagebrush, non-habitat 

(human footprint), and energy and mining. This approach is scientifically flawed because it ignores the fact 

that anthropogenic disturbance is not the only factor that can cause an area not to contain GRSG habitat. 

Comment ID: 1143 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Further, the BLM’s inclusion of a new monitoring framework in the proposed RMPs may violate 

FLPMA because the public was not provided a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the monitoring 

framework. Because the monitoring framework is unquestionably a "substantial change" when compared 

to any of the alternatives included in the Draft EIS, the BLM should prepare and release for comment a 

supplement to the Draft EIS. 

Comment ID: 740 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Based on the information provided in Appendix D, Devon appreciates that although the 

framework commits BLM to monitoring obligations, it does not appear to burden oil and gas lessees and 

other users of the public lands. The final framework similarly should not impose onerous monitoring 

requirements on users of the public lands. Moreover, before finalizing the framework, BLM should confirm 

that its budget allows it to implement the extensive monitoring described in Appendix D. Devon encourages 

the BLM to finalize the monitoring framework and make it available for public review and comment as 

soon as possible, and at the very least when the final LUPA/EIS is published for comment. 

Comment ID: 1939 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2.6 " The last sentence in paragraph three on this page refers the reader to the Monitoring 

Framework in Appendix D. We comment that the Final 9 Plan document needs to contain a much greater 

level of detail as to the general components to be included in a "Monitoring Framework" for each of the 

LUP’s in this Draft. We do not support, a "one-size-fits-all" with respect to monitoring frameworks for each 

of the LUP’s attended to in this Draft. In concept, we are in support of many of the items in the Monitoring 

Framework in Appendix D but request that this document state that grazing permittees MUST be consulted 

and that “Cooperators” on each of the LUP’s covered by this Draft be offered an opportunity to be actual 

participants on the I.D. Team to develop local monitoring framework documents for their respective areas. 

Comment ID: 3055 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: Developing and implementing an adequate adaptive management plan requires an effective and 

repeatable monitoring plan. To be effective, protocols need to be established prior to monitoring taking 

place. Adequate training, timing of data collection, standardization of data collection methods and 

techniques, and calibration of data collectors must be incorporated into the planning, as well as securing 

adequate funding sources and maintaining personnel as fully as possible. These issues should be discussed 

in the 9-Plan DEIS Appendix D and provision for implementing them should be made in the Record of 

Decision for this project. Sage-grouse require resilient and robust, undisturbed and unfragmented 

landscapes to thrive. Data collection and comparison is vitally important to tracking changes in habitat 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-349

quality over time. As monitoring protocols and methods develop over time, federal agencies must remain 

current with the latest science. Ecological Site Descriptions (ESDs) represent the most current tool for 

assessing ecological states and landscape health, as they assist with identification of all potential vegetation 

communities on a soil type and provide information about alternate stable states under multiple disturbance 

scenarios. Appendix 0 should discuss how the BLM and Forest Service will take steps to utilize ESDs in 

the project area and the Record of Decision should make provision for implementing ESDs. The Soil and 

Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977, Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and 

other supporting legislation augmented the statutory mandate for periodic assessment of the federal natural 

resources by requiring continuing inventories and planning under RMPs (FLPMA 43 USC Sections 1711(a) 

and 1712(a)). To fulfill this requirement, the National Resource Inventory (NRI) program was developed 

to provide critical information regarding natural resources on public and private land, and to supplement 

the NRCS Soil Survey Program. This NRI program utilizes ESDs to determine ecological health. The 

procedures outlined in Appendix D include important components necessary for effective monitoring of 

sage-grouse habitat on a landscape scale by using remote sensing data and calculations of landscape metrics. 

Data sources for remote sensing data provide a comprehensive set of data, though fencing data should be 

included in the set of Disturbance Data. As identified in our Ecological Thresholds section, fourth order 

spatial scale monitoring on the level of seasonal habitat use is critical to identifying trends in vegetation 

and should be fully expanded and addressed within Appendix D. We recommend implementing the use of 

ESDs and applying protocols and analysis outlined in Interpreting and Measuring Indicators of Rangeland 

Health (IIRH 2011, BLM National Training Center Course Number 1730-37) to standardize data collection 

methods and streamline analysis of habitat trends. The BLM and Forest Service should encourage 

continuing research, collaborating to add value to scientifically peer-reviewed research by guiding studies 

to areas and values where further research is needed. At landscape levels (RMP level), monitoring should 

track sagebrush density, percent cover, maturity of stands, preservation of key seasonal habitat components, 

and the degree of connectivity between sage-grouse populations, seasonal habitats, and habitat stands. At 

the project level, a truly effective monitoring strategy will include measures as to how plant communities 

respond, how that relates to vegetation structural and other sage-grouse habitat requirements, and how sagegrouse populations respond demographically (NTT p. 29) to changes in these factors. 

Comment ID: 2440 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Page 2-5 2.3 Management Guidance Common to All Action Alternatives The CCCD is 

supportive of the proposed Monitoring Framework and would suggest coordination, consultation and 

cooperation with state and local governments affected by the BLM and Forest Service planning decisions. 

Comment ID: 2413 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Inadequate monitoring plan. The Draft EIS provides only a very generic approach to monitoring 

and adaptive management and fails to clearly articulate how effectiveness of the LUPA will be monitored. 

For example, in Appendix D, it is unclear how BLM will consider public comment on a monitoring program 

or how it will integrate a final monitoring program into the LUP A. It is critical that the mining industry 

have a representative on any adaptive management oversight group. 

Comment ID: 2181 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-350 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Further, the BLM’s inclusion of a new monitoring framework in the proposed RMPs may violate 

FLPMA because the public was not provided a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the monitoring 

framework. Because the monitoring framework is unquestionably a “substantial change” when compared 

to any of the alternatives included in the Draft EIS, the BLM should prepare and release for comment a 

supplement to the Draft EIS. 

Comment ID: 3031 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: Ecological Thresholds Habitat condition in sagebrush ecosystems is vitally important to 

maintaining sage-grouse populations. In 2010 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published its Notice of 

12- month Findings for Petition to List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered and noted 

that "[c]ontinued habitat destruction and modification, compounded by fragmentation and diminished 

connectivity, will result in reduced abundance and further isolation of many populations over time, 

increasing their vulnerability to extinction. Overall, this increases the risk to the entire species across its 

range" (USFWS 2010, p. 13986). Development of habitat triggers must be applicable across a range of 

jurisdictional scales and boundaries. We will discuss thresholds as they relate to the Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2010) spatial scale orders as presented in the 9-Plan DEIS Appendix 

D. Fourth order spatial scales necessitate monitoring protocols to address vegetation characteristics on an 

allotment or pasture scale. At this fine scale, microhabitat conditions are identified and data is collected to 

identify trends on a larger landscape scale. Identifying habitat trends and developing thresholds are 

straightforward at fourth order spatial scales, because scientifically recognized monitoring techniques (linepoint-intercept, belt transects, etc.) are easily applicable to determine vegetation characteristics and habitat 

necessary to sustaining sage-grouse populations within all lifecycle stages. In identifying habitat thresholds, 

we suggest consulting with local and academic experts to determine appropriate biological thresholds for 

individual areas. However, we recommend that thresholds and monitoring be roughly standardized across 

the range of the 9-Plan DEIS. Based on the ecological variation across the areas covered by the amendment, 

standardization of thresholds may occur in the form of percentage decline in sagebrush density (e.g. % 

decline over three consecutive years, or in three out of five years), or may be represented as overall loss of 

habitat in winter or nesting habitat over a period of time. The primary threats are direct impact on sagebrush 

habitats and sage-grouse from energy development and road infrastructure and transport associated with 

both renewable and non-renewable energy resources (USFWS 2010). The most effective monitoring will 

identify thresholds correlated with anthropogenic disturbance and quantify direct and indirect effects to 

sage-grouse (e.g. mortality or decrease in nest success from predation or collisions, or behavioral avoidance 

of developed areas, etc.). The Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT), used to calculate 

disturbance in accordance with the Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order 2011-5 

(EO), could serve as a monitoring tool to identify additional habitat loss by calculating disturbances within 

four miles of each lek within each core area. Establishing local thresholds which can be applied across 

multiple ecological and spatial areas to address identified threats to sage-grouse must be developed with 

the help of local and academic experts. Third order spatial scales measure seasonal habitat configuration. 

Vegetation connectivity between habitat types facilitates movement, but can be degraded by fragmentation 

from anthropogenic sources. Anthropogenic disturbances impact sage-grouse behavior and use of habitat 

depending on the location of the disturbance (e.g. roads on the perimeter of habitat vs. roads bisecting 

habitat). Data collected from fourth order spatial scales within key linkage areas between seasonal habitats 

will help develop and establish thresholds within third order spatial scales. Data collected from monitoring 

disturbance within four-mile perimeters of sage-grouse leks may contribute to developing thresholds at this 

spatial scale. Non-anthropogenic disturbance may also be a factor for establishing thresholds within third 

order spatial scales. Conversion of suitable habitat due to nonnative invasive species or encroachment of 

conifers should be monitored, especially in areas prone to cheatgrass (Bromus tecotrum) expansion. 

Monitoring changes in vegetation composition should be implemented to track invasive species and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-351

thresholds should be set based on local and academic experts. Second order spatial scales include 

populations and sub-populations of sage-grouse. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA) management zones (MZ) I and II fall within the geographical boundaries of the state of 

Wyoming, but extend outside the jurisdictional state boundaries as well (Stiver et al. 2006). Anthropogenic 

disturbances within four miles of each lek in each core area continue to provide monitoring data at this 

scale. Additionally, landscape level monitoring (using aerial imagery and data from project and site-specific 

monitoring) should provide information about habitat availability, habitat patch sizes and numbers, 

connectivity between patches, and analysis of edge effects. Sage-grouse thrive in highly connected 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitats, making highly patchy and fragmented habitat types undesireable 

(Walker et al. 2007; Aldridge et al. 2008; Doherty et al. 2008, 2010; Knick and Hanser 2011; Johnson et 

al. 2011; Wisdom et al. 2011). Across MZ I and II, monitoring by remote sensing as well as site specific 

monitoring must provide information about average patch size, distance between patches, and landscape 

scale edge components between habitat and non-habitat. Thresholds must be established based on the best 

available science from landscape ecologists and sage-grouse biologists. Formulation of habitat thresholds 

at first order spatial scales is reliant on landscape scale geographic information system analysis and remote 

sensing. Tools such as the Wyoming Game and Fish Wyoming Interagency Spatial Database & Online 

Management system (WISDOM, 2012), data from the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning 

Tools Project (LANDFIRE, 2010), and the Wyoming DDCT can provide information on habitat 

connectivity and disturbance for analysis at first order spatial scales. 

Comment ID: 2180 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana applauds the BLM’s decision to develop a monitoring framework for sage-grouse as 

part of the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Unfortunately, in its rush to release the supplement to the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, the BLM may have violated the terms of NEPA. The BLM indicates that it will include a new 

monitoring framework in the proposed RMPs and Final EIS. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-6 – 2-7. If the 

monitoring framework will be included in the proposed RMPs for the first time, Encana will not have an 

opportunity to review or submit comments regarding any of the specific monitoring criteria before they 

were proposed for inclusion in the Final EIS. It is wholly inappropriate under NEPA for the BLM to 

introduce radically new and different concepts and procedures in the Final EIS for the Sage- Grouse 

DLUPA, especially given the limited ability for companies such as Encana to submit comments or react to 

the new measures once a proposed RMP has been issued. 

Comment ID: 2693 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Section D.l, page D-l, paragraph 2, last sentence: The indication that funding and personnel 

support decisions will be made annually through normal budget processes provides little if any assurance 

that the monitoring would be consistently implemented. It is suggested that some level of permanent/10-

year/until grouse no longer sensitive, support be immediately dedicated for this effort. 

Comment ID: 2597 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: With regards to monitoring, Appendix D is difficult to follow and requires a more detailed 

description of numerous references and programs. The entire appendix should be simplified to provide for 

a clearer understanding by the reader. Also, further clarification is needed on what LANDFIRE entails, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-352 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

although it appears inappropriate to measure and report disturbance changes relevant for GRSG on areas 

that have the potential to support sagebrush, but which may not at present be sagebrush habitat. Moreover, 

LANDFIRE lacks specificity for types of sagebrush vegetation and has relatively low accuracy. The BLM 

also needs to provide more information on the referenced "Sage Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework." 

(Appendix D, D.1). Given the major decisions that will be based off the BLM's ability to efficiently and 

effectively monitor, there needs to be an opportunity to comment on the completed monitoring framework 

when it is released. 

Summary: The Draft EIS provides only a very generic approach to monitoring and adaptive management 

and fails to clearly articulate how effectiveness of the LUP Amendments will be monitored. For example, 

in Appendix D, it is unclear how BLM will consider public comment on a monitoring program or how it 

will integrate a final monitoring program into the LUP Amendments. It is critical that the mining industry 

have a representative on any adaptive management oversight group. The narratives under this "Monitoring" 

appendix convey that the BLM intends to conduct a level of monitoring we have yet to observe and which 

may be beyond the Bureau’s capability. We are concerned that the agencies have not provided adequate 

specificity. We strongly recommend that the numerous ecological sites throughout core areas and non-core 

areas that do not contain Greater Sage-Grouse habitat for a variety of other reasons be recognized and 

incorporated into the initial monitoring baseline to ensure they are accounted for and not counted as habitat 

disturbance. Appendix D should identify the entity that will be charged with collecting the monitoring data 

on oil/gas leases, and explain how this data could be used to adaptively feed back into the monitoring 

process and refine adaptive management needs on a planning area basis. This discussion should also explain 

what types of findings, or more specifically, what type of numeric thresholds (both hard and soft), might 

trigger adaptive management. Disturbance monitoring completely ignores all aspects of livestock related 

impacts. How will the public be able to comment on the final appendix if it is released in the Final EIS? 

This could violate NEPA. LANDFIRE lacks specificity for types of sagebrush vegetation, has relatively 

low accuracy, and a better description of what LANFIRE is should be included. In order to better facilitate 

the implementation of the Core Area Strategy, all federal reporting should be done in conjunction with the 

State of Wyoming. Establishing four levels of habitat thresholds which can be applied across multiple 

ecological and spatial areas to address identified threats to sage-grouse must be developed with the help of 

local and academic experts. 

Response: The Monitoring Framework in Appendix D outlines the methods that the BLM and Forest 

Service will use to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the planning 

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

Forest Service (36 CFR 219.12) require that land use plans establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, 

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

Forest Service will use the methods described in Appendix D to collect monitoring data to evaluate 

implementation and effectiveness of the Greater Sage-grouse planning strategy and the conservation 

measures contained in land use plans. To ensure that the BLM and Forest Service have the ability to make 

consistent assessments about sage-grouse habitats across the range of the species, the framework in 

Appendix D provides the methodology for monitoring the implementation and evaluating the effectiveness 

of BLM/Forest Service actions to conserve the species and its habitat through monitoring that informs 

effectiveness at multiple scales. Implementation monitoring results will provide information to allow the 

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

(RMP) and Forest Service land management plans (LMP) to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat 

have been implemented. Effectiveness monitoring will provide the information to evaluate BLM and Forest 

Service actions to reach the objective of the planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044), to conserve Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations and habitats. Monitoring efforts will include data for measurable quantitative 

indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions. This 

information will assist the BLM and Forest Service with identifying whether or not they are achieving their 

land use plan goals and objectives, as well as providing information relative to the disturbance cap. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-353

Specifically, habitat degradation (percent of human activity in a biologically significant unit), habitat 

availability (percent of sagebrush in a biologically significant unit), and habitat degradation intensity 

(density of energy facilities and mining locations) will be the data gathered to inform the disturbance cap 

objective of 5% under the Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS. 

Sage-grouse

Noise

Noise: too restrictive, not restrictive enough

Comment ID: 671 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The agencies should consider guidance applied to other avian species. In review of guidance 

from the FWS for other avian species (owls and murrelets) (FWS, 2006), disturbance rises to the level of 

harassment under a limited range of conditions (emphasis added). For purposes of the guidance, FWS 

assumes harassment may occur when species demonstrate behavior suggesting that the safety or survival 

of the individual is at significant risk, or that a reproductive effort is potentially lost or compromised. The 

FWS interpret data to indicate such behaviors may manifest when: (a) the actiongenerated sound level 

substantially exceeds (i.e., by 20-25 dB or more as experienced by the animal) ambient conditions existing 

prior to the project; (b) when the total sound level, including the combined existing ambient and actiongenerated sound, is very high (i.e., exceeds 90 dB, as experienced by the animal); or (c) when visual 

proximity of human activities occurs close to (i.e., within 40 m of) an active nest site. Sound levels of lesser 

amplitude or human presence at farther distances from active nests have the potential to disturb these 

species, but have not been clearly shown to cause behaviors that meet the definition of harassment. 

Comment ID: 670 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The data presented herein strongly suggests that the current noise level considerations in the

Draft LUPA should be revisited. The Draft LUPA currently does not, but it should, take into account any 

of the strategies a freely moving bird in its natural environment is highly likely to employ to communicate 

in noise. These strategies include scanning the environment by turning the head, changing height or 

location, and raising voice level. Each of these factors alone can enhance communication in noise by as 

much as 10-15 dB8. Together, the combined effect of these strategies could be significant in reducing the 

effects of noise on acoustic communication in a natural environment. Since the typical bird normally 

experiences masking from ambient noise in its environment, how much industrial noise is a problem in any 

environment? The answer is complex and depends on the level of ambient noise and the species’ 

communication lifestyle. It is unlikely that a noise level below an overall level of approximately 50-60 

dB(A) would have much of an effect on acoustic communication or the biology of a bird in a quiet rural 

landscape. 

Comment ID: 289 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Preferred Alternative would require that noise be limited to 10 dbA above ambient noise 

levels within 0.6 mile of active leks, but fails to appropriately define ambient noise levels (DEIS at 2-166). 

We are concerned that under these provisions, BLM will inappropriately include currently existing human-
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-354 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

caused noise sources in the ambient noise level, allowing additional noise to be permitted far above the 30-

32 dbA absolute threshold recommended by Patricelli et al. (2012), resulting in significant impacts to sage 

grouse populations in Core Areas. We recommend that noise limits be imposed in the RMP, allowing no 

greater than 32 dBA noise levels in sage grouse nesting and breeding habitats. Note that the current noise 

threshold prescribed as “background” on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (39 dBA, DEIS at 3-356) 

is set too high to provide adequate protection to sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1618 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The Preferred Alternative would require that noise be limited to 10 dbA above ambient noise 

levels within 0.6 mile of active leks, but fails to appropriately define ambient noise levels (DEIS at 2-166). 

We are concerned that under these provisions, BLM will inappropriately include currently existing humancaused noise sources in the ambient noise level, allowing additional noise to be permitted far above the 30-

32 dbA absolute threshold recommended by Patricelli et al. (2012), resulting in significant impacts to sage 

grouse populations in Core Areas. We recommend that noise limits be imposed in the RMP, allowing no 

greater than 32 dBA noise levels in sage grouse nesting and breeding habitats. Note that the current noise 

threshold prescribed as “background” on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (39 dBA, DEIS at 3-356) 

is set too high to provide adequate protection to sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1616 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Yet BLM is still erroneously assuming a background noise level of 30 dBA and recommending 

limit of 49 dBA (DEIS at 4-271) that is too high to prevent major impacts on sage grouse based on the 

science. Particelli et al. went on to elaborate, “Second, and much more importantly, if noise levels drop 

down to stipulated levels at the edge of the lek, then much of the area surrounding the lek will be exposed 

to higher noise levels (see Figures 3 & 4). This management strategy therefore protects only a fraction of 

sage-grouse activities during the breeding season—mate assessment and copulation on the lek—leaving 

unprotected other critical activities in areas around the lek, such as foraging, roosting, nesting and brood 

rearing.” 

Comment ID: 665 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The need to address impacts specifically associated with noise and mechanical movement related 

to sage-grouse are unnecessary given the lack of rigorous scientific support. The issue of project-induced 

noise disturbance to greater sage-grouse has drawn increasing attention in recent years, yet it remains a 

complex, controversial, and poorly understood subject. An arbitrary threshold of 10 dB(A) above ambient 

noise level has been used throughout much of the west in management actions that affect sage-grouse. No 

data exists that provide at what noise level, above that of a quiet natural environment, could one begin to 

see effects of noise from oil and gas operations on vocal communication in sage-grouse. A quiet, natural 

environment typical of a quiet rural areahas an overall sound pressure level of approximately 45-55 dB(A) 

(Ouis, 2001). Given the paucity of ambient noise data existing within sagebrush habitats supportive of sagegrouse, this range is similar to data collected by Hessler Associates, Inc. an acoustical engineering firm for 

a project site in Converse County, Wyoming. In their study, the average sound level in a lower valley with 

a wind speed of ten miles per hour (“mph”) was 45dB(A), while at two open plain elevations with wind 

speeds of 18-20 mph the ambient noise level was 50-52 dB(A)7. In Figure 12, derived from a study done 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-355

for the California Department of Transportation (Dooling and Popper, 2007) it can be seen that a bird will 

already be experiencing considerable masking (e.g., 20-25 dB) in its region of best hearing from such a 

level of environmental noise. The spectrum level in the region of 2-4 kHz (for a 40-50 dB(A) ambient noise 

is already about 0-10 dB which significantly elevates the thresholds that one could obtain in a quiet test 

booth (see dotted lines of 0 and +10 in the audiogram). In other words, masking is always occurring in 

natural environments. 

Comment ID: 287 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Yet BLM is still erroneously assuming a background noise level of 30 dBA and recommending 

limit of 49 dBA (DEIS at 4-271) that is too high to prevent major impacts on sage grouse based on the 

science. 

Comment ID: 700 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The Draft EIS limits all anthropogenic noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures 

(dBA) throughout each of the alternatives. The Draft EIS relies heavily on the NTT Report, which severely 

overstates and misrepresents the conclusion of the literature it cites. Jessica L. Blickley, et al. Experimental 

Evidence for the Effects of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise on Abundance of Greater Sage- Grouse at Leks, 

Conservation Biology, Volume 26, No. 3, 461-471 (2012). To be fair, the Blickley study actually found 

that GRSG tolerated, and even showed no signs of behavior variation, when noise levels were increased by 

30 dBA. In fact, the conclusions relied upon by the BLM were the result of noise levels reaching 70 dBA 

– the equivalent of standing next to an interstate. Further, the Blickley study assumed an ambient noise 

level of 35 dBA and the Draft EIS does not identify a specific background dBA. Ambient levels should not 

be determined before 7 a.m., but should instead be averaged over a 24 hour period to reflect the highest and 

lowest GRSG tolerances. The Draft EIS also does not account for the location of GRSG leks, noise sources, 

geography, and wind direction. GRSG will display a greater aversion to noise depending on the 

predominant wind direction. Mathew J. Holloran, Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Natural 

Gas Field Development in Western Wyoming, (2005) (“Sound waves propagating upwind of the source 

enter a shadow zone >100 m from the source, resulting in substantial reductions (typically $20 dB) in sound 

intensity; downwind on the other hand, sound waves are bent in the opposite direction resulting in the 

opposite effect.”). The average library operates at 30 dBA , a regular human conversation generally occurs 

at 60 dBA, rural areas are within 39-44 dBA, and the Environmental Protection Agency sets noise levels 

for pristine wilderness areas at 35 dBA. See Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version of EPA Noise 

Levels Document, 8*, Figure 4 (Nov. 1978). No human activity, even whispering at the edge of a Lek, 

could meet these standards if the BLM continues to use the 10 dBA increase for anthropogenic noises 

Comment ID: 1125 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-166 MA 136 Text: As new research is completed, new specific limitations would be 

coordinated with the WGFD and partners. Noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek should not exceed 

10 dBA above ambient noise from March 1. Comment: Existing research shows that noise levels reaching 

40 dBA and 30 dBA may have an adverse impact in certain conditions. There is, however, no support for 

10 dBA. BLM has limited, if any, authority to regulate noise, which is delegated to states by EPA and set 

by state law. Stress on GRSG caused by noise is the subject of scientific controversy. NEPA requires that 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-356 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

BLM identify areas of scientific controversy and respond to adverse opinions held by respected scientists. 

Public Lands Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 929 F. Supp. 1436 (D. Wyo. 1996), aff'd in part, 

rev'd in part, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999), aff'd 529 U.S. 728 (2000). See also Seattle Audubon Society 

v. Mosely, 798 F. Supp 1473, 1482 (W.D. Wash. 1992) (setting aside EIS which did not give reasoned 

analysis and response to scientific report which disputed agency findings); Sierra Club v. Eubanks, 335 F. 

Supp.2d 1070, 1079 (E.D. Call. 2004) (NEPA specifically requires BLM "to objectively evaluate and 

disclose credible scientific evidence that contradicts its proposed course of action"). BLM's failure to 

independently evaluate and confirm the basis for the WGFD recommendations also violates the Data 

Quality Act (DQA), Pub. L. No. 106-554 (Dec. 21, 2000) (published at 44 U.S.C. §3516 note). Finally, the 

Coalition directs the BLM to our discussion of the NTT Report in the cover letter preceding and attached 

to this table, and incorporate that discussion by reference here. 

Comment ID: 3165 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: B.2.4 B‐ 5 Paragraph 3 Further definition of “noise shields” is needed, as are the locations where 

shields may be required. 

Comment ID: 2327 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM’s assertion that activity associated with energy and mineral development produce noise 

and human activity that disrupt the habitat and life-cycle of sage-grouse (See Ch. 4 at 4-256, 271) is biased. 

For example, a recent study conducted on the Pinedale Anticline gas field shows that sagegrouse were not 

avoiding areas as a result of high levels of human activity but rather avoidance behavior was related to the 

density of the wells. This suggests that avoidance behavior is not a result of human activity as previously 

thought.23 BLM also fails to disclose that none of the noise studies cited in the NTT Report actually found 

a population decline in sage-grouse as a result of noise from oil and gas operations.24 BLM also fails to 

consider that other factors influence habitat selection such as topography and geology and distance to 

riparian areas or from forested stands, which are not a result of human activity. AEMA contends that the 

noise recommendations are not adequately supported. Review of studies used in support of noise limitations 

(limit noise to less than 10 dBA above ambient noise levels) has also revealed that the studies cited in the 

NTT Report, including Blickley et. al. 2012, (Ch. 4 at 4-271) do not rise to the level of best available 

science, but rather the cited studies suffer from flaws in methodology, lack of data, flawed assumptions, 

and erroneous interpretation of results.25 To that end the proposed limit of 10 dBA above ambient noise 

levels proposed under Alternatives B, C, and E must be removed or BLM should be compelled to provide 

additional studies in support of this prescriptive noise restriction. If such studies do not exist, then BLM’s 

action alternatives do not meet NEPA or BLM-internal requirements to use reliable, accurate, clear, and 

useful data as required in BLM’s policies implementing the Data Quality Act.26 

Comment ID: 3197 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Appendix E E‐ 17 Action 132, Alternative E This noise requirement needs to be applied at lek 

perimeter not at 0.6 mile from the lek. As is, the action could extend the effective NSO considerably farther 

afield. Additionally, there is no research showing that noise specifically affects anything other than lek 

attendance, and even that is debatable. Further definition is needed on how ambient noise levels will be 

determined and who will do/pay for this; noise levels vary dramatically based on time of day, season, and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-357

measurement equipment types. In any case existing ambient anthropogenic noise is an important 

consideration as are other variables including topography. 

Summary: We recommend that noise limits be imposed in the LUP Amendments, allowing no greater than 

32 dBA noise levels in sage-grouse nesting and breeding habitats. Existing research shows that noise levels 

reaching 40 dBA and 30 dBA may have an adverse impact in certain conditions. There is, however, no 

support for 10 dBA. It is unlikely that a noise level below an overall level of approximately 50-60 dB(A) 

would have much of an effect on acoustic communication or the biology of a bird in a quiet rural landscape. 

BLM is still erroneously assuming a background noise level of 30 dBA and recommending limit of 49 dBA 

(Draft EIS at 4-271) that is too high to prevent major impacts on sage-grouse based on the science. The 

proposed limit of 10 dBA above ambient noise levels proposed under Alternatives B, C, and E must be 

removed or BLM should be compelled to provide additional studies in support of this prescriptive noise 

restriction. The Draft EIS also does not account for the location of Greater Sage-Grouse leks, noise sources, 

geography, wind direction, and fails to appropriately define ambient noise levels BLM has limited, if any, 

authority to regulate noise, which is delegated to states by EPA and set by state law. BLM’s assertion that 

activity associated with energy and mineral development produce noise and human activity that disrupt the 

habitat and life-cycle of sage-grouse (See Ch. 4 at 4-256, 271) is biased. This noise requirement needs to 

be applied at lek perimeter not at 0.6 mile from the lek. As is, the action could extend the effective NSO 

considerably farther afield. B.2.4 B‐ 5 Paragraph 3 Further definition of “noise shields” is needed, as are 

the locations where shields may be required. The agencies should consider guidance applied to other avian 

species (owls and murrelets). The USFWS interpret data to indicate such behaviors may manifest when: (a) 

the action-generated sound level substantially exceeds (i.e., by 20-25 dB or more as experienced by the 

animal) ambient conditions existing prior to the project; (b) when the total sound level, including the 

combined existing ambient and action-generated sound, is very high (i.e., exceeds 90 dB, as experienced 

by the animal); or (c) when visual proximity of human activities occurs close to (i.e., within 40 m of) an 

active nest site. 

Response: The range of alternatives in the LUP Amendments consider a variety of noise limits, all based 

on scientific studies on noise tolerance of sage-grouse and other avian species. The distance of the noise 

monitoring and the inclusion of the 10 dB above ambient is consistent with the State of Wyoming Core 

Strategy, in addition it is inconsistent with the most up to date research concerning the impacts of noise 

related to sage-grouse. The State of Wyoming is currently undertaking research to determine ambient noise 

levels across the State of Wyoming to determine variability in geography, environmental variables, 

topography, etc., after which the BLM/Forest Service will be working with the WGFD with respect to this 

issue. The type of noise shield and the location of the shield will be determined on a case-by-case project 

specific basis. 

Sage-grouse

Predators

Predators and other threats to sage-grouse

Comment ID: 205 

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company 

Name: Doug Cooper 

Comment: The proposed predator management (Appendix F) is entirely inadequate. Active reduction of 

raven, red fox and coyote populations is necessary. It is not enough to manage vertical structures, reduce 

roads and inventory predator populations if sage grouse are to be helped. Only by taking measures that 

protect sage grouse from predators will any meaningful recovery of the grouse occur. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-358 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 656 

Organization: Samson Resources Company 

Name: Heather N. Smith 

Comment: When discussing the potential impacts of fluid minerals on GRSG, the BLM often overstates 

potential impacts to the GRSG. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 3-241 - 3-2-42. The BLM's statements are 

contradicted by other reports that have been prepared regarding GRSG.Samson understands that sagegrouse leks near the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Field have experienced recent declines in attendance in 

the past couple years. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-287. However, as also demonstrated by the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, other leks in the area are experiencing significant increases in the number of birds attending. SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 3-287. The status is not just that the sage-grouse are experiencing population declines 

within the area, but that the birds are merely adjusting to development and moving to other areas. The 

decreases associated with the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah Areas are more than offset by the increases seen 

in other areas. Although the State of Wyoming has taken a number of steps to reduce the number of Greater 

Sage- Grouse harvested annually, a significant number of birds are still lost to hunting each year. The BLM 

suggests that over 1,200 sage-grouse were killed in 2009, a shocking amount for a supposedly imperiled 

species. Continually allowing hunting within the Planning Area may negate many of the mitigation 

measures currently proposed in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Samson requests that BLM also analyze the 

impacts that continued hunting will have on sage-grouse populations. 

Comment ID: 1851 

Organization: 

Name: Charles C. Price 

Comment: I do not think that the decline of the sage grouse can be stopped without addressing the predation 

problem. Ravens, foxes, raccoons, dog and cats are present in increased numbers. Raven populations in 

particular have increased dramatically. Consider that when Robert L. Patterson gathered data for his 

research published as “The Sage Grouse in Wyoming”, he kept a record of the birds and animals he saw 

during his research. He lists these sightings in the appendix of his book. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE 

RAVEN IN THAT LIST. At that time ravens were not the ubiquitous bird in this ecosystem that they are 

now. 

Comment ID: 124 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Next in line affecting sage grouse populations are natural conditions including weather and fires 

and induced conditions such as wolves. Sage grouse populations are significantly impacted by natural 

conditions including drought. The benchmark for evaluation of impacts on sage grouse by OHV recreation 

should be established by comparison to these natural conditions and hunting regulations. The evaluation 

and subsequent decision-making must be based on comparison to these real world conditions. 

Comment ID: 1962 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Chapter 3, Page 3-474 “Ravens are common in the planning area. Ravens are opportunistic and 

intelligent. They are scavengers, feeding on carrion, eggs (including sage-grouse eggs) and garbage. Studies 

are being conducted to determine the extent of raven predation on sage-grouse chicks. Wyoming classifies 

ravens as a pest; however, they are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).” Although this 

statement suggests the importance of predation and GRSG, the LUPA/DEIS does not provide a thorough 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-359

or referenced discussion of this topic and as such a more detailed discussion must be added, including not 

only studies of raven predation on GRSG chicks, but also on egg loss. The NTT Report essentially ignores 

the effects of predation on GRSG productivity, stating merely that, “roads and infrastructure can increase 

predation”. The NTT Report neither identifies predators of GRSG nor suggests measures to lessen or 

mitigate the effects of predation, nor does it explain how roads and infrastructure lead to increased predation 

on GRSG. The COT Report simply states that predation may be significant at the local level, particularly 

if habitat quantity and quality are compromised; however, the USFWS did not identify predation as a 

significant range-wide threat in the evaluation to list the GRSG under the Endangered Species Act. A 

number of researchers have reported findings related to GRSG predation that must be considered. Based 

upon this common viewpoint concerning the effects of disease and degradation of habitat, as well as the 

substantial amount of GRSG habitat already fragmented and degraded, it is imperative for BLM to clearly 

identify such areas through routine surveys and monitoring before imposing mitigation measures on project 

proponents. 

Comment ID: 1380 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Another "requirement" is that "water impoundments will be managed to prevent the spread of 

West Nile virus where analysis shows the virus poses a threat to sage grouse" but nothing within the 

proposed action requires such an analysis to be done. As such it looks good on paper but has no on the 

ground conservation value. 

Comment ID: 223 

Organization: American Motorcyclist Association 

Name: Wayne Allard 

Comment: ignoring other factors that have a dramatic effect on bird populations such as disease (i.e. 

encephalitis) and predator impacts on eggs and newly hatched birds raises questions ahout incomplete sc 

ientific information. 

Comment ID: 306 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Coalbed methane development is accompanied by dewatering of coal seams, and the produced 

water, often saline and rich in heavy metals and other toxins, has been handled using surface disposal. 

Infiltration from these reservoirs is known to pollute groundwater. BLM recognizes that reservoirs are a 

concern due to their potential to harbor WNv- carrying mosquitoes. DEIS at 4- 262. Yet no alternative 

requires the breaching of current CBM reservoirs and/or the prohibition on new reservoir construction 

associated with energy development, requiring underground injection instead. Both of these measures 

should be not only considered in detail but required in the final RMP amendment; it is our experience that 

discretionary BMPs are rarely implemented. We have no confidence that larger reservoirs, steeper 

shorelines, or altering water levels will make a decisive difference in reducing the spread of West Nile 

during an outbreak, nor is there science to support this approach. The BLM should implement the 

prohibition on new coalbed wastewater reservoirs as in Alternative B (DEIS at 4-109), and require that 

existing reservoirs be breached, in order to minimize the risk of West Nile virus outbreaks. 

Comment ID: 123 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-360 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Wildlife populations are significantly affected by hunting regulations... More sage grouse can 

be protected by banning sage grouse hunting and eliminating predators than all of the proposed actions. 

This is a reasonable alternative that must be evaluated and selected. 

Comment ID: 2069 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: B.2.3 West Nile Virus This entire section on West Nile Virus is missing any reference to 

insecticide applications which are effective in controlling mosquito larvae. We recommend this measure be 

included in the list of requirements and that its use be identified as an alternative mitigation measure. 

Comment ID: 394 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: We support efforts to avoid a listing of the GSG as a threatened or endangered species by the 

USFWS; but we strongly object that DOI/BLM subscribe to the view that habitat destruction from oil and 

gas development is the single most important factor impacting the GSG. The Draft LUPA and EIS clearly 

fails to recognize and provide for effective management options that address predation, likely the single 

most important factor related to the continued existence of the GSG. Moreover, it fails to address the fact 

that precipitation levels are also key to the existence of the species. We urge BLM to consider these 

influential factors as well as the many limitations and flaws identified surrounding development of the NTT 

report. 

Comment ID: 437 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: The LUPA and Draft EIS fails to provide for effective management options that address 

predation, likely the single most important factor related to the continued existence of the GSG. Yates urges 

BLM to thoroughly address predation in the ROD and Final EIS and provide a more thorough discussion 

on the significant impacts predation has on GSG populations. 

Comment ID: 892 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Perch discouragers were originally designed to reduce raptor electrocutions by moving birds 

from an unsafe (electrocution risk) perching location to a safer alternative, either on the same structure or 

a nearby structure on the same distribution line. The Agencies have incorrectly taken recommendations 

from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) that were proposed for minimizing 

electrocution risks and have applied these recommendations to predator management. Perch discouragers 

were never meant to entirely eliminate perching on transmission structures, but rather move raptors to perch 

on a safer portion of the structure. It is not possible to entirely deter raptors from perching on tall structures. 

In fact, recent data has documented the poor effectiveness of perch discouragers and greater effectiveness 

of covers for preventing electrocutions (see Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The 

State of the Art in 2006 [APLIC 2006], pages 17-18). Despite their declining use by electric utilities to 

prevent avian electrocution, perch discouragers are now being required by resource agencies to be installed 

in sage-grouse habitats to dissuade raptors and corvids from perching or nesting on power poles in areas 

with sage-grouse or other special status species. Perch discourager research has shown limited effectiveness 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-361

in preventing perching. Many perch discouragers actually increase the potential for nesting on structures 

because in some situations they provide a substrate for nest material. Some perch discouragers can actually 

increase raptor electrocution risk, particularly on lower voltage distribution lines. A perch discourager may 

reduce the separation required to prevent bird contact from phase to phase or phase to ground wires. In 

areas where raven predation on sage-grouse nests is a concern, perch discouragers may aid in the 

accumulation of nest material (APLIC 2006), and could potentially increase raven predation pressure due 

to nest construction on discouragers in sensitive areas. The negative impacts of perch discouragers must be 

weighed against the limited benefits, if any, they may provide, particularly if they are contributing to 

mortalities of protected birds and facilitating increases in predator nesting opportunities. There are also 

maintenance and operational concerns with the use of perch discouragers. Safety is Tri-State's main priority 

for all of our field staff. The maintenance crews need to be able to maneuver and attach themselves to 

structures for structure assessment and repairs. Perch deterrents would need to be removed whenever work 

is required on the structure so crews can safely work and have access to the structure. In addition, it is 

critical that anything that is placed on the structure cannot fall onto the conductors and create a safety hazard 

or outage. Because of these concerns, Tri-State requests that the Agencies focus on other more effective 

alternatives to sage-grouse conservation, such as habitat conservation or enhancement efforts, which are 

compatible with conservation measures for other protected species (e.g., electrocution prevention measures 

for raptors and other migratory birds). Consideration must be given to other federally protected species and 

should not result in impacts to migratory birds, including eagles. Tri- State also requests that the Agencies 

consider further research and application on nest management versus perch management on transmission 

structures as an effective and more viable option to minimize predation impacts to GrSG. 

Comment ID: 228 

Organization: 

Name: Jon C. Nicolaysen 

Comment: Alternative E is the best of a lot of Bad Choices.The major premise, "that disturbances by man 

have caused the decline of the Sage Grouse population" is false in our area and probably false in most of 

Wyoming. Most of the Sage Grouse habitat in Wyoming remains in tact. In fact the protection from 

predators provided by the presence of man has been a major help to Sage Grouse during my life. It has been 

only since the introduction of Bird Flu Virus that there has been such a total decline in the numbers of Sage 

Grouse. I do not believe that at this time, we can do anything about Bird Flu Virus in Sage Grouse. The 

primary contributing factor to the decline in Sage Grouse numbers controllable by man is predation. 

Predation by birds and mammals is something we can deal with. I recommend Study Areas within the Core 

Areas be set up where Predators are tightly controlled. 

Comment ID: 1491 

Organization: 

Name: Denise Langley 

Comment: If the Greater Sage Grouse are even considered as threatened then why are we still having 

seasons to kill something we are trying so hard to protect? Some areas have several grouse while several 

areas are diminishing in number of sage grouse. Maybe some adjustments need to be made and the very 

difficult job of trying to translocate small chicks with hens needs to be studied as well. With the mining 

industry displacing habitat and ravens and other predators increasing in some areas more needs to be done 

to place hens and chicks in safer established areas. 

Comment ID: 1490 

Organization: 

Name: Denise Langley 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-362 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Avian predators are just as responsible for the diminishing Greater Sage Grouse as anything on 

the ground. Ravens need a hard look as they are moving into Shirley Basin, Southwestern Wyoming and 

are showing up in Northeastern Wyoming as well. Predator control including avian species must be 

considered throughout the whole state. 

Comment ID: 1470 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: We also question why hunting and predator control is determined to be outside the scope of the 

DEIS. 

Comment ID: 480 

Organization: 

Name: Jean Harshbarger 

Comment: When a publication of this size and scope dedicates only one page to predators, that indicates a 

serious lack of understanding of the dynamics of the natural world. Until we get serious about this very real 

threat to sage grouse there isn't any way to help them increase. Although the old timers and those of us who 

live in sage grouse country have no credibility with the bureaucracy, we have seen ups and downs in sage 

grouse numbers over the years and these are more related to predators than mineral drilling, livestock 

grazing or fences with no markers on them. This is especially true as relates to coyotes, foxes, etc., not just 

raptors or other birds. 

Comment ID: 32 

Organization: 

Name: Kat Brekken 

Comment: Habitat and pesticides are factors to look at. 

Comment ID: 320 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Simply requiring perch inhibitors to be installed on powerlines is not an adequate regulatory 

mechanism; such perch deterrents reduce, but do not eliminate, raptor perching (Slater and Smith 2010). 

Notably, it was golden eagles and ravens, two of the most important sage grouse predators and nest 

predators, respectively, that most effectively circumvented powerline perch inhibitors in this study. 

Comment ID: 189 

Organization: Upper Green River Cattle Association 

Name: Kent Price 

Comment: We support Alt. D. Action Number 57, We support Alt. D. Grazing management in Sublette 

County has not caused the decline in sage grouse. Sage grouse have declined everywhere in the west, 

including areas where livestock grazing has not existed for decades. The major causes for decline in sage 

grouse numbers are climate change, sage grouse predators such as raccoons, foxes, and especially ravens, 

and other such predators, and housing and road developments along traditional sage grouse watering areas. 

Comment ID: 12 

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-363

Name: Thom Seal 

Comment: The draft DEIS, Purpose and Need completely omits a major threat to the GESG habitat, and 

that is disease. According to the U of Montana study “West Nile Virus: Ecology and Impacts on Greater 

Sage Grouse Populations” West Nile Virus (WNV)” outbreaks more common during drought” . We all 

recognize that the GRSG habitat in the west is in the midst of a severe drought, GRSG “hen survival JulyAugust, 2003” was about 76% with no WNV and 20% with WNV. Thus the hen population decreases by 

nearly 75% and further information showed that WNV reduced the GESG population by 25% in 2003! The 

GESG population had a lek attendance decline of about 85% in 2004 due to WNV. WNV was detected in 

the GESG in the states of CO, ID, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD, UT, & WY. “WNV affects both sexes and all 

age classes” and “Lab tests confirm that all birds that contact disease die” GRSG Survival scenarios show 

a decrease of GESG of 6-9% per year! The presentation also suggests ways to manage the land to reduce 

mosquito’s population. I am not aware of any scientific study that shows closing off public land for travel 

and mineral entry will have any effect on the populations of mosquitoes and the spread of West Nile Virus! 

“While running a placer operation plant I have seen Sage Grouse come in and drink out of my ponds day 

after day while my plant was running not 300 feet away. They only flew off only about 1⁄4 of a mile and 

returned day after day. It is not man that adds to the equation of the decline of the GRSG it is the list of 

causes above that are BLM/USFS’s problem.” I have not seen any mitigation in the document that dealt 

with the underlying problem of Sage Grouse mortality as listed above. The BLM/USFS needs to develop 

better mosquito control on public lands, not withdraw the land from multiple-use. 

Comment ID: 150 

Organization: 

Name: bk1492@aol.com 

Comment: I note that the blm itself is responsible for wiiping out the sage grouse, along with wildlife 

murdering hunters. The impact when they have no land left to live on because blm has leased it out for 

cheap cheap rats to robber baron cattle ranchers is what has mean there is no land for wildlife. 

Comment ID: 1801 

Organization: The Wilderness Society 

Name: Nada Culver 

Comment: High voltage transmission lines should be prohibited within 1 mile of a lek to minimize grouse 

avoidance behavior and increased predation pressure. Anti-perching devices should be required for on all 

new overhead transmission lines in greater sage-grouse habitats, and the agencies should work with rightof-way holders to identify conflict areas and have anti-perching devices installed on existing overhead 

transmission lines in these same habitats. The agencies should incorporate relevant information from the 

updated APLIC guideline manual. 

Comment ID: 164 

Organization: 

Name: Dan S. Budd 

Comment: With no predator control, the sage grouse species have gone down, even with much better range 

conditions. So, maybe we should look at the problem of no predator control and learn from history. History 

shows that you can eliminate all grazing and accomplish nothing. Without predator control, your “Preferred 

Alternative E” is destined for failure. 

Comment ID: 167 

Organization: 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-364 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Jean Harshbarger 

Comment: A serious lack of consideration appears to be given to predator control, and that mentioned is 

mainly about raptors. There are many instances where it has been noted that aggressive control of coyotes 

and foxes has had beneficial impacts for sage grouse. To ignore this is of great concern. 

Comment ID: 39 

Organization: 

Name: Egret Plover 

Comment: We are middle school two students who are the founders of a nonprofit organization, BABCE, 

which helps to supports the environment and spread awareness for particular endangered species. We have 

come to hear of your decisions involving industrializing fields that the Greater Sage-Grouse needs, and we 

are asking you politely to reconsider. While we may be younger than you and somewhat ignorant, we do 

feel strongly about issues such as these, and we ask you not to disregard our opinion. Considering what the 

human race has done to the environment in the last two centuries with the technological advancements and 

their need for fossil fuels, it is not surprising that a new project is being held. However, your new project, 

no matter how much of a good idea it seems at the time being, in the long run, your commercial building 

will be fatal to not only the land, water and air animals, but also us. Pesticides, for example, seem like a 

good idea--and could be--if they were not so harmful. Not only do pesticides poison insects, pesticidesprayed, plant-eating animals and insecteating animals also suffer. 

Comment ID: 2072 

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson 

Comment: It amazes us, and deeply disturbs us, that the Draft EIS fails to recognize the significant and 

observable impacts that predators have on sage-grouse. Substantial evidence exists that show the damage 

predators do to Sage Grouse populations yet the language in the document refers only to ambiguous and 

vague actions like “minimize the threat that predators pose” and “minimize impacts from predators”. The 

Draft EIS shows virtually no support for management of predation species that aggressively target sagegrouse. The idea that predators, which thrive on sage grouse eggs, pose a lesser threat to sage grouse 

populations than long-standing land use practices, such as livestock grazing, borders on absurd. 

Comment ID: 395 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: In light of the GSG literature review prepared by NewFields, Yates urges BLM to fully consider 

all pertinent GSG research and identified mechanisms for impacts on GSG habitat, population trends and 

behavior. Failure to consider such identified impacts on GSG would result in a biased approach to 

developing GSG mitigation measures in the Draft LUPA and EIS. In particular, Yates urges BLM to 

thoroughly consider the significant effects of predation and naturally occurring population cycles on GSG 

in the Draft LUPA and EIS. 

Comment ID: 975 

Organization: 4W Ranch 

Name: Robert Harshbarger 

Comment: As ranchers who have been recording and observing sage-grouse population trends for many 

decades, it is our contention that “predation” is by far the biggest cause of population cycles of the sage-
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-365

grouse here on the 4W Ranch along with spring weather impacts. (We are not referring to or subscribing to 

“climate change” theories.) Also we do not have any new oil and gas activity. Last oil well to be drilled in 

our area was in the 1980ʼs, so that cannot be a factor. Large raptors, particularly Golden Eagles do require 

a substantial prey base to survive and remain in a given territory. Their main diet on the 4W Ranch is 

rabbits, sage-grouse and prairie dogs (PD). When the PD population peaked here on the 4W in 2000 prior 

to our first plague event, the PD population east of Lynch Road was estimated to be about 80,000 PDʼs. 

That year, 2000, there were five known active Golden Eagle nest on the ranch. Sage-grouse numbers were 

substantial with four known Leks within the ranch boundaries and rabbit numbers were high, attested by 

the number of road kill observed. Since 2000 the PDʼs have gone thru 3 plague events and our current PD 

population count last summer, 2013, was just 6,000 PDʼs east of Lynch Road in our 4W CCAA PD 

complex. The rabbit population died off about 7 to 8 years ago and as yet, has not started to recover. Hence, 

the Eagle and the other predators prey base is very low at this time. What is the annual prey requirement 

for one adult eagle? We are not sure without some in depth research. We do know that one Great-horned 

Owl requires the equivalent of one rabbit or one pheasant per week to sustain itself. We would estimate that 

one adult eagles diet would require at least one rabbit, one sage-grouse, one PD or the equivalent every 3 

days. That is 122 critters needed per year per bird. Since the rabbit population is sub-par at this time a 

tremendous amount of pressure is being put on the already scarce sage-grouse population by the Eagles 

alone. Just this morning I made my first Lek count for 2014. Only two sagegrouse males were observed on 

the Keyton 1 Lek. That is down from 8 males in 2013, 16 males in 2012 and 20 males in 2011. On the other 

3 leks no activity was observed today. So why, why are the SG numbers so low here on the 4W? The only 

logical answers are predation and poor reproduction the last 3 years due to cool or cold wet spring weather 

at brooding time. It is known that the sagegrouse hen is not the best when it comes to keeping her chicks 

dry and warm when needed for survival at this time of year. This is not a human cause or impact activity. 

It is a natural occurrence and nothing else. Not a damn thing any of us can do about it. So stop blaming our 

“livestock grazing” management for the decline of the sage-grouse here on the 4W. At the present time we 

have one confirmed active Golden Eagle nest within our primary sage-grouse habitat. We will be 

confirming additional nest sites shortly. Within 1/2 mile of the Keyton 3 Lek, there was an established Redtailed Hawk nest.This was an active nest that had existed for years. The Keyton 3 Lek was by far the largest 

lek on the ranch, averaging 20 to 24 males displaying annually. In 2007, a pair of Golden Eagles took over 

that Red-tailed nest and preyed heavily on the Keyton 3 Lek area. Even though the eagles did not return to 

that nest in 2008 and the Red-tails did, the Keyton 3 Lek has had zero activity ever since. Predation was the 

direct cause of the loss of this lek, not “livestock grazing”, not oil and gas activity. Along with the eagle 

requiring a substantial prey base, you also have the coyotes, fox and others that are going to survive until 

their food source is diminished beyond survival. We are not seeing a rebound in the rabbit population yet 

this spring. Without going into further detail at this time, we have recorded data that shows what predators 

and cold, wet late April early May weather is doing to the 4W Sage-grouse populations. This is an area that 

the Wyoming SG Draft EIS woefully did not address in the Draft EIS. Just one page covered “predation” 

in this extremely large document. The true answer for sage-grouse management in Wyoming, Weston 

County and the 4W Ranch is better predator management by the government, change some laws if needed, 

but donʼt put the “livestock producer” out of business. That will not save the sagegrouse. 

Comment ID: 48 

Organization: 

Name: Linda Joo 

Comment: How about stopping the bird slaughterers from blowing thousands of them to pieces every year? 

Comment ID: 1824 

Organization: 

Name: Marybeth Devlin 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-366 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Appendix F "Predator Management" is a one-page document. Its focus is on raptors as potential 

predators of Sage-Grouse. The basic approach appears to be two-fold: • Remove attractants (such as dead 

animals on which birds-of-prey scavenge) and • Reduce the number of artificial perches (such as powerpoles, from which the raptors can spy and swoop down on the land-dwelling Sage-Grouse). Such measures 

are good management practices. However, raptors are not the problem. Loss of habitat is. As pointed out 

earlier, predation can be reduced significantly by the availability of proper cover. 

Comment ID: 134 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: The analysis should also disclose impacts of the hunting of the Grouse, which is still allowed in 

at least 8 of the 11 states where it is found. Importantly, Sage Grouse conservation efforts such as seasonal 

restrictions and bag limits have been quite successful in maintaining healthy populations. 

Comment ID: 9 

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering 

Name: Thom Seal 

Comment: The real threat to the sage grouse is from wildfire, evasive species, disease and predators, not 

mining. Ravens, coyotes and other predators are hard on the nesting hens and their young and are a large 

cause of loss of existing GRSG nests and their young. Nowhere in the BLM/USFS and USFW Document 

do I find any mitigation of predators anywhere. 

Comment ID: 7 

Organization: 

Name: Brandy Davis 

Comment: PREDATOR MANAGEMENT IS THE FIRST THING TO LOOK AT 

Comment ID: 523 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Completely omitting drought and predation distorts the causal relationship between GRSG 

mortality and anthropogenic activities in the project area and the DEIS is based on conserving GRSG habitat 

and population. 

Comment ID: 376 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Aerial herbicide and pesticide applications should be precluded within one mile of sage grouse 

habitats to avoid inadvertent poisoning of sage grouse. Alternative B offers the most viable management 

strategy in this regard. 

Comment ID: 1635 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-367

Comment: It is quite clear from observation and reported science that ravens are increasing and benefiting 

from fragmentation and human changes on the landscape. As this occurs, there will be continued negative 

consequences to sage-grouse nesting success and recruitment into the breeding population. 

Comment ID: 1398 

Organization: Uinta County Predator Management District 

Name: Joe V. Hickey 

Comment: We know that one of the reasons the Sage-Grouse have declined in our area is due to the Raven 

predation on the eggs and also the small chicks. When we had large populations of Sage-Grouse we did not 

have the Raven populations that we have now. Our Predator Management District has been cooperating 

and helping to fund, the studies being conducted by Michael R. Conover, Department of Wildland 

Resources, Utah State University in Logan, Utah, regarding the predation by Ravens and other predators, 

on Sage-Grouse eggs and chicks. There have been two published reports detailing these studies which we 

request you include in you analysis. They are as follows: “Greater Sage-Grouse Select Nest Sites To Avoid 

Visual Predators But Not Olfactory Predators” - Michael R. Conover, Jennifer S. Borgo, Rebekah E. Dritz, 

Jonathan B. Dinkins and David K. Dahlgren. “Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus Urophasianus) Select 

Nest Sites and Brood Sites Away From Avian Predators” – Jonathan B. Dinkins, Michael R. Conover, 

Christopher P. Kirol and Jeffrey L. Beck. The predation of the Sage-Grouse eggs and chicks and even the 

adults, by other predators such as the Badger, Red Fox, Skunk, Hawks, Eagles and coyotes, is continually 

occurring. The Red Fox is a new predator to our area and could certainly be one of the reasons for the 

decline in the Sage-Grouse populations.Additionally, the Eagle is protected now and has been for a number 

of years, which may also be a reason for the decline in the Sage-Grouse populations. There has been a 

marked increase in the Sage-Grouse population in areas where predators, i.e. Coyotes, Red Fox and Ravens, 

have been removed. Again, we feel that many of the issues you are focusing on are not contributing to the 

reduced populations of Sage-Grouse and the restrictions placed on land use will not be beneficial in 

increasing our Sage-Grouse populations and will have an adverse effect on the economy of our county and 

the State of Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 1996 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Appendix F—Predator Management: WSGA is disturbed by the failure of the Draft EIS to 

provide a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of predators on sage-grouse. The language in this 

Appendix uses avoidance terms including “minimize the threat that predators pose” and “minimize impacts 

from predators” while totally failing to show support for aggressive management of key sage-grouse 

predation species. The assumption that certain required design features are an adequate response to 

predation is unfounded. The inverse relationship between sage-grouse populations and predator populations 

is apparent to any conscientious observer of Wyoming wildlife history. 

Comment ID: 2996 

Organization: 

Name: Ray and Kathleen 

Comment: I think there should be more emphasis on sage-grouse predator control in appendix F, Predator 

Management. Predators such as coyotes, foxes, bobcats, eagles, and ravens are decimating the sagegrouse 

population. 

Comment ID: 2225 

Organization: Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA) 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-368 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne 

Comment: Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that in certain areas diseases, such as West Nile virus, and 

predators, such as raptors, corvids, skunks, badgers, raccoons, etc., can play a significant role in local 

population declines of sage-grouse. Naugle and others have Wyoming Sage-grouse Plan Comments 

attempted to quantify the local impact of West Nile virus but the negative impact from disease and predation 

should be further analyzed and appropriate regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures developed 

to minimize as much of the negative impact as possible. 

Comment ID: 3102 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Science establishes West Nile virus as the second leading threat to the viability and recovery of 

sagegrouse populations in the Northeast Wyoming portion of the planning area. The FEIS should address 

this threat by expanding its analysis of stored water management to include breaching existing problematic 

CBNG reservoirs or stock ponds, and requiring underground injection or other effective disposal of 

produced water to avoid fostering conditions favorable to West Nile. Effective strategies to combat West 

Nile should be required, rather than discretionary best practices. 

Comment ID: 2517 

Organization: Converse County 

Name: Richard C. Grant 

Comment: In Appendix F, Predator management. The introduction states that the BLM and Forest Service 

will implement strategies and techniques in land management decisions that minimize the threat predators 

pose to sage-grouse. We can appreciate that the land management agencies will also support and encourage 

other landowners and agencies in their efforts to minimize impacts from predators on sage-grouse. However

under F.2 Required Design Features, we feel that the emphasis is on raptors and eliminating perch 

structures. We believe there needs to be equal emphasis and measures to control predation by coyotes, fox, 

bobcats, skunks and others which prey on both live birds and eggs in the nest. The Executive Summary on 

page ix states "Management should address all threats to sage grouse, including predation by other species." 

Comment ID: 2412 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Failure to consider predation and other non-anthropogenic factors. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

service has recognized predation as a significant factor related to the decline of GRSG distribution and 

abundance. Yet, the Draft EIS fails to address predation issues or the potential for mitigation measures that 

could reduce impacts from predation. Numerous parts of the core areas and non-core areas do not contain 

GRSG habitat for a variety of reasons, and BLM must account for these in initial baseline measurements 

so that they are accounted for and not counted as habitat disturbance. 

Comment ID: 2527 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Perch discouragers were originally designed to reduce raptor electrocutions by moving birds 

from an unsafe (electrocution risk) perching location to a safer alternative, either on the same structure or 

an alternate structure located nearby. Recent data has documented poor effectiveness in perch discouragers 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-369

and greater effectiveness of covers for preventing electrocutions (see Suggested Practices for Avian 

Pratection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 (APLIC 2006), pages 17- 18). Despite their 

declining use by electric utilities, perch discouragers have been installed in attempts to dissuade raptors and 

corvids from perching or nesting on power poles in areas with sagegrouse or other sensitive prey species. 

Perch discourager research has shown limited effectiveness in preventing perching, potential for increased

nesting on discouragers, and increased electrocution risk associated with perch discouragers. In areas where 

raven predation on sage-grouse nests is a concern, perch discouragers may aid in the accumulation of nest 

material (APLIC 2006), and could potentially increase raven predation pressure due to nest construction on 

discouragers in sensitive areas. The negative impacts of perch discouragers must be weighed against the 

limited benefits they may provide, particularly if they are contributing to mortalities of protected birds and 

facilitating increases in predator nesting populations. The avian predators of sage-grouse should also be 

considered, as different species exhibit different hunting strategies, and employ different hunting techniques 

for different prey species. For example, golden eagle diet is largely mammalian (80-90%, Kochert et al. 

2002). Golden eagles prey on sage-grouse opportunistically, and typically hunt sagegrouse by stooping 

from a high soar or low, coursing ambush flight (Watson 1997, Kochert et al. 2002). Consequently, power 

poles may not play an important role in eagle predation of sage-grouse. Golden eagles are vulnerable to 

electrocution mortality (APLIC 2006) and perch discouragers have been correlated with increased eagle 

electrocution risk (PacifiCorp, in prep.). Common ravens are known predators of sage-grouse nests, yet 

ravens are able to overcome perch discouragers and may experience higher nesting rates on poles with 

perch discouragers (APLIC, PacifiCorp, unpublished data). 

Comment ID: 2217 

Organization: Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association 

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne 

Comment: Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that in certain areas diseases, such as West Nile virus, and 

predators, such as raptors, corvids, skunks, badgers, raccoons, etc., can play a significant role in local 

population declines of sage-grouse. Naugle and others have attempted to quantify the local impact of West 

Nile virus but the negative impact from disease and predation should be further analyzed and appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures developed to minimize as much of the negative impact 

as possible. 

Comment ID: 2827 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: On page 14 of Chapter 1 under the Wildlife and Fisheries section it discusses restoring degraded 

sagegrouse habitat. However given the small amount of historical information which seems to be available 

to the Agencies, will they know when they have restored to the historical levels the habitat? This same 

section also discusses threats to sage-grouse being livestock grazing. We would reiterate our previous 

comments about the disconnect between the Wyoming SGIT actions and findings and the statement found 

in this section. Further in this section the Agencies identify some design features which will be implemented 

to protect sage-grouse from predators. As mentioned previously however, these methods do not address 

impacts caused by predators already in an area which could be having significant impacts on sage-grouse. 

What types of control activities will address items like large skunk populations, or increased raccoon 

populations. Also, what will be done about crow and raven depredations on nesting sitesfrom these corvids? 

Design features do not address these issues. 

Comment ID: 2937 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-370 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: We oppose the use of anti-perch devices due to concerns with cost, effectiveness, science based 

documentation, maintenance issues and, based on design, potential safety concerns. BLM should not require 

installation and use of anti-perch devices because there is no scientific proof that such devices are an 

effective sage-grouse conservation measure. Therefore, the threats to sage-grouse identified by the USFWS 

would not be reduced by BLM requiring this expensive, unproven, and ineffective management action. 

Summary: The major causes for decline in sage-grouse numbers are climate change, sage-grouse predators 

such as raccoons, foxes, and especially ravens, and other such predators, and housing and road 

developments along traditional sage-grouse watering areas. A serious lack of consideration appears to be 

given to predator control. The hunting of sage-grouse should be eliminated or properly managed to protect 

populations. The use of pesticides should be carefully considered, and the threat of West Nile virus, 

wildland fires, and drought should be considered as well. We have no confidence that larger reservoirs, 

steeper shorelines, or altering water levels will make a decisive difference in reducing the spread of West 

Nile during an outbreak, nor is there science to support this approach. The BLM should implement the 

prohibition on new coalbed wastewater reservoirs as in Alternative B (Draft EIS at 4-109), and require that 

existing reservoirs be breached, in order to minimize the risk of West Nile virus outbreaks. Perch 

discourager research has shown limited effectiveness in preventing perching. Predation can be reduced 

significantly by the availability of proper cover. The draft EIS shows virtually no support for management 

of predation species that aggressively target sagegrouse. The idea that predators, such as raptors, corvids, 

skunks, badgers, raccoons, etc., which thrive on sage-grouse eggs, pose a lesser threat to sage-grouse 

populations than long-standing land use practices, such as livestock grazing, borders on absurd. The 

agencies should incorporate relevant information from the updated APLIC guideline manual. 

Response: The management for predators in the LUP Amendments is within the regulatory authority of 

BLM and Forest Service; any other regulation of predators is under the purview of APHIS or WGFD. 

Appendix F details the management of predators. The Forest Service has identified predation as a threat 

only when habitat is lacking or fragmented. Research shows that predator control programs do not help 

with long term predator reduction or removal. Predators increase in areas of development or disturbance; 

the RFDs and management under Alternative E aims to prevent fragmentation of habitat, reduce 

anthropogenic disturbances, and regulate areas that attract predators. The WGFD regulates hunting of sagegrouse. Pesticides are used according to the EPA instructions on the label. The RDFs for reservoirs and 

water developments to prevent mosquito reproduction and the spread of West Nile virus are based on the 

research by Doherty (2007), Knight et al. (2003) and Walton and Workman (1998). Coalbed methane 

reservoirs that are no longer needed could be breached; although in some cases they provide livestock water 

which improves distribution and management of livestock, which improves vegetation conditions. WY IM 

2012-019 Policy Statement 7: West Nile virus artificial water impoundments will be managed to the extent 

of BLM’s authority for the prevention and/or spread of West Nile virus where the virus poses a threat to 

sage-grouse. This may include but is not limited to: (a) the use of larvicides and adulticides to treat 

waterbodies; (b) overbuilding ponds to create non-vegetated, muddy shorelines; (c) building steep 

shorelines to reduce shallow water and emergent aquatic vegetation; (d) maintaining the water level below 

rooted vegetation; (e) avoiding flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas; (f) 

constructing dams or impoundments that restrict seepage or overflow; (g) lining the channel where 

discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly 

into existing open water; (h) lining the overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct the spillway with 

steep sides to preclude the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation; and (i) restricting access of ponds 

to livestock and wildlife (Doherty 2007). Field Offices should consider alternate means to manage produced 

waters that could present additional vectors for West Nile virus. Such remedies may include re-injection 

under an approved Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, transfer to single/centralized facility, etc. 

Policy Statement 7 regarding West Nile virus does not apply to naturally occurring waters. Impoundments 

for wildlife and/or livestock use should be designed to reduce the potential to produce vectors for West Nile 

virus where the virus may pose a threat to sage-grouse.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-371

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Buffer distances on roads

Comment ID: 288 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Braun (1986) and Holloran (2005) demonstrated that main haul roads sited within 2 miles of 

sage grouse leks resulted in significant declines of breeding populations at the leks. BLM should correct 

the deficiencies in the State policy by requiring that nesting habitats be delineated, and that all new roads 

be sited at least 0.8 mile (not 0.6 mile) from leks, nesting habitat, and winter concentration areas, and that 

main haul roads be kept at least 2 miles from sage grouse leks in all cases (not subject to waiver). Within 

these areas, jeep trails should be used for access, and seasonal closures to motor vehicles should be applied 

during breeding, nesting, and wintering periods. 

Comment ID: 1615 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: State Executive Order 2011-5 requires that main haul roads be sited at least 2 miles away from 

active sage grouse leks, and that other roads be sited at least 0.6 miles from active leks. The Executive 

Order is almost adequate in some respects, but is inadequate in others. Specifically, these measures are 

designed to address impacts to lekking grouse but do little to protect nesting females. BLM should correct 

these inadequacies through the Wyoming RMP Amendment. Wisdom et al. (2011) found that extirpated 

range of sage grouse was closer to highways (mean = 3.1 miles) than occupied range for sage grouse, and 

Holloran (2005) found that main haul roads (defined as gravel roads accessing 5 or more natural gas wells) 

had a significant negative effect up to 1.9 miles from the road on sage grouse lek attendance compared to 

unaffected leks (regardless of whether the road was visible from the lek or not), and that increased traffic 

led to increased impact. Braun (1986) also found a significant negative effect of mining haul roads on sage 

grouse leks within 1.9 miles of the road. At minimum, all roads need to be sited at least 0.8 miles from 

lekking and nesting habitat, and main haul roads should be sited at least 2 miles away. At minimum, all 

roads need to be sited at least 0.8 miles from lekking and nesting habitat. Patricelli et al. (2012, Attachment 

4) tested the impact or road and drilling noise on sage grouse, and reached the following conclusions: “...we 

recommend that interim management strategies focus not on limiting traffic noise levels, but rather on the 

siting of roads or the limitation of traffic volumes during crucial times of the day (6 pm to 9 am) and/or 

season (i.e. breeding season). We estimate that noise levels will typically drop to 30 dBA at 1.3 km (0.8 

mi) and to 32 dBA at 1.1 km (0.7 mi) from the road (these levels represent 10 dB over ambient using 20 or 

22 dBA ambient respectively). Therefore to avoid disruptive activity in areas crucial to mating, nesting and 

brood-rearing activities, we recommend that roads should be sited (or traffic should be seasonally limited) 

within 0.7-0.8 miles from the edge of these areas. We emphasize that we are not recommending the siting 

of roads 0.7-0.8 miles from the edge of the lek perimeter, but rather 0.7-0.8 miles from the edge of crucial 

lekking, nesting and early brood-rearing areas. 

Comment ID: 1617 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Braun (1986) and Holloran (2005) demonstrated that main haul roads sited within 2 miles of 

sage grouse leks resulted in significant declines of breeding populations at the leks. BLM should correct 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-372 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the deficiencies in the State policy by requiring that nesting habitats be delineated, and that all new roads 

be sited at least 0.8 mile (not 0.6 mile) from leks, nesting habitat, and winter concentration areas, and that 

main haul roads be kept at least 2 miles from sage grouse leks in all cases (not subject to waiver). Within 

these areas, jeep trails should be used for access, and seasonal closures to motor vehicles should be applied 

during breeding, nesting, and wintering periods. 

Comment ID: 285 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: State Executive Order 2011-5 requires that main haul roads be sited at least 2 miles away from 

active sage grouse leks, and that other roads be sited at least 0.6 miles from active leks. The Executive 

Order is almost adequate in some respects, but is inadequate in others. Specifically, these measures are 

designed to address impacts to lekking grouse but do little to protect nesting females. BLM should correct 

these inadequacies through the Wyoming RMP Amendment. 

Comment ID: 286 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: At minimum, all roads need to be sited at least 0.8 miles from lekking and nesting habitat, and 

main haul roads should be sited at least 2 miles away. At minimum, all roads need to be sited at least 0.8 

miles from lekking and nesting habitat. 

Summary: Road buffer distances under Alternative E are insufficient. At a minimum, all roads need to be 

sited at least 0.8 miles from lekking and nesting habitat, and main haul roads should be sited at least 2 miles 

away to protect both lekking males and nesting females. Specifically, these measures are designed to 

address impacts to lekking grouse but do little to protect nesting females. BLM should correct these 

inadequacies through the Proposed LUP Amendments. 

Response: A range of protection measures for both lekking and nesting sage-grouse have been examined in 

the alternatives. Specifically, the buffer distances for roads in Alternative E, and the other protection 

measures in the alterative are based on the best available science for the protection of both lekking and 

nesting sage-grouse. These buffer distances must be considered in the context of all the conservation 

measures in the Proposed LUP Amendments, and the all lands approach taken by the Wyoming State Core 

Area strategy. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Climate change, fire, invasive species

Comment ID: 1313 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The agencies have also overlooked an analysis of how sage-grouse habitats are likely to shift 

and change under various climate change scenarios and to evaluate how the current PPMA and PGMA 

classification schemes match the predictions for an altered biogeography in the interior west. Without a 

hard look at the viability of current provisions to protect and enhance sage-grouse habitat and populations 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-373

under the foreseeable future climate paradigm, the DLUPA/DEIS is inadequate and the promises of 

protection are bald. 

Comment ID: 1670 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: At lower elevations and in the more arid portions of the sage-grouse range, the catastrophic 

spread of cheatgrass, aided and abetted by the impacts from grazing, as well as changes in fire frequency 

and intensity has led to a lasting, if not permanent, changes in ecosystem states. Repeat fires that eliminate 

or reduce shrubs, native grasses, and forbs; disturb soils and biological crusts; and release nutrients have 

allowed cheatgrass and other introduced annuals to replace the native shrub and herb layers. The resultant 

landscape is largely composed of introduced annuals, and is more susceptible to annual weather patterns 

and varies greatly from year to year, depending on moisture availability. Long-term changes in climate that 

facilitate or enhance invasion and establishment by invasive annual grasses further exacerbate the fire 

regime and accelerate loss of sagebrush habitats.109 At higher and cooler elevations, changes in fire 

frequency and intensity have come at the expense of sagebrush ecosystems in a different manner. Under 

pre-European settlement conditions, wildfires and indigenous planned fires kept western junipers confined 

to areas where fires would not typically reach – mainly rocky terrain where the fuels needed to carry the 

fire were patchy and disjunct. Once modern settlers arrived in the mid-1860s, with their domestic livestock, 

this pattern changed. Heavy livestock grazing initially greatly reduced the fine fuels needed to carry fires 

that kept western juniper in check, and later active human intervention suppressed fires. As a result, western 

juniper were able to establish seedlings in grass and shrubland areas where formerly fires would have 

eliminated them. This then was the beginning of the woodland expansion into sage-grouse habitat that 

continues today.110 111 Prior to 1860 two-thirds of the landscape was treeless and occupied by 

sagebrushsteppe communities. Today, less than one-third of the landscape remains treeless and more than 

90 percent of the trees have established since the 1860s. These data support the need for active management 

in tree removal. In the absence of disturbance, woodlands will continue to expand, mature, and close. 

Comment ID: 1692 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Wildfires present a huge threat to sage-grouse ecosystems - between 2000 and 2012, over 7,200 

acres of GRSG habitat in the planning area were affected by wildland fire, and the threat of future wildfires 

are discussed in the DEIS.118 As discussed in Section 3 c of these comments, the best and most prudent 

approach is to protect and preserve existing sage-grouse habitats as opposed to being in the position of 

restoring or replacing damaged or lost habitats. Fire suppression activities should be aggressive and aimed 

at minimizing acres burned. Protecting sage-grouse habitats should generally rank above protection of 

human property and always behind protection of human lives. 

Comment ID: 1843 

Organization: 

Name: Charles C. Price 

Comment: As I reviewed the draft LUPA/EIS the lack of this document’s recognition of the effects of 

climate on the various wild life components of the ecosystem that we are working with has astounded me. 

If you look back in time to the 1930’s the sage grouse were in decline and even considered in crisis. A study 

was commissioned and the results were published as, “The sage Grouse in Wyoming” by Robert L. 

Patterson. The 1930’s were the peak of a drought period then came the 1950’s which was a high 

precipitation period when the sage grouse population increased exponentially. What can be seen from these 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-374 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

periods is that cyclic dry and moist weather patterns have a large effect on the sage grouse and wild life 

populations in general. 

Comment ID: 2414 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: A particular concern is BLM's failure to prioritize specific actions that may have the greatest 

benefit to the sage-grouse. In BLM's own scoping materials for its EIS process, the BLM listed hard rock 

mining 16th out of 19 threats to the GRSG, just above hunting. Hunting has been found to be such an 

insignificant threat that it is not even recommended that it be prohibited. BLM appears to treat all threats 

from all programs equally, and apparently intends to spend its scarce resources implementing specific 

restrictions even when certain programs like mineral development may have relatively little effect on 

greater sage-grouse. BLM must prioritize higher threats and focus on the largest risks to GRSG such as 

invasive species and fire. 

Summary: Changes in fire frequency, the spread of cheatgrass, and the spread of woodland species are 

threats to sagebrush communities. Tree removal should be used to reduce the spread of woodlands in 

sagebrush. Fire suppression activities should be aggressive and aimed at minimizing acres burned. 

Protecting sage-grouse habitats should generally rank above protection of human property and always 

behind protection of human lives. Protect and preserve existing sage-grouse habitats as opposed to being in 

the position of restoring or replacing damaged or lost habitats. BLM must prioritize higher threats and focus 

on the largest risks to Greater Sage-Grouse such as invasive species and fire. The document neglects the 

effects of climate and drought. 

Response: The threats of fire, cheatgrass, and vegetation treatments are considered within the range of 

alternatives in the LUP Amendments and analyzed in Chapter 4. Climate change is addressed in the Air 

Quality sections in Chapters 3.2 and 4.2. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Comments and changes to Chapter 2 management alternatives

Comment ID: 430 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternative E applies a seasonal restriction prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities within nesting and early brood rearing habitat from March 1 to June 30. The TLS under 

Alternative B starts 15 days sooner than EO 2011-5 and ends at the same time, expanding the overall 

duration of the TLS by 15-days. Alternative E also provides that “dates could be expanded by 14-days” 

where credible data support different time frames. While there may be some discrepancy in 

nesting/broodrearing seasons due to elevation, geography, etc., the overall length of the season will be 

consistent regardless of location. For example, GSG in lower elevations tend to start mating approximately 

two weeks earlier than GSG at higher elevations; but, the overall length of the mating season remains the 

same. EO 2011-5 states that “adjustments to the stipulations may be necessary based upon local conditions 

and limitations.” Yates is not opposed to starting or ending this TLS on different dates than EO 2011-5 to 

account for geographic differences in GSG behavior. However, Yates is opposed to implementing a TLS 

for nesting/early-brood rearing habitat that is 15-days longer than deemed adequate under EO 2011-5. This 

discrepancy is not biologically justified. If the Wyoming Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) has 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-375

determined that a 3 1⁄2 month TLS for nesting/earlybrood rearing is adequate throughout Wyoming, it should 

also be adequate throughout the Plan Area. Yates recommends that BLM revise this GSG TLS so that the 

overall duration is consistent with EO 2011-5. The burden should not be placed on the operator to provide 

“credible data” to support a different timeframe and expand this seasonal restriction as currently proposed 

under Alternative E; this has already been evaluated and determined by the Wyoming SGIT. 

Comment ID: 429 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: While, Alternative D proposes a seasonal restriction consistent with EO 2011-5, it expands the 

size of the lek buffer from 0.6 miles (EO 2011-5) to within 2 miles of a lek within GSG core habitat areas. 

Expanding this seasonal restriction by nearly 400% has not been justified by BLM. As such, Yates requests 

BLM limit the size of the seasonal lek buffer within core habitat areas to 0.6 miles to establish consistency 

with EO 2011-5. 

Comment ID: 428 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternatives B and C propose to expand protections to GSG breeding, nesting, and early 

broodrearing habitat beyond EO 2011-5 by applying seasonal restrictions to priority and general habitat 

areas, rather than applying only to core habitat areas. General and priority habitat areas are more expansive 

the core habitat areas. As such, Yates requests BLM limit the scope of these seasonal restrictions on 

exploratory drilling to core habitat areas. Furthermore, the term “seasonal restrictions” under alternatives 

B and C is vague and undefined. Yates requests BLM define this term such that it is consistent with EO 

2011-5 (effective date of March 15 to June 30). 

Comment ID: 305 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition to other protections, Timing Limitations need to be applied to all drilling and other 

permitted industrial activities in Priority and General Habitats. Impacts from industrial projects are in no 

way limited to exploratory drilling or construction, and all such activities should be restricted to non-critical 

seasons within Priority and General Habitats, as under the Lander RMP restrictions on “surface disturbing 

and disruptive activities.” In this regard, Timing Limitation provisions should be paired with the substantive 

restrictions on leasing, well density, surface disturbance density, and setbacks contained in the National 

Technical Team recommendations (NTT 2011). 

Comment ID: 423 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: EO 2011-5 establishes a lek buffer and TLS protect GSG habitat within connectivity corridors. 

However, EO 2011-5 does not apply density or disturbance stipulations within these areas. As such, Yates 

requests BLM eliminate the 3% and 5% surface disturbance stipulations currently proposed under 

Alternatives B and E respectively. As per EO 2011-5, such stipulations are overly restrictive and 

unnecessary; they have not been scientifically justified. 

Comment ID: 422 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-376 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternative B is entirely inconsistent with EO 2011-5 and unnecessarily restrictive. Alternative 

B proposed to allow a maximum disturbance of 3% of the total sage grouse habitat in priority sagegrouse 

habitats. The 3% disturbance cap is much more limiting than the 5% disturbance cap. This stipulation is not 

limited to core habitat areas; rather, it will apply to all sage-grouse priority habitat areas which are more 

expansive that core habitat areas established under EO 2011-5. Expanding this protection by decreasing the 

surface disturbance cap by 2% and applying it to all priority habitats is unnecessary and unjustified. For 

reasons previously discussed, Yates requests BLM replace the 3% surface disturbance cap in Alternative B 

with a 5% disturbance cap and limit the application of this stipulation to GSG Core Areas to establish 

consistency with EO 2011-5 and prevent unnecessary restriction on other potential surface uses within GSG 

Core Area Habitat. 

Comment ID: 330 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM should require the fencing off of natural springs with buck-and-pole fences (to reduce 

collision mortalities) and place livestock water sources outside the fences rather than at the spring itself. If 

past actions have dried up natural springs or wetlands to create stock tanks, then remedial action should be 

required return some water to ground for sage grouse and vegetation, in an area protected from livestock. 

Comment ID: 146 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Listed below are some key concepts that should be considered as common sense prescriptions 

to protect the grouse in sensitive habitats. March 1 and May 15. 

Comment ID: 336 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: According to the Conservation Objectives Team (COT 2013: 45), the following objective should 

be a guiding principle: Conduct grazing management for all ungulates in a manner consistent with local 

ecological conditions that maintains or restores healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb 

communities and conserves the essential habitat components for sage grouse (e.g. shrub cover, nesting 

cover). The Wyoming RMP amendment should implement its management standards such that this 

direction is achieved. 

Comment ID: 344 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition dust can inhibit the growth of forbs, sagebrush, and other plants important to the sage 

grouse diet. Manier et al. (2011) found that two-track jeep trails were the single greatest vector of invasive 

weed spread among all human disturbances measured. For all categories of sage-grouse habitat, BLM 

should impose seasonal closures of these areas during the breeding and nesting season, and during winter 

for winter concentration areas. For Priority Habitat, BLM should also close these areas through the earlyand late-brood-rearing seasons. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-377

Comment ID: 314 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Under the Sage Grouse RMP Amendment EIS, BLM must evaluate the impacts of oil shale 

development on sage grouse under the current management (in the No Action alternative) and also develop 

a range of alternative oil shale management schemes, including closing Priority and General Habitats to oil 

shale leasing and development, and evaluate the various impacts of these alternatives as well. BLM must 

also evaluate the cumulative effects of oil shale development on federal and nonfederal lands together with 

all other human activities that affect sage grouse populations and habitats. 

Comment ID: 346 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM’s must limit motorized vehicles to designated (not “existing”) routes, identified through 

travel management planning across Wyoming and marked on-the-ground. In order to preclude the 

continued proliferation of illegally created roads and trails in this manner, it is therefore necessary to limit 

motorized travel to designated routes during travel planning, and this should be required as an explicit 

action in sage grouse Priority Habitats, General Habitats, and Connectivity areas. 

Comment ID: 435 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Outside the 0.6 mile NSO (that applies around occupied leks) EO 2011-5 does not allow 

exploration and production activity from December 2 to March 13 in winter concentration areas. Similar to

EO 2011-5, Alternative E applies a TLS prohibiting surfacedisturbing and/or disruptive activities from 

December 1 to March 14. Alternative D unjustifiably expands this seasonal restriction by 16 days by starting 

it November 15th (see comments above pertaining to expansion of seasonal restrictions). Alternative B 

takes expansion of the seasonal restriction much farther by proposing a NSO yearround in priority habitats. 

Protection of winter concentration areas proposed under Alternatives B and D is inconsistent with EO 2011-

5, unnecessary and has not been biologically justified by BLM. As such, these alternatives should not be 

considered by BLM. While alternative E is generally consistent with EO 2011-5, “protection of additional 

winter concentration areas” that “support populations of sage grouse that attend leks within core habitat” is 

overly broad and inconsistent with the EO. The EO limits this additional protection to “biologically 

significant numbers of sage grouse in core areas.” Yates requests BLM place the same limitation on the 

protection of additional winter concentration areas such that the Draft LUPA and EIS is consistent with EO 

2011-5. Alternative E also provides “activities in unsuitable habitats within core habitat areas would be 

evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be allowed on a case-by-case 

basis.” This case-by-case review and potential restriction on activities in unsuitable habitats in winter 

concentration areas is unjustified by BLM and inconsistent with EO 2011-5. Oil and gas activities should 

be allowed within unsuitable habitats (in an effort to protect suitable GSG habitat) subject to other Core 

Area stipulations as provided by EO 2011-5. As such, Yates requests BLM eliminate this review and 

potential restriction on activities in unsuitable habitats. 

Comment ID: 309 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-378 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Alternative E offers essentially no protection from locatable minerals mining (DEIS at 2-88), 

and given the limited latitude that agencies have to regulate projects under the 1872 Mining Law, this is a 

particularly egregious abdication of the responsibility to protect and restore sage grouse populations. 

Therefore, the appropriate course of action is to avoid allowing claims to issue in these priority habitats. 

We are particularly concerned about the potential for uranium extraction, be it underground, strip mining, 

or through in situ drilling and extraction methods. 

Comment ID: 432 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternatives C, D and E propose to seasonally prohibit surface disturbing and/or disruptive 

activities within connectivity habitat. Any blanket prohibition on such activities within connectivity habitat 

is excessive and inconsistent with EO 2011-5, which only provides for seasonal application of a CSU buffer 

around leks. CSU is much more restrictive than NSO. This deviation from the EO has not been justified by 

BLM. Yates requests BLM modify the connectivity habitat stipulations such that they are consistent with 

EO 2011-5 – a 0.6 mile CSI buffer around leks. 

Comment ID: 424 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: The 0.6-mile NSO proposed under Alternative E and the 4-mile NSO proposed under Alternative 

B prohibits “surface disturbance” and “surface disturbing activities” in addition to “surface occupancy.” 

Since it is possible to have surface disturbing activities without actually occupying the surface (e.g. buried 

pipelines, buried power lines), this is a notable discrepancy between these Alternatives and EO 2011-5 that 

will significantly restrict potential surface uses in these areas. EO 2011-5 prohibits surface occupancy, but 

does not prohibit surface disturbing activities. Rather, EO 2011-5 allows for authorization of “other 

activities” if protected resources are not adversely affected. Consequently, EO 2011-5 provides much 

greater flexibility in the application of this stipulation and potential land use. As such, Yates requests the 

BLM remove “surface disturbing activities” from these stipulations to achieve consistency with EO 2011-

5 and increase flexibility in the management of potential land uses in these areas. Otherwise, the 0.6 mile 

NSO around occupied GSG leks proposed under Alternative E is consistent with EO 2011-5. 

Comment ID: 434 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternatives D and E propose to apply a seasonal restrictions on surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities within 2 miles of the perimeter of GSG leks. These stipulations are consistent with the 

maximum 2 mile seasonal buffer provided under EO 2011-5 as long as they are only applied to occupied 

GSG leks. Alternative E specifically limits the seasonal restriction to occupied leks, but alternative D does 

not. Yates requests BLM specify that the seasonal restriction proposed under alternative D only applies to 

occupied GSG leks. While EO 2011-5 establishes a maximum seasonal buffer (2-miles) for occupied leks 

that may be applied outside of core areas, it does not mandate the application of any such stipulations 

outside of core areas. EO 2011-5 provides that “incentives to enable development outside core areas should 

be established,” illustrating that development outside of core areas should be promoted to the extent 

possible. Consequently, the non-core area stipulations proposed under alternatives D and E are more 

restrictive than non-core area stipulations required under EO 2011-5 and may contradict the EO’s intent to 

promote development outside of core areas. As such, Yates requests the BLM modify the non-core area 

stipulations proposed under alternatives D and E such that they are consistent with EO 2011-5 – consider 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-379

application of a 2 mile seasonal buffer on a case-by-case basis and only apply it where necessary; otherwise 

promote and develop incentives to enable development outside of core areas 

Comment ID: 433 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: The term “seasonal restrictions” under alternatives C is vague and undefined. Yates requests 

BLM define this term such that it is consistent with EO 2011-5 (effective date of March 15 to June 30). 

Comment ID: 425 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Applying the lek distance NSO to GSG priority habitat (Alternative B) and connectivity habitat 

(Alternatives B and E) is inconsistent with EO 2011-5. EO 2011-5 applies a 0.6 mile NSO within core 

habitat areas only; other priority habitat areas are not included. Additionally, EO 2011-5 applies a 0.6 mile 

CSO within connectivity areas but it does not apply an NSO within connectivity areas. Expanding the NSO 

by applying it to priority and connectivity habitat areas is unnecessary and unjustified. As such, Yates 

requests BLM limit the application of the NSO to core habitat areas. 

Comment ID: 426 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Application of a NSO to protect GSG leks stipulation outside of GSG core areas is not only 

inconsistent with EO 2011-5, but it is unnecessary to protect GSG habitat and has not been justified by 

BLM. Failing to recognize the Core Area strategy, as endorsed by the USFWS and applied in BLM IM 

WY-2012-019, is a fundamental flaw in Alternative B. Increasing the size of this lek buffer almost 700% 

is excessive and unnecessary. From a practical standpoint placing a 4-mile NSO around all leks will 

unnecessarily preclude development in thousands of acres throughout the Plan Area (e.g. operations in 

“unsuitable” GSG habitat). In the alternative, a more focused NSO of 0.6 miles within GSG core areas 

allows for a case-by-case analysis and determination of where development is feasible after consideration 

of habitat suitability and other site specific conditions. Yates strongly urges BLM to remove the 4-mile 

NSO provided for in Alternative B from consideration for inclusion in the Final LUPA and EIS/ROD. 

Comment ID: 427 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternatives D and E propose to apply a stipulation prohibiting or restricting surface occupancy 

and/or surface-disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of the perimeter of occupied GSG leks. These 

stipulations are consistent with the maximum NSO provided under EO 2011-5. However, while EO 2011-

5 establishes a maximum NSO standard (1/4 mile) and seasonal buffer (2-miles) for occupied leks that may 

be applied outside of core areas, it does not mandate the application of any such stipulations outside of core 

areas. EO 2011-5 provides that “incentives to enable development outside core areas should be established,” 

illustrating that development outside of core areas should be promoted to the extent possible. Consequently, 

the non-core area stipulations proposed under alternatives D and E are more restrictive than non-core area 

stipulations required under EO 2011-5 and may contradict the EO’s intent to promote development outside 

of core areas. As such, Yates requests the BLM modify the non-core area stipulations proposed under 

alternatives D and E such that they are consistent with EO 2011-5 – consider application of a 0.25 mile 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-380 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

NSO on a case-by-case basis and only apply it where necessary; otherwise promote and develop incentives 

to enable development outside of core areas. 

Comment ID: 382 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We recommend the adoption of the following measures which are proposed for adoption in the 

Preferred Alternative of other BLM plan revisions or sage grouse amendments. Some of these are similar 

to the provisions of Alternatives B and/or C. For Priority Habitats: Limit motorized use to existing roads 

and trails pending travel management planning. Complete planning within 5 years of ROD (Nevada – NE 

California RMP Amendment). Identify seasonal road closures through travel planning; consider re-routing 

roads where needed. Close and obliterate primitive roads and trails not designated in travel planning 

(Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). No new roads except as necessary for public safety, 

administrative/public need, or for valid existing rights. Access to existing rights at minimum level necessary 

(Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Limit road reconstruction to realignments that minimize 

impacts of sage grouse habitats. No upgrading unless maintains/improves sage grouse habitat, provides fuel 

break, necessary for public safety, or eliminates need to construct a new road (Nevada – NE California 

RMP Amendment). Special Recreation permits allowed if neutral or beneficial to sage grouse. No new 

recreation facilities constructed in SG habitats (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Retain public 

ownership of sage grouse habitat in realty transactions; exchange to create more contiguous fed ownership 

or net gain of SG habitat. Acquire lands to conserve/protect/restore SG habitat (Nevada – NE California 

RMP Amendment). No Surface Occupancy stipulations required for any new fluid minerals leasing, with 

no option for exceptions or modifications (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Close Priority 

Habitats to salable minerals development (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Close Priority 

Habitats to non-energy leasable minerals leasing (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Employ 

herd management to minimize livestock impacts on sage grouse nesting habitat during spring. Hot season 

grazing does not occur on an annual basis. Adjust AUMs where sage grouse habitat objectives are not being 

met. Incorporate terms and conditions into grazing permits to meet sage grouse habitat objectives (Nevada 

– NE California RMP Amendment). Priority Habitats are exclusion areas for new renewable energy ROW 

permitting (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Employ herd management to minimize livestock 

impacts on SG nesting habitat during spring. Hot season grazing does not occur on an annual basis. Adjust 

AUMs where sage grouse habitat objectives are not being met. Incorporate terms and conditions into 

grazing permits to meet sage grouse habitat objectives (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Design 

vegetation treatments to decrease conifer encroachment and increase cover of sagebrush and/or understory. 

Reduce threat of raptor perching and manage for limiting habitat components. Protect old-growth trees 

(Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Remove, modify, or mark fences to reduce sage grouse strikes 

(Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Conduct restoration of roads not designated under travel 

planning (NW Colorado RMP Amendment). Use existing roads, or realignments as described above to 

access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, then build any new road constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary. Allow no 

upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity 

unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse habitat, is necessary for motorist safety, 

or eliminates the need to construct a new road. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). New road construction 

would be limited to realignments of existing roads, if that realignment has a minimal impact on greater 

sage-grouse habitat, eliminates the need to construct a new road, or is necessary for public safety. 

Incorporate BMPs. Existing roads used to access valid existing rights; if unavailable, construct to minimum 

standard necessary. (HiLine RMP revision, North Dakota RMP Amendment). Prohibit or bury powerlines 

within 0.6 miles of leks unless no SG declines can be demonstrated. Prohibit overhead transmission except 

within 0.5 mile of existing lines, corridor a maximum of 1 mile wide. Bury lines where possible. (Buffalo 

RMP revision). High-profile structures exceeding 10 feet in height, would be eliminated, designed or sited 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-381

in a manner which does not impact sage grouse. Permanent (longer than 2 months) structures which create 

movement must be designed or sited to minimize impacts to sage-grouse. (North Dakota RMP 

Amendment). Priority Habitat would be a priority in consideration of land acquisitions. Retain public 

ownership of PH. Consider exceptions where: There is mixed ownership, and land exchanges would allow 

for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within the priority sage-grouse habitat area; 

Under priority sage-grouse habitat areas with minority federal ownership, include an additional, effective 

mitigation agreement for any disposal of federal land. As a final preservation measure consideration would 

be given to pursuing a permanent conservation easement. (North Dakota Plan Amendments). Allow only 

heliportable geophysical exploration, with timing limitations applied. (North Dakota RMP Amendment, 

Bighorn Basin RMP Revision). Apply Timing Limitation Stipulations to all Priority Habitat. (South Dakota 

RMP Amendment). Timing Limitations should apply to surface disturbing and disruptive activities. (Lander 

RMP revision). Find Priority Habitats unsuitable for coal leasing. (North Dakota RMP Amendment, HiLine 

RMP Revision, Northwest Colorado RMP Amendment). Maximum 25% forage utilization for livestock 

grazing in each grazing allotment. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Incorporate sage grouse habitat 

objectives into permit renewals. Manage toward ecological site potential and toward reference state to 

achieve sage grouse objectives. (NW Colorado RMP Amendment). Avoid all new structural range 

developments and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) unless independent peerreviewed studies 

show that the range improvement structure or nutrient supplement placement benefits GRSG. Design any 

new structural range improvements and location of supplements to conserve, enhance, or restore SG habitat 

through an improved grazing management system relative to SG objectives. Evaluate existing range 

improvements and location of supplements during AMP renewal process to make sure they conserve, 

enhance or restore SG habitat. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Authorize water developments only when 

no adverse effect to SG. Analyze springs, seeps, and pipelines to see if modifications are needed. (NW 

Colorado RMP Amendment). Grazing allotments not meeting rangeland health standards and not making 

progress toward this goal will be closed. (Miles City RMP revision). Develop specific objectives to 

conserve, enhance or restore Priority Habitat based on ESDs and assessments. Implement management 

actions (grazing decisions, AMP/Conservation Plan development, or other plans or agreements) to modify 

grazing management to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). 

Where riparian and wetland areas are already meeting standards they would be maintained in that condition 

or better. Where a site’s capability is less than PFC, BLM would manage to achieve or move toward 

capability. Manage wet meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness 

relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Where riparian areas and wet 

meadows meet PFC, strive to move towards GRSG habitat objectives within capabilities of the reference 

state vegetation relative to the ESD. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Do not allow vegetation treatments 

with a potential to adversely affect sage grouse. Retain a minimum of 70% of ecological sites capable of 

upporting 12% cover in Wyoming big sage or 15% cover in mountain big sage. Manage a total disturbance 

cap of less than 30% lands not meeting these criteria. (NW Colorado RMP Amendment). Evaluate role of 

existing seedings composed of introduced perennial grasses in andadjacent to Priority Habitat to determine 

if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage grouse. If these seedings are 

part of an AMP/ Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the 

Priority Habitat, then no restoration would be necessary. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Do not use fire 

in precipitation zones < 12", except as last resort and where conditions allow and cheatgrass is a very minor 

component. (NW Colorado RMP Amendment). Rest grazing allotments 3 full years following fire; utilize 

grazing exclosures for monitoring; grazing excluded until woody and herbaceous plants achieve SG 

objectives. (Bighorn Basin RMP Revision). Permanent retirement of grazing allotments will be considered 

on a willingpermittee basis. (Bighorn Basin RMP revision, Miles City RMP revision). 

Comment ID: 383 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-382 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: General Sage Grouse Habitats Limit motorized use to existing roads and trails pending travel 

management planning. Complete planning within 5 years of ROD (Nevada – NE California RMP 

Amendment). Identify seasonal road closures through travel planning; consider re-routing roads where 

needed. Close and obliterate primitive roads and trails not designated in travel planning (Nevada – NE 

California RMP Amendment). No new roads except as necessary for public safety, administrative/public 

need, or for valid existing rights. Access to exsting rights at minimum level necessary (Nevada – NE 

California RMP Amendment). Exclusion area for renewable energy rights of way; allowable if co-located 

on industrial facilities for on-site generation (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Closed to nonenergy leasable minerals (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Closed to future salable minerals 

sites (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Employ herd management to minimize livestock impacts 

on sage grouse nesting habitat during spring. Hot season grazing does not occur on an annual basis. Adjust 

AUMs where sage grouse habitat objectives are not being met. Incorporate terms and conditions into 

grazing permits to meet SG habitat objectives (Nevada – NE California RMP Amendment). Design 

treatments to decrease conifer encroachment and increase cover of sagebrush and/or understory. Reduce 

threat of raptor perching and manage for limiting habitat components. Protect old-growth trees (Nevada –

NE California RMP Amendment). Conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not designated 

in travel management plans. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Site and/or minimize linear ROW to reduce 

disturbance to sagebrush habitats. Maximize placement of power lines and transportation routes in existing 

ROWs. Power lines would be buried, eliminated, designed or sited in a manner which does not impact SG. 

ROWs would be allowed with appropriate mitigation and conservation measures identified within the terms 

of the authorization to minimize surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Co-locate new ROWs within 

existing ROWs where possible. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Allow new routes/realignments during 

site-specific travel planning if it improves GRSG habitat and resource conditions. Allow no upgrading of 

existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless the 

upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse habitat, is necessary for motorist safety, or eliminates 

the need to construct a new road. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Only allow geophysical operations by 

heliportable drilling methods and in accordance with seasonal timing restrictions. (North Dakota RMP 

Amendment). Find unsuitable for coal surface mining. (NW Colorado RMP Amendment). High-profile 

structures exceeding 10 feet in height, would be eliminated, designed or sited in a manner which does not 

impact sage grouse. Permanent (longer than 2 months) structures which create movement must be designed 

or sited to minimize impacts to greater sage grouse. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Noise limited to no 

more than 10 dBA above ambient, where technologically feasible. (Buffalo RMP revision). Bury new 

distribution lines within 1 mile of leks. (HiLine RMP revision). Where riparian and wetland areas are 

already meeting standards they would be maintained in that condition or better. Where a site’s capability is 

less than PFC, BLM would manage to achieve or move toward capability. Manage wet meadows to 

maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse species richness relative to site potential (e.g., 

reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. (North Dakota RMP Amendment, Utah RMP Amendment). 

Avoid all new structural range developments and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) unless 

independent peer-reviewed studies show that the range improvement structure or nutrient supplement 

placement benefits sage grouse. (North Dakota RMP Amendment). Do not use fire in precipitation zones < 

12", except as last resort and where conditions allow and cheatgrass is a very minor component. (Northwest 

Colorado RMP Amendment). 

Comment ID: 347 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: But it is not enough simply to limit vehicle use to designated routes; simply designating all or 

most routes for vehicle travel will result in negligible improvement of habitat conditions for sage grouse. 

BLM should also apply a maximum road density, no more than 0.7 linear miles per square mile within 2 

miles of leks within Priority and General Habitats (after Holloran 2005). The agencies should apply 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-383

restoration to roads not designated as open during travel planning, and should require this action in the 

RMP Amendment. 

Comment ID: 1117 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-141 MA 130 Text: Sage-grouse leks outside core and connectivity habitat areas: Surface 

occupancy and surface disturbing activities would be prohibited or restricted on or within a 0.25 mile radius 

of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-3). Comment: In both Alternative D and Alternative 

E, the BLM cannot combine the impacts resulting from surface occupancy and surface disturbances since 

they are entirely different. Further, BLM should provide exceptions, waivers and modifications to 

accommodate unique on-theground circumstances. 

Comment ID: 1426 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Timing and Distance Restrictions – Winter Concentration Areas, pages 2-162 and 

2-163, Item #134. Alternative E. Lands within core areas for which no information exists demonstrating 

that they are “winter concentration habitats,” as that term is defined, cannot be defined as winter 

concentration areas simply by virtue of their falling within Core. Likewise, areas (Core or otherwise) for 

which there is little or no information demonstrating winter use should not be designated as winter 

concentration areas. Winter use restrictions should not be imposed unless and until credible information is 

developed demonstrating that a particular area is, in fact, a winter concentration area. It is important to note 

that winter seasonal timing restriction is in addition to the sage-grouse nesting and early brood rearing 

restriction from March 1 – June 30, in addition to the December 1 – March 14 winter seasonal restriction. 

Conversely, a project proponent subject to these seasonal restrictions is limited to July – November for 

“disruptive” activities. Approximately 50% of the Known Sodium Leasing Area is inside core/priority 

habitat; this means that any new activity is limited to a five month window for half of that unique resource 

area. It is difficult to comprehend how this directive is commensurate with the BLM’s multiple use policy. 

If the BLM applies winter concentration timing restrictions universally to all core/priority habitat areas, 

then it must do a full socioeconomic impact analysis on the impacts to mining, and include those impacts 

in Appendix N. As noted on page 3-108 of the DEIS, “Ninety percent of the Nation’s trona production and 

30% of the world’s soda ash production comes from southwestern Wyoming.” Considering the fact that 

soda ash is utilized in the production of numerous household and consumer goods such as flat glass, 

container glass, detergents, baking products, pharmaceuticals, animal feeds, and many other uses, the 

socioeconomic impacts would require a U.S. and international perspective, not just impacts on Wyoming. 

Those impacts would need to consider the increase in costs of housing, vehicles, electronic equipment, 

dishwasher and laundry detergents, foods, cleaning compounds, paper, pollution control products, and 

multiple other costs that affect living costs worldwide. Currently, Alternative E of the DEIS, the Preferred 

Alternative, assumes that no winter use would be allowed in any Core Areas, irrespective of habitat values. 

Therefore, under that assumption, the BLM must include the appropriate socioeconomic and other analyses 

accordingly. The EO describes Suitable sage-grouse habitat as “nesting, brood-rearing, or winter habitat,” 

however it does not universally apply winter concentration zones across core habitat. This is an example of 

how the EO and the DEIS differ, and pose new conflicts or inconsistencies between the agencies. The 

biological value of protecting wintering areas is a valid argument, however applying winter concentration 

areas universally to all core areas is not based on best available science. In fact, the BLM admits in the 

DEIS on page 4-2 of the Environmental Consequences that some data is incomplete or unavailable. To 

quote DEIS Section 4.1.2 “Some of the major types of incomplete and unavailable data include, but are not 

limited to, incomplete information on the location and size of the following Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-384 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

types: Winter concentration areas, Nesting/early broodrearing habitat, Connectivity habitat. As a result of 

this missing data, some of the impacts that result from proposed actions presented in the alternatives cannot 

be quantified. In these cases, impacts are projected in qualitative terms.” Universal application of winter 

concentration areas to all core/priority habitat areas would simply be arbitrary and capricious based on the 

lack of scientific information. Furthermore, Map 3-19 Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat indicates that 

nearly all areas that lack scientific information were simply lumped into a category of winter habitat. In 

order to obtain the best available science, FMC has conducted third party winter surveys for the past three 

winters covering a vast area in southwest Wyoming. FMC will provide that information to the BLM and 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department under separate cover in order to update the available scientific 

data. In summary, those particular winter surveys indicated consistently that few sage-grouse use much of 

the southwest Wyoming area shown on Map 3-19 as winter habitat. In fact, the surveys indicate minimal 

use of the areas for winter purposes, and that is a good indication that there is simply not enough scientific 

information to make a decision. Further, it suggests that more research is needed in order to better 

understand what areas are actually being used as winter habitat so that appropriate winter protections can 

be provided. It is our recommendation that core/priority habitat areas should not be restricted universally 

as winter concentration areas and that more scientific data needs to be collected to determine how and where 

sage-grouse winter. 

Comment ID: 1015 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: Management Action 115 (pp. 2-118 - 2-119) should be revised as follows: "Areas containing 

less than 5% canopy cover and have the potential of 5% sagebrush cover would be treated as disturbed ..." 

This amendment will ensure consistency with the reclamation guidance provided later in the document. 

Further, delete "This direction would not be intended for other incentive/mitigation situations." It is 

desirable to develop a positive trend line in areas that have the potential of being restored. 

Comment ID: 1033 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 22 Text: Evaluate opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies on 

multiple allotments where coordination under a single management plan/strategy would result in enhancing 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations or its habitat, as determined in coordination with the state wildlife agency 

and with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders. Comment: This language should be amended to 

read: “Evaluate opportunities to coordinate management plans and strategies on multiple allotments where 

coordination under a single management plan/strategy would result in enhancing Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations or its habitat, as determined in coordination with the state wildlife agency and with project 

proponents, partners, landowners, permittees, local governments, and state and federal government 

entities.” 

Comment ID: 1196 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Under Alternative E, Anschutz objects to the BLM’s proposal to expand seasonal limitation 

period by up to 14 days within sage-grouse core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-146, Action No. 131. 

This limitation is inconsistent with the Wyoming Core Policy as expressed in Executive Order 2011-005. 

The Governor of Wyoming in conjunction with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department developed the 

Core Area Policy based upon the best scientific information available. As the BLM is aware, the Core Area 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-385

Policy was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as an appropriate 

mechanism to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to attempt to 

modify or alter the mitigation measures set forth in the Core Area Policy. 

Comment ID: 1126 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-176 Text: Avoid energy development in PACs (Doherty et al. 2010). Identify areas where 

leasing is not acceptable, or not acceptable without stipulations for surface occupancy that maintains 

sagegrouse habitats. Comment: “PACs” is not used nor defined in the remainder of this document. To the 

extent that BLM relies on the COT report to define PACs as “Priority Areas for Conservation” we insist 

that the BLM remove this terminology as it plays no part in Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy. 

Comment ID: 1124 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-165 MA 135 Text: In addition to Alternative A: The BLM/Forest Service would implement 

strategies and techniques in land management decisions that address predators shown to pose a threat to 

sage-grouse (Appendix F). The BLM/Forest Service would support and encourage other agencies in their 

efforts to minimize impacts from predators on sage-grouse where needs have been documented. Comment: 

This language should be amended to read: “The BLM/Forest Service would implement strategies and 

techniques in land management decisions that address predators shown to pose a threat to sage-grouse 

(Appendix F). The BLM/Forest Service would consult landowners, permittees, and state, local and federal 

government entities to the maximum extent possible, and support and encourage other agencies in their 

efforts to minimize impacts from predators and other pests (including weeds and mormon crickets) on sagegrouse where needs have been documented. 

Comment ID: 1123 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-163 MA 134 Text: Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: Surface disturbing and/or 

disruptive activities in sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be prohibited from December 1–

March 14 to protect core area populations of sage-grouse that use these winter concentration habitats. This 

timing limitation would be applied throughout the sagegrouse core area habitats. Activities in unsuitable 

habitats within core habitat areas would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria 

and could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Protection of additional areas of winter concentration that 

are not located within the current core area boundaries would be implemented where winter concentration 

areas are identified as supporting populations of sage-grouse that attend leks within core habitat. 

Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat protection measures would be considered and evaluated 

in all identified winter concentration areas. Comment: As currently drafted, this provision will prohibit 

activity throughout core areas that contain winter habitat for seven (7) months out of the year (March 15 

through June 30 and December 1 through March 14). This is entirely unreasonable and would nearly 

frustrate all efforts to develop crucial natural resources. Furthermore, “disruptive activities” is not defined 

and “Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat protection measures” must be clarified. 

Comment ID: 1121 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-386 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Pg 2-163 MA 134 Text: Activities in unsuitable habitats within core habitat areas would be 

evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be allowed on a case-by-case 

basis. Comment: “Unsuitable” in this sentence should be deleted to comply with EO 2011-5 

Comment ID: 1016 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: Alternative E (p. 2-208) notes that, "within sage-grouse core areas, suppression practices would 

be the same as Alternative B." The Alternative B language is confusing. I request that the BLM and USFS 

adopt the management prescription detailed in EO 2011-5: "Fire suppression efforts in Core Population 

Areas should be emphasized, recognizing that other local, regional, and national suppression priorities may 

take precedent. However, public and firefighter safety remains the number one priority for all fire 

management activities." 

Comment ID: 1120 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-156 MA 133 Test: Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat outside 

sagegrouse core and connectivity habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be 

prohibited from March 15–June 30 to protect sage-grouse nesting and early brood rearing habitats within 2 

miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied lek located outside core or connectivity areas. Where 

credible data support different timeframes for this restriction, dates could be expanded by 14 days prior or 

subsequent to the above dates. Comment: This language should be amended to read: Surface disturbing 

and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from March 15–June 30 to protect sage-grouse nesting and 

early brood rearing habitats within DELETE "2" .60 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied lek 

located outside core or connectivity areas. After consulting with landowners, permittees, and state, local 

and federal government entities, this timing limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core 

area habitats as adjusted to site-specific conditions. Where credible data support different timeframes for 

this seasonal restriction, dates could be DELETE "expanded" changed by no more than 14 days DELETE 

"prior or subsequent to the above dates".” We incorporate our comment from Management Action 131 by 

reference here. Furthermore, this management action effectively converts “outside sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat” into “core habitat” for the time period identified. Specifically, if a single lek appears 

outside of a core area, the BLM will treat that area and surrounding land in a 2 mile radius as an extension 

of a core area. Not only is this directly contrary to EO 2011-5, but the BLM is prohibited from taking such 

a major action without the following the proper NEPA channels. The Coalition suggests, and the Holloran 

study supports, a .60 mile radius with site-specific exceptions, waivers and modifications 

Comment ID: 1018 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: In completing site stabilization and reclamation efforts, BLM must use native and sterile nonnative seed mixes based site specific conditions to minimize noxious and invasive species. 

Comment ID: 1237 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-387

Comment: Manier et al. (2013) provides a fairly comprehensive review of potential impacts of livestock 

grazing on sage grouse.53 Manier et al. (2013) point out that a reduction in livestock stocking rates can 

directly increase residual vegetation substantially, potentially assisting in meeting this target level for 

grasses. BLM should include residual grass requirements inside all sage-grouse habitats to be applied as 

automatic amendments to permit terms and conditions and Allotment Management Plans; by automatic, 

WWP means at the approval of the LUPA/EIS, not at the unspecified future time for sitespecific permit 

renewals or new allotment management plans. 

Comment ID: 1118 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-145 MA 131 Text: Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside 

core habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from March 1-–June 

30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat. This timing limitation would 

be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats. Activities in unsuitable habitats would be 

evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be allowed on a case by case 

basis. Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be 

expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates. Comment: This language should be 

amended to read: “Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from DELETE " 

March 1" March 15– June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat. After 

consulting with landowners, permittees, and state, local and federal government entities, this timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats as adjusted to site-specific 

conditions. Activities in unsuitable DELETE "core" habitats would be evaluated under the exception, 

waiver, and modification criteria and could be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Where credible data support 

different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be DELETE "expanded" changed by no more 

than 14 days. DELETE "up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates."” The BLM grants the 

GRSG more time than is necessary for spring breeding. From Alberta, Canada to the western United States, 

the best available science indicate that mid-March is the earliest that GRSG begin breeding and early April 

is actually more common. See, Aldridge 2000 (early April); Schroeder 1997 (late April); Bradbury et al. 

1989 (early April); Petersen, 1980 (mid-April); Autenrieth 1981 (early April); Wallestad 1975; Jenni and 

Hartzler 1978 (mid to late April). To the extent that BLM relies on Matt Holloran’s 2005 study, A Review 

of Chapter 2 of Greater Sage-Grouse Populations Response to Natural Gas Field Development in Western 

Wyoming, the BLM’s reliance is misplaced. Mr. Holloran provided no verifiable data and cited no authority 

for his position that the breeding season begins on March 1. Nor does Holloran provide any reasoning 

behind his assertion. Thus, the BLM should base this management action on the substantial science that 

supports a later breeding period and provide for site-specific exceptions, waivers and modifications to adjust 

the date. 

Comment ID: 1013 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: Management Action 61 (p. 2-64) appears to be unnecessary in light of Management Actions 122 

(p. E- 2 - E-3) and 123 (p. E-5). 

Comment ID: 1021 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-388 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Pg. 2-11 Text: Alternative E incorporates the guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the 

Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and additional management based on the NTT 

recommendations. Comment: BLM IM WY-2010-012 was replaced by BLM IM WY-2012-019. Please 

clarify why BLM IM WY-2010-012 is used here. 

Comment ID: 1116 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-138 MA 129 Text: Sage-grouse leks inside core and connectivity habitat areas: Surface 

occupancy and surface disturbing activities would be prohibited on or within a 0.6 mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-3). Comment: The Coalition strongly prefers Alternative D 

with a .25 mile radius. Alternative E is based on stale data from more than 20 years ago (Carr 1967, 

Wallestad and Schladweiler 1974, Rothenmaier 1979, Emmons 1980, Schoenberg 1982). Courts have 

found that the BLM will fall short of NEPA’s “hard look” standard in relying on stale data. Lands Council 

v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1031 (9th Cir.2005) Further, BLM should provide exceptions, waivers and 

modifications to accommodate unique on-theground circumstances. In both Alternative D and Alternative 

E, the BLM cannot combine the impacts resulting from surface occupancy and surface disturbances since 

they are entirely different. 

Comment ID: 1115 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-135-138 MA 128 Text: In addition to Alternative A: Within sage-grouse core habitat when 

mitigation is required, the agencies in coordination with the State of Wyoming and its agencies and partners, 

would use the following mitigation hierarchy: 1. In-kind and onsite (on lease) mitigation would be first 

priority 2. In-kind mitigation offsite within the projects DDCT analysis area would be second priority 3. 

In-kind mitigation offsite within the core area boundary would be third priority 4. In-kind mitigation 

adjacent to the affected core area within general sage-grouse habitat would be fourth priority. When 

additional offsite mitigation is necessary, it would be conducted within the same population area where the 

impact occurs; and if that is not possible, mitigation would be conducted within the same Management 

Zone per 2006 WAFWA Strategy as the impact. Comment: Alternative E should be amended to exclude 

the language from Alternative A – the Rawlins RMP does not apply to another management zone. 

Furthermore, we incorporate our comments from our cover letter regarding the mitigation hierarchy by 

reference here. 

Comment ID: 1114 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 134-135 MA 127 Text: Inside sage-grouse connectivity areas, all surface disturbance (any 

program area) would be limited to no more than 5 percent per 640 acres using the DDCT process described 

in Appendix I. Comment: Only one connectivity area has been identified. This language is drafted to 

indicate more than one. Also, Alternative E applies the same management standards used for lekking, 

nesting and broodrearing as for connectivity when the latter habitat is used temporarily by sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1113 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-389

Comment: Pg 2-133 MA 126 Text: Inside sage-grouse core habitat areas, the BLM/Forest Service would 

limit the density of activities related to oil and gas development or mining activities to no more than an 

average of 1 location per 640 acres, subject to valid existing rights; and would limit all surface disturbance 

(any program area) to no more than 5% of the core landscape using the DDCT process described in 

Appendix I. Comment: This language should be deleted. The BLM uses several terms in this management 

action that are overly broad or could be misconstrued. It is unclear whether “activities related to oil and gas 

development” include only a single well pad, or instead any of the other equipment and infrastructure used 

in during development. The BLM also attempts to quantify an “activity” by “location” when not all oil and 

gas development activities can be compartmentalized to a single location. BLM should define these terms 

and clarify their use. Further, the BLM does subject the first clause to valid existing rights, the second 

clause should also be subject to valid existing rights. Additionally, the BLM has not provided any citations 

to authority for the position that activities, however defined, must be limited by a 640 acre prescription. It 

appears that BLM has devised this rule without any analysis as to appropriate limits of disturbing activities. 

As discussed earlier, BLM must rely on the best available science. Finally, please refer to our cover letter 

regarding the DDCT method 

Comment ID: 1112 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-132-133 MA 125 Text: The BLM/Forest Service, in coordination with the State of 

Wyoming and its agencies, other local partners and stakeholders, would establish monitoring protocols for 

sagegrouse populations and habitat that would be incorporated into individual project approvals, including 

small and in-house projects, as appropriate and necessary. Comment: This language should be amended to 

read: “The BLM/Forest Service DELETE ", in coordination with the State of Wyoming and its agencies, 

other local partners and stakeholders", , after consulting with landowners, permittees, and state, local and 

federal government entities to the maximum extent possible, would establish monitoring protocols for sagegrouse populations and habitat that would be incorporated into individual project approvals. DELETE ", 

including small and in-house projects, as appropriate and necessary."” A “one size fits all” approach to 

monitoring is unworkable and will greatly increase the administrative costs of a project while reducing 

management efficiency. 

Comment ID: 1111 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-124-126 MA 124 Text: Alternative A: In Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (priority and general 

habitat), suppression would be a high priority and commensurate with values at risk. General sage-grouse 

habitat would be assigned a priority commensurate with its importance in the local fire plan. Fire fighter 

and public safety would be the highest priority. Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be prioritized 

commensurate with property values and other critical habitat to be protected, with the goal to restore, 

enhance, and maintain areas suitable for Greater Sage-Grouse. Within sage-grouse habitat, core habitat (and 

PACs, if so determined by individual LUP efforts) would be the highest priority for conservation and 

protection during fire operations and fuels management decision making. The sage-grouse core habitat (and 

PACs, if so determined by individual LUP efforts) would be viewed as more valuable than general habitat 

when priorities are established. When suppression resources are widely available, maximum efforts would 

be placed on limiting fire growth in general sage-grouse habitat polygons as well. These priority areas will 

be further refined following completion of the Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire and Invasive 

Species Habitat Assessments described in Appendix A. Comment: This language should be amended to 

read: “In Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (priority and general habitat), suppression would be a high priority 

and commensurate with values at risk and designed to comply with local, state and national wildfire plans, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-390 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

including, but not limited to the Wyoming wildfire plan and the national direction. BLM will coordinate to 

the maximum extent possible with landowners, permittees, and state, local, and federal entities.” The DEIS 

assumes that all areas within core habitat are essential for GRSG survival. This is simply not true. For 

example pinon juniper is not suitable habitat but there is pinon juniper within core areas. Wildfires may 

help or increase GRSG habitat if it occurs within pinon junier stands and the BLM should account for this 

reality in management decisions. To the extent that BLM makes such an assumption, BLM should map and 

identify these non-habitat areas within core habitat. 

Comment ID: 1022 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-15 MA 2 Text: Field Offices and Ranger Districts will work with project proponents, 

partners, and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts and/or implement direct mitigation (e.g., relocating 

disturbance, timing restrictions, etc.), and utilize BMPs and off-site compensatory mitigation where 

appropriate. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Field Offices and Ranger Districts will 

work with project proponents, partners, cooperators and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts and/or 

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

off-site compensatory mitigation where appropriate.” Also, off-site compensatory mitigation appears to be 

inconsistent with recent mitigation direction as we’ve discussed extensively in our cover letter. 

Comment ID: 1023 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-15 MA 8 Text: These strategies must be coordinated and reconciled with adjoining 

management entities that share habitats or populations. Comment: This language should be amended to 

read: “These strategies must be coordinated and reconciled with adjoining management entities that share 

habitats or populations after appropriate NEPA analysis.” 

Comment ID: 1110 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-121-124 MA 119 Comment: Alternative A should be deleted entirely with the exception 

of the final sentence which reads: “As appropriate, the Fire Management Plan will be updated to reflect the 

appropriate suppression activity in sensitive resource areas.” BLM must consult with landowners, 

permittees, and state, local, and federal government entities with regards to developing and implementing 

a Fire Management Plan 

Comment ID: 1024 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-15 MA 9 Text: Design all range projects in a manner that minimizes potential for invasive 

species establishment. Monitor and treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements. 

Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Design, monitor, and treat all projects (existing or 

new) in a manner that minimizes potential for noxious weeds and invasive species establishment.” Also, 

the BLM should clarify in this Management Action and throughout the FEIS that the definition of a 

“project” does not include a wildfire but would include a prescribed fire. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-391

Comment ID: 1025 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-15 MA 10 Text: Apply required design features (Appendix B) as mandatory 

Stipulations/Conditions of Approval (COAs) within priority/core sage-grouse habitat for fluid minerals, 

travel management, lands and realty, range management, wild horses and burro, solid leasable minerals 

(coal), locatable minerals, West Nile Virus, mineral materials, non-energy solid leasable minerals, 

vegetation management, fire and fuels management, and noise. Comment: COA’s that go beyond the terms 

of a valid existing lease must be negotiated in good faith with the lessee since BLM has no authority to add 

additional lease terms. 

Comment ID: 1119 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-151 MA 132 Text: Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside 

connectivity areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited within connectivity 

habitat from March 1–June 30 to protect breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats within 4 miles 

of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied sage-grouse lek within identified connectivity areas. This timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats. Activities in unsuitable habitats 

would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and may be allowed on a caseby-case basis. Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be 

expanded by 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates. Comment: This language should be amended 

to read: “Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited within connectivity habitat 

from DELETE "March 1" March 15–June 30 to protect breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats 

within DELETE "4" .60 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied sage-grouse lek within identified 

connectivity areas. After consulting with landowners, permittees, and state, local and federal government 

entities, this timing limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats as adjusted 

to site-specific conditions. Activities in DELETE "unsuitable" connectivity habitats would be evaluated 

under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Where 

credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be DELETE "expanded" 

changed by no more than 14 days DELETE "prior or subsequent to the above dates".” We incorporate our 

comment from Management Action 131 by reference here. Furthermore, this management action 

effectively converts “connectivity habitat” into “core habitat” for the time period identified. Specifically, if 

a single lek appears inside connectivity habitat, the BLM will treat that connective corridor and the 

surrounding land in a 4 mile radius as an extension of a core area. Not only is this directly contrary to EO 

2011-5, but the BLM is prohibited from taking such a major action without the following the proper NEPA 

channels. Moreover, the 4 mile guideline was only intended to be used in areas having at least 13" of sage 

brush cover and an understory of grass and forb/herb cover of at least 23% to maintain GRSG nutritional 

needs. The 4-mile boundary is not an arbitrary rule to be used in lieu of exacting science and should not be 

placed between any Lek and a de minimus potential disturbance. Some literature has documented that 75% 

of hens nest within 4-miles of a lek and 66% within 3-miles. That is a 9% difference in individual birds. 

Yet the acreage difference between a 3-mile and 4-mile buffer is 14,071.68 acres or 43% more acres to 

speculatively accommodate 9% of the birds. Given the fact that the majority of the nesting hens choose a 

site within .5 miles of the previous year's nest, by far the majority reside within the GRSG habitat within 

the first mile of the lek. The Coalition suggests, and the Holloran study supports, a .60 mile radius with 

site-specific exceptions, waivers and modifications. 

Comment ID: 974 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-392 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Account for the effects of climate change on sagebrush steppe in 

conservation measures for sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1425 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Timing and Distance Restriction - Winter Concentration Areas, pages 2-162 and 

2-163, Item #134. As stated in Alternative B and C, “Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: In priority 

habitat, the following conservation measures would be provided as terms and conditions of the approved 

RMP: New surface occupancy would not be allowed on federal leases within priority habitats during any 

time of the year.” This concept is not consistent with the BLM’s multiple use policy and if it is considered 

further, the impacts to mining must be incorporated in the socioeconomic analysis in Appendix N. If 

revised, the socioeconomic impact analysis should incorporate impacts on global economies as discussed 

previously due to the large volume of exports from Wyoming industry. 

Comment ID: 1424 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Timing and Distance Restrictions, pages 2-145 and 2-151, Items #131 and #132. 

We want to thank the BLM for revising the seasonal restriction closing date from July 15th to June 30th 

which is consistent with the EO. However, the sage-grouse nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside 

core habitat areas, and connectivity areas have different seasonal restriction dates as compared to the EO. 

The EO seasonal restriction dates are March 15-June 30. The BLM DEIS proposed seasonal restriction 

dates are March 1 – June 30. The difference in dates provides significant confusion for project proponents 

and the dates should be made consistent. As an example regarding the confusion, a project proponent may 

have a project on State Lands (Parcel A) adjacent to a separate project on BLM Lands (Parcel B). Activities 

continue on Parcel A through March 15th, and activities on Parcel B, which might be 100 feet apart cease 

on March 1st. Due to the activities on Parcel A, it provides no benefit to sage-grouse, and it provides 

significant confusion to the project proponent regarding why they can have activity on Parcel A, and not 

Parcel B, which is 100 feet away. Explaining that to a field operator adds ambiguity to the overall protection 

of sage-grouse, rather than providing a clear and consistent approach by all agencies. It is our opinion based 

on field observations that the March 15th seasonal closure date is adequately protective and the seasonal 

closure dates should be made consistent with the EO. 

Comment ID: 1421 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Density and Disturbance, Pages 2-133 and 2-134, Item #126. Alternative E states 

“Inside sage-grouse core habitat areas, the BLM/Forest Service would limit the density of activities related 

to oil and gas development or mining activities to no more than an average of 1 location per 640 acres...and 

would limit all surface disturbance to no more than 5% of the core landscape using the DDCT process...” 

The limitation on the number of disturbances is a moot point if the DDCT density of disturbance process is 

utilized properly. We recommend that the BLM consider removing the number of disturbances and simply 

reference the 5% anthropogenic density disturbance limitation because it provides the same level of 

protection without confusing language. The EO should be updated in this same manner in the future. This 

change will result in consistency and fairness across industry and will result in a consistent approach to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-393

density disturbance limits in core/priority habitat, thus providing the USFWS with certainties that the 

regulatory mechanisms being applied are fair, consistent, and adequate to protect sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1411 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, General Management Direction for Action Alternatives, Page 2-16, Item #13. We 

recommend that the BLM also add or update inventories regarding habitat as research and data determines 

that areas are found to not be suitable, priority, core, winter, and other types of habitat. This 

recommendation supports the notion that the best available science is utilized in the adaptive management 

approach. 

Comment ID: 1378 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Another "requirement" is that the BLM "evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently 

composed primarily introduced perennial grasses in an adjacent to priority sage grouse habitat to determine 

if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage grouse" but nothing actually 

forces the agency to do that. No time requirement or other trigger to implement that process to "evaluate" 

has been provided. In addition, a massive loophole is provided that if the seedings "are part of an AMP" or 

"if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority habitats" then no restoration is 

needed. 

Comment ID: 1364 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Action 131 states that "surface disturbing and or disruptive activities would be prohibited from 

March 1 to June 30" but fails to apply this to the obvious disruptive activity of livestock grazing. 

Comment ID: 1235 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The potential conflict between livestock grazing and sage-grouse intensifies near water sources 

due to the importance of these areas to sage-grouse, particularly during early brood rearing. Heavy cattle 

grazing near springs, seeps, and riparian areas can remove grasses used for cover by grouse. “[R]apid 

removal of forbs by livestock on spring or summer ranges may have a substantial adverse impact on young 

grouse, especially where forbs are already scarce.” The BLM must modify its preferred alternative that 

protect and restore sage-grouse habitat, native plants, particularly in riparian areas. This should be done, 

not with fencing that poses other problems for sage-grouse and other wildlife, but through reduction and 

removal of livestock grazing in pastures that include riparian areas. 

Comment ID: 1362 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-394 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Action 68 discusses categorical exclusions to NEPA but the document is entirely silent as to 

what these categorical exclusions are, where they have been applied and what percentage of development 

occurs under these categorical exclusions or their cumulative effect on sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1094 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-107 MA 98 Text: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within core habitat areas, refer to 

Attachment 6 – WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as 

updated). Comment: The BLM must use the best available information regarding vegetation treatments. 

Conservation districts have significant statutorily recognized expertise in these areas and should be 

consulted regularly as Cooperating Agencies. Moreover, local land use plans have been successfully 

implemented for years and will provide the BLM with important information and guidelines. Thus, the 

BLM may not rely merely on Wyoming Game and Fish protocols without considering the most applicable 

knowledge and regulations regarding vegetation treatments. The BLM should revise this management 

action to include all local land use plans, conservation district policies, county expertise, and Wyoming 

Healthy Rangeland Standards. 

Comment ID: 1354 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Action 46 maintains the status quo regarding monitoring which rarely takes place currently. For 

instance in the Casper RMP we see that "grazing leases would be adjusted where an evaluation of 

monitoring, field observations or other data indicate changes, and either increases or decreases, in forage 

allocations are needed". But since there is no requirement for this monitoring to take place the adjustments 

likewise never take place. For the Pinedale RMP, we see that the RMP requires "monitoring of the range 

and the vegetation resource would be conducted at a level sufficient to detect changes in grazing youth, 

trend and range condition" but despite the nearly half a decade since the RMP was put in place this has 

been implemented in not a single allotment within the field office. And in the two current decisions in draft 

form (Boulder Landscape and James Ryegrass), neither implements this RMP requirement. 

Comment ID: 1350 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Action 23 – The EIS provides as the population objective for sage grouse in Wyoming that 

developed by the state of Wyoming, which interestingly is below the level that the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service determined was warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act. So it appears that this 

entire effort is merely to provide a lower level of population than currently exists. This action merely 

implements "adaptive management "if monitoring identifies significant negative population impacts". This 

cannot be seen as adequate regulatory mechanisms. In action 24, this is laid out clearly when the document 

states that "the current population objective is to maintain at least 67% of the 2005 to 2008 greater sage 

grouse core area population within the state of Wyoming". Again this is significantly below the levels that 

the Fish and Wildlife Service had determined was warranted for listing. In addition, no population objective 

is provided for non-core sage grouse habitat. Again, this action leaves critical issues to some undefined 

process at some undefined future time. This is not adequate regulatory mechanisms. Even worse, the entire 

process has been built on the foundation of achieving maintenance of on 67% of the 2005 to 2008 

population. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-395

Comment ID: 1236 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: In presettlement times, the range of the sage-grouse paralleled the range of big sagebrush. Basin 

big sagebrush provides important cover for sage-grouse.39 Populations of sage-grouse have declined 

primarily because of loss of habitat due to overgrazing, elimination of sagebrush, and land development.40 

Sage-grouse populations began declining from 1900 to 1915, when livestock utilization of sagebrush 

rangeland was heavy.41 In the 50's and 60's, land agencies adopted a policy of aggressive sagebrush control 

in order to convert sagebrush types to grassland. Chaining, frequent fire, and herbicide treatments reduced 

sagebrush by several million acres and sage-grouse numbers plummeted drastically.42 Since the continued 

“management” of sagebrush (including chemical herbiciding, chaining, fire, and other disturbance) has led 

to many of the situations scientists now agree are threatening these ecosystems, BLM should select the 

complete removal of livestock as the preferred alternative in the RMPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 1327 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The BLM has left itself too much “wiggle room” with respect to vegetation management and 

habitat restoration, and the lack of a commitment to restoration efforts with only native species for the 

benefit of sage-grouse is troubling. For example, the DLUPA/DEIS prioritizes the use of native seeds but, 

“Where the probability of success of adapted seed availability is low, desirable non-native seeds may be 

used as long as they support GRSG habitat objectives.” DLUPA/DEIS at 2-108. The document does not 

define “desirability,” and the subsequent emphasis on understory plants suggests that the agencies 

restoration and rehabilitation efforts might have intentions other than sage-grouse nesting cover. It also 

contradicts Manier and others (2013) who demonstrate that restoration of sage-grouse habitats requires the 

seeding of native species. 

Comment ID: 1027 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-16 MA 13 Text: As new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found or occurs either through 

additional inventories or expansion into previously un-occupied habitat, the agencies will incorporate these 

areas into the general sage-grouse habitat category and manage them as such, until the earliest review occurs 

by the Sage-grouse Implementation Team (SGIT). At that time they will be considered for priority/core 

habitat status or continue to be managed as general habitat, and will be added to the statewide map at that 

time.Comment: This language should be deleted because it is entirely inconsistent with Wyoming 

Executive Order 2011-5, supp. 2013-3 (EO 2011-5). EO 2011-5 dedicates core areas for Greater SageGrouse (GRSG) habitat. As written, the DEIS would expand those areas into new areas and displace 

conflicting uses. This does not match the Wyoming Greater Sage Grouse Core Area Strategy (Core Area 

Strategy) and negates the purpose of EO 2011-5. BLM provides no additional studies or information that 

additional habitat is needed to meet population objectives and without such documentation this action item 

appears arbitrary and capricious. 

Comment ID: 989 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-396 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: "Enhance quality/suitable habitat ... " is listed as a management objective common to all 

alternatives (p. 2-12). Although this is one facet that needs to be included, a more comprehensive 

Management Objective is to "Maintain and enhance quality/suitable habitat." It is just as important to 

maintain important habitats as it is to enhance habitats. 

Comment ID: 990 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: General Sage-Grouse Habitat is defined as "occupied (seasonal or year-round) habitat outside 

of priority habitat." (p. GL-13). This definition and other notations (i.e., pp. 2-45 and 2-101) within the 

Draft LUP Amendment lead the reader to conclude that certain conservation measures, management 

prescriptions and stipulations may be applied to general habitat areas. The document does not provide a 

map depicting general habitat areas nor does it provide specific management actions that will apply to these 

areas. I request clarification on this point and request that only management prescriptions for non-core area 

habitat, as detailed in EO 2011-5, be applied to general habitat areas. If the BLM and USFS plan to apply 

other management prescriptions in general habitat areas, the location and management actions applied to 

these areas must be disclosed. 

Comment ID: 1306

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA’s preferred alternative does not require ungrazed areas for comparison or as 

baseline monitoring sites for evaluating conditions like drought reductions in forage cover, stubble height, 

capability, etc. It is not clear that there are any exclosures within GRSG habitat in the planning area. The 

DLUPA’s preferred alternative does not require the use of pretreatment data in vegetation management 

areas. These data are critical for building the agency’s understanding of the impacts of vegetation treatments 

on sage-grouse habitat and the unwillingness to require this as part of any but one alternative suggests that 

the agency is unwilling to take a “hard look” at its actions on the ground. 

Comment ID: 999 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: There are numerous inconsistencies throughout Alternative E regarding timing stipulations. Per 

EO 2011-5, seasonal use restrictions are in effect for a three and a half month period, from March 15 to 

June 30. BLM IM WY-2012-019 notes: "[w]here local [Field Offices] have obtained credible data and 

information to support an additional 2 weeks of protection proceeding these recommended dates or 

subsequent to these dates, then the BLM FOs may consider expanding the dates of restriction for the 

protection of sage-grouse breeding, early brood rearing, and winter concentration habitat areas." If the BLM 

and USFS determine that seasonal use restriction should start two weeks early, they should correspondingly 

end two weeks early. The management prescription does not permit up to a four week extension of seasonal 

use restrictions. I request that the BLM and USFS amend Alternative E to reflect the limit of seasonal use 

restrictions. 

Comment ID: 1000 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-397

Comment: Management Action 134 (pp. 2-162 - 2-164) should include the qualifier, "identified and mapped 

winter concentration areas". Therefore, I request that Management Action 134 contain the following 

correction: "This timing would be applied throughout the sage core area habitats identified and mapped 

winter concentration areas." 

Comment ID: 1001 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: Under Alternative E, the noise stipulation in Management Action 132 (pp. E-17 - E-18) does 

not allow for noise to be above 10 dba above ambient between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. when measured 0.6 

miles from the perimeter of the lek. To be consistent with EO 2-11-5, this Management Action should be 

modified to allow for that activity. I am concerned that there is limited data that shows GSG have an 

aversion to noise at times other than breeding, and that existing noise levels at the local level have not been 

assimilated by GSG in those areas. I am also concerned that "ambient" noise definitions proposed by some 

are inconsistent with existing conditions throughout the range of GSG, and propose to measure something 

that simply does not exist in the real world. 

Comment ID: 1302 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS is not explicit about its timeframe for these NEPA analyses, and given the 

agencies’ frequent and repeated use of the permit renewal rider, the site-specific planning might not happen 

for ten, twenty, or more years. Where BLM has recently renewed a permit, it won’t come around again for 

at least ten years, and that is under the best-case scenario where BLM actually conducts timely NEPA 

according to a schedule, something it has never demonstrably achieved. For instance, the Pinedale Field 

Office has renewed all but approximately 2 permits under the rider over the last decade. Rock Springs Field 

Office is a little better than this. The preferred alternative fails to immediately implement changes but 

instead does so at some unspecified and uncertain future time. This can not be seen as adequate regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Comment ID: 1289 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: BLM fails to fully explain or analyze adequately how existing regulatory mechanisms are either 

adequate to conserve sage-grouse or inadequate to conserve sage-grouse, and therefore provides no useful 

baseline against which each of the proposed alternatives can be compared. The continuation of existing 

management and conservation measures and existing regulatory policies including the directives contained 

in BLM Manual 6840 define the No Action Alternative and provide a baseline upon which useful analysis 

may take place. It seems apparent that BLM has prematurely concluded that these existing regulatory 

policies are inadequate. However, BLM provides no discussion based upon on-the-ground data that this is 

the case. BLM should not presume (as it currently has) that using the existing tools or better implementation 

of the existing regulatory tools would not provide adequate sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat conservation. 

Comment ID: 1264 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-398 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Spring grazing, with impacts of livestock on nesting and brooding sage-grouse as well as long 

term vegetative community changes has been ignored. This is so clearly part of what sage-grouse need, it 

is unfortunate and inexcusable that the change isn’t included in the preferred alternative. 

Comment ID: 1263 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The preferred alternative merely asks the agencies to consider “as appropriate” actions that 

conserves, restores, or enhances GRSG habitat in the NEPA documents prepared for the permit renewal. 

DLUPA/DEIS at 2-38. The plan does not require the agencies to select such actions, even where the current 

livestock regime is not an effective grazing system to meet GRSG habitat requirements. Thus, the agencies 

are only required to conduct better planning in the future, not better management. 

Comment ID: 1260 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: FLPMA and its implementing regulations and policies require BLM to utilize the land use 

planning process to determine “allowable” uses of public lands, including whether to exclude major uses 

under FLPMA Section 202(e). By failing to consider an alternative to exclude livestock grazing from the

project area, the BLM cannot reasonably be said to have taken a hard look at the uses of these public lands 

or complied with the directions of FLPMA. The BLM’s own Land Use Planning Handbook directs the 

agency to, “[i]dentify lands available or not available for livestock grazing considering the following 

factors: 1. Other uses of the land; 2. terrain characteristics; 3. soil, vegetation, and watershed characteristics; 

4. the presence of undesirable vegetation, including significant invasive weed infestations; and 5. the 

presence of other resources that may require special management or protection, such as special status 

species...” BLM Land Use Planning Handbook at 13. Thus, in modifying the LUP with this LUP 

Amendment specifically to manage sage-grouse, a species harmed by livestock grazing, it is well within 

reason that the agency would revisit the allowable uses within the project area and compare the effects of 

levels of livestock exclusion. The BLM has blindly accepted previous available/unavailable determinations, 

none of which factored in sage grouse. The BLM’s National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(2004) Guidance for Addressing Sagebrush Habitat Conservation in BLM Land Use Plans confronts this 

question directly: “Analyze at least one alternative that maximizes conservation of sagebrush habitat 

(emphasizing special status species habitat) through objectives, land use plan decisions and management 

direction.” National Strategy Guidance at 5. The EIS did not do this. 

Comment ID: 1238 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The paper, “A Blueprint for Sage-grouse Conservation and Recovery (Braun 2006) states “if 

livestock grazing is permitted on public rangelands, is to not exceed 25-30% utilization of herbaceous 

forage each year. Grazing should not be allowed until after 20 June and all livestock should be removed by 

1 August with a goal of leaving at least 70% of the herbaceous production each year to form residual cover 

to benefit sage-grouse nesting the following spring.” The DLUPA/DEIS does not adopt any such 

meaningful management parameters, and even the reduced grazing alternative only implements a 30 percent 

utilization limit on allotments not meeting Rangeland Health Standards. The standard permissible level of 

50 percent utilization does not protect sage-grouse habitat and cannot be considered adequate in uplands or 

riparian areas. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-399

Comment ID: 1349 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Action 22 merely asks the BLM to "evaluate" not actually act. Merely evaluating does nothing 

to recover sage grouse and its habitats. 

Comment ID: 1080 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: MA 86 Text: The Casper Field Office Poison Spider OHV Park (290 acres) would remain as an 

“open” OHV area. The non-sand dune portions of the following OHV “open” areas within sage-grouse core 

habitat areas would be limited to existing roads and trails: 1. Rawlins Field Office: Dune Pond 

Cooperative Management Area. 2. Rock Springs Field Office: Portion of the Greater Sand Dunes 

Recreation Area. Comment: This language should be revised to correspond to BLM rules regarding road 

closures. Open is open, and small mention in RMP’s do not conform to closure rules. 

Comment ID: 1100 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-111-112 MA 105 Comment: This management action should prioritize the use of native 

plants and seeds for restoration unless the probability for success is low. Non-native plants and seeds may 

be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives where restoration management would be 

designed to meet Wyoming Healthy Rangeland Standards based on local and site-specific information. 

Comment ID: 1071 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-77 MA 68 Text: The BLM/Forest Service should closely examine the applicability of 

categorical exclusions in core and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. If extraordinary circumstances 

review is applicable, the BLM/Forest Service should determine whether those circumstances exist. 

Comment: This language should be deleted. Categorical exclusions are governed by rule, case law, and 

statute. The RMP cannot predetermine use of categorical exclusions and this language suggests that BLM 

has the authority to do so. 

Comment ID: 1072 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-69 MA 69 Text: A reclamation bond would be required that is commensurate with the 

scope, scale, size of the project within sage grouse core habitat. Partial bonding may be appropriate 

depending on these factors. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “BLM must amend oil 

and gas rules to change bond criteria.” 

Comment ID: 1074 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-400 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Pg 2-79 MA 71 Text: BLM/Forest Service would work cooperatively with the surface owner to 

apply the same sage-grouse conservation measures as applied on public land on a voluntary basis, for core 

and general habitat. Comment: The Coalition is concerned that the surface owner’s private property rights 

could be compromised despite the BLM’s “cooperative” efforts. The BLM must define the cooperative 

process it will use to deal with potential conflicts while complying with state and federal law. 

Comment ID: 1099 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-110-111 MA 104 Text: The role of existing seedings that are currently composed of 

primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to priority sage-grouse habitats would be evaluated 

to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these 

seedings are part of an AMP/ Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the 

rest of the priority habitats, no restoration would be necessary. The compatibility of these seedings would 

be assessed for sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health 

assessments (or other analyses [Forest Service only]) (Davies et al. 2011). Comment: This language should 

be amended to read: “The role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced 

perennial grasses in and adjacent to priority sage-grouse habitats would be evaluated against the Wyoming 

Healthy Rangeland Standards to determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher 

quality for sage-grouse. If these seedings are part of an AMP/ Conservation Plan or if they provide value 

in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority habitats as determined by the Wyoming Healthy 

Rangeland Standards, no restoration would be necessary.” The Wyoming Healthy Rangeland Standards are 

the primary mechanism, and the only mandatory threshold, that dictate seeding and vegetation restoration. 

The BLM must clarify the role of the WHRS throughout this document since, as here, the BLM attempts 

prioritize restoration of sagebrush or “higher quality” habitat without referencing the WHRS. Further, the 

following language should be deleted: DELETE “The compatibility of these seedings would be assessed 

for sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health assessments (or other 

analyses [Forest Service only]) (Davies et al. 2011).” As stated by EO 2011-5, grazing and GRSG habitat 

are not mutually exclusive. Thus, it is unclear why the compatibility of any seedings would be assessed for 

sage-grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system when grazing is a de minimus impact on GRSG 

habitat and further, enhances GRSG habitat 

Comment ID: 1098 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-110 MA 103 Text: Post ES&R and BAER management would be designed to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc., to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of ES&R and BAER projects to benefit sage-grouse (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006). Comment: 

Alternative E should not be modeled after Alternative B and should be amended as “No Similar Action.” 

All restoration projects must be taken with local input from landowners, permittees, state, local and federal 

government entities. BLM must use the best available science in developing management actions and the 

Eiswerth and Shonkwiler study appear to rely strictly on meta-analysis and did not consider field notations 

when developing their conclusions. These findings, therefore, are inherently suspect since they were not 

developed from on-the-ground studies. To the extent that BLM relies entirely on this single study, BLM is 

not meeting NEPA analysis standards and this document may be set aside. See Western Watershed Project 

v. Salazar, 4:08-CV-516-BLW, Dckt. 131 (D. Idaho 2011) 

Comment ID: 1097
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-401

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-108-109 MA 101 Text: Within sage-grouse core habitat, implementation of restoration 

projects would be prioritized based on environmental variables that improve chances for project success in 

areas most likely to benefit sage-grouse. Restoration would be prioritized in seasonal habitats that are 

thought to be limiting sage-grouse distribution and/or abundance. Comment: The following language 

should be added to Alternative E: “Permittees, landowners, state, local, and federal government entities 

should be consulted regularly during the implementation of restoration projects.” 

Comment ID: 1075 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-71 MA 72 Text: Where the federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is 

under nonfederal ownership, the BLM/USFS would work cooperatively with permittees, lessees and other 

surface landowners to negotiate and apply the same sage-grouse conservation measures as applied on public 

land within core and general habitat. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Where the 

federal government owns the surface, and the mineral estate is under nonfederal ownership, the BLM/USFS 

would work cooperatively with DELETE "permittees," lessees and DELETE "other" surface landowners 

to negotiate and apply the same sage-grouse conservation measures as applied on public land within core 

DELETE "and general" habitat. Livestock grazing is a de minimus activity with regards to sage-grouse 

habitat and BLM will work cooperatively with grazing permittees in a similar capacity.” EO 2011-5 

concludes grazing impact is a de minimus impact. Thus, it is unclear why this provision would apply to 

grazing permittees. Also, the BLM cannot expand this principle to general habitat because EO 2011-5 and 

Wyoming’s core area strategy are based on the premise that remaining land should not be managed 

primarily for sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1096 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-107 MA 100 Text: The use of native plants and seeds for restoration would be required 

unless the probability for success is low (non-native plants and seeds may be used as long as they meet 

sagegrouse habitat objectives), and restoration management would be designed to obtain long-term 

persistence based on ESD. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “The use of native plants 

and seeds for restoration would be required unless the probability for success is low (non-native plants and 

seeds may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives), and restoration management would 

be designed to DELETE "obtain long-term persistence based on ESD" meet Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands based on local and sitespecific information. Appropriate livestock grazing 

management actions would be developed and integrated to address rangeland health standards, improve 

forage for livestock, and enhance rangeland health.” The Coalition does approve of this language with 

regards to native and non-native seed mixtures to promote vegetative restoration. This language should be 

used consistently throughout the document. 

Comment ID: 1076 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-88 MA 79 Text: The withdrawal of sage grouse core habitat areas from mineral entry would 

be considered for recommendation, based on risk to sage-grouse and its habitat from conflicting locatable 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-402 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

mineral potential and development (Map 2- 23). Comment: As mentioned throughout these comments, the 

Coalition is opposed to withdrawals and land acquisitions. Each has severe repercussions and direct 

economic impacts on local economies that do not provide any reciprocal benefit. Land acquisitions and 

withdrawals are also contrary to EO 2011-05. Map 2-23 shows massive withdrawals and proposed 

withdrawals that will immediately and continually affect revenues, development, industry, economy and 

our local communities. 

Comment ID: 1077 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-89 MA 79 Comment: BLM has no authority to approve or disapprove notices of operation 

under 43 C.F.R. §3809. Since BLM has not made this suggested change, please provide the legal opinion

upon which BLM is relying. 

Comment ID: 1026 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-16 MA 12 Text: Existing notices and approved plans of operations under 43 CFR 38091: 

etc. Comment: The BLM has no approval authority for notices of operation. BLM cannot approve or 

disapprove a notice and hence cannot lawfully impose conditions. 

Comment ID: 1079 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-89 MA 79 Comment: Section 204 of FLPMA requires that BLM justify a withdrawal based 

on the threat of the land use to a particular resource. The impacts must be weighed against support or 

opposition by state and local governments, the impacts to the economy and communities, present users and 

how they will be affected, existing and potential resource uses are incompatible with or in conflict with the 

proposed use, hearings, consultation with state and local governments, and a mineral examiner report of the 

deposit to be closed. This is not an undertaking to be lightly considered. Oil and Gas development 

constitutes more 43% of Sweetwater County’s total assessed value. Thus, withdrawals have an immediate 

and significant impact on local economic conditions. If proposed in the FEIS, BLM must examine the 

impacts now, and not segment the action to a later day. Thus, BLM either deletes the withdrawal option or 

it expands the FEIS to address the impacts of closing significant deposits to manage sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1101 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 112 MA 106 Text: In fire prone areas where sagebrush seed is required for sage-grouse 

habitat restoration, the BLM/USFS would consider establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for 

seed production and are a priority for protection from outside disturbances. Comment: The BLM must 

disclose the nature of seed harvest areas and the constraints on land uses within those areas and the authority 

upon which BLM relies in this management action. Further, the BLM must disclose the size and other 

important elements that could impact livestock grazing operations (i.e. exclosures) or energy development 

in the area. It will also be necessary for the BLM to describe how it will protect the seed harvest areas from 

fires. BLM must consult landowners, permittees, state, local and federal government entities in locating, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-403

mapping, and managing fire prone areas. To the extent that these concerns are not addressed, Alternative E 

should be amended as “No Similar Action. 

Comment ID: 1095 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-107 MA 99 Text: Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse core habitats would 

be consistent with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) and Appendix C or Forest Service 

Reclamation policy. A monitoring plan would be developed for each restoration or reclamation project and 

reporting progress and changes in resource condition. Comment: Repeating our earlier comment, this 

management action is improperly focused on sagebrush habitat and ignores the other elements necessary 

for both GRSG and other wildlife habitat. It also appears that the BLM has improperly cited to BLM IM 

2009-022 which should be corrected. 

Comment ID: 1082 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: MA 87 Text: Limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, 

until such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed. 

Comment: This management action should be amended to be “No similar Action.” The FEIS may not usurp 

the proper planning, evaluation, and analysis inherent in a travel management plan that must take into 

consideration the Travel and Transportation Map we have attached to these comments as well as the 

procedures identified in the BLM’s H-8342 Travel Management Handbook. 

Comment ID: 1083 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-96 MA 88 Text: New primary and secondary (BLM route category) or Route Category 

level 4 and 5 (Forest Service) roads would be avoided within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks within sage-grouse core habitat areas. Other new roads would be avoided within 0.6 miles of 

the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within core habitat areas. Comment: “Primary” and “secondary” 

roads are not all used to transport production and/or waste products, is not consistent with EO 2011-5 and 

should not be limited to the 1.9 mile requirement. The BLM should further define “other new roads” since 

these roads may not provide any disturbance to GRSG habitats (i.e. recreation trails). 

Comment ID: 1084 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: MA 89 Text: Within sage-grouse core habitat, no upgrading of existing routes that would change 

route category (BLM route category: road, primitive road, or trail; Forest Service route category: level 1, 

level 2, or level 3) or capacity would be allowed unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on sagegrouse in sage-grouse core habitat, was necessary for motorist safety, or eliminated the need to construct a 

new road. Comment: This language should be deleted. Instead, Alternative E should be “Same as 

Alternative D” which reads: “Within sage-grouse core and general habitat, upgrading of existing routes 

would be allowed based on other resource uses." Furthermore, counties have authority to maintain county 

roads and Alternative D more specifically addresses local, state, and federal regulatory frameworks. See 

EO 2011-5, Attachment C. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-404 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1085 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: MA 90 Text: If that disturbance exceeds 5% for that area, additional, effective mitigation 

necessary would be evaluated and implemented to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment: This language should be deleted. Valid existing rights cannot be set aside or otherwise infringed 

upon. 

Comment ID: 1086 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: MA 91 Text: In addition to Alternative A: For roads, primitive roads and trails not designated 

in travel management plans within sage-grouse core habitat areas, natural reclamation of roads and trails 

would be allowed in appropriate situations where additional resource damage is not foreseeable. This would 

include primitive route/roads that were not designated in Wilderness Study Areas and within lands with 

wilderness characteristics that have been selected to be managed to retain those characteristics for 

protection. Kemmerer RMP: Roads and two-track routes determined to be unauthorized or redundant and 

unnecessary for resource management purposes would be reclaimed to achieve surrounding native 

conditions. Comment: The actions contemplated in Alternative A and Alternative E should be addressed 

according to the procedures set out in the BLM’s H-8342 Travel Management Handbook. The goal of these 

procedures is to understand the existing transportation matrix while accounting for future transportation 

needs that match the requirements of a Resource Management Plan. It appears that Kemmerer RMP 

language is redundant since it appears in both Alternative A and Alternative E. Also, the following language 

should be deleted: “This would include primitive route/roads that were not designated in Wilderness Study 

Areas and within lands with wilderness characteristics that have been selected to be managed to retain those 

characteristics for protection.” RMP’s do not address these alleged wilderness characteristics and this 

language improperly suggests that there are wilderness characteristics. 

Comment ID: 1087 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: MA 92 Text: Within sage-grouse core habitats, when reseeding roads and trails, appropriate 

seed mixtures would be used and the use of transplanted sagebrush would be considered. Comment: This 

language should be deleted and replaced with “No similar action.” 

Comment ID: 1088 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-101 MA 93 Text: Within sage-grouse core and general habitat, the BLM/Forest Service 

would manage for vegetation composition and structure that reflects ESD or other methods that reference 

site potential or comparable standard to achieve sage-grouse and other resource objectives. Comment: This 

language should be replaced by the following: “Vegetative communities in sage-grouse core and general 

habitat would be managed in accordance with Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on a site-bysite basis. Appropriate livestock grazing management actions would be developed and integrated to address 

rangeland health standards, improve forage for livestock, and enhance rangeland health.” ESD’s do not 

draw site-specific distinctions and should be deleted in favor of WSHR since those standards are the only 

applicable regulatory criteria. At best, ESD’s are current best approximations of potential plant 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-405

communities on different range sites. These are not absolutes and they are subject to continual, on-going 

revisions as we learn more about the potential of the many various range sites. Consequently, these are not 

appropriate for binding terms and conditions in a grazing permit as there are too many variables in range 

sites and impacts to those sites. Also the application of ESDs is far too subjective. They are useful as 

references to what may be the potential of a given range site. 

Comment ID: 1090 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-102-103 MA 94 Text: Within sage-grouse habitat in northeast Wyoming, vegetation 

treatments in nesting and wintering habitat that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15% would not 

be conducted. Comment: The Coalition does not support this management action insofar as it applies 

outside of the northeast region of Wyoming and specifically requests that the BLM identify and define the 

exact boundaries of the region. 

Comment ID: 1091 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-103 MA 95 Text: In addition to Alternative A: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush 

within core habitat areas, refer to Appendix A, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit SageGrouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013 128 and 

Forest Service 2013 Sage-grouse Conservation Methods (Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland 

Fire and Fuels Management). These recommended protocols would be used in determining whether 

proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that would contribute toward the 5% threshold within sagegrouse core habitat maintenance. Additionally, these protocols would be used to determine whether the 

proposed treatment configuration would be expected to have neutral or beneficial impacts for core 

populations or if they represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation. Treatments to enhance 

sagebrush/grasslands habitat for sage-grouse would be evaluated based upon habitat quality and the 

functionality/use of treated habitats post-treatment. The BLM and the Forest Service would work 

collaboratively with partners at the state and local level to maintain and enhance sage-grouse habitats. 

Comment: The BLM must allow for all vegetation treatments including fire, herbicides, chemical, and 

mechanical methods. Further, the BLM should define “treatment” and expressly identify all methods of 

sagebrush treatment on a site-specific basis. It also appears that Alternative A deals solely with prescribed 

burns while Alternative E addresses all vegetation treatments. Alternative E should be revised to clarify its 

purpose in conjunction with Alternative A. The Coalition also directs the BLM to our cover letter regarding 

DDCT methods. 

Comment ID: 1092 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-105 MA 96 Comment: This management action is redundant with Management Action 95 

and should be deleted. 

Comment ID: 1093 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-406 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Pg 2-106 MA 97 Text: Grazing would be deferred on treated areas for two full growing seasons 

unless vegetation objectives or vegetation recovery indicates a shorter or longer rest period is necessary 

based on vegetation monitoring results. Comment: As mentioned above, vegetation treatment needs to be 

evaluated on a site-specific basis and thus grazing on treated areas should also be evaluated in a similar 

manner. The BLM improperly suggests that livestock grazing, as opposed to other wildlife use (i.e. wild 

horses), are the only grazing impacts on treated areas. As repeated throughout our comments, grazing is a 

de minimus impact pursuant to EO 2011-5. Thus, it would be more accurate for BLM to specifically 

mention wild horse grazing given their year round subsistence on these areas and unique grazing habits. 

Also, it is not clear whether Alternative E is being amended or modified by Alternative A in this 

management action. The coalition reserves the right to comment on Alternative A should it be included in 

Alternative E. 

Comment ID: 1078 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-89 MA 79 Comment: This management action also fails to distinguish between open pit 

and underground mining. There are significant differences in the impacts on habitat and the DEIS fails to 

recognize the differences. 

Comment ID: 1105 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-116 MA 114 Text: Green strips (using native fire resistant/resilient species) and/or fuel 

breaks would be used, where appropriate, to protect seeding efforts from subsequent fire events. Comment: 

Consistent with our comments above, the word “native” should be deleted. 

Comment ID: 1363 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Action 129 failed to implement the best available science regarding activities near sage grouse 

leks. In fact later on in the EIS, in the impacts of section, the BLM specifically mentions that the proposed 

distances are inadequate to protect sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 1028 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 17 Text: Fluid mineral leases often will include less stringent lease stipulations 

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

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

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

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

to reduce habitat fragmentation and loss, and effective conservation of seasonal habitats and habitat 

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

Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Fluid mineral leases often will include less stringent 

lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density requirements identified for consideration in this 

policy. Agencies (BLM/USFS) will work with proponents holding valid existing leases that include less 

stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density restrictions described within this plan to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-407

ensure that measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, consolidation of 

infrastructure to reduce habitat fragmentation and loss, and effective conservation of seasonal habitats and 

habitat connectivity to support management objectives set by the WGFD) are included in all project 

proposals. Holders of valid existing leases may voluntarily comply with timing, distance, and density 

restrictions within this plan but are not obligated by restrictions that are not within their valid existing lease. 

Comment ID: 1029 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 18 Text: Limit motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a 

minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or 

closed within sage-grouse priority/core habitats. Comment: This language is inconsistent with EO 2011-5 

and should be deleted or revised. Nothing in EO 2011-5 authorizes or even suggests that roads should be 

closed. Furthermore, BLM must consult local land use plans, local travel management plans, and county, 

state, and federal mapping layers. We have attached a Travel and Transportation Map to our comments for 

your review. 

Comment ID: 1030 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 19 Text: Complete activity-level travel plans within five years of the record of 

decision (ROD) for this planning effort. DELETE "During activity level planning, where appropriate, 

designate routes in priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative 

access only." Existing plans should be assessed for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives. 

Comment: As written, it appears that BLM would close public lands to access for anything other than 

administrative purposes. For example, recreation and grazing access could be prohibited under the current 

language. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 and the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 do not allow such a 

sweeping closure, if any at all, and the BLM must delete the sentence in strikethrough (in quotes). 

Comment ID: 1108 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-120 MA 117 Text: Within sage-grouse core habitat, post fuels management projects would 

be designed to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants (while controlling for 

erosion and treating infestation of invasive plant species), to return to suitable sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Within sage-grouse core habitat, post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure longterm persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native 

plants (while controlling for erosion and treating infestation of invasive plant species), to return to suitable 

sage-grouse habitat. The use of native plants and seeds would be required unless the probability for success 

is low (non-native plants and seeds may be used as long as they meet sage-grouse habitat objectives), and 

restoration management would be designed to meet Wyoming Healthy Rangeland Standards based on local 

and site-specific information. 

Comment ID: 1031 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-408 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 20 Text: Construct roads needed for production activities to minimum design 

standards within sage-grouse priority/core habitats, in compliance with the DDCT. Comment: This 

language should be amended to read: “Construct roads and other rights of access needed for production 

activities to minimum design standards within sage-grouse priority/core habitats, in compliance with the 

DDCT.” Also, please refer to our cover letter with regards to DDCT methods. 

Comment ID: 1034 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 23 Text: These adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership 

with the WGFD, project proponents, partners, and stakeholders and will incorporate the best available 

science. The purpose of these strategies is to ensure amelioration of Greater Sage-Grouse population 

declines by providing the framework in which management will be changed if negative impacts are detected 

through a rigorous monitoring program. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “These 

adaptive management strategies will be developed in partnership with the WGFD, project proponents, 

partners, landowners, permittees, local governments, and state and federal government entities and will 

incorporate the best available science.” 

Comment ID: 1036 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-17 MA 24 Text: The Wyoming BLM typically manages the public lands to meet the State 

of Wyoming’s wildlife population objectives. The current population objective is to maintain at least 67% 

of the 2005-2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Population within the State of Wyoming. Comment: The 

FEIS should be drafted around maintaining viable populations, not increasing GRSG populations to the 

exclusion of other uses. 

Comment ID: 1039 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-18 MA 26 Text: Fire and fuels management would contribute to the protection and 

enhancement of sagebrush habitat that support Greater Sage-Grouse populations (including large 

contiguous blocks of sagebrush). Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Fire and fuels 

management would contribute to the protection and enhancement of sagebrush habitat that support Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations DELETE "(including large contiguous blocks of sagebrush)".” Also, the Coalition 

has several concerns with this language. First, this language places a singular focus on sagebrush as the 

only element of GRSG habitat. Second, other wildlife have varying habitat needs that must be considered. 

Third, fire and fuels management cannot be counted during the DDCT evaluation and then also be used to 

protect and enhance GRSG habitat. 

Comment ID: 1107 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-119 MA 116 Comment: Wildfire and prescribed fire treatment needs to be excluded from 

5% disturbance rule. All treatments that benefit habitat and properly manage the resource should be 

excluded from the DDCT method. BLM must consult with landowners, permittees, and state, local, and 

federal government entities with regards to fuel management and evaluate all potential management 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-409

methods such as grazing, chemical and/or mechanical treatments. BLM places exaggerated emphasis on 

fire treatment without properly considering other available methods that local governments and landowners 

have successfully implemented. 

Comment ID: 1042 

Organization: American Colloid Company 

Name: Melody Smith 

Comment: Alternative A in Chapter 2 (Page 2-163) for the Newcastle Field Office states “Surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided in sage-grouse winter habitat from November 15 

through March 14.” If winter habitat restrictions and nesting habitat restrictions were implemented, this 

would only allow mining activities to take place from July 2nd to November 13th, thus reducing mining 

activities to a 4.5 month season on BLM land. (This is in reference to core area or populations outside of 

core that attend core habitat leks; how is that to do defined?) 

Comment ID: 1106 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-118 MA 115 Text: Areas containing less than 5% canopy cover would be treated as 

disturbed pending an implementation management plan with trend data showing the area returning to 

functional sage-grouse habitat. This would be specific only to wildfire situations. This direction would not 

be intended for other incentive/mitigation situations. Comment: This language should be amended to read: 

“Areas containing less than 5% canopy cover would be treated as disturbed pending an implementation 

management plan with trend data showing the area is functional sage-grouse habitat or is returning to 

functional sage-grouse habitat.DELETE " This would be specific only to wildfire situations. This direction 

would not be intended for other incentive/mitigation situations".” This provision again treats GRSG habitat 

as one-dimensional and should be modified to show that an area with less than 5% canopy may be suitable, 

and even desirable in certain situations. Further, the BLM must consult with landowners, permittees, and 

state, local, and federal government entities. 

Comment ID: 1062 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-64 MA 63 Comment: The Coalition prefers Alternative D for this management action. 

Comment ID: 1046 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-21 MA 32 Text: New transmission projects proposed outside of these areas would be 

considered where it can be demonstrated that declines in sage-grouse populations could be avoided through 

project design and/or mitigation. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “New transmission 

projects proposed outside of these areas would be considered where it can be demonstrated that the project 

would not result in declines in GRSG populations or could be avoided through project design and/or 

mitigation." 

Comment ID: 1061 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-410 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Pg 2-64 MA 62 Geophysical exploration projects that are designed to minimize habitat 

fragmentation within sage-grouse core habitat would be allowed, except were prohibited or restricted by 

existing LUP decisions. Comment: This language should be deleted. Seismic Reflection, Aeromagnetic 

Surveys, Radiometric Surveys, Electromagnetic Surveys and other forms of geophysical exploration do not 

fragment GRSG habitat. To the extent that this language is not deleted, BLM must clarify this assertion. 

Comment ID: 1049 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-30 MA 36 Text: Wind energy development would be prohibited in sage-grouse core habitat 

areas (Map 2-32), unless it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the development activity would not result 

in declines of sage-grouse core habitat populations. Sufficient demonstration of “no declines” should be 

coordinated with the WGFD and USFWS. Areas that are currently unavailable due to the need to protect 

sensitive resources would remain unavailable to wind energy development. Comment: Sweetwater County 

prohibits WEC facilities within Sage Grouse Core Areas as defined by EO 2011-5 and its amendments. See 

Sweetwater County Zoning Resolution 13-08-CC-01 at 23. 

Comment ID: 1050 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-31 MA 38 Text: In addition to Alternative A: The use of guy wires for MET tower supports 

would be avoided within sage-grouse core habitat areas. All existing and any new unavoidable guy wires 

should be marked with recommended bird deterrent devices. The siting of new temporary MET towers 

within sage-grouse core habitat areas would be avoided within 2 miles of active sage-grouse leks, unless 

they are out of the direct line of sight of the active lek. Comment: The effects of anthropogenic and 

landscape features on habitat use of GRSG hens have not been evaluated relative to avian predator densities. 

See Dinkins, Jonathan B., "Common Raven Density and Greater Sage-Grouse Nesting Success in Southern 

Wyoming: Potential Conservation and Management Implications" (2013). To the extent that BLM is 

concerned about GRSG impacts from these wires, there are few, if any, studies and verified evidence of 

GRSG impact mortality. BLM must coordinate with local governments to ensure that MET guidelines in 

the FEIS match local land use and zoning regulations. For example, Sweetwater County requires that 

permanent MET Towers are non-latticed and non-guyed. See Sweetwater County Zoning Resolution 13-

08-CC-01. Similarly, temporary MET towers are permitted for terms less than three years in Sweetwater 

County and must be visible from 2000 feet during daylight hours while bird diverters are installed on all 

guy wires that are reflective, at least 18 square inches in size, display movement in winds greater than 5 

miles per hour, incorporate UV reflection in lowlight, and are luminescent for more than 10 hours during 

non-daylight hours. Id. These conditions are mandatory and should be included in this management action 

with regard Sweetwater County and all other counties with similar requirements. 

Comment ID: 1104 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-115 MA 113 Comment: This management action should be deleted entirely. 

Comment ID: 1051 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-411

Comment: Pg 2-32 MA 40 Text: For sage-grouse core habitat areas with minority federal ownership, an 

additional, effective mitigation agreement would be included for any disposal of federal land. As a final 

preservation measure, consideration should be given to pursuing a permanent conservation easement. 

Comment: This language should be amended to read: “For sage-grouse core habitat areas with minority 

federal ownership, an additional, effective mitigation agreement would be included for any disposal of 

federal land. DELETE "As a final preservation measure, consideration should be given to pursuing a 

permanent conservation easement".” 

Comment ID: 1053 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-39 MA 49 Text: The BLM and Forest Service policies and the equivalent Annual Operating 

Instructions would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards in sagegrouse core 

habitat areas and, where not achieved, to determine if existing grazing management practices or levels of 

grazing use on public lands are significant factors in failing to meet, maintain or make progress towards 

achieving the standards and conform with the guidelines, which through this process will identify 

appropriate actions to address non-achievement and non-conformance. Comment: This language should be 

amended to read: “The BLM and Forest Service policies and the equivalent Annual Operating Instructions 

would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

and, where not achieved, DELETE "to determine if existing grazing management practices or levels of 

grazing use on public lands are significant factors in failing to meet, maintain or make progress towards 

achieving the standards and conform with the guidelines, which through this process will" to identify 

appropriate actions to address non-achievement and non-conformance.” This language is inconsistent with 

EO 2011-5. The DEIS could be construed to support the conclusion that GRSG declines are due to current 

livestock grazing activities and as a result, grazing should be reduced. The Executive Order does not support 

this conclusion and the FEIS needs to be clear that grazing does not adversely impact GRSG. 

Comment ID: 1054 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-54 MA 54 Text: In addition to Alternative A: Livestock trailing that is authorized would 

include terms and conditions designed to avoid sensitive areas and/or time periods for sage-grouse. The 

authorization would include specific routes and time frames for trailing. Comment: This language should 

be deleted entirely. EO 2011-5 concludes that grazing operations, including docking, herding, and trailing 

are exempt activities since each had a de minimus impact on GRSG habitat. See EO 2011-5, Attachment 

C. 

Comment ID: 1055 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-55 MA 55 Text: Grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats would be balanced 

to promote the production and availability of beneficial forbs to Greater Sage-Grouse for use during nesting 

and brood rearing. Grazing in meadows, mesic habitats, and riparian pastures also would be balanced to 

promote the production and availability of beneficial grasses and forbs for use during late brood rearing 

within core habitat areas, while maintaining upland conditions and functions. Comment: This language 

should be amended to read: “Grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats will be managed to 

meet the WSHR meet Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands based on local and site-specific 

information. Appropriate livestock grazing management actions would be developed and integrated to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-412 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

address rangeland health standards, improve forage for livestock and wildlife, and enhance rangeland 

health. DELETE "and would be balanced to promote the production and availability of beneficial forbs to 

Greater Sage-Grouse for use during nesting and brood rearing. Grazing in meadows, mesic habitats, and 

riparian pastures also would be balanced to promote the production and availability of beneficial grasses 

and forbs for use during late brood rearing within core habitat areas, while maintaining upland conditions 

and functions".” This BLM’s language indicates that grazing destroys habitat which is contrary to EO 2011-

5 and unsupported by any study other than the NTT report. Furthermore, the only applicable standard with 

regards to livestock grazing is the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. It also appears that that the 

BLM is assumes all areas should be managed similarly when each element of the GRSG habitat mosaic 

does not serve the same purpose. Such an assumption is incorrect and will yield misguided management 

actions. Finally, the RMP’s mentioned in Alternative A do not address the “balancing” action suggested in 

Alternative E. See Kemmerer RMP (“Develop and implement appropriate livestock grazing management 

actions to address rangeland health standards, improve forage for livestock, and enhance rangeland health. 

At no point does the Kemmerer RMP address balancing GRSG forbs.”); Pinedale RMP (“In allotments 

with riparian habitat, grazing management actions will be designed to maintain or achieve proper 

functioning condition.”); Casper RMP (“Improve and (or) maintain rangeland health while providing 

opportunities for livestock grazing to support and sustain local communities.”). 

Comment ID: 1103 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-114 MA 109-112 Text: Within sage-grouse core habitat, the BLM would review and 

consider amending BLM Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs) to incorporate sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and management considerations for all BLM herd management areas (HMAs). Comment: The 

BLM must recognize the severe impact that wild horses have on GRSG habitat. The Coalition strongly 

suggests decreased AML’s and consistent gathers to protect GRSG habitat according to the Core Area 

Strategy and, equally as important, to prevent degradation of the rangeland health. Please refer to our cover 

letter regarding specific changes and issues. The Coalition also notes that the DEIS is exhaustive and 

exaggerated as to impacts of livestock grazing and all but silent as to impacts of wild horse numbers. 

Comment ID: 1102 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Page 2-112 MA 107 Text: Vegetation treatment proposals must include evaluation of soils, 

precipitation, invasive/exotic plants, as well as the current condition of sage-grouse core habitats. 

Comment: BLM must define “vegetation treatment” to include chemical, mechanical, and prescribe fire 

methods. Vegetation treatment should occur with significant involvement by landowners, permittees, state, 

local and federal government entities. 

Comment ID: 1057 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-61 MA 57 Text: Existing water developments associated with springs and seeps would be 

evaluated and associated pipelines/structures to those developments having a negative effect on sage-grouse 

core habitats would be modified. Comment: This language should be deleted entirely. To the extent that 

this language is based on the NTT report, we direct the BLM to our cover letter dealing with the chasms in 

the reasoning, analysis, and research of that report. To the extent that it is not deleted, the BLM must identify 

who is responsible for the developments and the source of the funding for the developments. Also, any and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-413

all developments or range improvements must maintain WSHR and Forest Service Rangeland Management 

Directives. 

Comment ID: 1058 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-64 MA 61 Text: A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate 

would be applied within sage-grouse core habitat areas. Smaller parcels may be leased only when 640 

contiguous acres of federal mineral estate is not available and leasing is necessary to remain in compliance 

with laws, regulations and policy; for example, to protect the federal mineral estate from drainage or to 

commit the federal mineral estate to unit or communitization agreements. Comment: This language should 

be amended to read: “A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate DELETE 

"would be applied" is preferred within sage-grouse core habitat areas. Smaller parcels may be leased only 

when directional drilling may be combined with NSO stipulations DELETE "640 contiguous acres of 

federal mineral estate is not available and leasing is necessary" in order to remain in compliance with laws, 

regulations and policy; for example, to protect the federal mineral estate from drainage or to commit the 

federal mineral estate to unit or communitization agreements.” Applying a minimum lease size of 640 acres 

ignores the possibility of directional drilling as well as geophysical realities regarding drainage. Smaller 

tracts could be developed with NSO stipulations since operators may reach distant (and smaller) tracts using 

a single well pad in a different location. 

Comment ID: 1109 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 121 MA 118 Comment: This management action only addresses Casper. Pinedale, Rawlins, 

and Kemmerer also need to be addressed. 

Comment ID: 1045 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-20 MA 31 Text: In addition to Alternative A: Within general sage-grouse habitat where 

new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new ROWs/SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs 

where technically feasible. Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints would be applied. 

Comment: “General habitat” is inconsistent with, and not used by, EO 2011-5. If the BLM intends to keep 

its promise to follow EO 2011-5, it should use the same terms as they are used by the Executive Order 

consistently throughout the FEIS. 

Comment ID: 1705 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Close/find 

unsuitable/withdraw all unleased or available areas to fluid, solid, locatable or salable mineral leasing. 

Comment ID: 1866 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-414 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Action Number 35, Page 2-30: We recommend the last sentence of this provision be removed 

or revised in order to maintain consistency with the EO which only requires perch deterrents to be installed 

“within 0.6 miles from leks.” (EO, Page 16). 

Comment ID: 1865 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Action Number 21, Page 2-17: While we appreciate that the agencies will work with project 

proponents to site their projects in locations that meet the purpose and need for their project, we recommend 

that the phrase “or outside” be removed from the above provision because it would inappropriately apply 

core area stipulations to areas outside designated core areas in direct conflict with the EO. 

Comment ID: 1858 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA believes Manual 6840 goes beyond what the ESA requires for candidate species, like 

the sagegrouse, and is a significant formalized conservation effort. BLM must properly implement Manual 

6840 and collect the monitoring data necessary to document its implementation. Therefore, a new 

alternative that describes proper implementation of the conservation measures in Manual 6840 must be 

developed in a revised draft EIS and analyzed in detail in the Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 

chapters. 

Comment ID: 1857 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: Consideration of specific required management actions contained in Manual 6840 must be 

referenced in the Alternatives and Environmental Consequences chapters, and described in detail in an 

appendix, so that the public can objectively evaluate the potential effectiveness of the sagegrouse 

conservation measures in Manual 6840 and whether BLM is consistently implementing the required 

conservation measures. BLM should not ignore or replace the existing regulatory tools it already has 

without demonstrating why the existing regulations are not functioning properly or are inadequate. 

Comment ID: 1856 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: However, none of the alternatives give proper analysis to the existing conservation measures or 

authorities the BLM already has to protect sage-grouse and its habitat. BLM must not ignore Manual 6840. 

Incredibly, BLM does not directly identify Manual 6840 in the Planning Criteria portions of the DLUPA 

or in the Special Status Species sub-section of the No Action Alternative (Ch.1 at 1-15,16,17; see also Ch. 

2, Ch. 4), which seems extraordinarily negligent or at best incompetent, given the purpose of the LUP 

revisions. The DLUPA/DEIS must evaluate the numerous directives in BLM Manual 6840 in the context 

of each Alternative Considered in Detail, and include an additional alternative that analyzes full and 

consistent implementation of Manual 6840, existing BMPs, 2004 Strategy, and Fundamentals for Standards 

for Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180.1). 

Comment ID: 782 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-415

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: To be consistent with the Wyoming Core Area Strategy, the BLM should add the following 

language to Action #115, p. 2-118: A Technical Team comprised of BLM, USFS, WGFD, NRCS, LWG, 

Division of Forestry, WYDOAg (Weed and Pest), Conservation Districts, OSLI, private landowners would 

develop the plan and trending data. It would be the responsibility of the project proponent to conduct the 

monitoring. An upward trend would be determined through the collection of 5 years of data and reviewed 

by the technical team. 24 [Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/wtest/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SGEO_WILDFIRELANGUAGE0003656.pdf (last 

visited Mar. 19, 2014).] 

Comment ID: 1841 

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council 

Name: Shannon Anderson 

Comment: Fourth, the BLM and the Forest Service should require greater protections across sage-grouse 

habitat. If areas are outside of designated priority habitat, but possess high quality habitat and viable leks, 

that area should be protected during agency leasing and permitting activities. Please address specifically in 

this plan how BLM and the Forest Service will protect high quality sage grouse habitat and viable leks, 

nesting and winter range for sage-grouse outside core areas. 

Comment ID: 1717 

Organization: Kennecott Uranium Company 

Name: Oscar Paulson 

Comment: Action 131 – Alternative. E Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat 

inside core habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from March 1-

–June 30 to protect sagegrouse breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat. This timing limitation 

would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats. Activities in unsuitable habitats would be 

evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be allowed on a case by case 

basis. Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be 

expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates. Inconsistencies exist between 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 and Alternative E (Preferred Alternative in the DEIS). As an example, 

the Wyoming Executive Order seasonal restrictions are March 15-June 30 and Alternative E season 

restrictions are March 1-June 30. The LUPA and DEIS do not provide justification for the use of March 1 

versus the March 15 date included in the WY Governor’s Order. Action 131 states that “Where credible 

data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be expanded by up to 14 days 

prior to or subsequent to the above dates”. However the LUPA and DEIS to not provide credible data to 

support the March1 date. KUC recommends that Action 131 be revised to be consistent with the Wyoming 

Executive Order 2011-5 as follows: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from 

March 15-–June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat. This timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats. Activities in unsuitable habitats 

would be evaluated under the exception, waiver, and modification criteria and could be allowed on a case 

by case basis. Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be 

expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates. 

Comment ID: 1713 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-416 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Implement 

courtship, nesting, early-brood rearing and winter seasonal and timing restrictions for all human activities, 

including exploration. 

Comment ID: 1712 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Apply best 

management practices to minimize surface disturbing activities. 

Comment ID: 1667 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Manage 

rangelands to meet properly functioning condition standards. Manage wet meadows to maintain perennial 

forbs and a rich species mix needed for sage-grouse brood-rearing. 

Comment ID: 1709 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Apply best 

management practices to minimize surface disturbing activities. 

Comment ID: 1868 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Action Number 63, Page 2-73: 43 CFR 3162.3-1(f) states “The surface use plan of operations 

shall contain information specified in applicable orders or notices, including the road and drill pad location, 

details of pad construction, methods for containment and disposal of waste material, plans for reclamation 

of the surface, and other pertinent data as the authorized officer may require. A surface use plan of 

operations may be submitted for a single well or for several wells proposed to be drilled in an area of 

environmental similarity.” Referring to this section of the CFR is not useful in understanding the 

expectations of BLM with respect to core area requirements. Therefore, some type of additional guidance 

is needed to communicate these requirements to operators. Further, additional specificity is needed with a 

number of these core area requirements, such as “anticipated noise.” For instance, what is specifically being 

requested? What equipment is generating the noise or sound levels? What type of traffic information is 

being requested, is it axle load or trips per day? Should it be presented based upon the varying phases of 

development? These are just a couple of examples that demonstrate why the language in 43 CFR should be 

referenced only in a general sense; the specifics need to be developed in a Notice to Lessee with operator 

input. 

Comment ID: 1356 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-417

Comment: Action 48 would only apply "site-specific sage grouse habitat objectives” only within core area 

and only "as appropriate". This section ignores the issue of the appropriations rider as well as the issue that 

even in the best case scenario none of these actions will be implemented upon adoption of the amendments. 

Comment ID: 1687 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Retain 

sagebrush canopy cover at or above what is expected for that ecological site, consistent with sage-grouse 

habitat objectives unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to 

meet strategic protection of priority sage--‐ grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. 

Comment ID: 1684 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Identify 

and prioritize sage-grouse habitat for restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success.116 Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting 

sage--‐ grouse distribution and/or abundance and where factors causing degradation have already been 

addressed (e.g., changes in livestock management). 

Comment ID: 1683 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Where it 

will achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives, passive restoration approaches should be favored over active 

methods. 

Comment ID: 1678 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Retain 

sagebrush canopy cover at or above what is expected for that ecological site, consistent with sage-grouse 

habitat objectives unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to 

meet strategic protection of priority sage--‐ grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. 

Comment ID: 1676 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Restrict 

activities in SGCAs that facilitate the spread of invasive species, including recreational and commercial use 

by off-road vehicles. 

Comment ID: 1675 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-418 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Identify 

and prioritize sage-grouse habitat for restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success. Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting sage--

‐ grouse distribution and/or abundance and where factors causing degradation have already been addressed 

(e.g., changes in livestock management). 

Comment ID: 1674 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Ensure 

that vegetation treatments create landscape patterns which most benefit sage--‐ grouse. Only allow 

treatments that are demonstrated to benefit sage-grouse and retain sagebrush height and cover consistent 

with sage-grouse habitat objectives (this includes treatments that benefit livestock as part of an 

AMP/Conservation Plan to improve sage--‐ grouse habitat). 

Comment ID: 1672 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Where it 

will achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives, passive restoration approaches should be favored over active 

methods. 

Comment ID: 1668 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Manage 

free-roaming horse and burro populations at levels demonstrated to achieve and maintain sage-grouse 

habitat objectives. 

Comment ID: 1710 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Implement 

courtship, nesting, early-brood rearing and winter seasonal and timing restrictions for all human activities. 

Comment ID: 1988 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: While we support voluntary modification of existing range improvements, such modifications 

should not be made mandatory as applied to sage-grouse “general habitat”. (Action Number 53) 

Comment ID: 2073 

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-419

Comment: Role of Wyoming Governor’s Executive Orders EO-2011-05 and EO-2013-03: The State of 

Wyoming has already implemented a comprehensive sage grouse management plan. While some 

landowners, including some WWGA members, have been negatively impacted by the Governor’s plan, the 

WWGA would prefer to see the Governor’s plan more fully incorporated into the BLM/FS approach. By 

incorporating the State’s existing plan, which is by now familiar to most landowners, there is less likelihood 

for confusion and distrust. We believe this would help minimize further negative impact on Wyoming 

landowners. Wyoming’s comprehensive plan has been endorsed by the US Fish and Wildlife Services. The 

BLM and FS would be better served to use Wyoming’s existing plan as the foundation for the federal plan 

to address Sage Grouse. When discussing the “Preferred Alternative”, that is Alternative E, the approach is 

said to be consistent with existing guidelines but a thorough reading of the full document reveals a lack of 

real recognition of the State’s direction on sage grouse management. This is particularly true with regard to 

treatment of areas located outside of core sage grouse habitats. Under the Governor’s Executive Orders, the 

management of areas outside core habitat are not managed at the same level as those areas within designated 

core areas (another reason for the need for defined terms, as mentioned earlier in these comments). Further, 

in various places throughout the BLM/USFS document, there is only reference to coordination with “state 

game and fish agencies” but under the Governor’s Executive Orders, responsibility for Sage Grouse 

rehabilitation is placed within all “applicable state agencies”, not just Wyoming’s Game and Fish 

Department. We request that the BLM/FS incorporate the State approach in any land use amendment 

regarding sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 2039 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Chapter 2, 2-17, action #24, “The current population objective is to maintain at least 67% of the 

2005- 2008 Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Population within the State of Wyoming.” Is this acceptable 

to the USFWS? 

Comment ID: 676 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Ecological Site Descriptions (“ESD’s”) are not defined (although it is assumed to mean “state 

and transition model”) and should not be required if they do not exist for a site. 

Comment ID: 2038 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Chapter 2, 2-17, action #23, will the coordination of adaptive management, in Wyoming, 

incorporate the state’s local working groups? The local working groups have intimate knowledge of the 

greater sage-grouse leks, brooding, and nesting data in their region along with knowledge of historical uses 

on the landscape. 

Comment ID: 2037 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Chapter 2, 2-17, action #17, When the BLM/FS work with valid existing right proponents in a 

core area, timing of development should be a factor particularly if/when multiple valid existing right 

proponents are moving ahead with construction of development at the same time. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-420 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2036 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Chapter 2, 2-17, action #16, “The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states that agencies 

will meet at least annually to coordinate and review the accuracy of data, and incorporate the most uptodate information.” Remove “at least”. WWF would like a meeting held annually to incorporate new and 

relative science. o In fact, the literature below was not included in the DEIS and it should be incorporated 

into the final: Journal of Wildlife Management 74(8):1806–1814. hierarchical spatial components of animal 

occurrence: conserving seasonal habitat for greater sagegrouse. Ecosphere 3(4):30. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00315.1 relative to activity levels at natural gas well pads. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 

Comment ID: 2027 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Exceptions to lease stipulations, Conditions of approval, and terms and conditions – Chapter 2, 

page 2-62, action #60: The preferred alternative (alt. E) subscribes to alternative A for this action. WWF 

recommends two additions to this action. These additions are imperative because if the land managers want 

to control disturbance they must control leasing. o Provide the BLM and the FS with discretion to sell a 

fluid mineral lease under a no surface occupancy stipulation. (Appendix E, action #123) o Provide the BLM 

and the FS with discretion to not sell a fluid mineral lease if the 5% disturbance has been met and if other 

mineral leases (fluid or solid) exist in the 640 acre area. expected by the lessor. Thus, for an oil and gas 

lease, the lessee is required to abide by the “intent to develop” expectation. Therefore, if other leases exist 

(either solid or fluid) in a 640 acres and 5% of the acreage is disturbed or nearing disturbance, no additional 

leasing should be allowed. existing lease rights are handled with priority throughout this BLM amendment 

plan. Therefore, to control disturbance leasing must be controlled. For example: develop the mineral 

resources in a reasonable manner subject to other rights.” Population Areas should be authorized or 

conducted only when it can be demonstrated that the activity will not cause declines in Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations.” o Page 3, #9: “Existing rights should be recognized and respected.” 

Comment ID: 2025 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Exceptions to lease stipulations, Conditions of approval, and terms and conditions – Chapter 2, 

page 2-62, action #58: The preferred alternative (alt. E) subscribes to alternative D for this action. WWF 

recommends an addition to this action that includes the need to incorporate the DDCT prior to exception 

approval within the core habitat. o Our reasoning is that when land managers give exceptions to human 

activity, for example, within a timing/seasonal stipulation further declines in a wildlife population can 

occur. An example is the mule deer herds in the Pinedale Anticline and the number of winter exceptions to 

human activity that are given. New uses of the land disturb wildlife populations, including sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 2022 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: WWF recommends the following exceptions for Alternative E in the rights-of-way, lands and 

realty management, chapter 2, action number 30, pages 2-18 – 2-20: “1. Within designated ROW corridors 

encumbered by existing ROW or SUA authorizations, new ROWs and SUAs should be co-located within 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-421

the designated corridors. 2. Subject to valid existing rights including non-federal land inholdings, required 

new ROWs and SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWS or SUAs or where it best minimizes 

sage-grouse impacts. Existing roads or realignments would be used to access valid existing rights that are 

not yet developed. 3. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, any new road would be 

constructed to the absolute minimum standards necessary, and the surface disturbance would be added to 

the total disturbance in the core habitat area. Disturbance will be determined using the Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) (IM WY- 2013-035). If that disturbance exceeds 5% of suitable 

habitat per 640 acres, additional effective mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse 

would be used. If such a ROW or SUA is subsequently relinquished, the AO would require the holder to 

complete reclamation with objective of ensuring reestablishment of prior affected sage-grouse habitat.” 

Comment ID: 1991 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management: The broad prohibition against “disruptive 

activities” throughout the core area habitats from March 1-June 30 (Action Number 131) causes us serious 

concern. The very long definition of “disruptive activity” contained in the draft, in particular the guidance 

of no more than one hour of disruption per 24 hours, could preclude livestock grazing within the core area 

during this time frame. This would be true in particular if the livestock were being herded, thereby requiring 

significant human presence. A particular example would be a range lambing operation. WSGA requests 

that you provide greater clarity regarding this provision. Our concerns are equally applicable to connectivity 

areas (Action Number 132), additional areas (Action Number 133) and winter concentration areas (Action 

Number 134). 

Comment ID: 1867 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Action Number 63, Page 2-72: As stated earlier, BLM/FS has no authority to impose new 

restrictions through COAs on APDs if they would abrogate the valid existing lease rights. This statement 

must be revised to reflect the legal limitations of the agencies. 

Comment ID: 1629 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: In addition, it is critically important for BLM to identify and protect winter concentration areas. 

Thus far, the location of these habitats remains largely undetermined. DEIS at 4-2. These lands, once 

identified under the RMP amendment, should be withdrawn from future mineral leasing and entry of all 

kinds, with Conditions of Approval applying NSO stipulations inside and within 2 miles of these areas, 

disturbance limits of 3% per square mile and one well pad per 640-acre section, exclusion of overhead 

powerlines, and seasonal road closures within the winter habitats. The proposal to simply apply timing 

stipulations to these areas as under the Preferred Alternative is insufficient because it allows construction 

of well pads and roads known to be deleterious to wintering sage grouse inside these key habitats as long 

as construction/drilling occurs outside the winter season, and further allows production-related activities 

throughout winter. Thus, the sage grouse may return to their winter habitats to find an industrialized, 

fragmented habitat that no longer has any habitat function due to the birds’ avoidance of such areas. 

Comment ID: 737 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-422 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Sage-grouse movement patterns are poorly understood, and as such transitional habitat is not 

adequately recognized and incorporated into current sagegrouse conservation and management...The 

agencies should create management policies that will protect areas that may likely serve as transitional 

habitat due to the proximity of these areas to highly productive habitat and lek sites. 

Comment ID: 1987 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: While language in Action Numbers 50 and 51 for Alternatives B & C does not apply to 

Alternative D, we believe that this language does not appropriately reflect the distinctive legal authorities 

of FS, BLM regarding Section 15 lands and BLM regarding Section 3 lands. This language should be 

removed or appropriately clarified by bringing forward language now contained only in Chapter 4.11.5. 

Comment ID: 1637 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management Inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Exclude these 

areas from new energy leasing and rights-of-way. 

Comment ID: 1638 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management Inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Whenever 

possible, bury existing transmission lines within 10 km from active leks. 

Comment ID: 1639 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management Inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Institute 

seasonal restrictions on existing surface occupancy within 10 km from leks during courtship and early 

brood-rearing periods. Limit permitted disturbance to 1 per section and no more than 3% surface 

disturbance per section. 

Comment ID: 1985 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Livestock Grazing Management: WSGA strongly supports voluntary cooperative grazing 

management strategies (Action Number 45). However, to date, these efforts have too often been driven by 

the federal agency management demands rather than having been based on a true holistic approach to 

managing multiple ownership lands in a manner that is economically sustainable for the operator. We 

further urge that this section acknowledge and commit to development of Candidate Conservation 

Agreements upon the request of landowners who have entered into a CCAA with the USFWS. 

Comment ID: 1945 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-423

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2-42, - In the narrative under Alternative A, which we presume should be considered as 

relevant to Alternative E on this page because there is no narrative under Alternative E, it reads to convey 

that livestock strategies will be designed and implemented so as to provide quality nesting cover in ALL, ( 

my emphasis ), sagebrush stands within 3 miles of active display grounds, ( leks, we presume ). The 

narrative at this place also includes silver sage and greasewood as shrub species to which this narrative 

would apply. Our comment is that this narrative is totally inconsistent with the sage grouse literature and 

range science community with respect to the capability of livestock management to achieve this prescription 

for sagebrush communities currently in mid-seral status. ( See Cagney, et al., 2010 ). In addition, we 

comment that it is most inappropriate to include greasewood dominated communities in this prescription 

because even under NO livestock grazing, greasewood communities can not produce “quality” nesting 

cover. We also comment that all sagebrush habitats within a 3 mile radius of a lek are not “quality nesting 

cover” and much of that area may not even have the potential to become “quality nesting habitat”. We had 

understood that the “concentric circle” paradigm had been discarded as technically inappropriate ? Please 

re-write this part of Alternative A to reflect the literature and reality on our rangelands. 

Comment ID: 1944 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2-39, item 49, Alternative E – The narrative at this place refers to the “process” to be used 

to identify “appropriate actions” to address non-achievement and non-conformance. Please include a direct 

reference to the use of Wyoming Governor Executive Order 2013-3, Supplement 2011-5, Greater SageGrouse Core Area – Grazing Adjustments, in this section of the description of Alternative E, the Preferred 

Alternative. This “Supplement” conveys the “process” we understand has been adopted by the Cheyenne 

BLM State office. 

Comment ID: 1943 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2-12, 2.5.4, item 6 – The narrative in 6 conveys that the BLM “analyze at least one alternative 

that conserves, restores, or enhances, sage grouse habitats” if an effective grazing program that 

accomplishes these objectives is not already in place. Our comments is - what are the criteria for assessing 

whether or not an existing grazing system is contributing to these objectives, and in what type of document 

would this issue be “analyzed” should the current grazing system was found to be lacking. Also, what would 

be the timing of that analysis in relation to the schedule for renewal of a grazing permit ? 

Comment ID: 1887 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Action Number 133, Page 2-153 “Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

outside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities 

should be prohibited from March 15-June 30 to protect sage-grouse nesting and early brood rearing habitats 

within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied lek located outside core or connectivity areas.” 

“Where credible data support different timeframes for this restriction, dates could be expanded by 14 days 

prior or subsequent to the above dates.” This provision applies a seasonal restriction prohibiting surface 

disturbing and/or disruptive activities within 2 miles of the perimeter of GRSG leks. This is inconsistent 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-424 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

with page 3 of the EO which states, “For activities outside of Core Population Areas, no more than a onequarter (1/4) mile no surface occupancy standard and a two (2) mile seasonal buffer should be applied to

occupied leks.” [Emphasis added]. This language in the EO establishes a maximum seasonal buffer of (2) 

miles for occupied leks that may be applied outside core areas. The EO further provides on page 3 that 

“incentives to enable development outside core areas should be established,” illustrating that development 

outside of core areas should be promoted to the extent possible. Consequently, the provision in the 

LUPA/DEIS is more restrictive than non-core area stipulations required under the EO and contradicts the 

EO’s intent to promote development outside of core areas. The EO implies flexibility to the 2 mile buffer 

outside core and as such, this same flexibility should be provided by the BLM in the LUPA/DEIS. 

Additionally, as stated earlier, justification must be provided for the provision allowing a 14 day extension 

either before or after the seasonal restriction. This provision has the potential to add an additional month to 

the timing restriction. If data is provided to show that the timeframes for the seasonal restriction need to 

start earlier, then the timeframe should subsequently be shortened to end earlier by the same amount of 

time, and vice versa. 

Comment ID: 1870 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: Action Number 131, Page 2-145 "Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat 

inside core habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from March 1 

- June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat. This timing limitation 

would be applied throughout sage-grouse core area habitats." "Where credible data support different 

timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to 

the above dates." Action Number 132, Page 2-151 "Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitat inside connectivity areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited within 

connectivity habitat from March 1 - June 30 to protect breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitats 

within 4 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied sage-grouse lek within identified connectivity 

areas. This timing limitation would be applied throughout sage-grouse core area habitats." "Where credible 

data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be expanded by up to 14 days 

prior to or subsequent to the above dates." COMMENT: This TLS is inconsistent with the EO, which lists 

it as March 15 – June 30, and needs to be changed to maintain consistency in sage-grouse management 

practices throughout the state. Also, justification must be given for providing for a 14 day extension either 

before or after the seasonal restriction. This provision has the potential to add an additional month to the 

timing restriction which, through this provision, has already been extended by half a month. If data is 

provided to show that the timeframes for the seasonal restriction need to be extended before or after, then 

the timeframe must subsequently be shortened on the other side (i.e., if justification is provided for a 

seasonal restriction to start 14 days earlier, the restriction should then end 14 days earlier.) 

Comment ID: 1685 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Restrict 

activities in SGCAs that facilitate the spread of invasive species. 

Comment ID: 1628 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-425

Comment: In addition, it is critically important for BLM to identify and protect winter concentration areas. 

Thus far, the location of these habitats remains largely undetermined. DEIS at 4-2. These lands, once 

identified under the RMP amendment, should be withdrawn from future mineral leasing and entry of all 

kinds, with Conditions of Approval applying NSO stipulations inside and within 2 miles of these areas, 

disturbance limits of 3% per square mile and one well pad per 640-acre section, exclusion of overhead 

powerlines, and seasonal road closures within the winter habitats. The proposal to simply apply timing 

stipulations to these areas as under the Preferred Alternative is insufficient because it allows construction 

of well pads and roads known to be deleterious to wintering sage grouse inside these key habitats as long 

as construction/drilling occurs outside the winter season, and further allows production-related activities 

throughout winter. Thus, the sage grouse may return to their winter habitats to find an industrialized, 

fragmented habitat that no longer has any habitat function due to the birds’ avoidance of such areas. 

Comment ID: 1660 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Review freeroaming horse and burro herd management plans with sage-grouse habitat objectives in mind. Aggressively 

manage herds to maintain them at or below herd management objectives. 

Comment ID: 1652 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat -- Identify 

existing grazing allotments where permanent retirement of the grazing privileges are feasible, and proceed 

with such retirements. 

Comment ID: 1654 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Authorize no 

new water developments for diversion from spring or seep sources. 

Comment ID: 1651 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Issue no new 

grazing permits. 

Comment ID: 1665 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Remove, 

modify or mark fences in areas of moderate or high risk to sage-grouse collisions.107 

Comment ID: 1655 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-426 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Ensure new 

or rehabilitated water developments are designed to use best management practices to limit and mitigate 

potential impacts from the West Nile virus. 

Comment ID: 1656 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Remove, 

modify or mark fences in areas of moderate or high risk to sage-grouse collisions.106

Comment ID: 1657 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Institute 25% 

grazing utilization standard on existing allotments while meeting objectives for sagegrouse habitat 

conditions. 

Comment ID: 1658 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Prioritize 

completion of land health assessments and ensure grazing systems and practices under permit are designed 

and required to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives. Institute timely monitoring to ensure objectives are 

being met. 

Comment ID: 1643 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Standards and guidelines for management of public grazing lands are established by local 

resource advisory councils and must address habitats and conservation measures for endangered, 

threatened, proposed, candidate, or other at-risk or special status species. For further documentation of the 

impacts of livestock and grazing on sage-grouse and its habitats we refer you to the Sage-Grouse Recovery 

Alternative, and incorporate these comments as our own.96 The Center emphasizes our agreement with the 

Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative regarding the treatment of livestock grazing as a diffuse disturbance on 

sage-grouse habitat.97 The readily and all too often observed sacrifice zone of utter destruction that occurs 

around watering, salting and gathering corrals is anything but diffuse. As Holechek and others observed, 

depending on topography, areas of severe degradation, or “sacrifice areas” around water sources, including 

water developments, can extend from one to several miles from water sources.98 The final plan should 

adopt specific measures to protect and enhance sage grouse populations and habitat in Wyoming, as it 

applies to grazing. These restrictions are both time and use restrictions. Grazing should also be restricted 

for certain times of the year. Specifically, there should be no grazing in important sage grouse habitat, 

except for between 6/20-8/1 and 11/15- March 1. 

Comment ID: 1642 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-427

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Institute 

seasonal restrictions on surface occupancy within 5 km from leks during courtship and early brood-rearing 

periods. 

Comment ID: 1641 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management Inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat -- If 

existing disturbed area in the SGRA exceeds 3% of the surface area, institute measures to provide additional 

mitigation to offset the impacts on the grouse. 

Comment ID: 1640 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management Inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --No new road 

construction for valid existing rights within 7.6 km of active leks. 

Comment ID: 1653 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Avoid all 

new structural range improvements, and prohibit water developments and salting within 10 km of active 

leks. 

Comment ID: 1659 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Manage 

riparian and wetland areas to meet properly functioning condition standards. Manage wet meadows to 

maintain perennial forbs and a rich species mix needed for sage-grouse brood-rearing.

Comment ID: 904 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Manage or restore priority habitat so that at least 70 percent of 

the land cover in priority habitat is sagebrush steppe sufficient to support sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1454 

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Name: Siva Sundaresan 

Comment: We ask that Alternative E be modified to reduce the disturbance cap from 5% to 3%. We suggest 

using Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) to calculate habitat disturbance within core areas 

and connectivity areas. In particular, Alternative E, Action Numbers 126 and 127 should be rewritten to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-428 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

read: “Inside sage grouse [core habitat areas/connectivity areas], all surface disturbance (any program area) 

would be limited to no more than an average of 1 location per 640 acres, subject to valid existing rights, 

and to no more than 3% of the core landscape using the DDCT process described in Appendix I.” This will 

offer protection for sage grouse based on best available science and will ensure that all activities are 

considered under the disturbance definition. Several recent scientific studies repeatedly demonstrate that 

Sage grouse are highly sensitive to disturbance at all stages of their life cycle. Further, disturbance from 

energy development and habitat loss act together compounding the effect on sage grouse (Walker et al. 

2007). Protection from disturbance during all life-stages from lekking to wintering is necessary to maintain 

populations (Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007; Doherty et al. 2008; Dzialak et al. 2012). Additionally, 74-

80% of sage grouse nests are found within four miles of leks (Moynahan 2004, Holloran and Anderson 

2005). It is critical that areas around leks remain free from disturbance. Lek persistence declines as the 

distance and density of oil and gas development increases (Dzialak et al. 2012; Knick et al. 2013). Ninetynine percent of active leks have been found in landscapes with <3% developed (Knick et al. 2013). The 

negative influence of coal-bed natural gas (CBNG) on active leks persisted up to 2 miles from surface 

infrastructure (Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007, Aldridge & Boyce 2007; Doherty et al. 2008). Kirol 

(2012) found that disturbance greater than or equal to 4% of the land area had a significant negative impact 

on greater sage grouse brood rearing habitat. Most significantly, as stated above a recent study Copeland et 

al. (2013), found that employing a 5% disturbance cap would slow but not halt the decline of sage grouse 

in Wyoming. Given the overwhelming scientific evidence, we strongly urge the BLM to reconsider the 5% 

disturbance cap in Alternative E. From a development perspective, under the EO, lease agreements 

established prior to August 1, 2008 are not bound by development stipulations. Given the level of past 

disturbance and the potential for future development of pre-existing valid leases, we propose that the 

disturbance cap be set at 3% disturbance within sage grouse core areas. We suggest using the DDCT 

analysis to calculate disturbance to account for anthropogenic and wildfire disturbance. This would be in 

accord with the current best available science. 

Comment ID: 902 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Restrict new disturbance in priority habitat. The first priority in 

these areas should be to avoid new disturbances altogether. Where new disturbance cannot be avoided (e.g., 

due to valid existing rights), impacts should be minimized by (A) limiting preexisting and permitted 

disturbance to one site per section of priority habitat regardless of land ownership, (B) with less than three 

percent disturbance per section, regardless of ownership and including existing disturbance. Discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances include but are not limited to highways, roads, transmission lines, substations, 

wind turbines, natural gas and oil wells, heavily grazed areas, range developments, pipelines, landfills, and 

mines. (C) Where possible, surface disturbance and occupancy should be prohibited within four miles of 

sage-grouse leks. 

Comment ID: 1456 

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Name: Siva Sundaresan 

Comment: It is unclear how Alternative E addresses situations when disturbance within a core area exceeds 

the maximum disturbance threshold. Currently, Alternative E in identifying how management proceeds in 

areas exceeding the maximum percent disturbance is under Travel Management, Action Number 90 states 

that: “If that disturbance exceeds 5% for that area, additional, effective mitigation necessary would be 

evaluated and implemented to offset the resulting loss of sage- grouse habitat.” By contrast Alternative B 

states: “In areas where the disturbance cap has been met by the project proponent, the BLM/Forest Service 

should consider opportunities for reclamation or removal of surface disturbing features that are no longer 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-429

in use in order to reduce the current disturbance before further projects are permitted.” We recommend 

incorporating the language from Alternative B for reclamation of lost habitat. In addition, the BLM/Forest 

Service should be required to reclaim or remove disturbance features not merely consider their reclamation. 

Comment ID: 1662 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Avoid all 

new structural range improvements, and prohibit water developments and salting within 10 km of active 

lets. 

Comment ID: 1541 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: Under Alternative E, EOG objects to the BLM‘s proposal to expand the seasonal limitation 

period by up to 14 days within GRSG core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-146, Action No. 131. This 

limitation is inconsistent with the Wyoming Core Policy as expressed in Executive Order 2011-005. The 

Governor of Wyoming in conjunction with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department developed the Core 

Area Policy based upon the best scientific information available. As the BLM is aware, the Core Area 

Policy was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as an appropriate 

mechanism to protect GRSG and GRSG habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to attempt to modify or 

alter the mitigation measures set forth in the Core Area Policy. 

Comment ID: 1554 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The agency must also consider all measures contained within the Sage-Grouse Recovery 

Alternative (Attachment 11) submitted earlier in this NEPA process; it is important to note that this 

alternative has been considered in detail for sage grouse plan amendments elsewhere within BLM purview. 

The agency should designate as Priority Habitat and General Habitat all lands identified as PPMAs and 

PGMAs, and in addition should expand Priority Habitat to include all 75% population areas. 

Comment ID: 905 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Designate restoration habitat to focus restoration efforts to expand 

sage-grouse range and mitigate for future loss of priority habitat. 

Comment ID: 907 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: Prohibit new leasing for natural gas, oil and geothermal 

development in priority habitat. Where fluid minerals development is permitted, o Prohibit surface 

occupancy associated with natural gas, oil and other fluid minerals development (or at least within four 

miles of sage-grouse leks). o Limit density of disturbances to one well site or energy production facility per 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-430 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

640 acres. o Limit cumulative surface disturbance to 3 percent per 640 acres. o Prohibit surface occupancy 

in or adjacent to sage-grouse wintering areas. 

Comment ID: 1562 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The DEIS has identified Alternative E as the Preferred Alternative. The goal of the Preferred 

Alternative is to “maintain and/or increase sage-grouse abundance and distribution by conserving, 

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

state, local, industry, permittee and conservation partners.” DEIS, at 2-11. However, the appropriate goal 

should be “to maintain and increase abundance and distribution of greater sagegrouse” (emphasis added) 

as described in the Sage-Grouse Recovery Alternative submitted by conservation groups.30 

Comment ID: 2806 

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: We also object to restricting the development of structural range improvements without 

corresponding scientific basis for such restriction, and it is unclear whether the BLM under Alternative B 

intends to restrict such development in core habitat or in priority sage-grouse habitat, as outlined on page 

2-45 to 2-46. It appears that "sage-grouse priority habitat" has not been clearly defined. 

Comment ID: 3120 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Facilities that produce continual noise can affect the breeding vocalizations of greater sagegrouse. Continuous noise from industrial facilities, such as compressor stations, close to active greater 

sagegrouse leks would interfere with male greater sage-grouse strutting behavior which could reduce the 

reproductive success of greater sage-grouse using these leks. Lander RMP FEIS at 932. Under 9-Plan DEIS 

Alternative B, “Noise would be limited to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at 

sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season.” DEIS at 2-166. This provides more certainty than 

the discretionary approach proposed under Alternative E. The 9- Plan should look to the Lander RMP 

Alternative B (FEIS at 945) to prohibit BLM‐ authorized human activity in noise-sensitive areas from 1 

hour before sunset to 1 hour after sunrise between March 1 and May 15, unless the activity is specific to 

inventorying, monitoring, or viewing greater sage‐ grouse. This action would prevent noise and disruptive 

activities in and around leks during the breeding season that could interfere with greater sage-grouse 

breeding and cause a localized population decline. The Buffalo DEIS recognized that “Greater Sage-Grouse 

are sensitive to noise levels from all activities during early evening and morning hours when strutting occurs 

during March and April, so actions to reduce noise levels during these periods should be taken.” DEIS at 

1621. BLM’s decision must be informed by existing research regarding noise impacts on grouse, which 

suggests threats to sage-grouse population viability through abundance, stress levels, and behavior : 

Blickley et al. 201216, and Blickly and Patricelli 201217. 

Comment ID: 2531 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: APLIC recommends the BLM remove stipulations that require or recommend perch discourager 

use in the Wyoming LUP. APLIC is available to discuss these concerns with BLM staff and provide 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-431

associated documentation. Rather than call for the use of perch discouragers, APLIC recommends the BLM 

reference the BMPs (see below) currently being developed for power lines in sage-grouse habitat. Likewise, 

current APLIC guidance should be applied to minimize avian electrocution and collision risks. 

Comment ID: 2174 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Name: Graham McGaffin 

Comment: The Conservancy recommends BLM and USFS consider making some unleased minerals within 

core areas administratively unavailable. Withdrawal of mineral leasing is a particularly durable form of 

mitigation and could be applied to compensate for existing and/or anticipated development, including 

development that currently exceeds, or is anticipated to exceed, disturbance caps. As described in MS 1794, 

“the BLM may use the land use planning process to identify potential mitigation sites and measures on 

BLM-managed lands” (MS 1794, Page 1-4, Section C). The Conservancy recommends BLM and USFS 

identify lands with unleased minerals in core areas and consider identifying them as “mitigation sites” 

where leasing is unavailable over the life of the land use plan. 

Comment ID: 2269 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Under Alternative E, Encana objects to the BLM’s proposal to expand seasonal limitation period 

by up to 14 days within sage-grouse core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-146, Action No. 131. This 

limitation is inconsistent with the Wyoming Core Policy as expressed in Executive Order 2011-005. The 

Governor of Wyoming in conjunction with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department developed the Core 

Area Policy based upon the best scientific information available. As the BLM is aware, the Core Area 

Policy was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as an appropriate 

mechanism to protect sage-grouse and sagegrouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to attempt to 

modify or alter the mitigation measures set forth in the Core Area Policy. 

Comment ID: 2205 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Management Alternative #104 "The role of existing seedings that are currently composed of 

primarily introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to core sage-grouse habitats would be evaluated to 

determine if they should be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage-grouse. If these 

seedings are part of an AMP/ Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the 

rest of the core habitats, no restoration would be necessary. The compatibility of these seedings for sagegrouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system would be assessed during the land health assessments 

(or other analyses [Forest Service only]) (Davies et al. 2011}." BLM and USFS should consider other 

regulatory requirements imposed on mines such as required seed mixes that may not be consistent with this 

alternative. TBCC has lands in the Black Thunder Mine's DEQ reclamation plan that are permitted for a 

post-mining use of croplands to create the premining condition of that area. 

Comment ID: 3032 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-15, action 8: Delete the word reconciled since this may not be possible. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-432 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2800 

Organization: 

Name: marla bosworth 

Comment: 6. Please require in the Preferred Alternative that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any 

Sage Grouse Lek (display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage 

Grouse habitats. 

Comment ID: 2620 

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-166, Table 2-1, Action 162: Again, QEP asks that current noise restrictions stay in place 

until further research can be conducted to find concrete evidence on how GRSG respond to noise at various 

decibels. 

Comment ID: 2748 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg E-12 Text: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited within 

connectivity habitat from March 1-June 30 to protect breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats 

within 4 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied Greater Sage-Grouse lek within identified 

connectivity areas. Comment: We incorporate our comments from Chapter 2 regarding management action 

128 by reference here. 

Comment ID: 2206 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: BLM Management Alternative # 125 and Appendix K Table K-3 USFS Management 

Alternative #125 "Sage-grouse leks outside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas: Surface occupancy 

and surface disturbing activities would be prohibited or restricted on or within a one quarter (0.25) mile 

radius of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks." BLM and USFS are inconsistent with WYEO in 

expanding the general habitat stipulation of NSO to 0.25 miles. WYEO states "no more than a one-quarter 

(1/4) mile no surface occupancy standard." TBCC recommends BLM and USFS remain consistent with 

WYEO language. 

Comment ID: 2619 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-163, Table 2-1, Action 134, Alternative E: Requires seasonal protection of winter 

concentration areas both inside and outside core habitat areas (outside core if core-nesting birds winter in 

the outside concentration area). It is unclear whether it is lek attending or core area nesting birds that drives 

the requirement for areas outside core; this needs clarification. Additionally how will this be determined? 

Comment ID: 2266 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-433

Comment: Disturbance Cap (Action 126, pages 2-133-135): In regard to the 3 vs 5% disturbance cap, we 

would point out that existing scientific literature does not support a consistently applied surface disturbance 

threshold. Rather, the literature supports the minimization of energy development infrastructure densities 

to 1 pad per section averaged across an area designated by a 3–3.2 km (1.86–2 mi) radius. We suggest that 

if a surface disturbance threshold is to be applied in the preferred alternative, that the threshold be 

established as the proportion of area disturbed using a metric directly related to infrastructure density and 

that is equivalent to 1 pad and access road/section. As an example, 1 average-sized well pad plus its access 

road directly influences a given number of acres that can be divided by 640 to establish a surface disturbance 

threshold that is directly relevant to the density threshold of 1 well pad/section reported in the literature. 

The literature also suggests that clustering of infrastructure reduces impacts of energy development to sagegrouse by reducing the proportion of a landscape indirectly influenced by that infrastructure. Thus, if 

unitization were to consistently result in clustered infrastructure it should be required as part of the final 

proposed action in the EIS. We would point out that the potential benefits of unitization may not always be 

compatible with a per section surface disturbance threshold, e.g., 3% - Alt. B, where permitted disturbances 

are limited to one per section with no more than the fixed percent surface disturbance in that section. Unless 

quantified as an average across a larger landscape, fixed percentages may counteract and contradict desires 

and need in some situations to cluster infrastructure. This should be re-visited, evaluated and incorporated 

into the EIS for specific situations where unitization is a desired strategy to reduce impacts on sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 2271 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Action 128, Page 2-135: We would point out that the mitigation hierarchy starts with Avoidance 

first and this should be explicitly stated throughout when mitigation is discussed here and in other places 

in the EIS. We also believe Alternative B offers components of mitigation that should be included in the 

final EIS, particularly in following the WAFWA strategy. Also, we recommend that descriptions associated 

with offsite and “in-kind” mitigation include explicit statements regarding other values, most notably 

recreational opportunities such as regulated hunting and fishing. 

Comment ID: 2272 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Action 130, Page 2-141: We disagree with the notion that leks outside of core habitat are less 

important and thus only warranting a 0.25 mi buffer. This is not supported by the scientific literature. We

recommend that timing and distance actions be the same for any occupied lek anywhere on the landscape 

and actions must protect the integrity of the lek site and surrounding landscape based on the scientific 

literature. Otherwise, the overall population will continue to decline to dangerously low levels. 

Comment ID: 2263 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana is extremely opposed to the BLM’s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive 

activities between March 1 and June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

habitat inside core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. The BLM has extended the 

timing restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-

005. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019 (Feb. 

10, 2012). The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 1 to March 15. The Wyoming SageGrouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically endorsed by the United 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-434 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

States Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect sage-grouse. The BLM should not modify or alter 

the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent 

with the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum. 

Comment ID: 3084 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, Page 2-166 through 2-67 Action 136, Alternative E While most of the established 

requirements are okay as is, there remains the potential to add new additionally more problematic 

restrictions as more science is developed; this imparts considerable unknowns and we may want this 

material removed. Additionally, the noise the limitation requirement needs to be applied at lek perimeters 

not at 0.6 mile from the lek (use of the word “should” here is problematic). As is, if this is a required action, 

it would extend the effective NSO considerably farther afield. 

Comment ID: 2207 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Management Alternative #127 "Inside sage-grouse connectivity areas, all surface disturbance 

(any program area) would be limited to no more than 5% per 640 acres using the DDCT process described 

in Appendix I." BLM and USFS are not clear on where the connectivity areas are and TBCC recommends 

they reference WYEO's identified connectivity areas. 

Comment ID: 2208 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Management Alternative #133 "Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat 

outside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities 

would be prohibited from March 15-June 30 to protect sage-grouse nesting and early brood rearing habitats 

within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of any occupied lek located outside core or connectivity areas." 

TBCC encourages BLM and USFS to recognize valid and existing rights. 

Comment ID: 2696 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 4-329 Text: Leks have been shown to go inactive when well pad densities exceed one per 

640 acres. Comment: This statement is unsupported by any authority in the DEIS and the BLM must 

disclose the report upon which it relies to make such a statement. Both the Data Quality Act and the Office 

of Management and Budget Guidelines implementing it require agencies to “ensure and maximize” the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. DQA §515(a), 

OMB Guidelines, § 11(2), 67 Fed. Reg. at 8458. Here, the BLM has not verified nor maximized the quality 

and integrity of the statement that Leks have been shown to go inactive and thus it must be deleted. 

Comment ID: 2255 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-435

Comment: (Action 48, Page 2-38-39): We would point out that quality nesting cover requires more than 

just having >15% canopy of sagebrush; understory requirements are equally if not more important and must 

be explicitly stated as part of this and all livestock management recommendations (again, see Connelly et 

al. 2011 for characteristics associated with different habitat needs). 

Comment ID: 2184 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana is concerned about the BLM’s reference to BLM Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 

2010- 012 and its incorporation into Alternative E. As the BLM is aware, BLM IM WY-2010-012 was 

replaced by Instruction Memorandum Wyoming 2012-019 on February 10, 2012. The language of IM WY2012- 019 makes it absolutely clear that it replaces and abrogates BLM IM WY-2010-012. BLM should 

explain why its preferred alternative is based upon and instruction memorandum that is no longer in force 

and effect. 

Comment ID: 2615 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-146, Table 2-1, Action 131, Alternative E: Since the time may be expanded, it is 

suggested that time could also be contracted. QEP asks for more certainty on whether time could also be 

contracted. 

Comment ID: 2607 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-30, Table 2-1, Action 35, Alternative E: Appears to indicate that perch deterrents will be 

required to be retrofitted on existing facilities. Further detail is needed to specify what facility 

types/parameters will need retrofitting and what types of perch deterrents may be applied. 

Comment ID: 2604 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-17, Table 2-1, Action 21: This may require moving locations, even outside core habitat 

areas. QEP asks that this be restricted to core habitat. 

Comment ID: 2602 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-16, Table 2-1, Action 10: After the word "noise" insert "unless precluded by existing 

authorizations". 

Comment ID: 2601 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-15, Table 2-1, Action 8: Delete the word "reconciled" since this may not be possible. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-436 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2600 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-15, Table 2-1, Action 2: Off-site compensatory mitigation requiring proponent 

contribution must be voluntary. 

Comment ID: 2613 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Pages 2-135 - 2-136, Table 2-1, Action 128, Alternative E: Off-site mitigation must be voluntary 

on the part of the proponent unless no proponent contributions are required. 

Comment ID: 2746 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg E-10 Text: Surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities would be prohibited from March 

1-June 30 to protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat. This timing 

limitation would be applied throughout the sage-grouse core area habitats... Comment: This TLS is 

inconsistent with the EO, which lists it as March 15 – June 30, and should be changed to maintain 

consistency in sage-grouse management practices throughout the state. We incorporate our earlier comment 

from Chapter 2 regarding management action 127 here. 

Comment ID: 2747 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg E-10 Text: Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, 

dates could be expanded by up to 14 days prior to, or subsequent to, the Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat inside designated core areas. Comment: We incorporate our 

comments from Chapter 2 regarding management action 127 by reference here. 

Comment ID: 2324 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS's attempt to integrate various plans is inadequate. The Wyoming Executive 

Order and Alternative E both have .25 mile No Surface Occupancy buffer around leks in general habitat 

and a 2 mile seasonal restriction buffer around leks in general habitat (pg. 4-329 & 330). However, the 

Executive Order season restrictions are March 15-June 30 and Alternative E restrictions are March 1- June 

30. There is no explanation or justification for why sage-grouse on BLM surface (as opposed to private 

Wyoming surface lands) would be more sensitive and need an additional 14 days of restricted activity. 

Comment ID: 3123 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2‐ 5 2‐ 201 Special Status Species Alt D How are lek buffers determined to be 

insufficient? Please explain within text of document. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-437

Comment ID: 2614 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-138, Table 2-1, Action 129, Alternative E: Requires no occupancy or disturbance within 

0.6 mile of lek perimeters in core habitat areas or connectivity areas, which is consistent with the EO. 

However, QEP asks that the BLM include the following language "unless otherwise precluded due to 

existing rights and/or project-level authorizations" for clarification. BLM does not have the authority to 

impose new stipulations on an existing lease that exceed the terms and conditions of that lease, once issued. 

Comment ID: 2177 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Name: Graham McGaffin 

Comment: Additionally, we recommend that BLM: • Stipulate that regional mitigation plans should be 

integrated with land use plans as early as possible in the planning process. • Emphasize that BLM’s 

obligation to avoid unnecessary or undue degradation to resources and values takes precedence, supporting 

the need for avoidance measures. • Clarify that the resources and values BLM aims to protect against 

unnecessary or undue degradation include ecological values, as well as cultural values, lands with 

wilderness characteristics, recreational opportunities, viewsheds, etc. • Expand the definition of impacts to 

include cumulative, direct and indirect impacts and reflect that all impacts must be considered at appropriate 

stages in the mitigation planning process. • Ensure that the broader agency management goals for resources 

and values be considered in the mitigation planning process as they may or may not be adequately addressed 

in land use plans. These management goals, such as a no net loss of the resource, will help better inform 

the amount of compensation that will be needed to fully address impacts. • Require science-based, 

transparent and consistent methodologies to assess impacts (e.g. a crediting mechanism) to determine how 

much compensation a project requires and how much credit a proposed compensation project will generate. 

The policy should state that the credit calculation for proposed compensation must also take into account 

considerations such as the likelihood of success, temporal losses of resources and values, proximity of the 

impact site to the offset site, the difficulty of replacing the lost resources and values, etc. • Expand the 

guidance on long-term durability to include prescriptions in the land use plan, i.e. the policy and planning 

tools available to achieve durability, such as withdrawal of lands from certain uses, management 

prescriptions, protective designations, etc. BLM should also clarify when and how these prescriptions 

should be integrated into the land use plan. • Provide guidance on how to ensure compensatory mitigation 

investments are “additive” to management that would otherwise be provided by BLM through its existing 

commitments and mandates. • Improve provisions for the timing of compensatory mitigation actions. We 

support BLM’s recognition that some compensatory mitigation actions are more appropriate to implement 

before project construction. However, we disagree with the provision to allow phasing- in of mitigation as 

it will likely lead to a temporal loss of resources and values. • Emphasize that compensatory mitigation 

measures should be evaluated both for compliance (was the project implemented) and for performance (did 

it achieve the anticipated outcome). The policy should also require development of performance measures 

as they are critical for informing the adaptive management process. • Stipulate that compensatory mitigation 

actions be monitored until they achieve their desired outcome, and that the responsibility to monitor and 

ensure their success should not end simply when a land use authorization expires. 

Comment ID: 3195 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-438 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Appendix E E‐ 16 Management Action #130 How will it be verified that grouse nesting in core 

areas use winter concentration areas outside core? This action allows assumption without actual knowledge 

of where specific SG actually winter. This should be further explained within the document. 

Comment ID: 2305 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: In addition, the seasonal use prohibitions and restrictions proposed under Alternatives B and C 

are far too vague, and do not provide any useful information in terms of when the restrictions would apply 

and where (See Table 2-1 at 2-145 to 2-163), which is necessary to determine the potential impacts to 

operators – or the intended benefits to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. 

Comment ID: 2254 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 46, Page 2-36-38): “Vegetative communities would be managed in accordance with 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.” Again, we assume that the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands referenced here were not developed with the needs of sage grouse in mind, and we are not 

convinced they will meet vegetative conditions for sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat in 

particular (see Connelly et al. 2011 for characteristics associated with different habitat needs). We 

recommend that BLM explicitly state clear and measurable range management goals, objectives, and 

management actions directly related to sage-grouse and their habitat requirements for vegetation height and 

density in the final draft EIS. We recommend that management actions and terms and conditions of grazing 

permits conform to guidance and recommendations provided in the scientific literature, and following or 

modified from Cagney et al. (2010) for meeting nesting and brood-rearing vegetative characteristics for 

sage-grouse. We recommend the management actions outlined in Alternatives B and C for livestock grazing 

management and permit requirements for Action 46. 

Comment ID: 2616 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-151, Table 2-1, Action 132: This is inconsistent with the EO, which requires a 2 mile 

buffer outside of core habitat areas. QEP asks that the BLM change this seasonal buffer to 2 miles to be 

consistent with the EO. 

Comment ID: 2749 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg E-12 Text: Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, 

dates could be expanded by up to 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates. Comment: We incorporate 

our comments from Chapter 2 regarding management action 128 by reference here. 

Comment ID: 2202 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-439

Comment: 2.5.8 Management Objectives for Alternatives D and E "1. Identify core/priority, general, and 

connectivity habitats for each WAFWA MZ across the current geographic range of Greater Sage-Grouse 

that are large enough to stabilize populations in the short term and enhance populations over the long term. 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in this planning area overlaps 2 WAFWA MZs: (1) MZ I-Great Plains and (2) 

MZ /I-Wyoming Basin. 2. Protect core/priority, general, and connectivity habitats from anthropogenic 

disturbance that will reduce distribution or abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse. " Objective #2 is 

inconsistent with the Wyoming Executive Order. The WYEO protects core and connectivity habitats 

already defined for inter-state connectivity concerns, and recognizes in general sage-grouse habitat that 

there will be some loss in population and habitat to allow for economic development in the state. There will 

be significant reductions in Wyoming's economy and BLM's and USFS's funding sources through taxes 

and royalties if core, connectivity, and all general habitat is offlimits to development. The vast majority of 

coal mines in Campbell County exist in sage-grouse general habitat. Most future LBA's for the coal mines 

in the PRB will be located in general habitat. 

Comment ID: 2204 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Management Alternative #31 "Within general sage-grouse habitat where new ROWs/SUAs are 

necessary, new ROWs/SUAs would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs where technically feasible. 

Appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints would be applied. "Appropriate seasonal timing 

constraints" need to be referenced or identified in this alternative. TBCC recommends BLM and USFS 

follow the existing WYEO which states "For activities located outside Core Area Population Areas, no 

more than a onequarter mile no surface occupancy standard and a two mile seasonal buffer should be 

applied to occupied leks." 

Comment ID: 2618 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-152, Table 2-1, Action 132, Alternative E: Since the times may be expanded, it is 

suggested that time could also be contracted. QEP asks for more certainty on whether time could also be 

contracted. Page 2-156 2-157, Table 2-1, Action 133, Alternative E: Since the times may be expanded, it is 

suggested that time could also be contracted. QEP asks for more certainty on whether time could also be 

contracted. 

Comment ID: 2612 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-145, Table 2-1, Action 131, Alternative E: The March 1st_June 30th restriction is 

inconsistent with the EO, which has the timing limitation (TL) from March 15th-June 30th. QEP asks that 

the TL be changed to be consistent with the EO. 

Comment ID: 2325 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: Seasonal noise stipulations are inconsistent. The Executive Order seasonal restrictions for new 

noise levels may not exceed levels above 10dBA at the perimeter of a lek during March i-May 15 from 6:00 

pm to 8:00 am. Alternative E in the DEIS is the same as Alternative A and states, at p. 4-271: "Noise 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-440 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

minimization could reduce disturbance to wildlife species (Kemmerer, Pinedale and TBNG). Specific 

limitations, such as limiting noise to 10dBA from March i-June 15 or within two miles of a lek (TBNG), 

could reduce disturbances to Greater Sage-Grouse." It is not clear if the agencies intend to only impose 

noise stipulations for Kemmerer, Pinedale and Thunder Basin National Grassland. If not, once again it is 

unclear why the season is longer on BLM surface. And significantly, the DLUPA/DEIS fails to include a 

daily timing stipulation from 6:00pm-8:00am as found in the Executive Order. 

Comment ID: 2427 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Potential additional requirements imposed on valid existing rights. Conservation requirements 

related to locatable minerals in Alternative E are unclear regarding when modified measures will be 

expected, and what the consequence will be for failing to adopt "suggested" new requirements. The Draft 

EIS discussion of Alternative E at pp. 2-88 - 2-89 notes that "operators could be requested to submit 

modifications to the accepted notice or approved plan of operations so that the operations minimally impact 

sage-grouse core area habitats." BLM specifically notes that these are "suggested conservation measures" 

only and that "[t]he request containing the suggested conservation measures must make clear that the 

operator's compliance is not mandatory." 2-89. This appears to protect valid existing rights, which is a BLM 

requirement. However, BLM also includes a note that measures "may not be reasonable or applicable to 

the BLM/Forest Service's determination of whether the proposed operations will cause unnecessary or 

undue degradation under 43 CPR 3809.5 and 36 CPR 228.3." It is unclear what BLM is stating here, and it 

should further clarify that valid existing rights will be protected and that there will be no consequences from 

failing to adopt "suggested" conservation measures. 

Comment ID: 3060 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: Given the level of disturbance, the undocumented percentage of disturbance within core areas, 

and the potential for future development of pre-existing valid leases, we propose that the disturbance level 

be decreased to 3% disturbance within sage-grouse core areas using the DDCT analysis which includes 

disturbance from anthropogenic and wildfire disturbance. This would be in accord with the current best 

available science. Behavioral patterns of sage-grouse have been shown time and again to avoid 

anthropogenic disturbance. Ninety-nine percent of active leks have been found in landscapes with <3% 

developed (Knick et al. 2013), and Walker et al. (2007) found that influence on lek abandonment from the 

presence of coal-bed natural gas (CBNG) developments persisted out to 3.2 km (2 miles) from surface 

infrastructure and this finding is supported by additional literature (Holloran 2005; Aldridge & Boyce 2007; 

Doherty et al. 2008). Studies show that lek persistence drops precipitously as density of, and proximity to, 

oil and gas development increases (Dzialak et al. 2012; Knick et al. 2013). Additionally, 74-80% of sagegrouse nests are found within four miles of leks (Moynahan 2004, Holloran and Anderson 2005), 

underscoring the spatial relationship between nesting and lekking locations and supporting the need to 

prevent lek abandonment from disturbance. Given that the success of these broods will impact future 

recruitment to the adult population, protecting broods and nesting areas is of paramount importance to 

maintaining viable sage-grouse populations. While discussing the benefits of 3% and 5% disturbance on 

the landscape with Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), it has been brought to our attention that 

"disturbance" may have been considered differently between the research by Knick et al. (2013) and how 

the WGFD DDCT calculates disturbance. For this reason, we recommend that 3% disturbance be calculated 

using the DDCT, and that BLM and the Forest Service also revisit this calculation methodology to ensure 

all relevant habitat disturbance is considered. The 9-Plan DEIS Chapter 2 Alternatives: Density and 

Disturbance section, Action Number 126, Alternative B, states: "priority sage-grouse habitats would be 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-441

managed so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage- grouse habitat" 

(9-Plan DEIS, 2-133), and connectivity areas in Alternative B require "Three percent habitat disturbance 

(up to 19.2 acres) per 640 acres would not be exceeded using the DDCT process" (9-Plan DEIS, 2-134). 

This language is unclear, and may potentially lead to increased surface disturbance within core areas if 

exclusively using the methodologies from the NTT. We want to clarify that our recommendations are to 

use the DDCT to calculate habitat disturbance within core areas and connectivity areas in Alternative E, 

but reducing the maximum disturbance from 5% to 3% disturbance. We recommend Alternative E, Action 

Numbers 126 and 127 should be rewritten to read: "Inside sage-grouse [core habitat areas/connectivity 

areas], all surface disturbance (any program area) would be limited to no more than an average of 1 location 

per 640 acres, subject to valid existing rights, and to no more than 3% of the core landscape using the DDCT 

process described in Appendix I." We believe this will offer a more scientifically based level of protection, 

ensuring that all disturbance activities are considered when calculating disturbance. 

Comment ID: 2926 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Action Number 30 for Alternative B, C, and D would manage sage-grouse core habitat areas as 

exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits with consideration of limited exceptions. This management 

action is not consistent with BLM's purpose and need statement or its multiple-use mission under FLPMA. 

One of the exceptions to be considered states that "Within designated ROW or SUA corridors encumbered 

by existing ROW or SUA authorizations, new ROWs could be co-located only if the entire footprint of the 

proposed project (including construction and staging) can be completed within the existing disturbance 

associated with the authorized ROWs or SUAs." It is not physically or technically possible to locate one 

project entirely within the existing disturbance associated with a prior authorized ROW or SUA. For 

example, a transmission line may not be located on top of a pipeline or down the middle of a road. In 

addition, locating two transmission lines on top of one another would be a clear violation of the Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council's reliability criteria. Finally, there would appear to be legal complications 

related to BLM authorizing two or more ROWs using the same real estate and possibly interfering with 

each another. The BLM must address all of these issues in the LUPA/ElS and clarify how it would proceed 

with implementing this management action, including authorization of conflicting ROWs. For Alternative 

E, it is not clear how Action Numbers 30, 31, and 32 relate to one another. For instance, under Action 

Number 30 core habitat is to be managed as a ROW avoidance area, hut under Action Number 32 new 

transmission projects are allowed within certain defined corridors (that is, corridors within core habitat are 

not avoidance areas). These two actions seem contradictory. BLM needs to clarify its intentions. For Action 

Number 31, within general sage-grouse habitat where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new ROWs/SUAs 

would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs where technically feasible. While it may be technically 

feasible to co-locate a new ROW/SUA next to an existing ROW/SUA, seldom if ever will it be technically 

feasible to co-locate a new ROW/SUA within an existing ROW/SUA. This proposed action should be 

dropped or BLM should clarify its intentions. Action Number 32 would require new electric distribution 

lines be buried where feasible. If not feasible, overhead lines would be located at least 0.6 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks and raptor perch deterrents would be installed. We know 

of no science supporting the 0.6 mile buffer or the installation of raptor perch deterrents as a conservation 

measure to protect sage-grouse habitat. A justification for this proposed management action based on best 

available scientific information and data must be presented in the LUPA/EIS or the measure must be 

dropped from further consideration. In addition, BLM should provide guidance on what it considers 

"feasible" when considering the burying of electric distribution lines. While technically feasible to bury 

many lower voltage electric lines, this can be an extreme hardship financially as the cost of burying a line 

is many times greater than the cost of overhead construction. Burying a line extension across federal lands 

to service a new connection for a water well, residence or utility building could make the project 

economically unfeasible. Also, within the checkerboard pattern of land ownership, this proposed action is 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-442 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

particularly inappropriate as BLM has no authority over the intervening sections of private land. 

Theoretically, the line could go underground a mile on BLM, overhead the next mile on private, 

underground the next mile on BLM, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, until reaching its destination. This seems 

impractical and of limited benefit to sage-grouse habitats. The BLM needs to reconsider this proposed 

action and discuss implementation in areas of mixed land ownership, such as the checkerboard, in the

LUPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 2152 

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter 

Name: Connie Wilbert 

Comment: To address the many problems identified in the preceding paragraphs, we recommend substantial 

changes to Alternative E, including: 1. Lower the disturbance cap from 5% to 3%, and extend this protection 

to General Habitat Areas as well as Core Habitat Areas. Include all existing disturbances in the disturbance 

calculation, calculated at the level of disturbance per square mile. 2. Designate all occupied habitat (100% 

of active leks) as Core Habitat Areas 3. Close all Core, General and Connectivity Habitat Areas to new 

fluid mineral leasing and ensure that no surface disturbance for fluid mineral extraction on existing leases 

occurs within four miles of active leks. Require no greater than one well per square mile well-pad spacing 

outside of this fourmile buffer. 4. Validate mitigation methods to ensure success for sage grouse and, where 

they are applied, require that mitigation methods have achieved habitat and sage grouse population goals 

before the project being mitigated may begin. If this planning amendment results in mitigation 

development, follow the 2013 Department of Interior Order 3330 (Improving Mitigation Policies and 

Practices of the Department of the Interior), and incorporate the approach and guidance for offsite 

mitigation outlined in the Draft Regional Mitigation Manual Section 1794. 5. Create a collaborative 

implementation working group that includes diverse key experts and interests to reform best management 

practices to meet sage grouse conservation needs and provide quality control in implementing conservation 

actions for sage grouse. 6. Create a system of reserves (i.e. using Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

designations), comprised of all Core Habitats, where only activities scientifically shown to be compatible 

with maintaining and restoring sage grouse populations to secure population levels are permitted. 

Comment ID: 2253 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 45, Page 2-35-36): “The BLM/Forest Service would work cooperatively with 

permittees, lessees, and other landowners to develop voluntary grazing management strategies that integrate 

both public and private lands into single management units to improve sage-grouse habitat.” How can the 

BLM assure the USFWS that such “voluntary” practices will be adhered to, measured against desired 

outcomes, and enforced in some way to ensure those standards are met to improve sage-grouse habitat. 

What are the standards? Again, we recommend that BLM explicitly state clear and measurable range 

management goals, objectives, and management actions directly related to sage-grouse and their habitat 

requirements for vegetation height and density in the final draft EIS and in all conditions of grazing permits. 

Comment ID: 2416 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Inconsistency between Wyoming Executive Order 2011-5 and Alternative E (Preferred 

Alternative in DEIS). The Wyoming Executive Order and Alternative E both have .25 mile No Surface 

Occupancy buffer around leks in general habitat and a 2 mile seasonal restriction buffer around leks in 

general habitat (pg. 4-329 & 330). However, the Executive Order season restrictions are March 15-June 30 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-443

and Alternative E restrictions are March I-June 30. There is no explanation or justification for why sagegrouse on BLM surface would be more sensitive and need an additional 14 days of restricted activity. 

Comment ID: 2418 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: The inconsistency in seasonal restrictions is most evident in the noise stipulations. The Executive 

Order seasonal restrictions for new noise levels may not exceed levels above 10dBA at the perimeter of a 

lek during March 1-May 15 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am. Alternative E in the DEIS is the same as Alternative 

A and states, at p. 4-271: "Noise minimization could reduce disturbance to wildlife species (Kemmerer, 

Pinedale and TBNG). Specific limitations, such as limiting noise to 10dBA from March 1-June 15 or within 

two miles of a lek (TBNG), could reduce disturbances to Greater Sage- Grouse."It is not clear if BLM 

intends to only impose noise stipulations for Kemmerer, Pinedale and Thunder Basin National Grassland. 

If not, once again it is unclear why the season is longer on BLM surface. And significantly, BLM fails to 

include a daily timing stipulation from 6:00pm-8:00am as found in the Executive Order. 

Comment ID: 2961 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Page 2-16, Item 13, recognizes the need to incorporate new areas into the general sage grouse 

habitat category as new occupied sage-grouse habitat is found. Ur-Energy encourages the BLM to also 

include a mechanism to remove areas from the general-sage grouse habitat as necessary based on credible 

evidence. The Governor' EO 2011-05 has provisions for adding and removing land from the core area; will 

the BLM utilize the same methods as the state? This is a significant component of the LUP that the public 

should be able to comment on. Please provide a revised draft LUP and make it available so the public can 

consider and comment on the methodology for adding and removing area from the sage grouse habitat. The 

LUP/EIS should also establish criteria to determine when the sage-grouse has recovered sufficiently for the 

restrictions established by this LUP to be diminished or lifted entirely. 

Comment ID: 2962 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Page 2-135 discusses how onsite and offsite mitigation will be prioritized. However, the LUP 

needs to contain a concise discussion of when mitigation will be required or may be used by a project 

proponent. For example, if a project will exceed the maximum allowable disturbance, can the proponent 

use offsite mitigations to compensate for the disturbance? 

Comment ID: 2228 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 17, page 2-17): “Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of core habitat 

areas are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as mineral leases or existing rights-of-way. Fluid 

mineral leases often will include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density 

requirements identified for consideration in this plan. Agencies (BLM/Forest Service) will work with 

proponents holding valid existing leases that include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, 

distance, and density restrictions described within this plan to ensure that measurable sage-grouse 

conservation objectives (such as, but not limited to, consolidation of infrastructure to reduce habitat 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-444 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

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

management objectives set by the WGFD) are included in all project proposals.” We believe these 

statements above reflect a major flaw of this EIS. Before this EIS is signed, the BLM can, under Section 6 

of the standard lease terms, make adjustments and even deny access/drilling if such activities pose a threat, 

even in regard to existing leased minerals. Implying nothing can be done beyond negotiating good faith 

with lease holders is a fallacy of this draft EIS. What if lease holders simply do not wish to comply with 

sage-grouse protection or conservation measures? At least half the core areas are leased and if lease holders 

exercised their rights as stated in the Wyoming strategy and the preferred alternative, would the USFWS 

deem this acceptable in regard to their listing decision? Will the BLM make those decisions or rely on the 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Implementation Team to determine actions? We strongly recommend the language 

in this action and other appropriate places in the EIS be revised to reflect that BLM will revisit all existing 

leases and make adjustments under Section 6 of the standard lease terms as needed to protect sage-grouse 

and their habitats (per the purpose and need of this EIS). 

Comment ID: 3052 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-105, action 96, alt E: Is 5% threshold per 640 acres? Define area. 

Comment ID: 2963 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Page 2-138 limits the distance between surface occupancy/disturbance and active leks to 0.6 

miles. Ur-Energy is unaware of any scientific study to support such a hard distance limitation without 

consideration of the degree of disturbance and the BLM provides nothing credible to support this. For 

example, a proponent may need to install a monitor well 0.5 miles from an active lek and sample the well 

once per quarter. The well could be installed during the winter when there are no birds on the lek which 

would result in no harm to the birds. The sampling would take about I hour per quarter using a light pickup. 

Such minor activity is likely to produce less harm to the birds on the lek than a biologist approaching the 

lek three times per breeding season to count birds. Such hard and fast rules don't allow for common sense. 

Ur-Energy requests that the BLM revise the draft LUP to allow the BLM to make exceptions when 

disturbance will be de minimus. The 2011-5 EO provides an example of this language under item 18 of the 

EO as well as in item 12 of Attachment B General Stipulations. The BLM should also describe its authority 

to make exceptions to other stipulations when such exceptions are not likely to diminish sage grouse 

protection. 

Comment ID: 3061 

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council 

Name: Ilana Williams 

Comment: The language in Alternative E should be clarified to identify the actions or steps to be taken if 

disturbance is proposed (due to existing rights) within a core area where disturbance already exceeds the 

maximum percent allowed. Currently, the only language in Alternative E identifying how management 

proceeds in areas exceeding the maximum percent disturbance is under Travel Management, Action 

Number 90: "If that disturbance exceeds 5% for that area, additional, effective mitigation necessary would

be evaluated and implemented to offset the resulting loss of sagegrouse habitat" (9-Plan DEIS, p. 2-100). 

The Alternative B summary offers suitable language, which should be adapted and incorporated into 

Alternative E to clarify management actions. Adaptation of Alternative B language should state: "In areas 

where the disturbance cap has been met by the project proponent, the BLM/Forest Service should consider 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-445

opportunities for reclamation or removal of surface disturbing features that are no longer in use in order to 

reduce the current disturbance before further projects are permitted" (9-Plan DEIS, p. 2-10). We recommend 

that, rather than BLM/Forest Service "consideration" of reclamation or removal of features, these actions 

should be required. This language should be clarified and included in a clear manner and location within 

the 9- Plan Record of Decision. Additionally, the NTT report recommends, "In priority habitats where the 

3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded from any source, no further anthropogenic disturbances will 

be permitted by BLM until enough habitat has been restored to maintain the area under this threshold 

(subject to valid existing rights)" (NTT, p. 8). This language should be adapted into Alternative E to clearly 

identify policy moving forward that will regulate future development situations and create a management 

standard across the management areas outlined in the 9'-Plan DEIS. An appropriate combination of these 

statements would read: "In priority habitats where the 3% disturbance threshold is already exceeded from 

any source, the BLM/Forest Service will require that reclamation or removal of surface disturbing features 

that are no longer in use in order to reduce the current disturbance until enough habitat has been restored to 

maintain the area under this threshold (subject to valid existing rights)." We recommend this clarification 

of policy to clearly state the restrictions on development in areas meeting or exceeding the maximum 

allowed disturbance, and actions required before future development may occur. We request this language 

be added to the 9-Plan Record of Decision. 

Comment ID: 2426 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: New onerous and costly reclamation requirements. Alternative E states that "[r]eclamation of 

surface disturbances in sage-grouse core habitats would be consistent with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) and Appendix C or Forest Service Reclamation policy." Appendix C appears to 

impose new onerous requirements by defining "native shrubs" to constitute "at least 80 percent of predisturbance composition within 8 years." On pg. 4-328 it also discusses reclamation standards to which the 

landscape would be reclaimed to the original habitat components and structure to the extent possible. This 

is inconsistent with some existing mining permits and statements from BLM Field Offices stating that BLM 

approves reclamation seed mix that does not consist of shrub components. BLM has not adequately 

evaluated the economic costs of imposing new reclamation requirements with a higher level of native shrub 

in a faster timeframe. If entities are required to reclaim sagebrush on all BLM surface to the original 

landscape, BPM estimates that this would increase reclamation practices from $195/acre to approximately 

$1,600/acre based on vendor estimates. Alternative E requirements for reclamation bonds is the same as 

Alternative B on pg. 4-278 that states "Requiring full reclamation bonds sufficient to restore lands to predisturbance conditions could provide special species status with complete habitat improvement and 

recovery in areas disturbed by oil, gas and other surface disturbing activities if project abandonment 

occurs." Elsewhere, in a discussion of fluid minerals, BLM states that "[a] reclamation bond would be 

required on all projects that is commensurate with the scope, scale, size of the project within sage-grouse 

core habitat." These reclamation bonding requirements are vague and do not provide sufficient detail for 

entities to evaluate the various alternatives. The incomplete information certainly cannot provide BLM 

sufficient information to evaluate the full economic impacts of new reclamation bonding requirements. 

Finally, it is unclear how and when BLM will require or allow reclamation to reduce disturbance considered 

in the disturbance cap. Certainly industry should get credit for reclamation when evaluating any disturbance 

under a cap. But once again, a no net loss approach with mitigation would be the better approach.

Comment ID: 2415 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-446 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: A primary example of BLM's imposition of new burdensome requirements without adequate 

scientific justification is BLM's imposition of new more onerous conservation measures above and beyond 

existing state-led conservation efforts. BLM fails to adequately account for existing conservation 

requirements applicable to the GRSG in conducting its analysis of the various alternatives. Indeed, the BLM 

glosses over many of the existing conservation measures implemented through Wyoming Executive Order 

2011-05 and existing BLM stipulations implemented through the BLM's own Special Status Species 

Manual 6840 and Instruction Memoranda. In some cases, the BLM's preferred alternative presents unclear 

and inconsistent approaches. This is a clear disregard for BLM's duty to provide a comparison of all 

reasonable alternatives in a manner that allows the public to clearly evaluate new requirements that could 

be imposed on development. 40 CFR § 1502.l4(a). 

Comment ID: 2965 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Page 2-151 prevents surface disturbance and disruptive activities inside connectivity areas with 

4 miles of an occupied lek from March 1 thru June 30th This equates to each lek having over a 50 square 

mile buffer. This is an excessive buffer especially when there is no consideration of the degree of 

disturbance/disruption. Appendix I allows the DDCT to perform an affects analysis out to eleven miles 

beyond a lek. Such a liberal distance equates to an analysis area of 3 80 square miles for a single lek. Since 

the analysis covers such a vast area, the BLM needs to specifically state what the analysis will be used for. 

Comment ID: 3048 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2‐ 1 2‐ 76 Action 65 Alt B Suggest another Alternative be considered that incorporates 

the .6 mile NSO in priority habitat, as provided as guidance in the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 

(WY EO 2011--‐ 05). Disallowing any new development activities within winter concentration areas inside 

priority habitat during anytime of the year would preclude valid existing lease rights. 

Comment ID: 3047 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2‐ 1 2‐ 72 through 2‐ 75 Action 63 Alt E The requirement to consider new COAs on 

previously issued leases where habitat protections are not provided in lease terms will require lots of 

additional work in SUPs; and while prior rights will be evaluated, recognized, and respected (positive 

language) by BLM/FS some required measures could easily be conflicting. It is suggested that at a minimum 

reference to COAs and SUPs be removed. 

Comment ID: 2969 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Pages 2-166-167 Alternative E provides a noise restriction of 10 dBa above ambient levels at 

the 0.6 mile perimeter of a lek. Alternative E is advertised as being similar to the Governor's 2011- 05 

Executive Order (EO), however, this is a significant deviation. The EO states the noise limit is to be 

measured at the perimeter of the lek instead of 0.6 miles away. Also, the EO has time of day and date 

restrictions while the LUP doesn't address such restrictions. The language in the LVP should be consistent 

with the EO in this regard. If BLM feels it must deviate from the EO, it should cite specific scientific 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-447

evidence to support such deviations so the public can review and comment on the appropriateness of the 

proposed restrictions. 

Comment ID: 3044 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-30, action 35, alt E: Appears to indicate that perch deterrents will be required 

to be retrofitted on existing facilities. Further detail is needed to specify what facility types/parameters will 

need retrofitting and what types of perch deterrents may be applied. 

Comment ID: 3040 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-17, action 24: Where does 67% come from? Please include explanation. 

Comment ID: 3039 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-17, action 21: This may require moving locations, even outside core areas. 

Suggest restricting this to core. 

Comment ID: 3037 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2--‐ 1 2‐ ‐ ‐ 17 Action 17 This action identifies inclusion of measures that are more 

stringent than existing lease and ROW stipulations, terms, and/or conditions, and it covers both core and 

non--‐ core habitat areas. Please consider either dropping this item to avoid existing rights and Core Area 

Policy conflicts or modifying such that it becomes a suggested or cooperative measure and/or is specific to 

core areas. On the list line replace the word “included” with “considered.” 

Comment ID: 3035 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-15, action 10: After the word "noise" please insert "unless precluded by 

existing authorizations." 

Comment ID: 2445 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-36 Action 46- Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) reference to "same as Alternative A" 

does not make sense as the Forest Service is not mentioned in Alternative A (No Action Alternative) text. 

Comment ID: 2144 

Organization: Permittee Cumberland/Uinta Allotment 

Name: Wallace Schulthess 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-448 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: There are portions of Alternative A, (the no action alternative) in recent Resource Management 

Plans (RMP’s) which have been completed. These plans include general collaborative and adaptive 

management directives for WYGRSG and therefore need no amending. 

Comment ID: 3030 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-15, action 6: Season restrictions for what or who? Please provide an 

explanation within the document. 

Comment ID: 2964 

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc. 

Name: John Cash 

Comment: Page 2-145 Alterative E prevents surface disturbance and disruptive activities from March 1 

thru June 30th of each year. Would this restriction prevent the operation of a locatable mineral mine during 

this time frame? Such a restriction would force operators to shut down for 25% of the year thus placing a 

substantial economic strain on the company. It does not appear this real financial harm is even considered 

in the socio-economics portion of the LUP as required by NEPA regulations. This fact alone makes the 

socio-economic analysis flawed and inadequate and renders any decision based upon it arbitrary, 

uninformed and likely unlawful. Page 2-156 is similar but requires a 2 mile buffer around occupied leks 

outside the core area during the breeding/brooding season. The size of the buffer should be commensurate 

with the significance of the disturbance. As internal Interior documents made public under FOIA make 

clear, BLM's peer reviewers and other Department officials agree that the NTT's one size fits all approach 

is not reasonable, highly controversial, and unsupported by any data or studies, and BLM biologists should 

have the ability to exercise some professional judgment. 

Comment ID: 3066 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Recommendations:--The approach to limiting surface disturbance outlined in the preferred 

alternative does not adequately address a distance effect of infrastructure. Current research supports an 

NSO buffer distance of 2 to 4 km for lower activity sites (e.g., producing well pads) and 6 to 6.4 km for 

higher activity sites (e.g., drilling rigs) around leks, an NSO buffer distance of 2 km around winter range, 

and an NSO buffer of 1 km around nesting habitats. These NSOs should not be clipped to the boundary of 

any habitat designation (i.e., core, general habitat or non-habitat) the buffers encompass. Additionally, if 

the goal of the NSO is to minimize negative impacts of energy development on sage-grouse populations 

(rather than for example maintaining lekking habitat integrity), current research supports these larger NSO 

buffers. A 0.6-mile NSO might help protect the habitats used by male sage-grouse during the breeding 

season, but will not prevent the indirect effects of energy development. 

Comment ID: 3078 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Page 2-166, action 136, alt E: Add clarification that Governor’s Sage Grouse Task group is 

working to identify ambient noise levels for Core areas. What is the basis of taking noise levels at the 0.6 

mile perimeter of the lek? 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-449

Comment ID: 2251 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: (Action 44, Page 2-34): “The BLM policy in WO-IM-2009-007 and BLM Handbook H-4180-1 

and a National Forest’s LRMP or allotment specific NEPA decision for the Forest Service would be used 

to evaluate land health standards achievement in sage-grouse core habitats and...” We assume that the land 

health standards referenced here were not developed with the needs of sage grouse in mind, and we are not 

convinced they will meet vegetative conditions for sage grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat in 

particular. We recommend that BLM explicitly state clear and measurable range management goals, 

objectives, and management actions directly related to sagegrouse and their habitat requirements for 

vegetation height and density in the final draft EIS (see Connelly et al. 2011). We recommend that 

management actions and terms and conditions of grazing permits conform to guidance and 

recommendations provided in the scientific literature, and following or modified from Cagney et al. (2010) 

for meeting nesting and brood-rearing vegetative characteristics for sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2011). 

Comment ID: 2250 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: In regard to grazing, we are supportive of livestock management on public lands but we are 

concerned that the grazing practices described in this draft EIS and the preferred alternative fall short of 

meeting vegetative requirements for sage-grouse, particularly nesting and brood-rearing. The preferred 

alternative appears to be “business as usual” (i.e., refers back to the no action alternative), and we do not 

believe this meets the purpose and need of the EIS to protect sage-grouse. Furthermore, each RMP has 

different actions and standards for livestock grazing permit monitoring. This makes no sense and these 

inconsistencies are not acceptable – some require monitoring according to the Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands, others state “Grazing leases would be adjusted when an evaluation of monitoring, 

field observations, or other data indicate changes,...” None explicitly state that standards to meet sagegrouse nesting and brood-rearing habitat WILL be met, only to “reference” Cagney et al. 2010 for guidance. 

We recommend explicit statements of expectations and measures and consistency across all RMPs to be 

revised under this EIS. We also believe that nearly all grazing allotments within sage-grouse habitat need 

to incorporate adequate rest or lower livestock stocking rates that enable the native sagebrush community 

to maintain its health and vigor and to provide adequate cover for sage-grouse (see Cagney et al. 2010 and 

Connelly et al. 2011). 

Comment ID: 3065 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-138, action 129, alt E: Requires no occupancy or disturbance within 0.6 mile 

of lek perimeters in core or connectivity (core area policy). Suggest including language “unless otherwise 

precluded due to existing rights and/or project‐ level authorizations.” 

Comment ID: 3069 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-1, pages 2-146, 2-152, 2-156, actions 131, 132 and 133 in alt E: Since times may be 

expanded, it is suggested that time could also be contracted. Please revise to read: “Where credible data 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-450 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates could be expanded or contracted by up to 

14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates.” 

Comment ID: 2216 

Organization: Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association 

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne 

Comment: While it is appropriate that this DEIS deal solely with sage-grouse, it is important to note that a 

variety of sagebrush obligates and other species of concern inhabit the same landscape. In the Wildlife and 

Fisheries section of the executive summary (page x), a passing reference is made to comments received 

concerning potential conflicts between prairie dogs and greater sage-grouse management. However, 

Appendix M provides very little information on this situation. Since a portion of prairie dog MA 3.63 

overlaps the Thunder Basin sage-grouse core area, it is unclear how competing management prescriptions 

will be blended in order to provide adequate habitat for both species. Managing for sage-grouse in 

conjunction with prairie dog and other shortgrass species is certainly complex. The Association 

acknowledges the necessity of conserving both ecotypes, sagebrush and shortgrass prairie, and managing 

for both ecotypes, in order to achieve the conservation of the suites of species associated with each habitat 

type. However, the Association suggests that the final alternative includes guidance for multi-species 

management including preserving, where possible, the habitat that takes the longest to establish or restore-

-in this case, sagebrush. 

Comment ID: 2247 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Also, in Table 2-5 and other areas discussing wind energy: We found it interesting that 

restrictions on wind energy were extensive and yet restrictions on oil and gas and other sources of energy 

development rather lenient (e.g., acres closed to development). We have no issue with excluding wind 

energy development in priority habitat, but the discrepancy between traditional and renewable energy 

development is glaring and we believe, per comments above, that other sources of energy development 

must have greater restrictions to reduce threats to sage-grouse and thus meet the purpose and need of this 

EIS. 

Comment ID: 3072 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: table 2-1, page 2-157, action 133, alt E: Areas outside core should not have extended stipulation 

seasons if there is no warranted need for such action. 

Comment ID: 2923 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Management Objectives Common to All Action. Alternatives (p. 2-12) The list includes the 

following two items: 6. Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance or restore sage-grouse priority 

habitat based on Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) (Forest Service may use other methods) and BLM land 

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

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

effective grazing system that meets sage-grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze at least 

one alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances sage-grouse habitat in the NEPA document prepared 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-451

for grazing management (Doherty et al. 20l1b, Williams et al. 2011). 10. Incorporate management practices 

that will provide for maintenance and/or enhancement of sage-grouse habitats, including specific attention 

to maintenance of desired understories of sagebrush plant communities. When developing objectives for 

residual cover and species diversity, identify the ecological site types within the planning area and refer to 

the appropriate ESDs (Forest Service may use other methods). Ecological Site Descriptions are not 

approved and/or published by the NRCS for all areas of the planning area; therefore, neither one of these 

"management objectives" are entirely achievable. Regarding the full list of "management objectives," each 

of these objectives is somehow related to reclamation planning, however, reclamation planning is not 

recognized as a major management objective. Reclamation planning and the restoration of the landscape 

and vegetation back to its original form can drive sage-grouse habitat conservation and should be 

recognized as a major planning objective and regulatory mechanism. 

Comment ID: 3075 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Page 2-163, action 134, alt E: Requires seasonal protection of winter concentration areas both 

inside and outside core areas (outside core if core--nesting birds winter in the outside concentration area. It 

is unclear whether it is lek attending or core area nesting birds that drives the requirement for areas outside 

core; this needs clarification. Additionally how will this be determined? (Only through technically and 

economically impracticable collared bird studies). 

Summary: Very specific wording changes and edits of management alternatives for accuracy or preference 

of commenter. More general comments and questions about language; asking for clarification in meaning; 

general preferences/opinions in management; requests for management consistency with the Wyoming EO, 

COT report, or NTT; suggestions for corrections to create consistency between management actions in 

Chapter 2 and Appendix E or Appendix K. 

Response: General response - The 67% was used by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to develop 

the Wyoming state core area strategy. Comment 305 - Timing limitations/restrictions will be placed on all 

permitted activities. This provides adequate protections to sage-grouse and their habitats. Comments 1628 

-1629 - BLM and the Forest Service considered range of timing restrictions on sagegrouse winter 

concentration areas. With these restrictions, as well as the restrictions on development in core habitat, 

adequate protections are given to important sage-grouse habitat. Comment 1841 - Protections provided in 

this document are consistent with the Governor's Executive Order and Core Strategy. These protections are 

adequate to protect sage-grouse and their habitat. Comment 1991 - Most proper grazing activities are 

considered de minimis , and would not be subject to timing restrictions. However, some specific activities 

may be considered disruptive. This would be determined at the implementation or project specific level, 

and would be identified during the permit renewal process. See the additional guidance provided regarding 

incorporation of Greater Sage-Grouse decisions into grazing authorizations. Comment 3195 - This would 

have to be determined/identified on a project/implementation level basis. Comment 2965 - The 4 mile 

buffer in connectivity habitat takes into account that connectivity areas need added levels of protection over 

general habitat, but do not rise to the level of core habitat protections. Comment 1021 - Revisions have 

been made, updating BLM WY2010-12 to WY2012-019. Comment 1042 - Comment is in reference to 

Alternative A. Alternative A is existing management, no changes will be made to the wording in Alternative 

A. Comment 1049 - BLM and the Forest Service coordinate with other federal, state and local agencies as 

part of the NEPA process. No change needed. Comment 1050 - Comment is in reference to Alternative A. 

Alternative A is existing management, no changes will be made to the wording in Alternative A. Comment 

1051 - Pursuing conservation easements should remain a viable avenue to pursue if necessary. No change 

to the document needed. Comment 1562 - BLM and the Forest Service manage habitat for sage-grouse, 

WGFD manages the bird. Current language is appropriate, no change needed. Comments 1637 – 1642, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-452 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

1651 – 1660, 1662, 1665, 1667, 1668, 1672, 1674-1676, 1678, 1683-1685, 1687, 1705, 1709, 1710, 1712, 

1713 -Management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections for sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat. No change needed. Comments 1717, 1866 - Although the Wyoming Governor's 

Executive Order does provide protections to sage-grouse, There are portions of the plan that may not meet 

each agency's legal or policy-related obligations, which is why there are occasional deviations from that 

strategy. Comment 2022 - Management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections 

for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. No change needed. Comment 2025 - Exceptions are granted on 

stipulations to a permitted activity, any activities in core are permitted after DDCT has been calculated, so 

there is no need to go through the DDCT process again for the granting of an exception. Comments 2027, 

1643 - Management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections for sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat. No change needed. Comment 1943 - The LUP Amendments/EIS contains only 

planning actions and does not include any implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and 

specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As 

specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent 

NEPA analyses that include sitespecific project and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns 

and more detailed environmental descriptions would be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to 

the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public 

will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. Comment 

1944- Management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections for sage-grouse and 

sage-grouse habitat. No change needed. Comment 1985 - The LUP Amendments/EIS contains only 

planning actions and does not include any implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and 

specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As 

specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent 

NEPA analyses that include sitespecific project and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns 

and more detailed environmental descriptions would be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to 

the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public 

will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. Comment 

1988 - The wording in action 53 says that modifications to improvements will be “evaluated and modified 

when necessary.” Modifications would be only “mandatory” when it is determined to be necessary to 

protect sage-grouse and/or sage-grouse habitat. Comments 346, 347, 383 - Travel Management route 

designations are done as implementation level actions. No change identified. Comment 1945 - The language 

in Alternative A for this action is specific to Alternative A, and is not carried over into Alternative E. 

Comment 2144 - Non-substantive - no indication of what portions of document are being talked about. 

Comment 422 - Alternative B is based on the NTT report, and is part of the range of alternatives for this 

document. Comment 1425 - Alternatives B and C are based on the NTT and Citizens proposal, respectively, 

and are part of the range of alternatives necessary for this document. Comment 1987 - The BLM complied 

with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for 

the Draft LUP Amendments/ Draft EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable 

alternatives. The alternatives include management options for the planning area that would modify or 

amend decisions made in the BLM field office RMPs, as amended, to meet the planning criteria, to address 

issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to provide a reasonable range of 

alternatives. Since this is a plan amendment to address Greater Sage-Grouse conservation, many decisions 

from the BLM field office RMPs are acceptable and reasonable. In these instances, there was no need to 

develop alternative management prescriptions. Based on this alternative development process, the BLM 

considered input from cooperating agencies and associated land use plans, environmental organizations, 

and the public. The resulting action alternatives offer a range of possible management approaches for 

responding to planning issues and concerns identified through public scoping, and to maintain or increase 

Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and distribution in the planning area. Comment 3123 - The sentence goes 

on to explain how the smaller buffer is insufficient. Comments 2926, 3048, 2806 - The BLM complied with 

NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-453

The alternatives include management options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions 

made in the field office RMPs, as amended, to meet the planning criteria, to address issues and comments 

from cooperating agencies and the public, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives. Since this is a 

plan amendment to address Greater Sage-Grouse conservation, many decisions from the BLM field office 

RMPs are acceptable and reasonable. In these instances, there was no need to develop alternative 

management prescriptions. Based on this alternative development process, the BLM considered input from 

cooperating agencies and associated land use plans, environmental organizations, and the public. The 

resulting action alternatives offer a range of possible management approaches for responding to planning 

issues and concerns identified through public scoping, and to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse 

abundance and distribution in the planning area. Comment 1289, 1302, 1856-1858, 2415 - The Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provides an adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the 

cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provide a discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the 

proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be 

implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that 

would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

provided sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the Preferred 

Alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could 

have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than 

quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, 

A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning). 

The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS contain only planning actions and do not include any 

implementation actions. Effects on Greater Sage-Grouse population levels are not required to be quantified 

as part of the impact analysis. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only 

if the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect the area 

come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that 

include site-specific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will tier to the 

plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis when more specific information is known. In 

addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process 

for implementation actions. Comment 1541, 1870, 1887, 2073, 2324, 2746 -Although the Wyoming 

Governor's Executive Order does provide protections to sage-grouse, there are portions of the plan that may 

not meet each agency's legal or policy-related obligations, which is why there are occasional deviations 

from that strategy. Comment 2325, 2418 - Alternative A is existing management; some field offices 

currently have differing noise management. The Preferred Alternative will set a management action that 

will be common to all field offices, which will eliminate any "inconsistencies" identified in the comment. 

Comment 433 - See "Restriction/Restricted Use" and "Stipulation" in the Glossary. Comment 676 - See 

“Ecological Site” in the Glossary. Comment 1865 - The way this section is worded would not lead to placing 

core restrictions in noncore areas; it is simply saying that they will work with proponents to place projects 

in the least sensitive area while still meeting the project's purpose and need. Comment 2036 - The language 

is appropriate as written, and would allow for meeting annually or more frequently if necessary. Comment 

2037 - The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS contain only planning actions and does not include any 

implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the 

scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come 

under consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project 

and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions 

would be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 

CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate 

in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. Comment 2038 - Local working groups include members 

of federal, state and local agencies, as well as other stakeholders, that would be included in coordination 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-454 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

efforts. Comment 2039 - The USFWS has reviewed this document, and agrees with the action in question. 

Comment 2923 - Reclamation is a major component of this process, and a reclamation plan is part of the 

document. Comment 1018- The BLM complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 

CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, including seeking 

public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. The alternatives include management options for the 

planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the BLM field office RMPs, as amended, to 

meet the planning criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to 

provide a reasonable range of alternatives. Since this is a plan amendment to address Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation, many decisions from the BLM field office RMPs are acceptable and reasonable. In these 

instances, there was no need to develop alternative management prescriptions. Based on this alternative 

development process, the BLM considered input from cooperating agencies and associated land use plans, 

environmental organizations, and the public. The resulting action alternatives offer a range of possible 

management approaches for responding to planning issues and concerns identified through public scoping, 

and to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and distribution in the planning area. Comment 

1454 -The management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections for sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse habitat. This includes the 5 % disturbance caps in the Governor's Executive Order. 

Comment 3047 –The language is appropriate as written. Comment 2748 -The management actions in the 

Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Comment 2749 

-The document adequately identifies and discusses the other species that occupy similar habitats to the sagegrouse. Comment 2216 -The management actions in the Preferred Alternative provide adequate protections 

for sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. Comment 2177 - The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provide 

an adequate discussion of the environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the 

presented alternatives. As required by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provide a 

discussion of the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship 

between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the 

proposal should it be implemented. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provided sufficiently detailed 

information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned 

choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an understanding of the 

environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use 

plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on site-specific 

actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning). The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS 

contain only planning actions and do not include any implementation actions. Effects on Greater SageGrouse population levels are not required to be quantified as part of the impact analysis. A more quantified 

or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision included implementation 

actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest 

Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level 

actions. The site-specific analyses will tier to the plan-level analysis and expand the environmental analysis 

when more specific information is known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the 

opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for implementation actions. Comment 3030 -How seasonal 

restrictions are applied, and who they are applied to, is described adequately in the document. Comment 

2531 - Changes have been made to address this comment. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Comments on Chapter 2 (not management alternatives)

Comment ID: 1346 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-455

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Moving to the table of comparison of alternatives, we see that the proposed action is to "utilize 

the Wyoming's sage grouse implementation team and local working group plans or other state or 

cooperatively developed plans, analyses or other sources of information to guide development of 

conservation objectives" but the document completely fails to provide any information as to what these 

plans are, what they actually require and if they implement current science or how effective they are at 

recovering the species. Actions 7 only requires that "measurable, conservation and mitigation objectives" 

are included in "planning" but not the final decision. 

Comment ID: 1861 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: We question why the preferred alternative incorporates guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012. 

That IM was replaced by BLM IM WY-2012-019, the Wyoming BLM’s current sage-grouse management 

policy, dated February 10, 2012 which specifically states, “This IM replaces IM No. WY-2010-012”. 

Comment ID: 1345 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: In section 6, we see that "if an effective grazing system that meets sage grouse habitat 

requirements is not already in place, analyze at least one alternative that conserves, restores or enhances 

sage grouse habitat in the NEPA document prepared for grazing management" but no information is 

provided whatsoever regarding exactly what sage grouse habitat requirements are and what grazing systems 

meet these requirements. In addition it requires no action whatsoever other than more analysis. This is not 

an adequate regulatory mechanism. 

Comment ID: 1940 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2.8, Mitigation – We request that the Final document specifically include language stating 

that livestock permittees MUST be included in any efforts to mitigate resource issues that affect their family 

ranches. 

Comment ID: 1343

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The overarching goals and objectives of the proposed action provided on page 2-11 is merely to 

"maintain" sage grouse abundance and distribution not provide for recovery. 

Comment ID: 1938 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2-5, 2.3.1 Monitoring – The WSGB has reviewed a number of BLM LUP’s in Wyoming 

and we do not recall observing “ intervals and standards ” for monitoring in any of these LUP’s. Please 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-456 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

provide in your response to this comment, the specific pages that show the “intervals and standards” for 

monitoring for rangeland related multiple uses such as wildlife, “wild” horses, and livestock in the Rawlins, 

Rock Springs, Kemmerer, and Pinedale BLM Land Use Plans. In addition, please provide the location in 

this Draft document that lists the “intervals and standards” for monitoring of sage grouse parameters to be 

monitored in these BLM Field offices. At the bottom of this paragraph, the narrative conveys that, “ One 

of the PECE criteria evaluates whether provisions for monitoring and reporting progress on implementation 

( based on compliance with the implementation schedule ) and effectiveness is based on evaluation of 

quantifiable parameters of the conservation efforts are provided.” Our comments on this sentence are, we 

don’t think this sentence is structured as a complete sentence, and where in this Draft is this information 

“provided” as stated in this “sentence” ? We can’t find it. 

Comment ID: 2076 

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson 

Comment: We found the language throughout the document to be confusing, and its presentation 

fragmented. It is difficult to determine if it inadequately reflects or incorporates current and existing 

management practices. Part of this may be due to the fact that many of the document’s components are used 

in proposals for other states and not just for the state of Wyoming. The lack of clear definitions or 

descriptions of several important terms is an example. It is stated in Chapter Two that the terms “core 

habitat” and ‘priority habitat’ are considered to have the same meaning and are interchangeable throughout 

the document. There is no other definition included for these terms. We argue that they do not have the 

same meaning and therefore need to be defined. Furthermore, the term “core area” is not defined, though 

the various ways in which states currently use the term is included. We recommend that the established and

well accepted definitions that have been used by Wyoming in its Sage Grouse Management plan (as defined 

in the EOs) be incorporated into BLM and USFS plan for Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 1862 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance 

Name: Esther Wagner 

Comment: It is unclear how the information provided in Table 2-1 compares to information provided in 

Table 2- 5. There are inconsistencies in the stipulations presented in each table. As such it is difficult to 

understand the stipulations that apply to oil and gas-related activities in preferred Alternative E. This 

inconsistency within Chapter 2 confounds the interpretations of the RDFs and oil and gas stipulations 

presented in Appendices B and E, respectively. Moreover, it makes it difficult to cross-reference the 

proposed stipulations with the requirements set forth in the EO, which have been adopted and endorsed by 

USFWS and the Wyoming BLM. BLM needs to cross-compare information presented in Table 2-1 with 

information presented in Table 2-5 to ensure there is uniformity in the proposed management actions 

presented in Chapter 2. Once a set of proposed management actions are presented in Chapter 2, we urge 

BLM/FS to compare those with the EO and explain the scientific basis for any proposed management 

actions in the preferred Alternative that are different from those contained in the EO. We also suggest that 

BLM eliminate any measures that conflict with the EO to maintain consistency. In addition, neither 

provision is consistent with the EO with regard to the TLS timeframes (starting March 1 versus March 14). 

BLM has not provided any scientific basis to justify seasonal restrictions that vary from the EO. As such, 

we request BLM resolve this discrepancy and rely solely on the guidance set forth in the EO. 

Comment ID: 1303 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-457

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS requires only that agencies consider GRSG habitat objectives in core areas. 

This is vague, arbitrary, and ill-conceived. core habitats are important for the species’ recovery and 

expansion and the agencies should be making a commitment to all habitats for the species. 

Comment ID: 1020 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-10 Text: In the Western Watersheds Project v. U.S. Department of Interior, the Court 

remanded the Pinedale RMP decision to the BLM, without vacating the RMP, to allow the BLM to remedy 

the FLPMA and NEPA defects identified by the Court with respect to the Pinedale RMP and EIS. These 

remedies can be found in Alternative B. Comment: The importance of this decision is not merely the 

remedies prescribed, but the level of analysis BLM must meet in each alternative. This statement should be 

amended to state that each alternative include equal and rigorous analysis, not just Alternative B. We 

incorporate our discussion from our cover letter by reference here. 

Comment ID: 496 

Organization: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Name: Philip Strobel 

Comment: All of the action alternatives in the LUPA/EIS increase protections or improve GRSG habitat; 

however, it is not clear from the document if all of the action alternatives are likely to be successful in 

stabilizing or increasing GRSG populations. We recommend that the final LUPA/EIS add a section to 

compare the anticipated outcomes of each alternative in protecting GRSG populations in the long term. We 

understand that it would not be possible to make definitive predictions regarding long term population 

trends of GRSG in Wyoming. However, a qualitative comparison would add an important component to 

the decision-making process and improve the public's ability to understand the expected outcomes of the 

alternatives. 

Comment ID: 993 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: The Draft LUP Amendment uses outdated and incomplete references. The Draft LUP 

Amendment indicates that Alternative E "incorporates guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the 

Wyoming Governor's Executive Order (WY EO-2011-0S) and additional management based on the NTT 

recommendations." (p. 2-11). BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) WY -20 I 0-012 was replaced by BLM 

IM WY-2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Policy on Wyoming Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Administered Public Lands Including the Federal Mineral Estate. 

Comment ID: 3068 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: The DEIS establishes a population objective of at least 67% of the 2005-09 sage-grouse core 

area population in the state of Wyoming. DEIS at 2-17. The DEIS appears to have adopted this key metric 

from the State of Wyoming’s wildlife population objectives, and does not appear to have independently 

considered the adequacy of the goal. Also lacking is a hard look at whether circumstances might arise where 

the overall population goal could be achieved at the same time adverse trends threaten overall conservation 

objectives (such as localized extirpation of key populations, or impacts to key habitat that isolates 

populations or otherwise threatens health and persistence). 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-458 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2922 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Alternative E (p. 2-11) The document says, "Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 

5% per 640 acres is considered within sage-grouse core habitat. Alternative E uses the terms "Greater SageGrouse core habitat" or "core areas" as well as "priority habitat" if the management action is the same as 

Alternatives B or C." BLM must clarify in the text and descriptions the differences between occupied sagegrouse habitat, greater sage-grouse core habitat, core areas, and priority habitat. The terms are poorly 

defined in the text as well as the glossary. Also, a justification based upon best available scientific data and 

information for the disturbance cap - whether it be 3%, 5% or 9% - should be stated. 

Comment ID: 2921 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Alternatives B and C (p. 2-10) Alternative B and C discuss "occupied Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat." We are unable to find a definition of "occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat" and how this may 

differ from priority habitat and Wyoming EO 2011-5 "core population areas." Also, it appears that this 

section uses the terms occupied habitat and priority habitat interchangeably, which, scientifically, they are 

not. The BLM should define "occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat" and care should be taken to use terms 

appropriately and according to their proper meanings throughout the document. 

Comment ID: 2924 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Management Goals and Objectives (P. 2-11 and 2-14) This section needs to discern the 

difference between all habitat types or be consistent on which habitat definition to use throughout the 

alternatives and the document, preferably Wyoming EO 2011-5 "core population areas." 

Comment ID: 3086 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2-2, page 2-168: Re-evaluation of the new and large protected areas is needed: prohibited 

from surface disturbance (from 68,000 to 304,970 ac); NSO (from 40,980 to 689,300 ac); CSU (from about 

million to > 6 million ac); and ROW avoidance areas (from about 2.5 million to about 6 million acres). This 

seems excessive and if goes beyond core area policy, is unnecessary. 

Comment ID: 2460 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Page2-187 Table 2-5 Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Associated Management Actions -

Climate Change - The section although short only entertains "drought" as the effect of cl imate change, 

whereas there appear to be several sources of scientific literature that indicates other impacts or benefits 

resulting from climate change depending on what is causing the climate to change. Maybe the section 

should not just focus on "drought". 

Comment ID: 2919 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-459

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Mitigation (P. 2-9) The documents says, "A structure for determining appropriate mitigation, 

including impact (debit) and benefit (credit) calculation methods, mitigation ratios, mitigation "currency" 

(i.e., numbers of birds, acres, etc.), location, and performance standards options by considering local and 

regional, mitigation options." However, the Draft LUPAIEIS is limited in scope to sage-grouse habitat and 

its use as mitigation "currency," therefore this statement must be edited to limit the discussion to acres and 

not include "numbers of birds." See previous comments on purpose and need and decision to be made. 

Comment ID: 2458 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Page 2-182 Table 2-5 Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Associated Management Actions -

Agriculture/Urbanization: Areas closed to livestock grazing - we disagree with using the terminology 

"prohibited" or "closed" without an explanation of prior existing rights and allotment management plans. 

Comment ID: 2212 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Table K-3: Forest Service Translation of Management Actions into Standards. Guidelines. 

Objectives. And Required Design Features for Alternative E. Management Alternative# 36: "The 

BLM/Forest Service would retain public ownership of sage-grouse core habitat. Exceptions would be 

considered where there is mixed ownership and land exchanges would allow for additional or more 

contiguous federal ownership patterns within sage-grouse core habitat areas. For sage-grouse core habitat 

areas with minority federal ownership, an additional, effective mitigation agreement would be included for 

any disposal of federal land. As a final preservation measure, consideration should be given to pursuing 

permanent conservation easement. " USFS language states "Retain public ownership of core Greater SageGrouse habitat. Only allow Federal land sale or exchange when there is mixed ownership and land 

exchanges would allow for additional or more contiguous Federal ownership patterns within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat area. In these cases, require a mitigation agreement and a permanent conservation 

easement on the federal parcel that is sold or exchanged. Utilize sagegrouse habitat requirements to 

prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition. " Management of BLM and USFS sage-grouse core areas 

should be similar between the two agencies and should generally follow the spirit of the WYEO. Both 

Agencies suggest that an effective mitigation agreement be in place prior to disposal of federal lands. USFS 

management actions however require the implementation of a conservation easement in addition to the 

mitigation agreement. BLM allows the conservation easement to be optional. BLM's approach of evaluating 

the use of a conservation easement is a much more sensible approach as habitat conditions will vary between 

various land parcels and a conservation easement may not be suitable in many cases. Consistent 

management objectives will provide for more efficient implementation of the strategies. TBCC also 

recommends that the USFS language be clarified so that it clearly reflects that the mitigation agreements 

and conservation easements are only to be applied to core sage grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 2457 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District 

Name: Timothy J. Morrison 

Comment: Pages 2-180 thru 183: Table 2-5 Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Associated Management 

Actions - Agriculture/Urbanization - Areas prioritized for vegetation treatments Is Alternative A TBNG 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-460 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

LRMP carried over to Alternative E or just to Alternative D? Also Alternative Band C Statement "Across 

ALL Action alternatives" (emphasis added) what does it mean? 

Comment ID: 2167 

Organization: The Nature Conservancy 

Name: Graham McGaffin 

Comment: The Conservancy recommends BLM and USFS seek to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, 

impacts to high value ecological resources, fragmentation of intact habitats, and conflicts with other uses, 

designations and legal mandates, while facilitating permitted and allowable land uses including energy and 

mineral development and grazing. Where impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat are unavoidable, the 

Conservancy strongly recommends that BLM and USFS implement compensatory mitigation programs 

and, as a result, supports the inclusion of the Mitigation language in the DEIS that applies to Alternatives 

B-E (Section 2.3.3). The Conservancy believes compensatory mitigation programs are a critical part of 

successful sage-grouse conservation planning and support BLM and USFS implementing the elements of 

a compensatory mitigation program outlined in BLM’s interim Regional Mitigation Manual Section (MS) 

1794. Additionally, the Conservancy supports use of disturbance caps in core areas, consistent with the 

Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-5, supplemented by EO 2013-3). We also note that 

implementation of compensatory mitigation programs could allow, and serve as an incentive for, resource 

developers to restore or reclaim habitat in areas that are presently over a disturbance cap so that such areas 

come under the cap and might therefore be developable at some future time. Of greatest importance in a 

regional mitigation strategy: - Confirmation that BLM and USFS have the authority to require meaningful 

compensatory mitigation as a condition for a land use authorization or permit; - Emphasis that regional 

mitigation planning and implementation should be a routine and standard aspect of BLM and USFS 

planning and permitting processes; - Recognition that a regional or landscape-scale mitigation approach 

will help BLM and USFS maximize the management of conservation values while providing transparency 

and surety to both developers and other users of our public lands; - Emphasis that BLM and USFS can 

condition project approval on incorporating required mitigation measures; - Authority to deny applications 

if appropriate mitigation is not achievable through avoidance, minimization or reasonable compensation; -

Encouragement of pre-application meetings between the developer and BLM or USFS; - Authority to allow 

compensatory mitigation strategies to be implemented post project approval but pre-construction; -

Requirement of adequate bonding to ensure compensatory mitigation compliance; and - Calls for 

compensatory mitigation to be durable over the life of the impact. A key concern the Conservancy has with 

MS 1794 is the heavy focus on compensatory mitigation (offsets), without emphasizing the importance of 

avoidance and minimization before compensatory mitigation. Avoidance is the most effective mitigation 

strategy, and it is critical that the policy guidance state that compensatory mitigation measures must be 

considered in conjunction with upfront avoidance strategies. The Conservancy recommends BLM’s and 

USFS’s adoption of the mitigation hierarchy, and therefore prioritization of avoidance, minimization and 

onsite mitigation in advance of offset mitigation, as identified above. Additionally, the Conservancy 

recommends BLM and USFS incorporate guidance in the Final EIS that mandates research on sage-grouse 

population viability, at the project level, to fully understand the type and extent of onsite mitigation needed. 

Comment ID: 2535 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: APLIC is concerned that the mitigation strategy in the Draft EIS is inadequate. The Draft EIS 

should provide examples of mitigation project types; criteria for determining appropriate mitigation sites 

and priorities; expected benefits of each mitigation type; expected target mitigation ratios for various 

projects types; methods to quantify mitigation; and monitoring and success criteria. While most project 

proponents and agency staff can agree on the definition of direct impacts and how to quantify them, there 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-461

is little information on indirect or unknown effects. Agencies commonly mention increased human use, 

increased predation, fear of tall structures, noise, and other factors as indirect effects, but there is very little 

in the literature to support these suppositions. The Draft EIS should identify and discuss indirect effects and 

provide a proposed method to quantify these or directly acknowledge the lack of information related to this 

potential effect. The BLM should consider including a more detailed mitigation strategy in the Final EIS. 

Comment ID: 2925 

Organization: TransWest Express LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: Management Objectives for Alternatives D and E (p. 2-14) This page says, "2. Protect 

core/priority, general, and connectivity habitats from anthropogenic disturbance that will reduce 

distribution or abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse." This is an overly broad-sweeping management 

objective and is inconsistent with BLM's purpose and need. The BLM's purpose and need is not to "protect" 

sage-grouse habitats, but to identify and incorporate appropriate sage-grouse conservation measures in its 

LUPs in the context of BLM' s multiple-use mandate under FLPMA. (see p.I-3) In addition, BLM and the 

Forest Service only have management authority over federal lands and minerals; therefore, protecting 

core/priority, general and connectivity habitats on non-federal lands (as implied by this management 

objective) is outside the agencies' jurisdiction and an interference with private property rights. The BLM 

must rewrite this management objective consistent with its purpose and need and management authority. 

Comment ID: 2201 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Chapter 2, Alternatives, 2.3.1 Monitoring "To monitor habitats, the BLM and Forest Service 

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

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

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

sagebrush in the landscape and changes in the anthropogenic footprint including the change in the density 

of energy development." BLM and USFS should rely on the already existing WGFD database and local 

sources that are very comprehensive of these attributes. BLM and USFS could potentially assign 

inappropriate mitigation or adaptive management in areas that have not been adequately assessed. 

Summary: Very specific wording changes for the management goals and objectives; summaries of 

alternatives, Tables 2-2 and 2-5; and Section 2.3.1 Monitoring. More general comments and questions about 

language: comments about the use of core habitat and priority habitat, and confusion of other terms, 

definitions, and timeframes; making sure that alternatives match the management in Appendix K; 

comments on the Chapter 2 mitigation and adaptive management language; ensuring that the correct version 

of the BLM IM is listed; how management should be written to meet the purpose and need; and suggestions 

to improve readability, understanding, and organization of the chapter. 

Response: Comment 496 - The Proposed LUP Amendments provide an adequate discussion of the 

environmental consequences, including the cumulative impacts, of the presented alternatives. As required 

by 40 CFR 1502.16, the Proposed LUP Amendments provide a discussion of the environmental impacts of 

the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided 

should the alternatives be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. The Proposed 

LUP Amendments provide sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed with 

the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-462 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

public could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather 

than quantitative or focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, 

Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management 

Planning). The Proposed LUP Amendments contain only planning actions and does not include any 

implementation actions. Effects on sage-grouse population levels are not required to be quantified as part 

of the impact analysis. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the 

scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come 

under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include 

site-specific project and implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will tier to the plan-level 

analysis and expand the environmental analysis when more specific information is known. In addition, as 

required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for 

implementation actions. Comment 1939 - See Appendix D for information regarding rangeland monitoring 

intervals and standards. Comment 1940 - Management action 2 states: "Field Offices and Ranger Districts 

will work with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts and/or 

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

off-site compensatory mitigation where appropriate." Comment 2076 - See updated definitions of core and 

priority in the glossary. Comment 2167 - The BLM complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Proposed LUP Amendments, 

including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. The alternatives include management 

options for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the BLM field office RMPs, 

as amended, to meet the planning criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating agencies and 

the public, or to provide a reasonable range of alternatives. Since this is a plan amendment to address 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation, many decisions from the BLM field office RMPs are acceptable and 

reasonable. In these instances, there was no need to develop alternative management prescriptions. Based 

on this alternative development process, the BLM considered input from cooperating agencies and 

associated land use plans, environmental organizations, and the public. The resulting action alternatives 

offer a range of possible management approaches for responding to planning issues and concerns identified 

through public scoping, and to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse abundance and distribution in the 

planning area. Comment 2201 - BLM and the Forest Service will use any relevant and appropriate data. 

Comment 2212 - Although the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order does provide protections to sagegrouse, There are portions of the plan that may not meet each agency’s legal or policy related obligations, 

which is why there are occasional additions to that strategy.

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Conservation measures in the plan must be mandatory (no waivers, exceptions, modifications)

Comment ID: 1498 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: In addition, conservation actions adopted in this Plan Amendment need to be mandatory, not 

optional. The Wyoming BLM has considerable track record of granting exceptions and waivers to sage 

grouse conservation measures over the past decade. Therefore, avoidance and exceptions are inappropriate 

to achieve adequate regulatory mechanisms for recovering and conserving the greater sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 292 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-463

Comment: Because the State of Wyoming has been reluctant to actually enforce Core Area policy measures 

when industrial developments run afoul of Core Area protections, BLM for its part must include in its RMP 

amendment a guarantee that measures prescribed in the Plan are not subject to waivers or exceptions. At 

the outset of the State’s consensus-based Core Area mapping process, the original boundaries of Core Areas 

were drawn to exclude sage-grouse habitats that land users were interested in developing, particularly in 

the Powder River Basin, Atlantic Rim area, and upper Green River Valley. As a result, thousands of acres 

of undeveloped habitat were denied protection despite their vibrant sage-grouse populations and relatively 

undeveloped condition. Under the RMP Amendment process, the BLM should correct politically-driven 

changes to Core Area boundaries (such as those granted for the DKRW coal-to-liquids project, Atlantic 

Rim coalbed methane project, Whirlwind LLC White Mountain wind farm, and Chokecherry-Sierra Madre 

wind farm, see Attachment 91) that exclude lands within 5.3 miles of leks that represent the smallest area 

75% of the Wyoming sage grouse population. 

Comment ID: 295 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition to being inadequate, management prescriptions in the Wyoming BLM Core Area 

strategy are not even mandatory. Waivers, exceptions, or other exemptions from conservation measures 

would be allowed for every measure published in the RMP amendment under the Preferred Alternative. 

DEIS at 2-62. This discretionary language calls into question the BLM’s commitment to implement the 

conservation measures outlined in its policy, and undermines the certainty of implementation of any and 

all measures contained within the Plan Amendment. For this reason alone, Alternative E fails to meet the 

Purpose and Need for the EIS. 

Comment ID: 261 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In split-estate situations where BLM owns the mineral estate, agencies would work with surface 

owners on a voluntary basis to implement conservation measures. DEIS at 2-79. No requirements for sage 

grouse conservation would apply on these lands, which represent millions of acres. Instead, strong and 

mandatory sage grouse protections must be applied on split-estate lands as well. 

Comment ID: 1504 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: In addition to being inadequate, management prescriptions in the Wyoming BLM Core Area 

strategy are not even mandatory. Waivers, exceptions, or other exemptions from conservation measures 

would be allowed for every measure published in the RMP amendment under the Preferred Alternative. 

DEIS at 2-62. This discretionary language calls into question the BLM’s commitment to implement the 

conservation measures outlined in its policy, and undermines the certainty of implementation of any and 

all measures contained within the Plan Amendment. For this reason alone, Alternative E fails to meet the 

Purpose and Need for the EIS. 

Comment ID: 231 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-464 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: We encourage the federal agencies to set aside a system of reserves, comprised of all Priority 

Habitats, where only activities scientifically shown to be compatible with maintaining and restoring sage 

grouse populations to secure population levels are permitted. In most cases, oil and gas leasing in Core 

Areas has been deferred in Wyoming. The Preferred Alternative opens Core Areas to leasing, reversing the 

conservation gains that have been made to date. The final Plan Amendment needs to include long-term 

closure of Core Areas to future leasing, and stringent limits on the development of existing leases as outlined 

in these comments. In addition, conservation actions adopted in this Plan Amendment need to be

mandatory, not optional. The Wyoming BLM has amassed an appalling track record of granting exceptions 

and waivers to sage grouse conservation measures over the past decade, and the idea that this agency should 

be trusted to decide whether or not to require sage grouse conservation efforts is not a credible path forward 

toward sage grouse recovery. 

Comment ID: 258 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that BLM may not fully apply conservation measures identified in the RMP 

revision, using agency discretion to create loopholes in cases where project proponents find mitigation 

measures to be onerous. This concern is underscored by repeated references throughout the document to 

exceptions granted to plan standards either with or without compensatory mitigation. RMP language should 

be clearly articulated that standards are indeed standards and will be applied rigorously throughout the life 

of the Plan. 

Comment ID: 260 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In the Preferred Alternative for the Wyoming RMP Amendment, provisions for across-the-board 

exceptions and waivers are built into the proposed conservation measures: Exceptions waivers [sic], and 

modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs, etc., for sagegrouse would continue to be considered 

on a case-by-case basis consistent with approved LUPs and other BLM/Forest Service policy and 

regulations as they relate to exceptions within sage-grouse core and general habitat. DEIS at 2-62. BLM 

itself concedes, “Exceptions to lease stipulations, Conditions of Approval (COAs) and terms of conditions 

[sic] (T&Cs) considered on a case-by-case basis could allow oil and gas development to occur in areas or 

timeframes previously restricted.” DEIS at 4-105, and see 4-260. This provision effectively renders each 

conservation measure that would be applied under the Preferred Alternative optional on the part of the 

agency, and completely negates any regulatory certainty that may otherwise have been attained through the 

adoption of conservation measures. In order to meet the purpose and need for this EIS, the BLM is required 

to implement the corresponding measures under Alternative C for Action 58. Id. Even Alternative B allows 

conservation measures in General Habitat to be ignored at the agency’s discretion. 

Comment ID: 259 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Wyoming RMP Amendment will similarly fail to implement regulatory measures and 

thereby remedy the inadequacy of existing measures identified by USFWS to the extent that it includes 

discretionary or non-binding standards to protect sage grouse. All conservation measures must therefore 

explicitly be mandatory. 

Comment ID: 255 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-465

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: 68 Fed. Reg. 15115. Importantly, the BLM appears to rely heavily on discretionary measures 

such as “avoidance” rather than “exclusion” of activities such as linear right-of-way development for 

pipelines and powerlines, which are known to be detrimental to sage grouse inside Priority Habitat areas, 

and offers exceptions to protections on a conditional basis. Even under alternatives where RDFs (“Required 

Design Features”) are “mandatory,” they would only be applied “where applicable, appropriate, and 

technically feasible....” DEIS at 4-285. This implies considerable discretionary latitude for BLM to grant 

exceptions. There is no regulatory certainty in these approaches. 

Comment ID: 256 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Under Alternative B, it appears that the application of Conditions of Approval on existing leases 

will be left to the discretion of the leaseholder (DEIS at 4-272, 4-277), which also provides no certainty and 

little likelihood of implementation. Indeed, It is unknown, however, what long-term level of protection of 

habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s discretion. DEIS at 4- 286. This is 

unacceptable and violates the certainty provisions of the PECE Policy. 

Summary: Conservation actions adopted in this Plan Amendment need to be mandatory, not optional. 

Waivers, exceptions, or other exemptions from conservation measures would be allowed for every measure 

published in the RMP amendment under the Preferred Alternative. Draft EIS at 2-62. This discretionary 

language calls into question the BLM’s commitment to implement the conservation measures outlined in 

its policy, and undermines the certainty of implementation of any and all measures contained within the 

Plan Amendments. For this reason alone, Alternative E fails to meet the Purpose and Need for the EIS. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service are committed to providing contiguous, unfragmented habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse to support the survival of the species throughout Wyoming. The issue of allowing 

waivers, exceptions, and modifications was analyzed in the Draft EIS under a reasonable range of 

alternatives. Under Alternative B and C, waivers, exceptions, and modifications would not be considered 

in sage-grouse habitat. Under the other alternatives, waivers, exceptions and modifications would be 

considered in order to provide flexibility when managing mineral development. Sage-grouse would be a 

primary consideration when determining and approving acceptable waivers, exceptions, and modifications. 

The final decision for this action will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public 

involvement process. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Continue exceptions, TLS, mitigation, BMPs, for flexibility in oil, gas and other development

Comment ID: 652 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Anadarko strongly encourages the agencies to incorporate into the Final LUPA the flexibility 

for the development of an Enhanced Mitigation/Expanded Use Authorizations Program. Such a program 

would allow the agencies to waive discretionary timing limitations on a programmatic basis (meaning 

several wells at a time for an extended period of time) and might require a change to Action 58 within Table 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-466 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2-1 within the Draft LUPA (See 2-62). The proposed mitigation program would be developed in 

coordination with the State of Wyoming, promote the policy objective in the IM-2013- 142, and seek input 

from stakeholders including industry. Tools that could be utilized in such a program could include: • A 

biologically-based framework for mitigating impacts associated with a reasonable-access mitigation 

program that includes exceptions to wildlife timing stipulations. • Allow for the prioritization of potential 

mitigations sites. IM 2013-142. For example one idea could be to direct mitigation to two-mile buffers 

within core areas. • Possibly structured within two-mile buffers around sage-grouse leks, and may include 

mitigation targeted within the two-mile buffers around sage-grouse leks consistent with the work by 

Doherty et al. (2010). This possible approach would provide tangible benefits to sagebrush steppe species 

at a regional landscape level. • Possibly targeting restoration of habitat within the two-mile buffer around 

sage-grouse leks. Within these two-mile lek buffers, existing disturbance and fragmentation profiles could 

be mapped so that reclamation and enhancement efforts can be focused, monitored, and assessed. Consider 

case-bycase focused habitat improvements within two-mile lek buffers. This mitigation could be exchanged 

for timing stipulation exceptions granted by the agencies. • Areas targeted for habitat enhancement could 

include the two-mile lek buffers both in-and-outside of Wyoming’s Sage-Grouse Core Areas. • Possibly 

cover both federal and non-federal lands in accordance with the draft guidance to evaluate mitigation 

opportunities on both Federal and non-Federal-managed lands. IM 2013-142. 

Comment ID: 650 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The LUPA Must Maintain Management Flexibility to Continue to Utilize Exceptions for 

Seasonal and Other Restrictions and to Allow for Development of a Reasonable Access Program Combined 

with Enhanced Mitigation The LUPA is a high level planning document that must maintain management 

flexibility to address multi-use of public lands. Anadarko recommends the LUPA incorporate the concept 

of and programmatic flexibility to develop enhanced sage-grouse mitigation coupled with expanded use 

authorizations (“Enhanced Mitigation/Expanded Use Authorizations”). Anadarko encourages the agencies 

to utilize the concepts provided in the recent draft BLM Regional Mitigation Policy in conjunction while 

ensuring reasonable access for energy development. See DRAFT - REGIONAL MITIGATION MANUAL 

SECTION – 1794 (IM No. 2013-142).5 

Comment ID: 1455 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) 

Name: John Anderson 

Comment: While an EIS should not address infeasible alternatives, the essence of an EIS is a robust 

exploration of the feasible alternative actions and mitigation measures. While the exclusion area approach 

has been put forth as one of the primary means of achieving sage-grouse conservation, the DEIS should 

focus more on effective alternative approaches that address design features and mitigation measures. Design 

features and mitigation are distinct but related concepts. Design features are specific measures or practices 

that comprise an alternative action, while mitigation encompasses separate strategies that seek to “reduce 

or eliminate effects of the proposed action or alternatives.” Examples of design features include standard 

operating procedures, stipulations, and best management practices. 

Comment ID: 879 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Tri-State requests that the Agencies provide a mechanism to consider local conditions in the 

habitat areas on a project-specific basis before imposing a one-size-fits-all management restriction, or 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-467

provide a mechanism to monitor habitat quality or use in the future. An understanding of the local habitat 

conditions and the future habitat quality and use will facilitate GrSG grouse conservation, minimize 

impacts, allow lawful activities to proceed, and meet multiple use objectives for the Agencies. 

Comment ID: 1038 

Organization: American Colloid Company 

Name: Melody Smith 

Comment: Not all area with broad scale habitat mapping is suitable and/or critical habitat; exceptions, 

waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, etc. should continue to be considered on a casebycase basis to avoid unnecessary burden on operations and socioeconomics as supported by Alternatives 

A and D. 

Comment ID: 2339 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that there must be some sort of relief of restrictions tied to the addition of more 

occupied habitat. The existence of more occupied habitat indicates that there is more, not only suitable 

habitat but actual use by the birds, which would undermine BLM’s underlying assumption that there is a 

lack of habitat, therefore all occupied habitat must be protected. If more habitat is discovered, then BLM 

must consider that there may be less of a need to severely restrict, and prohibit activities within sage-grouse 

habitat, due to an increase in functional habitat. 

Comment ID: 2977 

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) 

Name: Doug Thompson 

Comment: Any national or regional greater sage-grouse strategy must be responsive to those efforts already 

undertaken at the local and state level that adequately address the concerns forwarded by an entity serving 

in an advisory capacity to the Agencies. Ultimately, any broadly applied strategy must first fit within the 

underlying multiple-use, sustained yield mandates of the Agencies. The WCCA believes, and as 

demonstrated in Wyoming's EO, that the notions of continued species viability and economic sustainability 

in the Planning Area are not mutually exclusive. In that vein, there exists the opportunity to embrace 

programmatic flexibility to couple enhanced management efforts with expanded use authorizations. 

Acknowledging and further incorporating such flexibility into the Plan will ensure continued viability of 

not only greater sage-grouse in the Planning Area, but so too the continued sustainable development of the 

mineral industries upon which our members' economies so heavily rely. 

Summary: Not all areas with broad scale habitat mapping are suitable and/or critical habitat; exceptions, 

waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, etc., should continue to be considered on a caseby-case basis to avoid unnecessary burden on operations and socioeconomics. 

Response: The issue of allowing waivers, exceptions, and modification was analyzed in the Draft EIS under 

a reasonable range of alternatives. Under Alternative B and C, waivers, exceptions, and modifications 

would not be considered in sage-grouse habitat. Under the other alternatives, waivers, exceptions and 

modifications would be considered in order to provide flexibility when managing mineral development. 

Sage-grouse would be a primary consideration when determining and approving acceptable waivers, 

exceptions, and modifications. The final decision for this action will be included in the Record of Decision 

after completion of the public involvement process. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-468 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Core area policy works; B and C are too restrictive, Wyoming EO is preferred

Comment ID: 1019 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The BLM must uniformly implement the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Land Use Plan 

Amendment without adopting any portion of related, but distinct, amendments from other states. The 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Land Use Plan Amendment is specific to Wyoming populations, 

regulations, management systems, economies, communities and other issues. Other management plans, 

such as the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Plan, do not appropriately deal with these issues. 

Comment ID: 2553 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: The basis for Alternative B is the sage-grouse conservation measures in A Report on. National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation. Measures by the National Technical Team (NTT) released in 2011. The 

NTT (2011) report does not rely on best available science, contains numerous errors and misstatements of 

facts, and evidences a bias in favor of preservation of sage-grouse habitat rather than conservation of habitat 

and responsible multiple use. Neither the Draft LUPA/EIS nor the NTT (2011) report discloses opposing 

scientific views as to development impacts and threats to sage-grouse. Further, as set forth in our general 

and detailed comments below, neither the Draft LUPA/EIS nor the NTT (2011) report incorporates best 

available science. Therefore, BLM has failed to meet its obligations under the NEPA. Because Alternative 

B does not comply with NEPA and the foundation upon which the alternative was built is not scientifically 

sound, BLM should not carry forward Alternative B to the Final LUPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 1191 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA also believes that the use of the NTT Report’s conservation measures is inappropriate 

because this report is outdated and should be discarded and replaced by more recent studies, discussed in 

detail below. Moreover, the IM requiring consideration of the NTT Report in DLUPAs has expired. AEMA 

believes Alternative B, which was developed to rely heavily on the recommendations contained in the NTT 

Report, and Alternatives C, D, and E-the revised NTT alternatives are inappropriate. The NTT Report and 

the principles underlying the NTT Report create policies that assume that sage-grouse conservation is the 

highest and best use of the land, while subordinating other interests, like locatable and leasable mineral 

exploration and development, without adequate analysis of the economic impacts these policies will have 

on the area as well as the mining industry as a whole. 

Comment ID: 899 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Tri-State would like the opportunity to work collaboratively with the BLM, USFS, and the 

USFWS to identify sage-grouse conservation measures that will encourage the long-term conservation of 

the GrSG, as well as maintain a safe and reliable source of power for customers living throughout their 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-469

range. Tri-State supports the selection of Alternative E because it acknowledges existing rights, provides 

for adaptive management of GrSG as more information becomes available, encourages utilities and other 

industry to work closely with the Agencies on new projects to select sites and corridors that will minimize 

impacts, and meet the Agencies multiple use mandates. 

Comment ID: 884 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Further research is also required to determine the effective temporal and spatial buffers that will 

effectively mitigate direct and indirect impacts to greater sage-grouse populations. Based on grouse science 

conducted in Wyoming and Colorado, an applicable buffer for sage-grouse leks may vary, based on lek 

size, topography, habitat, and type of tall structure. Also, grouse science being conducted in Colorado by 

the Colorado Division of Parks & Wildlife suggests that grouse actively avoid surface disturbances to a 

distance of 0.6 miles, nowhere near the 4 miles identified in the NTT report and echoed in Alternatives B 

& C. The spatial buffers used to date by a number of land management and regulatory agencies have 

generally been standardized, and do not reflect the best available science or the local conditions. Further 

research on effective setback distances would facilitate better planning, while providing an appropriate level 

of protection to breeding and nesting GrSG. Tri-State understands the necessity of having standard NSO 

and disturbance buffers for GrSG, but requests that the Final EIS and LUPA include a caveat that these 

distances should consider site specific data, and can be modified based on that data, and in the future if 

research can better identify effective buffers and other management objectives. 

Comment ID: 672 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The agencies fail to recognize the efficacy of the Wyoming Core Area Policy and the umbrella 

it provides by which protection is extended to the approximately 75 percent of leks as noted in our previous 

discussion. This policy structure ensures the future viability of sage-grouse populations in the State into the 

foreseeable future. Further restrictions in habitats outside of formally designated core areas are not only 

unwarranted but also not in line with the agencies charter for management of lands for multiple use. 

Activities occurring in unsuitable habitats should not be subject to stipulations protective of sage-grouse. 

As such Anadarko recommends the agencies do not further encumber project proponents in locales which 

should not receive additional protections. 

Comment ID: 983 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: ). I request that the BLM and USFS adopt a disturbance limit of five percent as established EO 

2011-5 and BLM Instruction Memorandum (1M) WY-2012-019. Under EO 2011-5, surface disturbance is 

limited to five percent of suitable GSG habitat per an average of 640 acres. There is scientific support of 

the five percent approach as well as the limits on number of features on the landscape, including Kirol 2012 

and Naugle et al. 2011. Kirol (2012) found evidence that overall disturbance began impacting brood 

survival at rates greater than six percent per square kilometer. With regard to limits on the number of 

features on the landscape in GSG habitat, Naugle et al (2011) identified impacts to breeding GSG 

populations when the number of wells exceeded one per square mile. The NTT Report's three percent 

approach is based on 90-meter resolution vegetation maps modeled at a landscape scale (Knick et al. 

20134). These vegetation maps do not allow for the level of identification of existing disturbances as the 

NAIP imagery. The types of disturbances identified through this approach incorporate anthropogenic 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-470 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

features, but do not include vegetation treatments, wildfires and agriculture When the two approaches are 

applied to the same areas there is a difference in the number of GSG core areas where additional disturbance 

could be permitted. Based on a comparison of potential additional disturbances allowable in GSG habitat, 

the NTT Report's approach would potentially allow for a greater number of Wyoming GSG core areas to 

be disturbed through permitted activities. If the NTT Report's three percent approach, in its entirety, were 

adopted in Wyoming, additional disturbance would be permitted in 64 percent of the GSG core areas, and 

far more habitat could be removed and remain unaccounted for from vegetation treatments, wildfires and 

agricultural activities. While Wyoming's five-percent disturbance cap initially appears to allow a greater 

amount of disturbance in GSG core areas than the NTT Report's three-percent disturbance cap, when the 

two models are applied to the same areas Wyoming approach depicts a more accurate picture of the actual 

existing disturbances within GSG habitat. 

Comment ID: 1764 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: ConocoPhillips does not support the BLM’s proposal to designate the Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat an ACEC under Alternative B as the proposal to make priority and Audubon Important 

Habitat an ACEC under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-95, Action No. 84. The existing State 

of Wyoming Core Area Policy provides sufficient protection for sage-grouse within Wyoming. The 

designation of an ACEC is neither necessary nor warranted. Further, ConocoPhillips does not believe that 

the BLM has sufficiently justified the creation of the ACECs using the relevance and importance criteria 

contained in the BLM’s planning regulations. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2. ConocoPhillips encourages the BLM 

not to create an ACEC to protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. ConocoPhillips supports the BLM’s decision 

under Alternative D or Alternative E not to designate new sage-grouse conservation ACECs. 

Comment ID: 833 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: The four-mile buffer around leks is a one-size-fits-all application and does not address the 

variations in habitat quality or use, and given the topography of the planning area there is substantial acreage 

within four miles of leks that may not actually be GrSG habitat, and/or would not be impacted by activities 

occurring four miles away. The DLUPA/DEIS presents no scientific evidence that this buffer distance will 

actually benefit the species and its habitat. As a result, the Agencies may be inadvertently expanding areas 

subject to the management restrictions outlined in the DLUPA/DEIS to areas that do not contain active leks 

or GrSG habitat. Tri-State requests that the Agencies consider modifying all lek buffer requirements to 

acknowledge that site specific factors may influence the appropriate seasonal buffers. The DLUPA/DEIS 

should also recognize and address the importance of adaptive management, so that future recommendations 

and management prescriptions can be updated once additional scientific information becomes available. 

Comment ID: 1242 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 

Comment: With some modifications, EOG supports Alternative E because it honors Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and a more balanced approach to Greater Sage-Grouse protection and 

multiple use of the public land. EOG is particularly concerned about the onerous restrictions imposed on 

oil and gas development under Alternative B and Alternative C and strongly urges the BLM not to adopt 

either alternative.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-471

Comment ID: 1983 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Alternative D: This is the clearly preferred alternative of WSGA. It represents BLM acceptance 

of the Governor’s Executive Orders as the foundation for successful management of sage-grouse and their 

habitat in Wyoming. The USFWS has endorsed this approach as, when fully implemented, “an adequate 

regulatory mechanism” to protect the species. This alternative meets the same management objectives as 

the Preferred Alternative while allowing for carefully planned and coordinated continued robust multiple 

use of Wyoming’s natural resources. 

Comment ID: 766 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon does not support the BLM's proposal to designate the Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat an ACEC under Alternative B or the proposal to make priority and Audubon Important Habitat an 

ACEC under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-95, Action No. 84. The existing State of Wyoming 

Core Area Policy provides sufficient protection for sage-grouse within Wyoming. The designation of an 

ACEC is neither necessary nor warranted. Further, Devon does not believe that the BLM has sufficiently 

justified the creation of the ACECs using the relevance and importance criteria contained in the BLM's 

planning regulations. 43 C.F.R. § 1610.7-2. Devon encourages the BLM not to create an ACEC to protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Devon supports the BLM's decision under Alternative D or Alternative E not 

to designate new sage-grouse conservation ACECs. Devon does not believe that such additional 

designations are necessary or required in order to protect sage-grouse habitat. Devon urges the BLM not to 

select Alternative B or Alternative C. 

Comment ID: 1788 

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC) 

Name: Don Amador 

Comment: BRC supports the agency’s concept of limiting OHV use to existing and/or designated roads, 

trails, and open dune areas as a primary strategy to help protect Grouse habitat. BRC believes this is the 

appropriate method by which to “minimize” impacts and otherwise comply with applicable law. 

Comment ID: 772 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Devon also strongly opposes BLM's proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance 

within four miles of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-139, Action 

No.129. Given the variable topography of the Planning Area and ongoing land uses, there is substantial 

acreage within four miles of leks that is not GRSG habitat. The four mile buffer also does not address the 

variations in habitat quality or habitat use. 

Comment ID: 624 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: When considering protections for sage-grouse the method of assessing oil and gas impacts 

should be informed by reviewing the development intensity within a two-mile buffer around a lek, as done 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-472 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

by Doherty et al. (2010). Following this methodology, results indicate that at one well pad per square mile 

or less (corresponds to as many as 12 wells per a two-mile radius or within 32.2 km2 of a lek) impacts from 

oil and gas development on sage-grouse are not detectable: “Impacts were indiscernible at 1 – 12 wells per 

32.2 km2.” This result is consistent with the proposed disturbance cap for sage-grouse core areas outlined 

in the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Core Area Policy and provides insight into the nature of localized impacts 

associated with oil and gas development within a twomile buffer around a lek. 

Comment ID: 609 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: The Wyoming Core Area Policy, Endorsed by the FWS, Is Effective to Conserve Sage-Grouse 

on a Landscape Scale. Energy development impacts in Wyoming on sage-grouse are, and will continue to 

be, mitigated by the Wyoming Core Area Policy. The Wyoming Core Area Policy is designed to protect 

sage-grouse populations and important habitats on which they depend into the future and provide certainty

for the species. Table 3 indicates 1,508 leks or 64 percent of all leks in Wyoming are afforded protection 

through the Core Area Policy. Considering the number of leks that had over ten males counted in 2012, 483 

(from a total of 626) or 70 percent of the most productive leks were in core areas. There were 741 active 

leks in core and 272 active leks in non-core. Hence, 73 percent of active leks counted in 2012 were in core 

areas. A recent analysis of future urbanization and energy development in Wyoming concluded, “No leks 

located within core areas are predicted to be extirpated with the core policy in place” (Copeland et al., 

2013). 

Comment ID: 612 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Anadarko disagrees with the necessity and justification of the agencies to propose sage-grouse 

conservation measures that go beyond the requirements of Wyoming’s Core Area Policy. The agencies 

should not expand development restrictions to sage-grouse populations outside of core areas. Given the 

reach of the Core Area Policy, the agencies proposed measures are unwarranted and unnecessarily restrict 

other important uses of public lands, such as oil and gas development. 

Comment ID: 1981 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Alternative B: This alternative, based on the NTT Report, is totally unacceptable to WSGA. In 

addition, we do not concur with the implication that this alternative may be necessary to remedy the defects 

found by the Court in WWP v. U.S.DOI. 

Comment ID: 1982 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Alternative C: This alternative is defined as being “based on the citizen groups recommended 

alternative”. We request that you identify more clearly in the Draft EIS the source of this alternative. WSGA 

is confident that this alternative does not represent the recommendation of the majority of Wyoming citizens 

or “citizen groups”. 

Comment ID: 2320 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-473

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: Western Fuels supports the concept of implementing collaborative conservation efforts to avoid 

a formal listing of the species under the ESA in a balanced approach, but that approach must recognize the 

Agencies multiple use mandate, as well as the substantial and widespread social and economic impacts that 

its decisions will have in Wyoming and across the west. Western Fuels appreciates that Alternatives A, D 

& E specifically recognize the need to balance sage-grouse conservation with the multiple use mandate; 

however, we could find no such recognition of this mandate in Alternatives B & C. 

Comment ID: 2137 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: With some modifications, Encana supports Alternative E because it honors Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and a more balanced approach to sage-grouse protection and multiple use 

of the public land. Encana is particularly concerned about the onerous restrictions imposed on oil and gas 

development under Alternative B and Alternative C and strongly urges the BLM not to adopt either 

alternative. 

Comment ID: 2411 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Potential limitation on exceptions and waivers. Alternatives B and C note that "Exceptions, 

waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for sage-grouse would not be considered 

within sage-grouse priority and general habitat." Any blanket prohibition on exceptions is unacceptable. 

While the preferred Alternative E notes that exceptions, waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations 

would "continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis," BLM must not accept any limitations on legally 

authorized exceptions. 

Comment ID: 2179 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 

Comment: Inconsistencies exist between Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 and Alternative E (Preferred 

Alternative in DEIS). As an example, the Wyoming Executive Order (WYEO) seasonal restrictions are 

March 15 through June 30 and Alternative E season restrictions are March 1 through June 30. TBCC 

encourages BLM and USFS to follow the WYEO as it has already been approved by USFWS for 

conservation of sage-grouse, has been proven effective, and has been in place for a number of years. BLM 

and USFS would be supporting the state of Wyoming by being consistent in their LUPA with WYEO. 

TBCC does not support the wholesale incorporation of management from the National Technical Team 

Report (NTT) into the LUPA. The NTT narrowly describes and endorses one-size-fitsall conservation 

measures for sage-grouse which can be detrimental to other species as well as being less effective than 

appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. Guidance from the NTT is not consistent with the guidelines 

provided in the WYEO, the WGFD, and general SOP's for land conservation and habitat enhancement in 

Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 2203 

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company 

Name: Steven J. Beil 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-474 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Management Alternative #17 "Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of core 

habitat areas are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as mineral leases or existing rights-of-way. Fluid 

mineral leases often will include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density 

requirements identified for consideration in this plan. Agencies (BLM/Forest Service) will work with 

proponents holding valid existing leases that include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, 

distance, and density restrictions described within this plan to ensure that measurable sage-grouse 

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

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

management objectives set by the WGFD) are included in a/l project proposals." This is inconsistent with 

the WYEO in that valid and existing rights are not subject to new requirements and requirements for 

proposals in general habitat do not exist. The LUP should remain consistent with WYEO. 

Comment ID: 2146 

Organization: Permittee Cumberland/Uinta Allotment 

Name: Wallace Schulthess 

Comment: As a Permitee who will be directly affected by these alternatives: I support part of Alternative 

E as the final action. The ability to manage habitat plus implement predator control and invasive species 

management can be accomplished with Alternative E. This alternative continues LWG’s collaboration and 

involvement, which has contributed more proven successes than any of the other proposed alternatives can 

accomplish, along with portions of alternative A. The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Plan (alternative E) 

allows for implementation and local adaptive management programs to continue. This plan (Alternative E) 

has definable population and habitat goals within the established Sagegrouse Core Areas to prevent the 

need to list sage-grouse under the provisions of the ESA. 

Comment ID: 3101 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: Table 2‐ 5 2‐ 195 Minerals and Energy Alt B Closes nearly all area of Governor’s Core area to 

any development. USQ does not support this. 

Summary: The agencies should not expand development restrictions to sage-grouse populations outside of 

core areas. Given the reach of the Core Area Policy, the agencies proposed measures are unwarranted and 

unnecessarily restrict other important uses of public lands, such as oil and gas development. The existing 

State of Wyoming Core Area Policy/Executive Order provides sufficient protection for sagegrouse within 

Wyoming. Do not deviate from the Wyoming EO. The designation of any ACECs is neither necessary nor 

warranted. Support of Alternative E; B and C are too restrictive. Alternative C does not represent the 

citizens of Wyoming. Alternative B does not comply with NEPA and the foundation upon which the 

alternative was built (the NTT Report) is not scientifically sound. 

Response: The buffer distances, disturbance caps, and seasonal restrictions contained in the management 

alternatives are based on peer-reviewed scientific research of sage-grouse needs for continued existence. 

The goal of the LUP Amendments is to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush ecosystems; and the 

management contained in the management alternatives will allow for unfragmented, contiguous habitat for 

sage-grouse while allowing for multiple use of public lands. BLM is required to analyze a range of 

alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with 

NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-475

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Do not limit motorized recreation access

Comment ID: 121 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Motorized recreationists see the sage grouse as another potential mechanism used by the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management to close public lands to motorized access and motorized 

recreation without any real basis for assumed impacts and conditions. To avoid this serious issue, the EIS 

must be based on site-specific information and data. The EIS and decision must be based on site specific 

data prepared by licensed biologists and peer reviewed by independent licensed biologists in all impact 

areas where significance is claimed. 

Comment ID: 128 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: If a motorized route is within a distance of a lek that might cause some disturbance, then a 

reasonable alternative that can be easily implemented is to relocate the motorized route as opposed to 

closing that route. 

Comment ID: 129 

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: According to available literature and studies there is little information related to the effects of 

motorized recreation on the Grouse. Based on current science it appears that motorized recreation in, any 

of its forms, does not have an significant impact on the Grouse. 

Comment ID: 147 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Most of the BLM and National Forest managed lands in Wyoming have already completed its 

travel management plan. I do not believe that a critical habitat designation is needed if federal agencies 

continue to designate roads and trails for motorized use. We believe the implementation of travel 

management, enactment of reasonable sound laws, and creation of an invasive weed species education 

program by both the Forest Service and BLM will insure we have a vibrant population of the grouse in 

Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 135 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: The same has been shown for motorized access and use. For example, Grouse leks are concise, 

wellestablished, historic areas that can last for decades. Add to this that leks are mostly in use for 

strutting/mating during crepuscular hours and that motorized recreation is generally NOT undertaken 

during those hours...the two can be successfully separated. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-476 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: If a motorized route is within a distance of a lek that might cause some disturbance, then a 

reasonable alternative that can be easily implemented is to relocate the motorized route as opposed to 

closing that route. Based on current science, it appears that motorized recreation in any of its forms does 

not have a significant impact on the grouse. Grouse leks are concise, well-established, historic areas that 

can last for decades. Add to this that leks are mostly in use for strutting/mating during crepuscular hours 

and that motorized recreation is generally NOT undertaken during those hours...the two can be successfully 

separated. We believe the implementation of travel management, enactment of reasonable sound laws, and 

creation of an invasive weed species education program by both the Forest Service and BLM will insure 

we have a vibrant population of sage-grouse in Wyoming. We do not believe that a critical habitat 

designation is needed if federal agencies continue to designate roads and trails for motorized use. 

Response: No routes in the Proposed LUP Amendments are being proposed for closure.The Proposed LUP 

Amendments would limit travel to existing routes and the BLM and Forest Service will undertake travel 

management planning to identify and designate routes within five years of the date of the Record of 

Decision related to this EIS. It is true that lek activity does occur when presence of vehicles is less frequent; 

nesting sage-grouse are still present during daylight hours directly adjacent to or within anywhere between 

5-10 miles of a lek. Buffer distances are used in the range of management alternatives to prevent disturbance 

to lekking as well as nesting birds. BLM and Forest Service have no direct authority in designating critical 

habitat or making listing decisions for sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Fencing: minimal fencing, mark fences, remove fences, inventory

Comment ID: 1241 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The preferred alternative does not identify what constitutes a “high risk” area for fence 

collisions, nor the criteria to identify them later. The DLUPA/DEIS is the place to define how risk will be 

determined, and to set a limit on what level of fence-related mortality is sufficient to adversely affect sagegrouse populations. Instead, the BLM has left these trigger levels vague and at the discretion of local 

management for enforcement and implementation, but no meaningful monitoring schedules, minimum 

triggers, or timeframes for mitigation are specified. 

Comment ID: 1232 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Fences have now been found to be a major source of sage grouse mortality yet no analysis of 

current effects of this mortality on populations and habitat fragmentation has been provided in the EIS. 

Comment ID: 1311 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS fails to disclose the impacts of the many thousands of miles of fencing that 

already occur within sage-grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 290 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-477

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: fences in sage grouse Preliminary Priority and General Habitats should be inventoried to identify 

the minimum necessary fencing required for livestock management. Fences determined to be unnecessary 

should be removed, especially in flat areas near leks, and remaining fences should be outfitted with 

reflectors or other visibility devices to reduce sage grouse collisions as under Alternatives B and C. BLM 

concedes that this will result in multiple benefits for sage grouse. DEIS at 4-289. New fences should be 

precluded on BLM lands within Priority Habitats, and the RMP should include language to prioritize 

dismantlement of existing fences and addition of visibility markers for those that remain. 

Comment ID: 1379 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Likewise "require sage grouse safe fences" with no implementation requirement or timeframe. 

This applies to both the tens of thousands of miles currently existing as well as proposed. 

Comment ID: 1619 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Collisions with fences pose a potentially major cause of mortality for sage grouse. Stevens et al. 

(2013) found that fence collisions are an important source of grouse mortality, and fences on flat areas near 

leks were a particularly high risk for causing sage grouse fatalities. Christiansen (2009) also documented 

an alarmingly high level of fence mortality in Wyoming, and found that marking fences reduced collisions 

by only 61%, such that 39% of the collision rate on unmarked fences still occurred for marked fence 

sections. Of course, eliminating fences has the effect of reducing collisions to zero. With this in mind, 

fences in sage grouse Preliminary Priority and General Habitats should be inventoried to identify the 

minimum necessary fencing required for livestock management. Fences determined to be unnecessary 

should be removed, especially in flat areas near leks, and remaining fences should be outfitted with 

reflectors or other visibility devices to reduce sage grouse collisions as under Alternatives B and C. BLM 

concedes that this will result in multiple benefits for sage grouse. DEIS at 4-289. New fences should be 

precluded on BLM lands within Priority Habitats, and the RMP should include language to prioritize 

dismantlement of existing fences and addition of visibility markers for those that remain. 

Comment ID: 3112 

Organization: Audubon Rockies 

Name: Mike Chiropolos 

Comment: Existing fencing can be an obstacle or potential hazard to special status wildlife species by 

concentrating livestock, adversely impacting vegetation and fragmenting habitat. New fences should be 

avoided because they further fragment the landscape, raise risks of mortality from potential collision points, 

and provide perching opportunities for raptors – all detrimental to sage-grouse. Overall, sage-grouse 

mortality is increased due to greater perching opportunities for avian predators and collision risk during 

flight. Alternative B provisions should be adopted for fencing and structural range improvements. DEIS at 

2- 45 to 47. Avoidance and mitigation techniques should analyze and reference scientific research. The 

2009 WGFD report examined sage-grouse mortalities near Farson and found that sage-grouse fence 

diverters reduced sage-grouse fatalities by 61 percent. (Christiansen 2009)14. Fence surveys in the Lander 

and Rock Springs Field Office areas have shown that sage-grouse can be injured or killed as a result of 

flying into fence wires. Lander FEIS at 969. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-478 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: Fences in sage-grouse core and general habitats should be inventoried to identify the minimum 

necessary fencing required for livestock management. Fences determined to be unnecessary should be 

removed, especially in flat areas near leks, and remaining fences should be outfitted with reflectors or other 

visibility devices to reduce sage-grouse collisions. New fences should be avoided because they further 

fragment the landscape, raise risks of mortality from potential collision points, and provide perching 

opportunities for raptors – all detrimental to sage-grouse. The Preferred Alternative does not identify what 

constitutes a “high risk” area for fence collisions, nor the criteria to identify them later, and states "require 

sage-grouse safe fences" with no implementation requirement or timeframe. No analysis of current effects 

of fence-caused mortality on populations and habitat fragmentation has been provided in the EIS. 

Response: Fences are addressed within the range of alternatives, MA 53 in the Draft EIS, and the concern 

of collision risk is addressed under all alternatives to varying degrees. Impacts to sage-grouse from fences 

and fence collisions are discussed in Chapter 4.14. It is not necessary to identify what constitutes a high 

collision risk; what is necessary is to document whether bird mortality is due to collision with fences, or if 

collisions are likely to occur due to new fence placement. This is why MA 53 uses the terminology that the 

BLM/Forest Service will be evaluating and modifying existing range improvements including fences when 

necessary. Since 2010, fences on BLM lands have been inventoried and modified as a result of an internal 

instruction memorandum. An implementation plan of the LUP Amendments actions will be developed after 

the ROD is completed. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Forest Service specific

Comment ID: 978 

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor 

Name: Matthew H. Mead 

Comment: It is essential that the USFS apply stipulations on development consistent with Wyoming's 

strategy. This includes stipulations on existing uses and other uses which have been determined to be de 

minimis, or are not considered a threat to GSG. I understand the need for the USFS to analyze and address 

viability of the GSG on USFS land; however, the USFS must ensure that its management is consistent with 

that of the State and other land managers. This is particularly important when considering that the majority 

of GSG habitat is not found on USFS land. The USFS, at the regional and national level, must place a 

priority on consistency with Wyoming's strategy. The appearance of a USFS directive developed without 

State participation and inconsistent with the Wyoming's plan and FWS guidance will have a serious chilling 

effect on Wyoming's efforts to conserve GSG and its habitat. 

Comment ID: 1997 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: Appendix K—Forest Service Amendment—Alternative E: WSGA understands the need for this 

Appendix to reflect differences in terminology between BM and FS. We are, however, concerned with the 

large number of action items that are proposed to be converted to “Required Design Features”. WSGA 

requests that the Forest Service provide the specific language that will be incorporated into the respective 

forest plans rather than just indicating each of these changes with the symbol “RDF”. 

Comment ID: 1481 

Organization: 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-479

Name: Denise Langley 

Comment: The FS states the desired conditions for Alternative E: Sage Grouse plan: RDF=Required Design 

Features which are “required to ensure regulatory certainty and the conservation of Greater Sage Grouse.” 

In the S/G plan amendment draft EIS under the heading: Forest Service Translation of Management Actions 

into Standards, Guidelines, Objectives and Required Design Feature for Alternative E: Most of the areas 

under the FS heading LRMP are not written but instead have the acronym RDF (which are not written for 

comment yet). How can this be allowable for NEPA process when the FS does not have the REQUIRED 

management actions written for the public to comment on but instead only has the vast encompassing 

acronym-RDF as the proposed action? 

Comment ID: 1207 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: 2622.01 - Authority. 2623 - QUANTIFYING OUTPUTS AND VALUES. The Forest Plan 

amendment fails to comply with these requirements. For example, the Forest Plan does not contain 

Standards and Guidelines necessary to protect sage grouse habitat. No Standards are provided that limit 

utilization to provide for the minimum 18cm residual grass height needed to provide cover. 

Comment ID: 1210 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: For many of the Sensitive Species including sage grouse, the Forest Service has no data to 

determine if they are currently viable let alone make determinations that they will remain so under the 

proposed Forest Plan. The Forest Service lacks the data necessary to make the determinations they have 

made, making the proposed ROD arbitrary decision making. The Forest Service needs to collect the data 

necessary to make a scientifically defensible determination of viability. 

Comment ID: 1212 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: 2670.22 3. Develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or habitat of 

sensitive species. The proposed Forest Plan amendment fails to implement this requirement. For instance, 

the Forest Service has failed to “develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or 

habitat of sensitive species” for sage grouse. The Plan amendment needs to be revised to comply with this 

requirement. 

Comment ID: 196 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition, we had understood that the Thunder Basin National Grassland and Bridger-Teton 

National Forest were planning to apply the same protections in sage grouse Core Areas to other important 

occupied habitats outside Core Areas in order to meet National Forest Management Act (NFMA) viability 

requirements. Yet we have found no analysis or provisions that reflect this intention in the Draft EIS. Such 

measures need to be emplaced less the Forest Service fail to meet its obligation to maintain viable 

populations of greater sage grouse well-distributed throughout the planning area. We are concerned that the 

current measures in the Preferred Alternative do not meet this requirement. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-480 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2275 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Also, it is our understanding that the Thunder Basin National Grassland and Bridger-Teton 

National Forest are planning to apply protections in important occupied habitats outside of sage-grouse core 

habitat that are similar to those in core habitat to meet National Forest Management Act (NFMA) viability 

requirements. However, we did not see any analysis or provisions reflecting this intention in this Draft EIS. 

As this plan is intended to cover USFS managed lands, we are concerned that the current measures in the 

Preferred Alternative do not meet this requirement and recommend addressing this issue in the final EIS. 

Summary: It is essential that the Forest Service apply stipulations on development consistent with 

Wyoming's strategy and must ensure that its management is consistent with that of the state and other land 

managers. This is particularly important when considering that the majority of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

is not found on Forest Service land. The Forest Service, at the regional and national level, must place a 

priority on consistency with Wyoming's strategy. The Thunder Basin National Grassland and Bridger-Teton 

National Forest are planning to apply protections in important occupied habitats outside of sage-grouse core 

habitat that are similar to those in core habitat to meet National Forest Management Act (NFMA) viability 

requirements. However, we did not see any analysis or provisions reflecting this intention in this Draft EIS. 

As this plan is intended to cover Forest Service managed lands, we are concerned that the current measures 

in the Preferred Alternative do not meet this requirement and recommend addressing this issue in the Final 

EIS. In the Draft EIS under the heading: Forest Service Translation of Management Actions into Standards, 

Guidelines, Objectives and Required Design Features for Alternative E, most of the areas under the Forest 

Service heading LRMP are not written but instead have the acronym RDF (which are not written for 

comment yet). How can this be allowable for NEPA process when the Forest Service does not have the 

REQUIRED management actions written for the public to comment on but instead only has the vast 

encompassing acronym-RDF as the proposed action? 2670.22 3. The Forest Service has failed to “develop 

and implement management objectives for populations and/or habitat of sensitive species” for sage-grouse 

and other species. 2622.01 - Authority. 2623 - QUANTIFYING OUTPUTS AND VALUES. The Forest 

Plan amendment fails to comply with these requirements. For example, the Forest Plan does not contain 

Standards and Guidelines necessary to protect sage-grouse habitat. No Standards are provided that limit 

utilization to provide for the minimum 18cm residual grass height needed to provide cover. The Forest 

Service lacks the data necessary to make the determinations they have made, making the proposed ROD 

arbitrary decision making. The Forest Service needs to collect the data necessary to make a scientifically 

defensible determination of viability for sage-grouse and other sensitive species. 

Response: These areas were not identified in time to analyze the impacts and be included in the Draft EIS. 

They have been included in the Final EIS. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

General comments, adequacy of the plan

Comment ID: 1301 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The implementation of specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG seasonal 

habitats is dependent on future decision-making. The current document does not automatically confer 

changes to management at the site-specific level; subsequent implementation-level decision-making must 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-481

occur before any GRSG conservation measures are applied. In fact, the current DLUPA/DEIS must be 

developing these specific objectives, as discussed in the FLPMA section above, not deferring to some 

uncertain future time. The very point of this LUPA is to provide the direction necessary to implement sagegrouse conservation at the site-specific level. Instead, under the preferred alternative, the BLM is planning 

to plan to protect sage-grouse. 

Comment ID: 1294 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Wyoming’s Core Areas were not delineated based on sage grouse biological, but based on where 

sage grouse were, minus those areas of current or potential oil and gas development. As such, the Core and 

non Core do not meet the definition of priority and general habitat. 

Comment ID: 1853 

Organization: 

Name: Charles C. Price 

Comment: Because sage grouse populations using the Bridger-Teton Forest in Sublette County are small, 

and with the exception of the Gros Ventre population, use the FS lands as summer habitat the BLM should 

take the lead in research and biological work for the sage grouse. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD) has extensive experience with the sage grouse and their expertise should be utilized by the federal 

agencies. 

Comment ID: 2548 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: We suggest that the Final LUPA/EIS incorporate the multiple collaborative sage-grouse 

conservation initiatives cited in this handout as examples of the active conservation efforts that have long 

been underway in Wyoming. 

Comment ID: 1925 

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Name: Alex Schubert 

Comment: 1. Regarding protective measures for the greater sage-grouse, the Service continues to favor the 

most extensive conservation measures present in the DEIS. These are generally found in Alternative B. The 

Service realizes, however, that the BLM and USFS must balance conservation for greater sagegrouse with 

their multiple-use objectives for land management. Furthermore, the Service is pleased with the attempts 

of the BLM and USFS in Wyoming to adopt the Wyoming Core Area Strategy into their RMPs and LRMPs 

statewide (Alternative E). The Service believes the Wyoming Core Area Strategy, if fully and properly 

implemented, can result in the long-term conservation of the greater sage-grouse in this state and, 

consequently, contribute to reducing the need to list the species rangewide under the ESA. As you are 

aware, actions outside of BLM and USFS- administered land in the range of the greater sage-grouse may 

influence any final listing decision. 

Comment ID: 1980 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-482 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Alternative A: While we find some of the narrative description within this description to be 

inconsistent with current on-the-ground management, this “no action” alternative, when combined with the 

Executive Orders and the initiatives of the Fish & Wildlife Service, is, in our view an effective approach to 

the management of sage-grouse habitat and populations in Wyoming. However, we recognize that 

Wyoming BLM is under pressure, perhaps even direction, to move beyond this approach. 

Comment ID: 1978 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: With respect to the portions of this Draft that deal with the Pinedale BLM area, we comment 

that this Draft is completely deficient with respect to providing “on-point” proposals to address the concerns 

of Judge Winmill in his 11/20/12 - Order on the Remedies. The Draft fails to adequately address allotment 

by allotment, the causal factors alleged to be related to livestock grazing and grouse issues and proposed 

mitigations, the cumulative impact sections of this draft are generic, not specific to his ruling on Pinedale 

issues, seasonal habitat map locations are not provided, and we could find no narratives that addressed his 

Ruling with respect to the Wyoming Basin Eco-region assessment or the WAFWA Conservation 

Assessment. We comment that the Final should contain a section that specifically conveys the elements in 

his Ruling. The Final should contain the BLM responses to each of these elements at a level of detail that 

is recognizable as being responsive to his concerns. 

Comment ID: 1998 

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

Name: Jim Magagna 

Comment: The State of Wyoming has already implemented a comprehensive sage grouse management plan 

that has been endorsed by the USFWS. This plan has been developed with strong local citizen input and is 

based on best available scientific information. It lends itself well to being the foundation for BLM and 

USFS plan amendments to address the needs of the sage-grouse. Alternative D accomplishes this in a 

generally acceptable manner. Alternative E, by attempting to superimpose elements of the NTT Report and 

other national directives, creates a hybrid plan amendment that is confusing and is less conducive to a 

collaborative on-the-ground approach to successful recovery of the species. As we have indicated in or 

comments, several changes are necessary to make the preferred alternative an acceptable choice for sagegrouse management that is compatible with established multiple use of Wyoming’s public lands. 

Comment ID: 1941 

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board 

Name: Dick Loper 

Comment: Pg. 2-11, 2.4.5, Alternative E, Preferred Alternative – This paragraph conveys an incorporation 

of the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order and conveys support for grouse population objectives set by 

the WGFD. Please include in the Final, the Executive Order and all addendums in the Appendix. We also 

request the inclusion of WGFD grouse population objectives in the format developed by the WGFD. We 

also comment and request that the Final document clearly convey where there are inconsistencies between 

the adoption of items from the NTT, BLM State and National grouse policies, and those contained in the 

Wyoming Executive Order. 

Comment ID: 525 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-483

Comment: The DEIS further fails to address the question of sage grouse habitat conservation in the context 

of livestock grazing. Judge Winmill previously set aside the Pinedale RMP for not adequately addressing 

the impacts. The DEIS unfortunately repeats this error but on a larger scale. BLM cannot avoid compliance 

with the Court’s order especially when the BLM represented to the judge that it would address the failings 

of the Pinedale RMP in SG9. 

Comment ID: 269 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Importantly, there will be a need for consistency between RMPs that share common ecosystems 

and sage grouse biology. Many of the scientifically demonstrated impacts of BLM-permitted activities to 

sage grouse, ranging from livestock grazing to impacts of tall structures or oil and gas development, would 

be expected to be similar across the range of the species. There is no reason to expect, for example, that the 

impact of transmission towers on sage grouse habitat use would be any different in Nevada than it is in 

Wyoming. Thus, in order to avoid the appearance of an arbitrary and capricious approach to sage grouse 

conservation between states or other jurisdictional boundaries that have no biological or ecological basis, 

BLM should have some common minimum requirements across RMPs that ensure that conservation 

measures that cannot be shown to support the maintenance and recovery of sage grouse populations do not 

crop up in regional or local RMPs due to the whims of local politics. Northeastern Wyoming, for example, 

shares an ecoregion and sage grouse Management Zone with Montana and the Dakotas. At a minimum, this 

plan should incorporate common minimum standards to protect sage grouse with plans in Utah, Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas that also govern lands in shared ecoregions. 

Comment ID: 1462 

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance 

Name: Siva Sundaresan 

Comment: Sage grouse leks found in the Gros Ventre region of the BTNF represent a critical population 

connectivity corridor between sage grouse in the Upper Green River basin and an otherwise isolated 

population in Jackson Hole (Upper Snake River Basin Local Working Group Plan 2014). Leks found in the 

Hoback basin are unique. Sage grouse here are part of a migratory population that winters within designated 

core area and summers in the BTNF. All these birds are found within habitats at an elevation and under 

snow conditions that are otherwise at the extremes of sage grouse ranges. Overall, the sage grouse in the 

BTNF represent a unique local population that is of critical importance as a connectivity corridor (Upper 

Snake River Basin Local Working Group Plan 2014). Currently, sage grouse habitat within the BTNF is 

not considered core or priority. This means that few of the management measures under Alternative E apply 

to the BTNF. However, given the critical importance of this local population and the legal mandate the 

obligates the BTNF to maintain viable populations, we ask that the BTNF designate sage grouse habitat as 

core or connectivity habitat and apply the same level of protections as sage grouse in other core habitats. 

This includes accounting for our recommended modifications of Alternative E, as stated above. In addition, 

we believe that sage grouse within the BTNF are not well-studied. New lek locations are being identified 

(J Bohne, personal communication). Several of these populations also represent an undetermined fraction 

of migratory individuals. Current EO stipulations and existing measures under Alternative E are inadequate 

in providing necessary protections to migratory populations (Connelly et al 2000, Fedy et al 2012). These 

populations have significantly greater habitat requirements than non-migrants, moving much greater 

distances, >18km, among lekking, nesting and wintering habitats (Wakkinen et al. 1992, Connelly et al 

2000). We strongly urge a more thorough monitoring and research approach to identifying occupied habitat 

and habitat requirements for sage grouse in the BTNF. 

Comment ID: 307 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-484 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: All habitat mitigation measures must apply to split-estate situations in which BLM owns either 

the surface or mineral estate. As BLM notes for Alternative B, “Private lands are not required to apply 

mitigation measures, which can cause further impacts to habitat loss and displacement of Greater SageGrouse.” DEIS at 4-292. This loophole affects millions of acres of split estate whereon BLM has the 

responsibility to manage oil and gas development and its impacts to prevent impacts to greater sage grouse. 

BLM must exercise its authority under all split-estate situations to ensure that BLMpermitted operations 

have no or minimal impact on sage grouse populations. Failure to do so constitutes both unnecessary and 

undue degradation of sage grouse habitats, each of which is a violation of FLPMA. 

Comment ID: 143 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Implementation ‐ the formation of Sage Grouse Oversight Team is concerning since we aren’t 

sure if a balance of competing interests will serve on the team. The make‐ up of the team needs to include 

a process where it will fairly include all interests. 

Comment ID: 1922 

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Name: Alex Schubert 

Comment: Conservation Objectives Team Report Consistency. Our review of your DEIS is provided, in 

part, in the context of the Final Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Final Report (COT 

Report; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). The purpose for developing the COT Report was to delineate 

range-wide conservation objectives, based on the best available scientific and commercial data available at 

the time of the COT Report's release, that, if met, would indicate that threats to the species have been 

reduced or ameliorated so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. A preliminary, qualitative assessment of COT Report consistency regarding the DEIS proposed 

action is provided for each alternative in the attached Matrix (USFWS BLM RMP Alternative Review 

Matrix). We hope this information enhances the BLM's own COT Report consistency evaluation. The 

attached matrix provides the Service's assessment regarding the consistency of the management actions 

contained in the DEIS with the COT Report Objectives. We did not provide an assessment of individual 

COT conservation measures recommended for each threat identified in the COT Report as our review of 

the Wyoming State Core Area Strategy determined that the preferred alternative of the 9-Plan RMP 

cumulatively addresses the threats using other mechanisms. The State of Wyoming has a Core Area 

Strategy to help balance the priorities of retaining healthy sage-grouse populations on the landscape. 

Statewide implementation of the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order for sagegrouse may help alleviate 

population declines. The 9 Plan Amendment preferred alternative, if adopted, will incorporate the protective 

measures from the Core Area Strategy into areas under the authority of the 9 Plan Amendment Field 

Offices/District Offices where sage-grouse occur. The implementation of an adequate monitoring program 

and adaptive management strategy (currently in the development stage) will increase the likelihood that the 

BLM/FS Offices will meet the COT objectives. The numbers in the attached matrix represent Agency 

Management Action Alternatives and were taken from Table 2-1 "Detailed Comparison of Alternatives" in 

the 9-Plan Amendment. 

Comment ID: 2083 

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Name: Dustin Van Liew 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-485

Comment: PLC and NCBA request that BLM conduct a more thorough analysis of the effectiveness of 

current frameworks, standards and guidelines applicable to livestock grazing and range management in 

conserving sage-grouse habitat and populations. Alternatives to the existing regulatory mechanisms should 

then be developed only if such analysis reveals a true purpose and need. Absent such a purpose and need, 

BLM must select Alternative A, no action. 

Comment ID: 1499 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The FWS’s PECE Policy informs this determination regarding the adequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms when considering whether listing is warranted. In particular, the PECE Policy 

requires the FWS to consider and evaluate (1) the certainty that the conservation effort will be implemented 

and (2) the certainty that the conservation effort will be effective in its decision as to whether listing can be 

avoided based on new regulatory standards.4 The proposed Plan Amendments fail to satisfy either of these 

elements because there is not sufficient certainty that conservation actions in any of the alternatives being 

considered for the Plan Amendments will occur and there is significant scientific evidence that the proposed 

management actions in each plan alternative will not be effective in either reversing the decline of the 

greater sage-grouse or recovering the species to levels where it is no longer threatened or endangered. 

Comment ID: 1513 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Thus the DEIS is not certain to be effective because they lack quantifiable parameters and 

provisions for monitoring and evaluating the implementation status or the success of conservation efforts, 

without which BLM will be unable to evaluate whether the LUPA will actually conserve and restore sagegrouse populations and habitats. 

Comment ID: 1503 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Under SUWA, the inclusion of this discretionary language provides little assurance that the 

agencies will actually implement conservation measures, with the result being that there will be a general 

inability for the public to hold either agency accountable for actually effectively implementing the goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines put forth in the DEIS. For this reason, the Preferred Alternative E, as 

well as the other alternatives as currently proposed in the DEIS do not meet the first criterion in the PECE 

Policy. 

Comment ID: 1500 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: At the outset, both the BLM and Forest Service must commit to proactively take the necessary 

steps to make certain that the management changes in the proposed plan amendments will actually be 

implemented. Certainly, these agencies must follow the adopted land use plans,10 and implement standards, 

however, as the Supreme Court made clear in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, merely 

including language that provides laudatory goals in a plan is not the same as the type of specific language 

needed to create binding commitments that the agency will carry out specific actions included in a plan. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-486 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1501 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: SUWA makes clear that the agencies have the discretion to include specific, discrete language 

within their respective land management plans to make sage-grouse conservation actions mandatory and 

binding on the landscape in order to ensure that the greater sage-grouse population is restored. However, 

here, because the plan includes significant discretionary language (e.g. avoidance) the agencies are not, in 

reality, meaningfully bound to meet any of the goals within the proposed plan amendments and implement 

all of the actions to protect the sage-grouse. Vague mandates within the plans could be ignored or watered 

down even without new plan amendments well before the next overarching plan amendment review period 

15 years from now. 

Comment ID: 2516 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: APLIC has been working with a group of member utilities and state/federal agency 

representatives, including the BLM, to develop Best Management Practices for electric utilities in sagegrouse areas. The APLIC model of collaborative, voluntary efforts - such as the Avian Protection Plan 

Guidelines, short courses, and guidance documents developed in partnership with the FWS - is serving as 

a framework for the sage-grouse BMPs. These BMPs are intended to be a living document that is updated 

and refined as new research is available. Consequently, these BMPs would be easier to update (compared 

to a LUP) to reflect new science and technology. APLIC is interested in working with the BLM, FWS, and 

other agencies to develop measures that are practical, effective, sciencebased, and justifiable to customers 

and public service commissions. APLIC applauds the BLM for its continued involvement in this BMP 

effort and encourages the BLM to recognize these BMPs in the Wyoming Land Use Plans as a tool to 

address sage-grouse/power line issues. 

Comment ID: 2529 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Because of these concerns, APLIC requests that the BLM consider other more effective 

alternatives to sage-grouse conservation, such as habitat conservation or enhancement efforts that are 

compatible with conservation measures for other protected species (e.g. electrocution prevention measures 

for raptors and other migratory birds). 

Comment ID: 2406 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Improper use of landscape-level habitat maps for project-level impacts. The BLM's landscapelevel mapping for sage-grouse seasonal habitat (Map 3-19) in the Draft EIS cannot be used alone to mandate 

conservation measures at the project level. Currently, the large-landscape level habitat designation map 

incorporates habitat that is not suitable for sage grouse, such as woodland areas or areas lacking sagebrush 

cover, into suitable sage-grouse habitat. BLM should not use one-size-fits-all regulatory prescriptions with 

no allowance for GRSG conservation measures tailored to local conditions. Instead, habitat designations 

affecting individual projects must be made on a case-by-case basis with accurate data collection at the 

project site. In particular, habitat designations should be confirmed or adjusted utilizing site specific data 

collected during standard project-level NEPA analyses conducted by BLM at the time specific actions or 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-487

projects are proposed. If site specific information (i.e. the best scientific information available) 

demonstrates that previously designated habitat does not meet the criteria for general or priority habitat, 

then adjustments to those habitat boundaries and/or designations are appropriate and must be made by 

BLM. The use of landscape-level maps is particularly troubling to the extent it is used to determine required 

seasonal restrictions or disturbance caps (discussed below). These requirements must be determined using 

ground-level and project-specific information to determine actual impacts to high-value habitat. To the 

extent the BLM incorporates project-level analysis concepts from Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05, 

BPM supports an approach that is based on these principles. To the extent BLM prefers an alternative 

approach that does not appear to account for project-level information, this raises significant consistency 

issues that BLM must resolve with the State of Wyoming before adopting any particular alternative. See 43 

C.P.R. § 1610.3-2. 

Comment ID: 2534 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: The BLM Should Develop Incentives for Conservation Practices Implemented by Industry or 

Other Private Entities A critical component to successful sage-grouse conservation is a concerted effort 

among all stakeholders. The electric utility industry has a long history of collaborative conservation efforts 

with agencies, and APLIC encourages the BLM to continue this collaboration to address sage-grouse 

concerns. Electric utilities build new power lines as needed to meet customer demands and increasing load 

growth. Existing and future power lines require inspections, maintenance, and repairs as needed to maintain 

the integrity of the electrical system and provide reliable service to customers. Access to utility rights-ofway (ROW) is necessary for these operations and maintenance activities. Utility regulatory commissions 

set rates for electric utility companies and measures implemented must demonstrate a benefit to ratepayers. 

Consequently, utilities often seek conservation partnerships that serve a specific conservation need, provide 

a benefit to the species and/or habitats considered, provide a cost-effective benefit to ratepayers, and are 

reasonably commensurate with the level of impact. APLIC encourages the BLM to develop incentives for 

industry that meet these conservation and customer goals. Numerous state sage-grouse plans have either 

included or are developing incentive programs for industry and private landowners, as these are critical to 

the overall conservation of sage-grouse and their habitat. APLIC encourages the BLM to consider 

mitigation banks and offsite mitigation as mechanisms to pool habitat conservation resources and target 

conservation efforts in highest priority areas. Because habitat is the primary factor influencing sage-grouse

populations, habitat conservation and enhancement efforts should be a primary focus of minimization and 

mitigation efforts. For unknown impacts of power lines, APLIC recommends that the BLM provide 

opportunities and incentives to conduct additional research using the research protocols developed by Utah 

Wildlife in Need (UWIN) in 2012 and endorsed by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA). As indicated by WAFWA, such research should be acceptable as a component of a mitigation 

package for unknown project impacts. In addition, APLIC encourages the BLM to continue to work with 

APLIC to identify potential sage-grouse conservation partnership opportunities with the electric utility 

industry. 

Comment ID: 233 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: A report by the U.S. Geological Survey and other peer-reviewed research indicate that 

conserving the Greater Sage-Grouse will require both protecting large areas of habitat and making 

significant changes in land management to reverse population declines of this wide-ranging species. The 

Survey found that most priority sage-grouse habitat is already heavily degraded and that grouse are only 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-488 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

persisting in large, relatively undisturbed blocks of habitat. The species' survival requires a plan that will

effectively reduce the rate of its decline and stabilize its population. 

Comment ID: 2332 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS should not use one-size-fits-all regulatory prescriptions with no allowance 

for GrSG conservation measures tailored to local conditions. Instead, habitat designations affecting 

individual projects must be made on a case-by-case basis with accurate data collection at the project site. 

In particular, habitat designations should be confirmed or adjusted utilizing site specific data collected 

during standard project-level NEPA analyses conducted by agency at the time specific actions or projects 

are proposed. If site specific information (i.e. the best scientific information available) demonstrates that 

previously designated habitat does not meet the criteria for general or priority habitat, then adjustments to 

those habitat boundaries and/or designations are appropriate and must be made by the agency. The use of 

landscape-level maps is particularly troubling to the extent it is used to determine required seasonal 

restrictions or disturbance caps. These requirements must be determined using ground-level and projectspecific information to determine actual impacts to highvalue habitat. 

Comment ID: 2841 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: As an overall comment about this and later sections, the document seems to only be targeted 

towards expanding the federal estate. Wyoming Farm Bureau policy has long advocated that there should 

be no net gain in federal land ownership in Wyoming. We strongly oppose efforts by the Agencies to utilize 

the sage-grouse as an excuse to obtain private lands or interests in private lands. 

Comment ID: 2322 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The agencies are attempting to ward off listing of the GrSG by recommending constraints that 

exceed those implemented for listed species. The overly burdensome restrictions are not based on scientific 

data and fail to account for the comprehensive state and local conservation efforts already ongoing in 

Wyoming. A particular concern is the failure to prioritize specific actions that may have the greatest benefit 

to the sage-grouse. In the BLM's scoping materials for its EIS process, The BLM listed hard rock mining 

16th out of 19 threats to the GrSG, just above hunting. Hunting has been found to be such an insignificant 

threat that it is not even recommended that it be prohibited. The DLUPA/DEIS appears to treat all threats 

from all programs equally, and apparently intends to spend agency scarce resources implementing specific 

restrictions even when certain programs like mineral development may have relatively little effect on 

greater sage-grouse. The DLUPA/DEIS must prioritize higher threats and focus on the largest risks to GrSG 

such as invasive species and fire. Additionally, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife service has recognized predation 

as a significant factor related to the decline of GrSG distribution and abundance. Yet, the Draft EIS fails to 

address predation issues or the potential for mitigation measures that could reduce impacts from predation. 

A primary example of the DLUPA/DEIS's imposition of new burdensome requirements without adequate 

scientific justification is the imposition of new more onerous conservation measures above and beyond 

existing state-led conservation efforts. The DLUPA/DEIS fails to adequately account for existing 

conservation requirements applicable to the GrSG in conducting its analysis of the various alternatives. 

Indeed, the DLUPA/DEIS glosses over many of the existing conservation measures implemented through 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 and existing stipulations implemented through the BLM's Special 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-489

Status Species Manual 6840 and Instruction Memoranda. In some cases, the DLUPA/DEIS's preferred 

alternative presents unclear and inconsistent approaches. This is a clear disregard for BLM's duty to provide 

a comparison of all reasonable alternatives in a manner that allows the public to clearly evaluate new 

requirements that could be imposed on development. 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). 

Comment ID: 2804 

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: As a general comment, the Draft LUPA/ElS BLM often strays from its stated purpose and need 

by providing analysis of individual sage-grouse and proposing development stipulations unrelated to 

managing sage-grouse habitat. BLM should not analyze impacts on individual sage-grouse until first 

establishing a link between the impacts to individuals and sage-grouse habitat. Furthermore, BLM may not 

propose management actions unrelated to management of sage-grouse habitat because such actions are 

outside the scope of this LUPA/ElS. All such management actions should be deleted from the Final 

LUPA/EIS. 

Comment ID: 2599 

Organization: QEP Energy Company 

Name: Mike Smith 

Comment: Page 2-9: QEP feels that the creation of a Mitigation Implementation Team for each of the six 

WAFWA Management Zones in the West is unnecessary. The Wyoming Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team (SGIT) already exists and both the BLM and USFS already participate. 

Comment ID: 2523 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: There has been significant effort and progress made in recent years to incorporate sage-grouse 

conservation measures into state and federal agency planning documents and decisions. In addition, 

industry has made positive efforts to address sage-grouse conservation and minimize project impacts to 

sage-grouse and their habitats. In most states, industry has been an active participant in sagegrouse planning 

documents and positive partnerships between agencies and industry have been developed to further sagegrouse conservation. This has resulted in consideration of sage-grouse habitat in line siting, efforts to 

schedule activities to minimize disturbance impacts to sage-grouse, and other conservation measures. 

APLIC is working with resource agencies (including the BLM, FWS, and state agencies) in the 

development of Best Management Practices for electric utilities in sagegrouse areas (see discussion below). 

APLIC encourages the BLM to reference these BMPs in the Wyoming LUP EIS. 

Summary: Issue 1. Wyoming’s Core Areas were not delineated based on sage-grouse biological, but based 

on where sage-grouse were, minus those areas of current or potential oil and gas development. As such, the 

Core and non Core do not meet the definition of priority and general habitat. Issue 2. The document seems 

to only be targeted towards expanding the federal estate. Issue 3. BLM is encouraged to continue to work 

with APLIC to identify potential sage-grouse conservation partnership opportunities with the electric utility 

industry. Issue 4. All habitat mitigation measures must apply to split-estate situations in which BLM owns 

either the surface or mineral estate. Issue 5. Implementation ‐ the formation of Sage‐ Grouse Oversight 

Team is concerning since we aren’t sure if a balance of competing interests will serve on the team. Issue 6. 

BLM and Forest Service must commit to proactively take the necessary steps to make certain that the 

management changes in the proposed plan amendments will actually be implemented. Issue 7. BLM should 

have some common minimum requirements across RMPs that ensure that conservation measures that 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-490 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

cannot be shown to support the maintenance and recovery of sagegrouse populations do not crop up in 

regional or local RMPs due to the whims of local politics. Issue 8. BLM is requested to conduct a more 

thorough analysis of the effectiveness of current frameworks, standards and guidelines applicable to 

livestock grazing and range management in conserving sage-grouse habitat and populations. Issue 9. The 

Proposed LUP Amendments fail to satisfy the USFWS’s PECE elements because there is not sufficient 

certainty that conservation actions in any of the alternatives being considered will occur and there is 

significant scientific evidence that the proposed management actions in each plan alternative will not be 

effective in either reversing the decline of the Greater Sage-Grouse or recovering the species to levels where 

it is no longer threatened or endangered. Issue 10. Because the plan includes significant discretionary 

language (e.g. avoidance) the agencies are not, in reality, meaningfully bound to meet any of the goals 

within the proposed plan amendments and implement all of the actions to protect the sage-grouse. Vague 

mandates within the plans could be ignored or watered down even without new plan amendments well 

before the next overarching plan amendment review period 15 years from now. Issue 11. Actions outside 

of BLM and Forest Service- administered land in the range of the Greater Sage-Grouse may influence any 

final listing decision. Issue 12. In some cases, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS Preferred Alternative 

presents unclear and inconsistent approaches. This is a clear disregard for BLM's duty to provide a 

comparison of all reasonable alternatives in a manner that allows the public to clearly evaluate new 

requirements that could be imposed on development. 40 CFR § 1502.14(a). Issue 13. Habitat designations 

affecting individual projects must be made on a case-by-case basis with accurate data collection at the 

project site. Issue 14. BLM may not propose management actions unrelated to management of sage-grouse 

habitat because such actions are outside the scope of the LUP Amendments/EIS. All such management 

actions should be deleted from the Final LUP Amendments/Final EIS. Issue 15. The Draft EIS further fails 

to address the question of sage-grouse habitat conservation in the context of livestock grazing and 

compliance with the Court’s order especially when the BLM represented to the judge that it would address 

the failings of the Pinedale RMP in this plan [SG9]. Issue 16. We strongly urge a more thorough monitoring 

and research approach to identifying occupied habitat and habitat requirements for sage-grouse in the 

BTNF. Few of the management measures under Alternative E apply to the BTNF. Issue 17. We suggest 

that the Final LUP Amendments/Final EIS incorporate the multiple collaborative sage-grouse conservation 

initiatives cited in this handout as examples of the active conservation efforts that have long been underway 

in Wyoming. Issue 18. Include a copy of the Wyoming Executive Order as an Appendix in the Final EIS. 

Response: Issue 1. The Wyoming core areas were delineated based known sage-grouse leks and nesting 

habitat areas. The priority and general habitats were to be developed by each State within the range of the 

sage-grouse based on their knowledge and expertise of sage-grouse habitat and use. Issue 2. The document 

focuses on lands within federal jurisdiction whether they are surface estates or mineral estates. Issue 3. The 

BLM and Forest Service is committed to continue working with APLIC on conservation measures related 

to impacts to sage-grouse and their habitats from overhead powerlines. Issue 4. MA 71 and 72 address the 

application of conservation measures developed in this plan as they apply to split estate lands. Issue 5. All 

implementation of the measures outlined in this plan will primarily to overseen by BLM/Forest 

Service/USFWS/State of Wyoming personnel within the State of Wyoming. Issue 6. These measures will 

be amended to existing RMP/LUPs and the BLM/Forest Service is committed to their implementation. 

Issue 7. All of the measures within this plan are common requirements for sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitat management throughout the BLM/Forest Service lands within Wyoming. Issue 8. The analysis 

provided at the RMP level is thorough, however it is not site specific, implementation level planning will 

provide more specific analysis of the impacts of these management actions and their effectiveness on 

current range management regulations on a site specific basis. Issue 9. The BLM/Forest Service have been 

working closely with the USFWS to ensure that this plan satisfies the USFWS PECE policy and we have 

been given assurances that the USFWS is confident that the BLM/Forest Service are meeting regulatory 

certainty under the ESAs listing requirements. In the event that the measures in this plan are not effective 

reversing the decline of sage-grouse an adaptive management and monitoring strategy is in place to change 

the management prescriptions. Issue 10. The discretionary language found within the document is meant to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-491

continue to allow the BLM/FS to continue to follow our multiple use mandate in addition, to conserve sagegrouse and their habitats in a way we have not considered in the past. Issue 11. The BLM/Forest Service is 

committed to working with federal, state and private partners outside of the jurisdiction of this plan in order 

to implement similar management prescriptions on a landscape level basis. Issue 12. The preferred 

alternative represents a new management strategy for managing sage-grouse habitats within our current 

regulations and jurisdictions, which may appear to present an inconsistent approach but is meant to bridge 

the vast differences of our laws and regulations. Revisions have been undertaken in the Final EIS to clarify 

and rectify apparent inconsistencies. Issue 13. Habitat designations for sage-grouse breeding, nesting, 

wintering, and brood rearing is based on known locations of sage-grouse activity. How these locations 

affect individual projects and the implementation of these projects will be determined on a case-by-case 

basis, under the auspice of these management actions outlined in this plan. Issue 14. The BLM/Forest 

Service is not proposing management actions that are unrelated to sage-grouse and their habitats in this plan 

and has been very cognizant of anything that may be out of scope. Issue 15. The Final EIS ensures that the 

analysis of sage-grouse habitat conservation and livestock grazing is in compliance with the Pinedale RMPs 

court mandates. Issue 16. All of the management actions in alternative E apply to the BTNF, including the 

monitoring and adaptive management strategies that will be implemented in this plan. Issue 17. The existing 

sage-grouse conservation efforts that have been initiated by the BLM/Forest Service on federal lands has 

been incorporated and referenced in Alternative A of this plan. Issue 18. This plan has incorporated many 

of the strategies found within the Wyoming Executive Order in our management actions; Wyoming BLM 

has also incorporated these strategies in WY BLM 2012-019.

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Grazing and sage-grouse coexistence

Comment ID: 2087 

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Name: Dustin Van Liew 

Comment: Not only did the FWS never find that existing regulatory mechanisms applicable to livestock 

grazing are inadequate, the 9-Plan EIS also fails to meaningfully analyze the effects of current grazing 

management. BLM states that “BLM policy in WO-IM-2009-007 and BLM Handbook H-4180-1, and the 

equivalent Forest Service Annual Operating Instructions to evaluate land health standard achievement in 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could identify where land health standards are not being met. If 

appropriate action is taken by issuing a decision to modify grazing, ... impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse 

from livestock grazing could be reduced.” 9-Plan EIS at 4-258 (emphasis added). BLM must meaningfully 

analyze current grazing impacts and demonstrate that existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate before 

imposing additional restrictions. The facts that are actually discussed in the 9-Plan EIS reflect that the status 

quo is substantially in compliance with protective standards and guidelines. For example, BLM- and Forest 

Service-managed grazing allotments not meeting wildlife standards comprise only 2% of Management 

Zone I, less than 5% in Management Zones II and VII, and “are not widespread” throughout the region. 9-

Plan EIS at 4-489, 4-491. Additionally, much of MZ II (close to 5 million acres) is wild horse and burro 

range, suggesting that changes to wild horse and burro management should be considered ahead of any 

alterations to livestock grazing. 9-Plan EIS at 4-491. These circumstances highlight the inaccuracy of 

BLM’s statement of the purpose and need with respect to livestock grazing and range management. The 

current regulatory framework is compatible with sage-grouse conservation. In sum, the 2010 FWS listing 

decision does not provide a foundation from which BLM can rationally conclude, or assume, that changes 

in the current regulatory framework applicable to livestock grazing and range management are necessary 

to conserve and protect sage-grouse, much less to avoid a future listing decision. BLM’s reliance on the 

FWS listing decision as the basis for the purpose and need to amend regulatory mechanisms applicable to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-492 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

livestock grazing and range management is arbitrary and capricious because the listing decision does not 

factually support BLM’s statement of purpose and need. BLM has not established a legitimate purpose and 

need for amending current regulatory frameworks applicable to livestock grazing and range management. 

Comment ID: 166 

Organization: 

Name: Jean Harshbarger 

Comment: There is a statement concerning retirement of grazing rights as an option, and it should be pointed 

out that usually grazing enhances sage grouse habitat. Removal of grazing can be detrimental to grouse. 

Comment ID: 119 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: Wyoming has the healthiest, most diverse grassland ecosystem in the world. Additionally, 

Montana has so many sage grouse that the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks is transplanting 

some of them to Canada. This region’s sage grouse production is in good shape due to decades of 

cooperation between ranchers and the BLM. The EIS must adequately acknowledge this condition. 

Comment ID: 481 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association 

Name: John Hay III 

Comment: Grazing by RSGA shareholders is compatible with conservation of sage grouse habitat but this 

hard work and 100 years of conservation management are threatened if BLM persists in its effort to 

minimize [wild horse] removals. 

Comment ID: 2086 

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

Name: Dustin Van Liew 

Comment: BLM has made the unprecedented error of failing to undertake a careful, accurate review of the 

FWS’s listing decision as it relates to livestock grazing and range management. As applied to livestock 

grazing and range management, BLM’s statement of the purpose and need is inaccurate and misleading 

because the FWS never found, nor has BLM found, that existing regulatory mechanisms applicable to 

livestock grazing and range management pose a threat to sage-grouse habitat or populations, much less that 

changes in such regulatory mechanisms are necessary to avoid a listing decision. In the 2010 FWS listing 

decision, FWS reached a general conclusion that “the absence of regulatory mechanisms is a significant 

threat to the species.” List. Dec. at 72. However, in its discussion of regulatory mechanisms, FWS discussed 

numerous land management activities, including livestock grazing, energy development, road use, and oil 

and gas development and reached different conclusions with respect to the adequacy and effectiveness of 

regulatory mechanisms applicable to each of those land management activities. For instance, FWS found 

that regulatory mechanisms relating to oil, gas and other energy development “fall short of meeting the 

conservation needs of the species,” List. Dec. at 68. However, crucially, the FWS did not conclude that 

existing regulatory mechanisms relating to livestock grazing and range management were inadequate. To 

the contrary, FWS explained that it “lack[ed] the information necessary to assess how [the implementation 

of rangeland health assessments] effects sage-grouse conservation.” List. Dec. at 66. Moreover, the FWS 

concluded that existing “RMPs, AMPs, and the permit renewal process provide an adequate regulatory 

framework.” List. Dec. at 66. The question FWS identified, however, was “whether or not these regulatory 

mechanisms are being implemented in a manner that conserves sage-grouse.” Id. Elsewhere, FWS 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-493

summarized its findings by stating that: “for other threats, such as grazing, our ability to assess the 

application of existing regulatory mechanisms on a broad scale is limited by the way that BLM collected 

and summarized their data on rangeland health assessments and the implementation of corrective measures, 

where necessary.” List. Dec. at 69. 

Comment ID: 701 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: The NTT Report unilaterally targets domestic livestock grazing and provides only a cursory 

analysis of wild horse and other ungulate impacts on rangeland conditions. The Draft EIS adopts the NTT 

Report for grazing guidance even though EO 2011-5 concludes that appropriate grazing is actually 

beneficial to GRSG habitat. Alternatives D and E, although better than B or C, include various flaws as 

discussed in our Table attached to this letter. 

Summary: This region’s sage-grouse production is in good shape due to decades of cooperation between 

ranchers and the BLM. The EIS must adequately acknowledge this condition, and it should be pointed out 

that grazing usually enhances sage-grouse habitat. Removal of grazing can be detrimental to grouse. 

Response: The State of Wyoming considers proper livestock grazing a de minimis practice within sagebrush 

habitat. The COT idenfiied improper livestock grazing as a threat. On February 5, 2015 the USFWS 

released a memo detailing its position on livestock grazing and sage-grouse habitat management. This 

memo outlines the potential positive and impacts of grazing management. As with all resource uses, proper 

livestock grazing must be carefully managed to provide adequate habitat for sage-grouse and other native 

wildlife species. As with all resource uses, proper livestock grazing must be carefully managed to provide 

adequate habitat for sage-grouse and other native wildlife species. Areas of most concern are sensitive 

seasonal habitat for sage-grouse such as early brood-rearing, nesting, and winter ranges. Within seasonal 

habitat, vegetation height for sage-grouse cover and forage is necessary for species survival. The Proposed 

LUP Amendments include grazing management actions and guidance for incorporating sage-grouse 

decisions into grazing authorizations to ensure that livestock grazing continues to be a de minimis practice 

on public lands in Wyoming.

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Overall grazing: Healthy Rangelands, ESDs, PFC, measurable standards regarding residual 

stubble height for sagegrouse hiding cover and utilization standards

Comment ID: 1308 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS does not specify what the percent cover and height of vegetation should be, 

what the specific reference will be that provides this recommendation, and whether these conditions will 

be required. It does not say how often these land health assessments will be assessed or how the condition 

will be assessed relative to active livestock grazing use, or how a decade-scale monitoring event will 

account for the immediate and short-term displacement of nesting and lekking birds. 

Comment ID: 1304 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-494 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS preferred alternative does not require that the agencies consider removing 

livestock in order to modify grazing management to meet seasonal GRSG requirements, even though the 

agencies understand that changing intensity of use, numbers of livestock, and class of livestock could be 

beneficial for GRSG habitat. 

Comment ID: 1003 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: At best, Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD’s) are approximations of potential plant communities 

on different range sites. ESD’s are based largely on rough satellite data and do not contain any degree of 

measurable detail. ESD’s are not, despite BLM’s heavy insistence, ecological absolutes and are subject to 

continual revisions as the potential of the individual sites is revealed. By their very nature, these sites are 

extremely variable and should not be used as a basis for land management objectives or changes in permits 

to achieve such objectives. Instead, ESD’s are references for the potential of a range site. The rangeland 

health standards at 43 C.F.R. §4180, however, provide a more appropriate threshold. The FEIS should 

define “ecological site description” and explain what it is based on. Also the FEIS must explain whether it 

uses actual ESDs or those derived from NRCS database 

Comment ID: 1649 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: In addition to enshrining the consideration of livestock permit retirement on a voluntary basis 

in the RMP amendment, The Taylor Grazing Act gives federal agencies the authority to re-examine and 

reclassify lands within a grazing district that are “more valuable or suitable for any other use” than for 

grazing livestock. 43 U.S.C. § 315(f). The BLM’s sage grouse plan amendment process provides an ideal 

vehicle for the Secretary to make a new determination that all existing sage-grouse habitat (or a subset of 

extant habitat – e.g., preliminary priority habitat or preliminary general habitat) is not “chiefly valuable for 

grazing,” and thus modify existing grazing districts to excise these areas. Through this same process, the 

Secretary may separately determine that these same areas are “chiefly valuable” for sage grouse protection 

and conservation. This should be accomplished as part of the Wyoming RMP amendment process. 

Comment ID: 1309 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS preferred alternative specifies that the agencies will use Ecological Site 

Descriptions (ESDs) as the basis for conducting land health assessments, but it does not say what seral stage 

ESD will be the basis. Action 92 merely says that the BLM will “manage for vegetation composition and 

structure that reflects ESD or other methods that reference site potential” but the alternative fails to 

implement the actions, requirements and limitations needed to get there. These omissions are violations of 

NEPA, FLPMA, NFMA, and agency regulation and the DLUPA/DEIS is inadequate and legally 

unsupported on these grounds. 

Comment ID: 326 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM also asserts that “implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on 

BLMadministered lands could ensure that impacts were not significant.” DEIS at 4-259. Such assurance 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-495

cannot be made, because it is possible to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands an not 

provide a minimum of 18 cm (or even 10 cm) of residual grass height in sage grouse nesting and broodrearing habitats. Thus, widespread nest failure as a result of inadequate grass cover can still occur when 

these standards are met. This flawed analysis violates NEPA’s ‘hard look’ and scientific integrity mandates. 

Comment ID: 1647 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Rest from grazing can also result in the restoration of degraded riparian zones. According to 

Ohmart (1996: 270), “The best way to manage riparian habitats is not to graze them." For example, in Bone 

Draw, a tributary of the Big Sandy River in Wyoming, removal of grazing resulted in “expansion of the 

riparian zone, stream bank water recharge and stabilization, extension of perennial water flows, and 

improved sage grouse, antelope, and waterfowl habitat. Also, as a result of the project, trout weighing up 

to 4 pounds were making an annual spring run of up to 100 miles of the Big Sandy and Green Rivers and 

into Bone Draw” (GAO 1988: 56). In eastern Oregon, Case and Kauffmann (1997) found significant 

increases in the structure and density of riparian hardwoods after only 2 years following livestock removal. 

Rickard and Cushing (1982) found that a small spring stream in sagebrush steppe in eastern Washington 

recovered its willow vegetation within 10 years following the cessation of grazing. Brady et al. (1989) 

found that after a 16-year absence of grazing, the plant community achieved a rich and diverse balance, 

with increases in plant diversity and overall vegetation cover. For optimal riparian zone recovery, Case and 

Kaufman (1997) recommended complete protection from grazing for the first 5-10 years following 

livestock removal. 

Comment ID: 1271 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS’s reliance on meeting habitat criteria does not address the threats of nest 

disturbance, trampling, flushing, or egg crushing that livestock pose to nesting sage-grouse. The very 

existence of cattle, sheep, and horses in nesting areas is a threat that is unmitigated and inadequately 

analyzed in the DLUPA/DEIS. Importantly, none of the alternatives presented entailed any analysis of the 

different threats by class of livestock nor did they propose changing the class of livestock where, for 

example, sheep browsing in fall and winter might be affecting the vigor of sagebrush or sheep grazing 

during nesting season would have a high probability of nest trampling. See Beck and Mitchell, 2000, as 

cited in Manier et al. 2013. 

Comment ID: 908 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: Livestock grazing in sage-grouse habitat should maintain and 

restore habitat characteristics important for conserving sage-grouse. Grazing management should: o 

Require that grazing strategies maintain at least 18 cm average grass height in nesting and broodrearing 

habitat. o Control grazing to avoid contributing to the spread of cheatgrass in sage-grouse habitat. o 

Facilitate voluntary grazing permit retirement in priority habitat. 

Comment ID: 1269 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-496 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Standards and guidelines are usually assessed at a distance from livestock water developments, 

in areas of “moderate” livestock use. The DLUPA/DEIS does not discuss how the key areas used in S&G 

assessments overlaps with sage-grouse habitat or whether the S&G parameters specifically measure the 

impacts of livestock at specific points in sage-grouse lifecycles. The DLUPA/DEIS does not explicitly link 

the measurements of the S&G assessments to the criteria established for sage-grouse nesting and brooding 

success, only that these criteria will be developed at some unspecified future date. Without site-specific 

monitoring or a clear connection between the rangeland health standards and the habitat needs of sagegrouse, meeting the S&Gs cannot be considered as providing fully functioning sage grouse habitat or an 

adequate regulatory mechanism to prevent listing. At present, no S&G assessments have determined if sage 

grouse habitat needs are met or not, yet the EIS assumes allotments meeting Standards are meeting sage 

grouse habitat needs. 

Comment ID: 251 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that the BLM’s emphasis on grazing to reduce cheatgrass in some alternatives 

will collaterally reduce nesting cover below this critical threshold. Herman-Brunson et al. (2009) found that 

sage grouse nest survival decreased when residual grass cover was < 16 cm in height. According to Kaczor 

(2008: 26) grass height is positively correlated with nest success, and this researcher recommended, “Land 

managers should attempt to leave or maintain maximum grass heights [greater than or equal to] 26 cm, the 

inflection point for 50% nest success.” See Attachment 8, and see Kaczor et al. (2011), Attachment 9. Heath 

et al (1997) also found that near Farson, Wyoming, nests with taller grass heights were more successful 

than those with shorter heights. The agencies should implement a standard within the plan to address a 

measurable stubble height that must remain throughout the nesting season in grouse nesting habitat. We 

recommend at minimum using the 7.1-inch residual stubble height standard as recommended by Connelly 

et al. (2000a). Attachment 10. The Forest Service should evaluate this standard and other residual stubble 

height standards for nesting and other habitats to determine which approach best represents the best science. 

Comment ID: 250 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Alternative E does not include measurable standards regarding residual stubble height for sage 

grouse hiding cover, nor does it address this issue indirectly by prescribing a maximum percentage of forage 

allowed to be removed by livestock grazing and trampling. The federal agencies must pursuant to NFMA 

reach a determination regarding the science that is most relevant, reliable, and accurate regarding the 

amount of forage that needs to remain to provide sage grouse hiding cover. For the Great Basin, Connelly 

et al. (2000a) recommended leaving residual grass cover at least 18 cm in height, available during the 

nesting season. This finding was empirically confirmed by Hagen et al. (2007). Gregg et al. (2012) found 

that forb components are critical for early brood rearing, and recommended that land managers establish 

standards for these; such standards are also absent under the Preferred Alternativ and not considered under 

any alternative, although such measuers are reasonable and scientifically supported. 

Comment ID: 1650 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: According to the Secretary, the Grazing Rider mandated that grazing permits be renewed with 

the same terms and conditions as the expiring permits, and required the Secretary of the Interior to defer 

compliance with all applicable laws, including FLPMA, at the time of renewal. Id. At 9-10. In other words, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-497

the Secretary believes the Grazing Rider waives all environmental laws, and the Secretary is powerless to 

apply any new terms and conditions to expired, waived or transferred grazing permits. Accordingly, BLM’s 

so-called livestock grazing conservation measures in the EIS will have a negligible effect on Greater sage 

grouse populations and habitat, and certainly cannot provide the required certainty of effectiveness or 

certainty of implementation required to preclude a listing under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s PECE 

policy. To meet the PECE’s policy’s requirements for consideration of BLM’s unproven sage grouse 

conservation measures, BLM must implement the below recommended conservation measures on all 

grazing permits within existing sage grouse habitat contemporaneously with BLM's adopting the Final EIS 

and amending all applicable land use plans. BLM cannot wait until the expiration, transfer or renewal of 

the grazing permits before it implements these conservation measures, because, at that time (according to 

the Secretary’s own interpretation of the Grazing Rider), BLM will lack the authority to modify the terms 

and conditions of these grazing permits to incorporate any sage grouse conservation measure identified in 

the EIS. We recommend the following strengthened management approaches to minimize further 

degradation of sage-grouse habitats from livestock grazing and the impacts from feral wild horses. 

Comment ID: 1324 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The BLM intends to use LANDFIRE vegetation data to monitor habitat characteristics 

throughout sage-grouse range. Broad to mid-scale monitoring is certainly valuable, but WWP is concerned 

with whether accurate and sufficient fine-level monitoring is available in the planning area. The agency’s 

failure to take a hard look at the site-specific effects of livestock grazing in the immediate areas of leks or 

important sage-grouse habitat is a failure to acknowledge the profound impacts and significance of impacts 

of degradation at this fine scale. 

Comment ID: 1310 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: NEPA’s implementing regulations require a consideration of the cumulative impacts of a 

project, defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. Because 

the synergistic effects of multiple stressors is a driving force of extinction,69 the need to consider the 

multiple stressors facing sage-grouse and the lack of regulatory mechanisms in agency management of all 

of them is a paramount concern for the protection of sage-grouse under the ESA. The DLUPA/DEIS 

unfortunately fails to provide this analysis. For example, the DLUPA/DEIS identifies some restrictions for 

surface-disturbing activities in the EIS. But the BLM does not consider livestock grazing to be a surface 

disturbing activity, despite the mechanics of heavy ungulate disturbance during the nesting and early-brood 

rearing season. This failure to define the problem appropriately is the basis of the problem with the analysis; 

the revised LUPA/EIS should include the surface disturbing effects of livestock. The 5-percent disturbance 

cap is really 100 percent given the ubiquity of grazing impacts. 

Comment ID: 1646 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Placing salt blocks in upland areas is not an effective means of drawing cattle use away from 

riparian areas. Bryant (1982:784) found that salt placement and alternate water sources did not influence 

cattle preference for riparian habitats, and came to the following conclusion: “These cattle used the salt 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-498 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

when convenient but did not alter behavior patterns to obtain it.” Thus, the BLM should not rely on the 

placement of salt blocks as a means to draw livestock away from riparian habitats. 

Comment ID: 1645 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Given the state of degradation and the pervasive nature of livestock grazing, we recommend 

establishing a utilization rate of 25% while meeting sage-grouse habitat objectives. While definitions of 

light grazing use vary, numerous references have settled on a general 25 percent harvest coefficient for 

allocating forage for livestock. Although this rate is more conservative than others prescribed for light 

grazing, it allows both forage species and livestock to maximize their productivity, allows for error in forage 

production estimates, accounts for the potential effects of drought, and supports multiple use values. 

Holecheck et al. also noted that, because most ranchers have difficulty monitoring and measuring annual 

grazing utilization (and the BLM doesn’t regularly monitor and collect utilization information), use of 

grazing coefficients higher than 25 percent “invariably leads to land degradation...when drought occurs 

because of rancher reluctance [to reduce livestock numbers].” Limiting livestock grazing to 25 percent 

utilization would also support other sage-grouse habitat objectives, such as maintaining a minimum stubble 

height. A case study of the Antelope Springs Allotment in southern Idaho demonstrates that ranching 

operations can be successful and improve sage-grouse habitat using a 20 percent utilization standard. 

Comment ID: 252 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: In addition, Braun (2006) recommended a maximum 25% forage utilization standard for 

livestock (and see Holechek et al. 2010). Controlling forage utilization levels confers numerous benefits on 

sage grouse and their habitats. DEIS at 4-275. Please review the scientific literature and make a 

determination regarding what percentage of available forage should be dedicated to forage utilization for 

domestic livestock. 

Comment ID: 103 

Organization: 

Name: Nancy Schultz 

Comment: The negative impacts of grazing on sage grouse are well documented. The research on 

percentages of big sagebrush, amount of native grasses and the importance of functioning riparian areas 

clearly shows the negative effects of grazing. In my experience and documented in numerous publications 

the BLM does not adequately manage our public lands for sage grouse to recover. Livestock allotment 

retirement in priority habitat needs serious consideration 

Comment ID: 1328 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: As discussed above, riparian areas are critical habitat for sage-grouse brood-rearing (Connelly 

et al. 2000), but these are some of the most manipulated and degraded habitat types in Wyoming. For 

example, many valleys that used to contain wetland habitat have been replaced by agriculture 

(DLUPA/DEIS at 3-80), which is less than ideal habitat. The BLM anticipates increased competition for 

water from many users in the future (DLUPA/DEIS at 3-52 and 3-53) as development increases. That and 

climate change will place sage-grouse brooding habitat in an even more precarious position. But the most 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-499

impactful stressor is livestock, which concentrate around water sources and remove riparian vegetation and 

cover, compact soils, and lower water tables, which then alters water quality, invertebrate populations, and 

plant species composition. This can result in degradation of crucial habitats for Greater sage-grouse. Yet 

the preferred alternative continues status quo riparian management, seeking only to reach at some undefined 

point, PFC, which is merely the minimum physical functioning to withstand a 20 year flood event and is 

well below wildlife habitat. 

Comment ID: 1329 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The BLM justifies this lower level of protection by relying on general BLM and Forest Service 

management requirements to ensure that riparian and wetland areas are in proper functioning condition 

(PFC) or managed to standards laid out in Land Use Plans or grazing decisional documents. They contend 

that this broad direction for land health standards is adequate to catch and correct livestock degradation of 

riparian areas before they negatively affect sage-grouse. In essence, the preferred alternative would rather 

fix problems after they develop rather than prevent them by reducing grazing use. 

Comment ID: 1377 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Appendix B provides with the BLM is calling "required design features" but none of them 

directly address livestock grazing impacts to sage grouse habitat. In addition, they are often vague and 

poorly defined. For instance, there is one "requirement" that in NEPA analyses for water developments and 

other range improvements that the BLM "address the direct and indirect effects to sage grouse populations 

and habitat". But merely “addressing" does not actually implement any requirements for these actions to 

not further degrade sage grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 1330 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: Furthermore, our experience on the ground belies this assertion. There is unfortunately a large 

body of photos and data showing that failing riparian areas are routinely ignored for years. In fact, the BLM 

set out in the early 1990’s to have 75% of the riparian areas at least in PFC by 1997 but the amount still 

below PFC is nearly the same now as it was in 1993. The BLM simply does not have the resources to repair 

the large number of riparian areas that require improvement to attain PFC, and then monitor them to make 

sure they stay that way. If this approach was successful, most riparian areas would be at PFC already. 

According to the BLM’s public lands statistics, however, at least 34 percent of lentic areas and 38 percent 

of lotic systems are functioning at risk or non-functioning. How much of these are important brood rearing 

habitat for sage-grouse? The BLM is taking a risk by relying on time-consuming assessments to determine 

whether action to protect habitat should take place rather than implementing automatic reductions in 

stocking levels at the outset. 

Comment ID: 1375 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The EIS fails to analyze what the utilization levels necessary to meet the short and long-term 

habitat needs of sage grouse are nor does the document discusse the critical component of meeting shortterm 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-500 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

requirements in order to get to the long-term requirements. This clearly violates NEPA. In addition the 

document failed to provide any management requirements to deal with this issue. 

Comment ID: 1334 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The preferred alternative allows new water developments for livestock without limit as long as 

the agency determines that it “maintains” sage grouse. DLUPA/DEIS at 2-45, 59. In practice, however, any 

diversion of water from a riparian area is going to impact the continuity of existing riparian vegetation and 

hydrology to some degree. If any water is removed it is no longer available to the riparian area and by 

definition the existing system will be reduced. The preferred alternative’s proposal is an unobtainable 

objective. In addition, all upland water developments by their very nature degraded sage grouse habitat. 

Comment ID: 1648 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Additionally, we recommend that BLM should include a provision to retire livestock grazing 

allotments on a willing-permittee basis when they come up for renewal under all alternatives, as is included 

under all alternatives in the BLM’s South Dakota RMP Draft EIS. Allowing retired allotments to be 

purchased and taken out of service is a far preferable outcome for grouse. See DEIS at 4-275. Unless the 

agency can articulate a justification for sage grouse habitat objectives not being enhanced by permit 

retirement, it should presumptively accept that improvements in native understory composition, residual 

grass height, forb production, alleviation of soil compaction, alleviation of biological soil crust destruction, 

and alleviation of cheatgrass expansion will necessarily improve sage grouse habitats. 

Comment ID: 368 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Language in Alternative D limiting retirement of grazing permits to 15% of a planning area 

(DEIS at 4- 314) prevents beneficial outcomes for sage grouse; this applies an unnecessary and 

counterproductive limit on voluntary permit retirement, which is done at the discretion of the permittee. 

Summary: Livestock allotment retirement, either voluntarily or required, in priority habitat needs serious 

consideration. The Wyoming LUP Amendments fails to: 1) meaningfully analyze the effects of current 

grazing management; 2) analyze the utilization levels necessary to meet the short and long-term habitat 

needs of sage-grouse; and 3) analyze the existence of cattle, sheep, and horses in nesting areas (nest 

disturbance, trampling, flushing, or egg crushing). Meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands may not provide a minimum forage height necessary for adequate sage-grouse nesting or brood 

rearing cover. BLM and Forest Service should pick a forage utilization percentage standard (suggested 

25%) for livestock grazing as well as a minimum residual stubble height (suggest at least 18 cm) in nesting 

and brood-rearing habitat. The research on percentages of big sagebrush, amount of native grasses and the 

importance of functioning riparian areas clearly shows the negative effects of grazing. BLM and Forest 

Service need to describe what seral stage Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) will be for the basis of 

conducting land health assessments. Without site-specific monitoring or a clear connection between the 

rangeland health standards and the habitat needs of sage-grouse, meeting the Standards and Guidelines 

cannot be considered as providing fully functioning sage-grouse habitat or an adequate regulatory 

mechanism to prevent listing. Changing intensity of use, numbers of livestock, and class of livestock could 

be beneficial for Greater Sage- Grouse habitat. The Taylor Grazing Act gives federal agencies the authority 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-501

to re-examine and reclassify lands within a grazing district that are “more valuable or suitable for any other 

use” than for grazing livestock; and this should be done as part of the amendment process. BLM and Forest 

Service should consider resting degraded riparian areas from grazing. Any diversion of water from a 

riparian area is going to impact the continuity of existing riparian vegetation and hydrology to some degree 

and all upland water developments, by their very nature, degrade sage-grouse habitat. BLM and Forest 

Service should not rely on the placement of salt blocks as a means to draw livestock away from riparian 

habitats. The use of PFC for riparian areas is not sufficient to protect the resource for sage-grouse brood 

rearing, especially when grazing is allowed in riparian areas. Closer monitoring efforts are necessary to 

assess the fine-scale effects of livestock grazing. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service considered a range of alternatives for livestock grazing management, 

including allotment retirement, closing of grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat, reduction of grazing, 

a utilization percentage standard, as well as continued grazing in core and priority habitat. BLM and Forest 

Service have followed NEPA; the impact analysis in the LUP Amendments fulfills the requirements of 

NEPA and discloses impacts to the various resources to the level of detail possible using the available 

information, resources, data, and science. The Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands provide a 

standard for functioning rangeland conditions; modifications to operations could be made if grazing were 

the cause of not meeting standards. Additionally, new guidance for incorporating the LUP Amendments 

decisions into grazing authorizations provides direction for thresholds based on Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat objectives and/or land health standards that would allow the BLM to make adjustments to livestock 

grazing. Because of the climate and topography of Wyoming, a single standard for stubble height, 

percentage standard, or other fixed measure for grazing would not be feasible. The range of management 

alternatives considered in the LUP Amendments for livestock are necessary to allow flexibility while 

providing functioning habitat and to meet ESDs, Rangeland Standards, and to provide necessary seasonal 

habitat components for sagegrouse. Appropriate grazing use levels are determined on a site-specific 

allotment or pasture basis depending on the vegetation type and condition, other uses, and monitoring 

information pertinent to the area. Monitoring also occurs on a site-specific allotment or pasture basis. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Protect sage-grouse and habitat

Comment ID: 234 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: For years, fossil fuels production and other commercial uses have dominated public land 

management across sagebrush habitats, resulting in significant impacts to wildlife, public recreation, and 

air and water quality. Protecting large expanses of important sage-grouse habitat--as outlined in Alternative 

C--will help stem the decline of many species of wildlife across the American West. This alternative will 

also begin restoring balance to an over-utilized and degraded landscape, while at the same time identifying 

areas most appropriate for development and those that need to be avoided. 

Comment ID: 163 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Sage grouse breeding and nesting habitats outside priority habitat areas should be managed to 

maintain current populations at the very least. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-502 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 159 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Above-ground power lines, communication towers, and other tall structures should be excluded 

from priority sage grouse areas to prevent the abandonment of important habitats 

Comment ID: 158 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Priority habitats should be closed to oil and gas leasing, and withdrawn from strip mining and 

other forms of mineral development that are incompatible with giving the sage grouse the best chance to 

survive; Industrial disturbance in these areas should not be allowed to exceed the 3% threshold established 

by scientists; 

Comment ID: 157 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: I am concerned that BLM’s draft preferred alternatives do not comply with the best available 

science or with standards necessary to stabilize and recover grouse populations. I encourage BLM to adopt 

the conservation alternative to ensure sustainable management to conserve the species. These include 

science-based recommendations to limit future development and to create protected areas. Conserving the 

Greater Sage-Grouse will require both protecting large areas of habitat and making significant changes in 

land management to reverse population declines of this wide-ranging species. Most priority sage-grouse 

habitat is already heavily degraded and grouse are only persisting in large, relatively undisturbed blocks of 

habitat. For years, fossil fuels production and other commercial uses have dominated public land 

management across sagebrush habitats, resulting in significant impacts to wildlife, public recreation, and 

air and water quality. Protecting large expanses of important sagegrouse habitat—as outlined in the 

conservation alternative —will help stem the decline of many species of wildlife across the American West. 

The conservation alternative will begin restoring balance to an iconic American landscape by identifying 

areas most appropriate for development and those that need to be protected 

Comment ID: 156 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Manage sagebrush grasslands to maintain and enhance sage-grouse seasonal habitats, including 

nesting, brooding, and winter habitat. 

Comment ID: 154 

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Withdraw or close priority habitat areas to further mineral development, and exclude new rightsofway in these areas. Where management must accommodate valid existing rights, restrict habitat 

disturbance to one developed site and 3 percent of the land surface per section to limit effects on sagegrouse. 

Comment ID: 153 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-503

Organization: 

Name: 

Comment: Specially designate sagebrush reserves where conservation of sage-grouse and other 

sagebrushdependent species is prioritized on the landscape. 

Summary: Save and protect the sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. BLM and Forest Service should base 

their management alternatives on the best available science. The plan does not do enough to protect, 

stabilize or recover sage-grouse populations. More land should be closed to uses such as oil, gas, or other 

mineral development; livestock grazing, wind energy development, OHVs, or rights of ways. Large areas 

of unfragmented habitat for sage-grouse, including winter, corridors/connectivity, and nesting should be

protected and preserved, possibly as ACECs for sage-grouse and other wildlife. The conservation 

alternative (Alternative C) is the most protective and should be adopted by BLM and the Forest Service. 

Alternative B and the recommendations of the NTT Report should be adopted by the Forest Service and 

BLM. The COT report indicates that Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations must be maintained or restored 

to help support the species’ long-term persistence (COT 2013). The Wyoming Core Area Strategies will 

fail to achieve these goals. There are no adequate conservation measures for sage-grouse in General Habitat 

under the Preferred Alternative or Alternative D. The NSO/CSU of 0.25 to 0.6 miles from a lek in 

Alternatives D and E will likely result in major impacts to active leks within the core areas themselves and 

other populations as well, as this proximity results in significant impacts to breeding grouse on the lek and 

will result in development occurring in the midst of the most prime nesting habitats that surround the 

affected lek. These and other failings to comply with law and policy, including NEPA, NFMA and FLPMA, 

render the Draft LUP Amendment/Draft EIS inadequate to protect the sage-grouse and insufficient to 

present the framework under which adequate regulatory mechanisms will guard against species extinction. 

Commercial uses of the land should only be permitted if they are compatible with protection of the sagegrouse and other sagebrush species. Concerns about the modeling of core and other habitat, the need for 

stronger actions than the National Technical Team (NTT) Report; concerns about the sage-grouse habitat 

segregation schemes that break occupied sage-grouse habitat or habitat essential for restoration of 

populations into priority and general habitats; uncertainty over how the process would address livestock 

allocations; concerns about the need for immediate and strong action to heal native sagebrush communities 

and prevent or reverse plant community changes and irreversible cheatgrass invasion and other harms 

caused by aggressive treatments and grazing; the agency culture of deference to industry; and many other 

issues. Recovery efforts must take stochastic events into account and aim to increase, rather than maintain 

sage-grouse populations. By sunsetting oil and gas leasing, BLM would give operators the opportunities to 

prove up leases that they already possess, and for those that are not developed, the lands would no longer 

be encumbered with valid existing rights which would allow at least limited industrial activity in some 

cases. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order (WY 

EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, IM 2012-019, and BLM WO IM 2012-044; the 

National Technical Team Report, the best available science, input from USFWS, the State of Wyoming, 

cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to both protect sage-grouse and 

allow for multiple use of public lands. Alternative E was changed between the Draft and the Final EIS to 

strengthen conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The combination of surface disturbance 

restrictions (see Management Actions 126 and 127), timing limitations (see Management Actions 129-134), 

limits on density of development (see Management Actions 126 and 127), and other management under the 

Proposed LUP Amendments would prevent habitat fragmentation, reduce multiple stressors to the species, 

allow the continued existence of the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming, and protect core, general, and 

seasonal sage-grouse habitat. All alternatives considered in the draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that 

comply with all laws and policy and include conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse while meeting 

the multiple use mandate of FLPMA and NFMA. ACECs were considered under Alternatives B and C; 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-504 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

however, the protection of habitat under Alternative E will provide similar coverage of habitat viability for 

sagegrouse and other sagebrush species while continuing to allow for valid, existing rights of current 

leaseholders and other compatible uses of public lands. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Restore sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat

Comment ID: 2043 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Restoration habitat is degraded or fragmented habitat that may not be currently occupied by 

sagegrouse but might support the species if restored. Land managers should target passive and active habitat 

restoration efforts in these areas to extend current sage-grouse range and mitigate for future loss of priority 

habitat. 

Comment ID: 825 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Restoration habitat is degraded or fragmented habitat that may not be currently occupied by 

sagegrouse but might support the species if restored. Land managers should target passive and active habitat 

restoration efforts in these areas to extend current sage-grouse range and mitigate for future loss of priority 

habitat. 

Comment ID: 175 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: A significant discussion identifying that restoration of lost sage-grouse habitat through seeding 

of vegetation species that are important to good sage-grouse habitat will be a key component to reducing 

the current decline of sage-grouse numbers and move the sage-grouse numbers to an increasing trend. This 

discussion should include specific goals and objectives. 

Comment ID: 174 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson 

Comment: The great reduction in sage-grouse numbers can mostly be attributed to the loss of good sagegrouse habitat (Nearly 50% loss in the past 150 years). Therefore, it is unquestionably evident that the 

restoring of good sage-grouse habitat that has been lost is an absolute must in maintaining and eventually 

increasing sage-grouse numbers. To improve or restore lost good sage-grouse habitat very often involves 

the planting of seed of vegetation species that provide good habitat. To correct the deficiency, a valid 

recommendation is that the final EIS and its proposed preferred alternative contain the lacking information 

identified as well as proposed actions of goals and objectives. Not doing so would be a great neglect or 

oversight that many would find unacceptable and find the EIS very incomplete 

Comment ID: 1715 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-505

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: It should be noted that in the total area encompassed by these nine areas, there are lands that do 

not host sage-grouse life-time habitat needs for a number of reasons -previously disturbed, agriculture lands, 

privately developed lands, hostile terrain or habitat types, to name a few. They contain lands that once 

provided habitat but due to disturbances like wildfire no longer do; these lands should be considered for 

restoration by the appropriate agencies. The management prescriptions that occur in following sections of 

this letter apply only to sage-grouse existing habitat and areas to be restored, not to non-habitat. They also 

apply only to federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Comment ID: 178 

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc. 

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson

Comment: A discussion identifying the key species of vegetation that will be used to improve or restore 

valuable sage-grouse habitat and how and where the seed from these species will be obtained. Also, how 

conditions will be improved for higher productions and lower costs for seed of these species. Further 

discussion of this key item is needed so all that are not familiar with this topic can be informed. 

Comment ID: 849 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Reclaiming or recovering sagebrush habitats is extremely challenging. BLM and USFS should 

direct efforts toward improving our ability to effectively reclaim degraded habitat, which requires gathering 

site-specific baseline (pre-treatment) data to adequately evaluate success. Reclamation should be a 

mandatory stipulation for all development in sage-grouse habitat and managers must recognize that methods 

for achieving success vary by region and are site-specific.17 Reclamation efforts should be monitored and 

results maintained in a single database to improve public understanding and effectiveness of efforts. The 

agencies should establish a process to identify and address failed reclamation projects. 17 Reclamation 

bonds should be sufficient to cover the full cost of restoration. 

Comment ID: 850 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: As sage-grouse habitat becomes further fragmented by the increasing frequency of wildfires, 

restoration will become more important. Sage-grouse have evolved in habitat that has extremely infrequent 

wildfires, and benefit from the presence of mature sagebrush stands. Habitat fragmentation and alteration 

due to fire may influence distribution (including lek abandonment) or migratory patterns. We suggest that 

the final RMPA include a strategy for identifying sagebrush landscapes that are at risk from fire and 

preparation of a response plan to avoid the conversion of compromised landscapes to ones that are 

dominated by invasive species following fires. 

Summary: Restoring good sage-grouse habitat that has been lost is an absolute must in maintaining and 

eventually increasing sage-grouse numbers. Restoration of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat should be 

prioritized (by risk, need, value), and plans should include specific goals and objectives, and be monitored 

for progress. Passive and active habitat restoration efforts should occur in fragmented or degraded habitat 

to extend current sage-grouse range and mitigate for future loss of priority habitat. A discussion identifying 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-506 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the key species of vegetation that will be used to improve or restore valuable sage-grouse habitat and how 

and where the seed from these species will be obtained should be included. 

Response: Restoration and reclamation of sagebrush habitat is addressed in the LUP Amendments/EIS 

management actions and will be applied appropriately in core and other seasonal sage-grouse habitat. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

ROWs, transmission lines

Comment ID: 1634 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: Transmission lines—a key component of renewable energy development—also negatively 

impact sage-grouse populations. One study found that the mean distance to electric transmission lines was 

greater than 2 times further in occupied range than in extirpated range.85 

Comment ID: 894 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: For the past several years Tri-State has effectively worked with the Agencies to identify and 

designate access roads for our transmission infrastructure during the process of renewing the ROW grant 

permits for transmission facilities. Tri-State has been using access roads, with the Agencies concurrence, 

for several years and in some cases for the entire term of the permit. This collaborative process has been 

effective and efficient, and we appreciate the ability to work with the agency on these issues; however, it 

would be more effective if the Agencies would identify in the Final EIS/Final LUPA, for any alternative 

adopted, that continued access to transmission facilities for maintenance and emergency services is required 

and an authorized activity. 

Comment ID: 1404 

Organization: Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Name: Darlene Steffan 

Comment: recent studies suggest the effect of energy infrastructure on sage grouse may be overstated. As 

such, many of the proposed restrictions and conditions for BLM ROW use may be unnecessary, or may 

result in huge expenditures for additional miles of transmission line with little or no benefit to the species. 

Echoing APLIC's position, stipulations for sage grouse should not include any mitigation requirement 

unless it is based on valid science, not anecdotal evidence or casual observation. Further, the science should 

be specific to the sage grouse, not surrogate species such as the prairie chicken. 

Comment ID: 2544 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: APLIC notes that the BLM proposes in the LUP amendment to undesignate utility corridors. 

Additionally, the LUP states that new transmission lines will be permitted in existing utility corridors. 

APLIC does not support undesignating corridors and requests that BLM maintain all designated utility 

corridors. APLIC would also like to emphasize that with the Gateway South project so far along in the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-507

NEPA process, the BLM should consider the efforts that APLlC-member utilties, BLM, and other agencies 

working on the NEPA process for Gateway South have undertaken thus far in its LUP Amendment. These 

efforts include siting in areas that have been previously designated as utility corridors. 

Comment ID: 1412 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Lands and Realty Management, Page 2-18, Item #30. Avoidance (or exclusion) 

areas should not be mandated in principle. Rather rights-of-way and other anthropogenic disturbances 

should be managed consistently with the EO by utilizing the DDCT process in core/priority habitat. Simply 

excluding or avoiding rights-of-way and other realty actions altogether in core/priority habitat is 

inconsistent with the EO and will result in conflicting management across the range. 

Comment ID: 840 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: priority 

habitat exclusion areas for new ROW permits. 

Comment ID: 1636 

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity 

Name: Randi Spivak 

Comment: The infrastructure associated with energy development within sagebrush ecosystems threatens 

the contiguous habitats remaining in the western United States. The linear right-of-ways associated with 

wind and other energy developments likely provide anthropogenic nesting subsidies and fragmented 

landscapes, both of which increase nesting opportunities for ravens. Preventing fragmentation by 

transmission lines, roads, and other human interventions is integral to stemming the increase and range 

expansion of raven populations.92 We recommend the following strengthened management approaches to 

minimize further degradation of sage-grouse habitats from energy-related development. 

Comment ID: 889 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Other factors regarding the feasibility of building an underground transmission line include 

longevity, maintenance and operational issues, and increased habitat fragmentation effects. Underground 

transmission lines typically have half the life expectancy of an overhead transmission line, and when an 

outage occurs on an underground line it takes much longer to respond because it is difficult to pinpoint and 

reach the source of the outage. Repairs will take longer and require additional ground disturbance, 

potentially increasing disturbances to sensitive habitats. In an emergency situation, utilities would be 

required to repair the damage immediately regardless of seasonal constraints and buffers. Direct impacts to 

sagebrush habitats increase when burying a transmission line versus building an overhead line. The Rightof-Way (ROW) required to construct and operate an underground transmission line is generally wider and 

would result in more direct impacts to sagebrush habitats, increasing habitat fragmentation for sage-grouse. 

Burying transmission lines can result in greater ground disturbance and more regular maintenance in 

seeding and weed prevention. It is important to consider the other resources (biological and cultural) and 

conservation objectives associated with burying a high voltage transmission line compared to the ground 

disturbance for an overhead line. Restoring sagebrush habitat and weed control in a wide linear corridor is 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-508 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

inherently more difficult. The Agencies have identified that the surface disturbance associated with 

undergrounding a power line as a temporary feature, however they have also acknowledged that sagebrush 

restoration can take decades to reach pre-construction results/conditions. 

Comment ID: 893 

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. 

Name: Barbara A. Walz 

Comment: Alternatives B & C within priority and general habitat would eliminate the ability for the 

upgrading of existing roads that would change road category, unless it was necessary for motorist safety or 

it eliminated the need to construct a new road. This stipulation could prevent Tri-State from accessing and, 

therefore upgrading or maintaining existing facilities. Tri-State suggests that the Agencies provide 

emergency access, and make provisions for access to valid existing ROWs. Also, new road construction 

would be prohibited within 4 miles of active sage-grouse lek, and avoided in priority or general habitat. As 

currently written, without exemptions, this language could be interpreted to prevent us from upgrading or 

maintaining our facilities if they were within 4 miles of a lek. 

Comment ID: 837 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: should not 

issue new leases or right-of-way (ROW) permits within any priority area that is not currently subject to 

valid existing rights. 

Comment ID: 321 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Priority Habitats need to be designated based on the habitats that sage grouse populations need 

to survive, not on the routing preferences of transmission line operators, and these Priority Habitats must 

include sufficient protections to keep such transmission lines at least 0.25 miles away from all occupied 

sage grouse habitats. The designation of a two-mile transmission corridor through Priority Habitats under 

the Preferred Alternative (DEIS at 4-312) would expand these impacts of transmission lines into identified 

Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) resulting in undue degradation of these key sage grouse habitats. 

This would result in the severing of migration corridors (DEIS at 4-312) and result in a behaviorally 

impassable barrier to sage grouse, permanently dividing and isolating previously linked populations. Please 

provide scientific evidence that multiple large powerlines will not prevent movements of sage grouse across 

these linear features. 

Comment ID: 322 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM prescribes a 0.6-mile buffer for overhead power lines in its Preferred Alternative (DEIS at 

4-331). Please provide documentation that this level of protection will be adequate to prevent impacts to 

breeding and nesting sage grouse, particularly in light of studies (Doherty et al. 2011, Coates et al. 2013) 

that show that sage grouse concentrate their nesting activity within 5 miles of the lek site. We are concerned 

that a mere 0.6-mile buffer around leks will allow major impacts to nesting sage grouse, and major increases 

in nest predation, nest failure, and radically lowered recruitment. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-509

Comment ID: 2524 

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 

Name: Richard M. Loughery 

Comment: Installing new power lines underground or converting existing lines from overhead to 

underground are often raised as possible permit stipulations or mitigation options. However, underground 

power lines result in increased cost, reduced reliability, greater ground disturbance during construction and 

repairs, longer outage periods for customers, and may not always be feasible from engineering and 

operations perspectives. Underground power lines require a continuous excavation through all habitat types. 

In sagebrush habitat, this would result in ground disturbance for the entire line route. This is in contrast to 

overhead lines, which result in a disturbance only at the structure locations. Underground lines would also 

require excavation for repairs or maintenance, which would result in ground disturbance occurring 

temporally over the life of the line, not just during initial construction. Ground disturbance during 

construction, repairs, and maintenance can result in large, permanent displacement of excavated soil and 

subsequent issues with re-establishing native vegetation and preventing the overgrowth of invasive species. 

A University of California study (Bumby et al. 2009) found that underground power lines have more 

environmental impacts than overhead power lines for all categories and most scenarios in southern 

California. For more detailed discussion of environmental and engineering constraints associated with 

underground power lines, see Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012 

(APLIC 2012), pages 62- 63. APLIC encourages the BLM to allow overhead power lines an acceptable 

alternative in Wyoming and requests that requirements for placement of lines underground be removed. 

Comment ID: 3150 

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP 

Name: Kelly Bott 

Comment: 4.14.4 4‐ 273 Last Paragraph, first sentence If new transmission corridors would not be 

authorized in priority and connectivity areas, where would these types of development be proposed to 

occur? Please provide explanation. 

Summary: Please provide scientific support that the buffer distances for ROWs and transmission lines under 

Alternative E are sufficient to protect sage-grouse. We are concerned that a mere 0.6-mile buffer around 

leks will allow major impacts to nesting sage-grouse, major increases in nest predation, nest failure, and 

radically lowered recruitment. Establish priority habitat exclusion areas for new ROW permits. Agencies 

should not issue new leases or ROW permits within any priority area that is not currently subject to valid 

existing rights. Please do not undesignate any utility corridors and maintain all designated utility corridors. 

Rights-ofway and other anthropogenic disturbances should be managed consistently with the EO by 

utilizing the DDCT process in core/priority habitat. Continued access to transmission facilities for 

maintenance and emergency services is required and an authorized activity. Underground power lines result 

in increased cost, reduced reliability, greater ground disturbance during construction and repairs, longer 

outage periods for customers, and may not always be feasible from engineering and operations perspectives; 

please consider overhead powerlines an acceptable alternative, and remove requirements for underground 

powerlines. 4.14.4 4‐ 273 Last Paragraph, first sentence If new transmission corridors would not be 

authorized in priority and connectivity areas, where would these types of development be proposed to 

occur? Please provide explanation. Recent studies suggest the effect of energy infrastructure on sage-grouse 

may be overstated; stipulations and mitigation should be based on specific sage-grouse science 

Response: The buffer distances, disturbance caps, and seasonal restrictions contained in the management 

alternatives are based on peer-reviewed scientific research of sage-grouse needs for continued existence. 

The goal of the LUP Amendments is to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush ecosystems; and the 

management contained in the management alternatives will allow for unfragmented, contiguous habitat for 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-510 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

sage-grouse. There is no alternative that undesignates corridors. The DDCT is considered under Alternative 

E for new ROW projects; not burying powerlines is considered under Alternative D. Under Alternative B, 

new corridors would be proposed in general sage-grouse habitat. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Timing restrictions, buffer distances and disturbance caps are excessive

Comment ID: 431 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 

Comment: Alternative E proposes to expand the 0.6 mile CSU buffer for protection of connectivity 

corridors under EO 2011-5 to 4 miles. This significant 700% expansion of the lek buffer in connectivity 

corridors is excessive, inconsistent with EO 2011-5 and has not been justified by the BLM. 

Comment ID: 1423 

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals 

Name: John Lucas 

Comment: Alternatives, Timing and Distance Restrictions, page 2-138 and 2-139, Item #129. As stated 

under Alternatives B and C, “Sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas: 

Provide the following conservation measures as terms and conditions of the approved RMP. New surface 

occupancy would not be allowed on federal leases within priority habitats. This would include winter 

concentration areas during any time of year.” This timing and distance restriction is not consistent with the 

BLM’s policy of multiple use. If either of these alternatives are considered further, the BLM will need to 

complete a thorough socioeconomic impact analysis including mining and document those findings in 

Appendix N. 

Comment ID: 141 

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: The timing restrictions and the buffer around leks are problematic. These time frames cover 

most of the recreation season and the distance is excessive. 

Comment ID: 1181 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that the provisions of the NTT Report do not represent the Best Available 

Science2 which was also recognized by Department of the Interior (DOI) employees, and discussed in detail 

infra Section II(D): ...In several places (i.e. page 11) we noticed that there are references to only a few 

literature citations that attempt to portray the impacts to a program (lands, minerals, etc.) and as far as we 

know, there really are no studies that have been completed that show this direct correlation... 3 ...Science 

says 30 – 50% in non-sagebrush cover is okay (see quote below), but the NTT Report says 3% in

anthropogenic features is the NTT recommended maximum... Am I missing something, is it worded poorly, 

or is this a misapplication of professional judgment and science?4 

Comment ID: 130 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-511

Organization: 

Name: CTVA Action Committee 

Comment: We strongly oppose components of the 2010 Conservation Measures that lack the flexibility to 

adapt to local management issues. The plan amendments should avoid inflexible management standards. 

Rather than impose a inflexible, broad-brush management prescription for the Grouse, we suggest the BLM 

adopts a "landscape specific" approach to minimize the impacts on both the Grouse and the recreating 

public. For example, we oppose the provision mandating that any "anthropogenic disturbances" cover less 

than 3% of the total sage grouse habitat. Without any flexibility, the implementation of this standard on the 

ground will be extremely difficult. Indeed, the agencies may be forced to restrict activities that have been 

found to have little to no impact on the grouse. 

Comment ID: 2328 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: The 4-mile lek buffer proposed in the DLUPA/DEIS is also based on flawed studies.27 For 

example, the BLM in both its DLUPA/DEIS and the NTT Report does not take into account that lek buffers 

may not be applicable or necessary due to topography or other site-specific conditions, which would reduce 

the impact of noise. In addition, BLM, and many of the studies cited by the BLM in the DLUPA/DEIS rely 

on antiquated lek count data to demonstrate population declines and or displacement of birds, which has 

long been criticized for failing to render statistically valid estimates of population numbers and trends, 

partially due to the non-random sampling, the fact that male sage-grouse move between leks, and 

differences in count methodology/definition of active lek. 

Comment ID: 2410 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Inconsistent utilization of buffers. In Alternative A, Chapter 4 pg. 4-264 & 4-270 identifies 

surface occupancy and seasonal timing limitation for nesting-brood rearing habitat buffer distances around 

leks. Buffer distances vary from .25 miles to 4 miles for surface occupancy and .75 miles to 4 miles for 

seasonal surface disruptive activities. There is no evidence that sage-grouse located in a different BLM 

Field Office are more sensitive to surface activities than other Field Offices, or that a 4 mile buffer is 

appropriate for mining activities. 

Comment ID: 2341 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS proposes to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within four miles of 

a lek in sage-grouse priority habitat during nesting, lekking, and early brood-rearing periods. The four-mile 

buffer around leks is a one-size-fits-all application and does not address the variations in habitat quality or 

use, and given the topography of the planning area there is substantial acreage within four miles of leks that 

may not actually be GrSG habitat, and/or would not be impacted by activities occurring four miles away. 

The DLUPA/DEIS presents no scientific evidence that this buffer distance will actually benefit the species 

and its habitat. As a result, the Agencies may be inadvertently expanding areas subject to the management 

restrictions outlined in the DLUPA/DEIS to areas that do not contain active leks or GrSG habitat. Western 

Fuels requests that the Agencies consider modifying all lek buffer requirements to acknowledge that site 

specific factors may influence the appropriate seasonal buffers. The DLUPA/DEIS should also recognize 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-512 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and address the importance of adaptive management, so that future recommendations and management 

prescriptions can be updated once additional scientific information becomes available. 

Comment ID: 2344 

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc. 

Name: Beth Goodnough 

Comment: Western Fuels requests that the Agencies provide a mechanism to consider local conditions in 

the habitat areas on a project-specific basis before imposing a one-size-fits-all management restriction, or 

provide a mechanism to monitor habitat quality or use in the future. An understanding of the local habitat 

conditions and the future habitat quality and use will facilitate GrSG grouse conservation, minimize 

impacts, allow lawful activities to proceed, and meet multiple use objectives for the Agencies. 

Comment ID: 2564 

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC 

Name: Garry L. Miller 

Comment: The Draft LUPA/EIS also suggests that sage-grouse can change their behavior in response to 

noise and increased human presence associated with construction, operation, and maintenance activities. 

However, seasonal restrictions are commonly used to minimize these impacts during sensitive time periods, 

and those restrictions for the CCSM Project are fully documented in the Final EIS and ROD. Additionally, 

ongoing operation and maintenance activities for wind turbines are relatively benign because such activities 

typically occur only a few times a year, Daily visits may be required at oil and gas wells, but they are not 

required at wind turbine sites. The amount of vehicle traffic and human activity within an operating wind 

farm is typically very low; therefore it is inaccurate to lump together all energy development as having the 

same type of potential impacts. 

Comment ID: 2338 

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA) 

Name: Laura Skaer 

Comment: AEMA contends that the seasonal use prohibitions proposed are overly restrictive and 

burdensome to those exercising their rights under the General Mining Law. For example, under Alternative 

D seasonal use prohibitions and restrictions are put in place November 1, and are not lifted until June 30 

(See Table 2-1 at 2-145 to 2-163). 

Summary: The provisions of the NTT report, timing restrictions, 3% disturbance cap, and the buffer around 

leks (prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within four miles of a lek in sage-grouse priority habitat 

during nesting, lekking, and early brood-rearing periods) are problematic, based on flawed science, and 

lack the flexibility to adapt to local management issues. The time frames cover most of the recreation season 

and the distance is excessive. Alternative E proposes to expand the 0.6 mile CSU buffer for protection of 

connectivity corridors under EO 2011-5 to 4 miles. This significant 700% expansion of the lek buffer in 

connectivity corridors is excessive, inconsistent with EO 2011-5 and has not been justified by the BLM. 

Agencies should provide a mechanism to consider local conditions in the habitat areas on a project-specific 

basis before imposing a one-size-fits-all management restriction, or provide a mechanism to monitor habitat 

quality or use in the future. 

Response: The buffer distances, disturbance caps, and seasonal restrictions contained in the management 

alternatives are based on peer-reviewed scientific research of sage-grouse needs for continued existence. 

The goal of the LUP Amendments is to conserve, enhance or restore sagebrush ecosystems; and the 

management contained in the management alternatives would allow for unfragmented, contiguous habitat 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-513

for sage-grouse. While BLM and Forest Service in Wyoming based Alternative E on the WY EO 2011-5, 

there were some areas the agencies felt management was needed beyond what was initially proposed in the 

EO. The seasonal buffer distance for sensitive breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing habitat was one 

place where BLM and Forest Service felt that greater protection of habitat should be included in the 

management for the LUP Amendments. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Vegetation treatments

Comment ID: 299 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We strongly urge the federal agencies to prohibit vegetation treatments in Priority Habitats 

except where they are consistent with maintaining optimal sage grouse habitat (NTT 2011). There is a 

growing scientific consensus that burns and mechanical treatments are deleterious to sage grouse. The 

agencies also need to assess non-native seedings and restore them to native vegetation if this is the most 

optimal option for sage grouse habitat, as has been proposed under the Northwest Colorado RMP 

Amendment Preferred Alternative. BLM itself notes the benefits of restoring areas converted to non-native 

grasses through seedings. DEIS at 4-295, 4-303. BLM and the Forest Service should also adopt a 

requirement for grazing exclosures and long-term monitoring following vegetation treatments. 

Furthermore, it is important to rest burned areas from livestock grazing for 3 full seasons following 

disturbance. 

Comment ID: 298 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Taking into account the negative effects of vegetation treatments on sage grouse nesting and 

lekking areas, and uncertainty in the overall extent of sage grouse nesting habitat surrounding lek sites, the 

BLM should prohibit vegetation treatments within 5 miles of sage grouse lek sites. 

Comment ID: 297 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: BLM should rigorously evaluate all sagebrush habitat treatment projects to determine how 

exactly they will impact sage grouse populations prior to counting such projects as assets toward sage 

grouse recovery or threats to sage grouse persistence. The parameters of these projects should be compared 

to scientifically established habitat requirements for the grouse: for example, is thinning being implemented 

in sagebrush stands that exceed the canopy cover preferences of grouse for that type of habitat, or is canopy 

cover already optimal or too sparse for sage grouse habitat needs? 

Comment ID: 2047 

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation 

Name: Joy Bannon 

Comment: Avoid sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase forage in priority habitat and include plans to 

restore high-quality habitat in areas with invasive species. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-514 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 843 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: treatments 

to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems (including avoiding such treatments where they will harm 

sagebrush ecosystems) and prioritize fire suppression to conserve habitat. 

Comment ID: 841 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: Our recommendations for management policies in sage-grouse habitat are as follows: sagebrush 

reduction/ treatments to increase forage in priority habitat and include plans to restore high-quality habitat 

in areas with invasive species. 

Comment ID: 1326 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: The agencies routinely turn to vegetation treatments to rectify resource problems brought about 

by past and current mismanagement. The DLUPA/DEIS proposes many such treatments over thousands of 

acres to improve sage-grouse habitat. However, these treatments are not assured of success. In fact, they 

are expensive and prone to failure and generally cause major increases in invasive species. Connelly et al. 

(2000) recommend no sagebrush treatment within sage grouse habitat because of the effects of the 

disturbance on sage-grouse. Given these caveats, it is unwise for the BLM to try to treat its way out of 

habitat degradation. This is why the livestock reduction followed by passive restoration proposed in 

Alternative C makes the most sense. DLUPA/DEIS at 2-156. 

Comment ID: 1244 

Organization: Western Watersheds Project 

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner 

Comment: In the BLM's own 2006 paper titled Review of Livestock Grazing Management Literature 

Addressing Grazing Management of Sage Grouse Habitat the BLM determined from its review of the 

literature that “No treatment should be considered where sagebrush cover is less than 20 percent or within 

2 miles of breeding, nesting, or brood areas.” This is echoed in a wide range of other research papers, a few 

of which we provide for your review as attachments. The other significant issue regarding such land 

manipulations is a high likelihood significant increases in invasive species. The DLUPA/DEIS does not 

address this. 

Comment ID: 2264 

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership 

Name: Edward B. Arnett 

Comment: Also, regarding both vegetation and fuels management, we question the notion that habitat 

management may contribute to disturbance caps and how this would affect efforts for managing for other 

species (e.g., mule deer, pygmy rabbit). We are aware that it has become increasingly difficult for WYGF 

to exercise habitat management projects for other species and strongly recommend that habitat management 

for all sagebrush-associated species be considered in a more holistic way that allows the state agency and 

land managers to treat habitat accordingly. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-515

Summary: BLM should rigorously evaluate all sagebrush habitat treatment projects to determine how 

exactly they will impact sage-grouse populations prior to counting such projects as assets toward 

sagegrouse recovery or threats to sage-grouse persistence. The parameters of these projects should be 

compared to scientifically established habitat requirements for the grouse: for example, is thinning being 

implemented in sagebrush stands that exceed the canopy cover preferences of grouse for that type of habitat, 

or is canopy cover already optimal or too sparse for sage-grouse habitat needs? We strongly urge the federal 

agencies to prohibit vegetation treatments in Priority Habitats except where they are consistent with 

maintaining optimal sage-grouse habitat (NTT 2011). No treatment should be considered where sagebrush 

cover is less than 20 percent or within 2 miles of breeding, nesting, or brood areas. There is a growing 

scientific consensus that burns and mechanical treatments are deleterious to sagegrouse. The agencies also 

need to assess non-native seedings and restore them to native vegetation if this is the most optimal option 

for sage-grouse habitat. BLM itself notes the benefits of restoring areas converted to non-native grasses 

through seedings. BLM and the Forest Service should also adopt a requirement for grazing exclosures and 

long-term monitoring following vegetation treatments. It is important to rest burned areas from livestock 

grazing for 3 full seasons following disturbance. Taking into account the negative effects of vegetation 

treatments on sage-grouse nesting and lekking areas, and uncertainty in the overall extent of sage-grouse 

nesting habitat surrounding lek sites, the BLM should prohibit vegetation treatments within 5 miles of sagegrouse lek sites. Vegetation treatments are expensive and prone to failure and generally cause major 

increases in invasive species. Avoid sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase forage in priority habitat 

and include plans to restore high-quality habitat in areas with invasive species. Design fuel treatments to 

protect existing sagebrush ecosystems (including avoiding such treatments where they will harm sagebrush 

ecosystems) and prioritize fire suppression to conserve habitat 

Response: The protocol in Appendix A in the Draft EIS included many of the recommendations provided 

in the comments and is the protocol that will be used for vegetation treatments. Considerations were made 

as the range of alternatives were developed using the best science and professional experience to create 

management that would enhance and improve sagebrush ecosystems and support sage-grouse populations. 

The use of prescribed fire, percent cover treated, use of seed, exclosures, thinning, monitoring have all been 

considered in the range of alternatives. The monitoring strategy proposed in this plan will also assist in 

determining the positive and negative impacts of any future vegetation treatments on sage-grouse habitat. 

The final decisions for vegetation treatments will be included in the Record of Decision after completion 

of the public 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Wind, solar, geothermal issues

Comment ID: 319 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: We are concerned that the Wyoming DEIS does not identify existing or permitted wind farms 

located in Preliminary Priority or General Habitat for sage grouse on land ownerships and jurisdictions 

other than Forest Service or BLM in the Casper, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices. DEIS at 3-55, 3-59, 3-60, 3-62, and 3-63. Only for the Kemmerer Field Office does BLM provide 

even cursory information regarding wind farms on private land (DEIS at 3-58), and this analysis includes 

no data regarding the intersection of wind farms and Priority or General Habitats. This baseline information 

is important because it needs to be included in the cumulative effects analysis for all alternatives, and its 

absence prevents BLM from conducting a rigorous analysis of cumulative effects on sage grouse. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-516 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 149 

Organization: 

Name: Irene Gilbert 

Comment: Any plan that is based upon "disturbance" of the ground is going to leave the door open to 

continued development of Wind and Solar developments. These developments claim to only disturb 

roughly 3% of the habitat. They ignore the fact that the wind towers cause sage grouse to abandon habitat 

and leks located within 3 miles of the turbines according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, 

the roads which are developed at these locations fragment the expanses of habitat necessary for Sage Grouse 

survival. Given the limits on motorized travel on public lands and restrictions that continue to be applied to 

public access, any plan which does not prohibit the development of wind and solar farms on sage brush 

habitat used by sage grouse is not serious about the protection of this vulnerable species. I am requesting a 

prohibition of wind and solar developments on public lands being utilized by sage grouse. 

Comment ID: 855 

Organization: National Wildlife Federation 

Name: Kathleen Zimmerman 

Comment: BLM and USFS play critical roles in ensuring that the boom in wind energy development does 

not lead to declines in the Greater sage-grouse population. The agencies have sufficient data on quality of 

wind resources, potential conflicts with other resources and values, and availability of transmission, which 

should be used to designate wind energy zones, similar to Solar Energy Zones already in place on BLM 

lands. Through amendments to affected land use plans, BLM and USFS can incorporate not only wind 

energy zones but also areas that are off limits to wind energy development (as specific industrial-level 

energy ROW avoidance and exclusion areas). 

Comment ID: 318 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: Under the Preferred Alternative and Alternative D, wind energy development would be excluded 

unless it could be demonstrated that such development would not cause population declines. Id. How will 

this determination be made? Federal agencies are fallible, and the wording appears to leave the 

enforceability of these provisions to agency discretion. This creates a major uncertainty problem when 

considering that an erroneous judgment would still allow such projects to move forward inside Priority 

Habitats, potentially creating major impacts to sage grouse habitats and populations. Thus, both these types 

of industrial development (wind and solar) need to be excluded, on no uncertain terms, from Priority 

Habitats. 

Comment ID: 317 

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians 

Name: Erik Molvar 

Comment: The Wyoming planning area is an intense focus for wind development, with over 1,000 new 

wind turbines forecast under several alternatives. Under Alternative C, Priority Habitats would be 

designated as exclusion areas for wind projects (and also solar projects). DEIS at 2-30, 2-31. This is the 

appropriate course of action, and geothermal projects should likewise be excluded from Core Areas. 

Summary: Priority Habitats should be designated as exclusion areas for wind, solar, and geothermal 

projects. Under the Preferred Alternative and Alternative D, wind energy development would be excluded 

unless it could be demonstrated that such development would not cause population declines. How will this 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-517

determination be made? The Draft EIS does not identify existing or permitted wind farms that fall outside 

of the planning area; how can cumulative impacts be assessed without this information? BLM and Forest 

Service can incorporate not only wind energy zones but also areas that are off limits to wind energy 

development in their amendment process. 

Response: BLM and Forest Service believe that the combination of management, including the 

management in Action 36, would provide protection for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and reduce threats 

from habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, and the perceived threat of predation. The determination of “no 

declines” will be the responsibility of the project proponent. Scientific research, on-the-ground studies, or 

other sources could be used to support “no declines” of sage-grouse populations and will be the 

responsibility of the project proponent, with support by the BLM, Forest Service, WGFD, and USFWS. In 

response to public comment, a cumulative impacts report analyzing the data from all of the sage-grouse 

LUP and RMP amendments and revisions within WAFWA Management Zones I and II has been included 

in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. 

Sage-grouse

Range of alternatives

Winter habitat: management, protection, questions

Comment ID: 673 

Organization: Anadarko 

Name: David Applegate 

Comment: Anadarko is currently only aware of one delineated winter concentration area (“WCA”) within 

the State of Wyoming being developed through the Wyoming Governor’s Sage-Grouse Implementation 

Team (“SGIT”) for the normally pressured lance (“NPL”) energy field utilizing a discrete set of parameters 

to define WCAs through a resource selection function (“RSF”) modeling process. As noted in the SGIT 

process, estimated flock size data should be incorporated in the analysis to provide a measure of habitat 

quality (Johnson 2007). To define predicted high use areas as WCAs, the NPL committee (comprised of 

numerous agency and academic interests) recommended protocol that overlaid sage-grouse winter 

observations, as collected during annual flights, where >50 sage-grouse were observed on the RSF map. 

Those predicted highest quality habitats surrounding sage-grouse observations where >50 sage-grouse were 

observed repeatedly through time would delimit the boundaries of the WCA. WCAs are delimited in this 

way by a combination of RSF predictions of habitat quality and confirmed sage-grouse locations with >50 

birds. Such a delineation of WCAs inherently considers the need for sage-grouse presence in sufficient 

quantity, while identifying and considering differences in habitat quality that surround those locations (The 

Wildlife Society, 2013). This results in a rigorous, science-based, data-driven approach. Should the 

agencies move forward with restrictions centered around WCAs, WCAs, as distinguished in the Final 

LUPA should be delineated by this same rigorous approach whereby locations of >50 birds are used to 

define boundaries. Utilization of models or reliance on utilization of any habitat in which a bird is found 

over winter be classified as important, is not in line with the current science. Currently, there is no scientific 

support Anadarko is aware of that asserts that oil and gas activities in WCAs lead to sage-grouse declines 

- the Core Area Policy is in itself an effective tool for mitigating impacts from oil and gas activities. Further, 

the agencies need to provide a definition of what constitutes a WCA so that stakeholders may appropriately 

understand the prescriptions being proposed and level of impact. 

Comment ID: 436 

Organization: Yates Petroleum 

Name: Shay Westbrook 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-518 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: BLM and USFS need to further clarify the distinction of “25 to 50 or more.” IM 2010-012 states 

that the number is dependent upon the total population size in the area (large vs. marginal). Also, 

clarification needs to be added to the term “consistently”. Is it a timeframe of 5 years, 10 years, etc.? 

Certainly 1 or 2 years does not satisfy the requirement of consistent use. As a comparison, it takes 10 years 

of continual data to demonstrate a lek has been abandoned. Yates requests BLM to clarify how “winter 

concentration areas” are identified and defined. Winter concentration areas should be limited to those areas 

that are biologically justified as such based upon long term and significant GSG use. 

Comment ID: 903 

Organization: Defenders of Wildlife 

Name: Mark Salvo 

Comment: Key conservation measures: o Identify and protect sage-grouse wintering areas in priority 

habitat. 

Comment ID: 780 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation 

Name: Randy Bolles 

Comment: Areas designated as winter concentration areas must be scientifically analyzed by site-specific 

field assessments to verify that those areas in fact exhibit requisite winter-concentration-area vegetative and 

habitat characteristics. 

Comment ID: 1773 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company 

Name: Eileen Danni Dey 

Comment: ConocoPhillips does not support the BLM’s proposal to protect additional areas of winter 

concentration that are not located within current core area boundaries. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2- 162 –

2-163, Action No. 134. BLM has not justified this new restriction or demonstrated why it is necessary. 

Comment ID: 1041 

Organization: American Colloid Company 

Name: Melody Smith 

Comment: Our areas of interest in Crook County are mapped as providing Regional 

Winter/Nesting/Summer habitat, which could result in extensive timing restrictions. 

Comment ID: 1122 

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments 

Name: Kent Connelly 

Comment: Pg 2-163 MA 134 Text: “Winter Concentration Areas” Comment: This term has not been 

defined and located or described to promote appropriate NEPA analysis. 

Comment ID: 1543 

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc. 

Name: Carlos Jallo 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-519

Comment: EOG does not support the BLM‘s proposal to protect additional areas of winter concentration 

that are not located within current core area boundaries. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-162 – 2-163, Action 

No. 134. BLM has not justified this new restriction or demonstrated why it is necessary. 

Comment ID: 1203 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp 

Name: Brant Gimmeson 

Comment: Anschutz does not support the BLM’s proposal to protect additional areas of winter 

concentration that are not located within current core area boundaries. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-162 –

2-163, Action No. 134. BLM has not justified this new restriction or demonstrated why it is necessary. 

Comment ID: 2278 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas 

Name: Paul Ulrich 

Comment: Encana does not support the BLM’s proposal to protect additional areas of winter concentration 

that are not located within current core area boundaries. BLM has not justified this new restriction or 

demonstrated why it is necessary. 

Comment ID: 2409 

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals 

Name: Joel Severin 

Comment: Over-reliance on vaguely defined "winter concentration areas." Many aspects of the Draft EIS 

refer to restrictions on surface disturbance activities in GRSG "winter concentration areas." See Table 2.5. 

The Draft EIS notes that "Winter concentration areas are documented areas where large numbers (25 to 50 

or more) of Greater Sage-Grouse consistently use habitat during the winter months and contain sagebrush 

as described for winter habitat (BLM 2009b)." Instruction Memorandum WY201O- 012 states that the 

number is dependent upon the total population size in the area; 50 or more birds in an area of winter habitat 

would constitute a winter concentration area in areas where the total GRSG population size is large and 25 

or more birds in an area of winter habitat would constitute a winter concentration area in areas where the 

total GRSG population is marginal. Such a distinction must be made. Also, clarification needs to be added 

to the term "consistently". Is it a timeframe of 5 years, 10 years, etc.? Certainly 1 or 2 years does not satisfy 

the requirement of consistent use. As a comparison, it takes 10 years of continual data to demonstrate a lek 

has been abandoned. BLM should clarify that winter concentration areas are areas that have been or will be 

scientifically verified by field assessments on a site-specific basis and that they support biologically 

significant numbers of GRSG that nest in core areas. 

Summary: Areas designated as winter concentration areas must be scientifically analyzed by site-specific 

field assessments to verify that those areas in fact exhibit requisite winter concentration area vegetative and 

habitat characteristics. BLM must to clarify how winter concentration areas are identified and defined so 

that stakeholders may appropriately understand the prescriptions being proposed and level of impact. 

Winter concentration areas have not been defined and located or described to promote appropriate NEPA 

analysis. 

Response: WGFD maps winter concentration areas, but not all habitat is currently mapped. If mapping has 

not occurred prior to project approval, it would occur before approval takes place. The map provided in the 

Draft LUP Amendments is a habitat model created by USGS. The habitat mapped in this model is not 

necessarily what is true on the ground. The definition of “winter concentration areas” is included in the 

Glossary of the Draft LUP Amendments. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-520 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Lands and Realty

Incorrect statements in the Draft EIS need to be revised

Comment ID: 2740

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg B-8 Text: Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a 

temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document. Comment: This

language should be amended to read: “Do not issue ROWs to counties on new energy development roads, 

unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.”

Comment ID: 2582

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Appendix N As with the Chapter 4: Socioeconomics section, Appendix N fails to recognize the 

CCSM Project site has been approved for wind energy development, via a Record of Decision signed in 

October 2012, and that detailed wind development economic data from the CCSM Project Final EIS is 

available. We request that the following specific sentences be corrected, updated or edited in Appendix N 

to reflect the CCSM Project and the Final EIS and ROD: Page N12: "The level of uncertainty regarding 

amounts and locations of wind energy development in the planning area was considered too large to allow 

estimation of economic impacts." Page N12: "It is difficult to foresee where these projects would be built."

Page N14: "First, because no projects are currently approved on BLM and Forest Serviceadministered lands 

... . " This last sentence not only needs to be adjusted to reflect the CCSM Project's approval, but it also is

inaccurate given that Wyoming's first utility-scale wind energy project was built on ELM lands in Carbon 

County. See data available on the BLM website at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/stlenlfield

offices/Rawlins/wind.html, including the following: The Foote Creek Rim wind project is Wyoming's first 

commercial facility to generate electricity from wind. Located near Arlington, Wyoming, it began 

commercial operation on Earth Day, April 22, 1999. The project is partially located on public lands 

managed by tbe BLM Rawlins Field Office. The project is the largest in the intermountain West. Finally, 

Section 2.2.2 outlines how ELM determined the "low and high development scenarios" for wind energy in 

Wyoming, by sourcing industry expert opinions on "likely near-term wind development." First, there should 

be quantitative supporting data available and therefore cited to support the BLM Wyoming State Office 

"suggestion that 4,000 MW is a better assumption for the minimum level of development" (page N-13).

Summary: Issue #1: Draft EIS, Page B-8: “Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, 

unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.”

Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Do not issue ROWs to counties on new energy 

development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in 

this document.” Issue #2: Appendix N fails to recognize the Chokecherry Sierra Madre (CCSM) Project 

site has been approved for wind energy development, via a Record of Decision signed in October 2012, and 

that detailed wind development economic data from the CCSM Project Final EIS is available. We request 

that the following specific sentences be corrected, updated or edited in Appendix N to reflect the CCSM 

Project and the Final EIS and ROD: Page N12: "The level of uncertainty regarding amounts and locations 

of wind energy development in the planning area was considered too large to allow estimation of economic 

impacts." Page N12: "It is difficult to foresee where these projects would be built." Page N14: "First, 

because no projects are currently approved on BLM and Forest Serviceadministered lands ... . " Finally, 

Section 2.2.2 outlines how BLM determined the "low and high development scenarios" for wind energy in 

Wyoming, by sourcing industry expert opinions on "likely near-term wind development." First, there should 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-521

be quantitative supporting data available and therefore cited to support the BLM Wyoming State Office 

"suggestion that 4,000 MW is a better assumption for the minimum level of development" (page N-13).

Response: Issue #1: It is not necessary to change this. If the county requests a ROW on an existing energy

development road, it should be analyzed through the NEPA process and coordinated with the travel

management plan as to whether a permanent road to the county for the public is warranted. Issue #2: CCSM 

has been referenced in the Final EIS. It is inappropriate to extrapolate the specifics of the CCSM project 

across the entire planning area due to difference, including but not limited to, wind potential, land ownership 

status, proximity to transmission lines and other infrastructure. The appendix adequately describes the 

process and data used to prepare wind development projections or assumptions. Assumptions are for the 

purpose of analysis only. They are presumed true for the purpose of equitably comparing the alternatives, 

do not constrain or define management, and are based on observations, historical trends and professional 

judgment. NREL is the Department of Energy's recognized expert in wind energy. The data provided by 

NREL is considered the best available.

Lands and Realty

Language in alternatives needs to be revised

Comment ID: 409

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Alternative E proposes to require that new projects in GSG core habitats “that may require future 

distribution and transmission lines” must include potential disturbance from these lines in their DDCT, and 

that such disturbance will count against the 5% disturbance cap. This requirement is inconsistent with EO 

2011-5 and places and unjustified burden on operators attempting to exercise valid existing rights within 

GSG core habitats. Yates requests BLM eliminate the requirement that new projects include potential 

disturbance from transmission projects that are not, at a minimum, in the planning process. The only 

disturbance that should that should be included is that which is planned or at least reasonably expected to

occur within GSG core habitats. Yates requests BLM modify this stipulations by substituting the phrase 

“may require future distribution and transmission lines” with “distribution and transmission lines that are 

in the planning process and reasonably expected to be developed.”

Comment ID: 891

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz

Comment: These same issues apply to the suggestion to re-locate transmission lines outside of priority 

habitat (pg. 2-29). Re-locating a multi-million dollar facility is cost-prohibitive and not a viable option for 

Tri- State and its members in almost all situations. Transmission lines are originally routed to avoid impacts 

to the natural and human environment to the greatest extent feasible at the time they are sited. Transmission 

siting and routing is a complex process that must consider many different resources. Relocating and 

removing existing power lines requires local, state, and federal permits; the acquisition of new easements 

on private lands; and complete environmental compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

often for facilities that have been in operation for decades. Relocating a transmission line can also cost 

millions of dollars in permitting, engineering, and construction fees. All of these costs are passed along to 

the rate payers in the community. Potential line re-location also could result in cumulative impacts to greater 

sage-grouse from increased habitat fragmentation across the landscape for power lines that cross federal 

and private lands and, therefore, could not be moved entirely out of a geographic area (due to engineering 

constraints or established electrical paths). Given the extent of ROW exclusion areas identified for the DEIS

alternatives, it is likely not feasible to re-route a power line outside of sage-grouse priority habitat.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-522 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 890

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS calls for co-locating power lines within existing ROWs in each of the action

alternatives where technically feasible. For operational and safety reasons, electric utilities typically cannot 

co-locate facilities within existing ROWs. Electric utilities are required to maintain clearances identified in 

the National Electric Safety Code for the safe and reliable operation of the transmission system. The Final 

EIS/Final LUPA should recognize that there are requirements, policies, and guidelines defined by the North 

American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) for the safe and reliable operation of transmission systems. Tri- State must also comply with these 

requirements and must adhere to the policies and guidelines of these agencies. Tri-State requests that the 

Final EIS/Final LUPA clarify that these linear facilities should parallel existing ROWs, but not co-locate 

within them to the greatest extent feasible, in order to allow electric utilities the ability to comply with other 

federal agency operation standards and directives. Alternative E is the only viable and practical alternative 

that addresses and recognizes these operational requirements, and clarifies that transmission lines may be 

permitted within 2 miles of transmission line corridors and within 0.5 miles on either side of existing 115kV 

or larger lines.

Summary: Issue #1: The Draft EIS calls for co-locating power lines within existing ROWs in each of the 

action alternatives where technically feasible. For operational and safety reasons, electric utilities typically

cannot co-locate facilities within existing ROWs. Electric utilities are required to maintain clearances

identified in the National Electric Safety Code for the safe and reliable operation of the transmission system. 

The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS should recognize that there are requirements, policies, and 

guidelines defined by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the safe and reliable operation of transmission systems. Tri-State must 

also comply with these requirements and must adhere to the policies and guidelines of these agencies. TriState requests that the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS clarify that these linear facilities should 

parallel existing ROWs, but not co-locate within them to the greatest extent feasible, in order to allow 

electric utilities the ability to comply with other federal agency operation standards and directives. 

Alternative E is the only viable and practical alternative that addresses and recognizes these operational 

requirements, and clarifies that transmission lines may be permitted within 2 miles of transmission line 

corridors and within 0.5 miles on either side of existing 115kV or larger lines. Issue #2: Alternative E 

proposes to require that new projects in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitats “that may require future 

distribution and transmission lines” must include potential disturbance from these lines in their DDCT, and 

that such disturbance will count against the 5% disturbance cap. This requirement is inconsistent with EO 

2011-5 and places and unjustified burden on operators attempting to exercise valid existing rights within 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitats.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater

Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1)

require that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. While there are many possible 

alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and 

the Forest Service fully considered the management opportunities presented in the Analysis of the 

Management Situation (AMS) and the planning issues and criteria developed during the scoping process to 

determine a reasonable range of alternatives. The range of alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS represented a full spectrum of options including a No Action alternative. Issue #1: The BLM and 

Forest Service realize that it may not be possible to co-locate some power lines within existing ROWs, 

which is why some alternatives use the language “where technically feasible.” Given the use of this 

language, the BLM and Forest Service think specific text changes within the management actions are not 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-523

necessary. Issue #2: Alternative E is not solely based on EO 2011-5, but rather includes a combination of

recommendations from various sources, as described in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. Alternative E incorporates the guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the Wyoming Governor’s 

Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and additional management based on the NTT recommendations. The 

BLM purposely included the action/requirement raised in the comment because the BLM and Forest 

Service determined it may be necessary to effectively conserve sagegrouse habitat. Based on the Chapter 4 

impact analysis and public comments, the BLM and Forest Service will make the final decision in the 

Record of Decision regarding this action/requirement.

Lands and Realty

Language in the alternatives should be revised

Comment ID: 1403

Organization: Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Name: Darlene Steffan

Comment: Use of Utility Corridors Basin Electric understands and generally agrees with the rationale for 

utility corridor use and the colocation of infrastructure in order to minimize impacts. It is important to note, 

however, the limitations associated with using corridors. Parallel high voltage transmission lines should be

separated by a reasonable distance to increase and ensure reliability. The obvious concern is that two or 

more closely spaced transmission lines may be damaged by a single storm event, thereby disrupting power 

over a large geographic area. Further, not all utilities are compatible in adjacent ROW, due to induced 

currents, interference, etc. Corridor use may be appropriate in many situations, but the limitations must be 

considered, and options outside of the corridor may be appropriate in particular cases based on a full review 

of all of the alternatives.

Comment ID: 2603

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 2-17, Table 2-1, Action 17: This action is more stringent than existing lease and ROW

stipulations, terms, and/or conditions, and it covers both core and non-core habitat areas. QEP asks that this 

item be either dropped or modified to avoid violating existing rights and EO conflicts. On the last line 

replace the word "included" with "considered".

Comment ID: 2890

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Action Number 32 would require new electric distribution lines be buried where feasible. If not

feasible, overhead lines would be located at least 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied Greater SageGrouse leks and raptor perch deterrents would be installed. We know of no science supporting the 0.6 mile 

buffer or the installation of raptor perch deterrents as a conservation measure to protect sage-grouse habitat. 

A justification for this proposed management action based on best available scientific information and data 

must be presented in the LUPAIEIS or the measure must be dropped from further consideration. In addition, 

BLM should provide guidance on what it considers "feasible" when considering the burying of electric 

distribution lines. While technically feasible to bury many lower voltage electric lines, this can be an 

extreme hardship financially as the cost of burying a line is many times greater than the cost of overhead 

construction. Burying a line extension across federal lands to service a new connection for a water well, 

residence or utility building could make the project economically unfeasible. Also, within the checkerboard 

pattern of land ownership, this proposed action is particularly inappropriate as BLM has no authority over 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-524 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the intervening sections of private land. Theoretically, the line could go underground a mile on BLM, 

overhead the next mile on private, underground the next mile on BLM, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, until 

reaching its destination. This seems impractical and of limited benefit to sage-grouse habitats. The BLM 

needs to reconsider this proposed action and discuss implementation in areas of mixed land ownership, such 

as the checkerboard, in the LUPA/EIS.

Summary: Issue #1: Action Number 32 would require new electric distribution lines be buried where 

feasible. If not feasible, overhead lines would be located at least 0.6 miles from the perimeter of occupied

Greater Sage-Grouse leks and raptor perch deterrents would be installed. We know of no science supporting 

the 0.6 mile buffer or the installation of raptor perch deterrents as a conservation measure to protect sagegrouse habitat. A justification for this proposed management action based on best available scientific 

information and data must be presented in the LUP Amendments/EIS or the measure must be dropped from 

further consideration. In addition, BLM should provide guidance on what it considers "feasible" when 

considering the burying of electric distribution lines. While technically feasible to bury many lower voltage 

electric lines, this can be an extreme hardship. Issue #2: Page 2-17, Action 17: This action is more stringent 

than existing lease and ROW stipulations, terms, and/or conditions, and it covers both core and non-core 

habitat areas. QEP asks that this item be either dropped or modified to avoid violating existing rights and 

EO conflicts. On the last line replace the word "included" with "considered". Issue #3: Basin Electric

understands and generally agrees with the rationale for utility corridor use and the co-location of 

infrastructure in order to minimize impacts. It is important to note, however, the limitations associated with 

using corridors. Parallel high voltage transmission lines should be separated by a reasonable distance to 

increase and ensure reliability. Further, not all utilities are compatible in adjacent ROW, due to induced 

currents, interference, etc.

Response: Issue #1: The BLM and Forest Service have determined that a 0.6-mile buffer around sagegrouse leks and installing raptor perch deterrents are effective measures in reducing impacts on sage-grouse

populations and habitat and conserving sage-grouse habitat. This determination is based on professional 

judgment, literature sources, and consultation with other agencies. There is no data available to determine 

feasibility of burying power lines. The costs are extreme and according to sources make the power 

unreliable. However, new technology could become available that would make burying such lines feasible, 

so BLM and Forest Service considered such an alternative to be reasonable for purposes of analysis in the 

EIS. Issue #2: The BLM and Forest Service agree this action is more stringent than existing management

actions, which is why it is included under the action alternatives as a consideration for future management. 

The objective of this planning effort is to amend existing decisions in order to increase protection measures 

for Greater Sage-Grouse. All management actions implemented as a result of this planning effort will 

comply with valid, existing rights and all laws and regulations. Issue #3: The BLM and Forest Service 

recognize that co-location is not feasible or appropriate in all circumstances, particularly for new power 

lines. Under all alternatives, the BLM and Forest Service would continue to review proposed infrastructure 

projects on a case-by-case basis within and outside Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.

Lands and Realty

The Draft EIS is not clear on how ROW avoidance areas would be managed

Comment ID: 193

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company

Name: Doug Cooper

Comment: A citizen has no way to be certain how exactly the federal government would implement such

concepts as right-of-way avoidance areas. It is unclear whether an ROW avoidance area would mean that a 

majority of applications for a right-of way would be turned down or just a few. As a mineral owner that 

needs to cross federal land to access my minerals, I find no certainty in this plan except for the exclusion 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-525

areas. The Wyoming Constitution, which was accepted by the Federal government at Statehood, provides 

that mineral owners shall be able to access their minerals, yet it appears that the Bureau of Land 

Management intends to deny adjacent mineral owners the right to cross federal surface to access state and 

private minerals. The plan also proposes withdrawal of the federal minerals from development in the Sand 

Hills Management Area. This withdrawal is intended to protect the sensitive sand hill area but it is 

interesting to note that the withdrawal is only where federal minerals and surface coincide. The adjacent 

areas of private surface in the sand hills will not have the underlying federal minerals withdrawn. Evidently 

the federal surface is worth protecting but not the private surface.

Summary: It is unclear whether an ROW avoidance area would mean that a majority of applications for a 

rightof way would be turned down or just a few. The Wyoming Constitution, which was accepted by the

federal government at statehood, provides that mineral owners shall be able to access their minerals, yet it 

appears that the BLM intends to deny adjacent mineral owners the right to cross federal surface to access 

state and private minerals. The plan also proposes withdrawal of the federal minerals from development in 

the Sand Hills Management Area. This withdrawal is intended to protect the sensitive sand hill area but it 

is interesting to note that the withdrawal is only where federal minerals and surface coincide. The adjacent 

areas of private surface in the sand hills will not have the underlying federal minerals withdrawn.

Response: The issue regarding which ROW applications would be approved or not approved within ROW

avoidance areas depends on multiple factors, including project type, location, and design and whether other 

projects/disturbances already exist within the proposed project area. Each ROW application will be 

reviewed on a site-specific basis to determine if the project is feasible and whether specific mitigation 

measures are required. As stated in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, the BLM and Forest Service 

will honor all valid existing rights.

Lands and Realty

The LUP Amendments do not ensure private property rights

Comment ID: 224

Organization:

Name: Frank Deede

Comment: I am shocked and concerned as a result of following the Sagegrouse issue how little attention is 

paid by the Government as to the Private Property Rights of landowners and concern for the use of

appurtenances held such as grazing permits. With 9 federal agencies, 8 Wyoming agencies local

governments you would think someone within this group would be directed to make sure the private

property rights are not infringed on and the Constitution which guarantees these rights are followed. This 

does not seem to be the case! I am a 30 year long agricultural real estate broker and I see no more or less 

grouse in the wild than 30 years ago. If the money spent on this issue was redirected to growing birds 

instead of all government people meeting with each other the counts would go up dramatically. I have yet 

to see cattle,elk or deer kill a sagegrouse or eat the foods that these birds eat in any amount that would 

impact the environment for the grouse. If you want the real the real story on a possible decline in sagegrouse 

numbers, talk to a coyote. Do not implement policies that violate private property rights!

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service must ensure that private property rights are not infringed upon. I 

am concerned this is not the case with this planning effort.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service will honor all valid existing rights. Private property rights will not 

be infringed upon by implementing the land use decision included in the Proposed LUP Amendments.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-526 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Lands and Realty

Best available information-baseline data

Baseline data in Draft EIS needs to be updated

Comment ID: 2583

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Also, it appears that BLM failed to incorporate the best available data and information from the

BLM's own NEPA Hot Sheet, dated Jan. 7, 2014, page 6, available at

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA.Par.24843.File.dat/hot_sheet. pdf . 

This document shows there are only two active wind energy development projects on federal ELM land in 

Wyoming: The 3,000 MW, 1,000-turbine CCSM Project, and the Sandhills Ranch Wind Energy Project, 

consisting of25 turbines for a total of 50 MW. Whatever truly active wind energy projects are listed on the 

most recent version of the ELM NEPA Hot Sheet should be incorporated into the Final LUPAIEIS as the 

best available data.

Comment ID: 2585

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Further, the ELM should be seeking the best available data and guidance from Wyoming's 

largest utility and owner/buyer of wind power in Wyoming, PacifiCorp/dba Rocky Mountain Power. We 

recommend that the BLM interview Rocky Mountain Power experts directly for their guidance, but our 

reading of the 2013 IRP indicates the company is not planning to acquire any new wind power in Wyoming 

over the next 10-year planning horizon. Their "preferred portfolio" until 2024, as shown on page 11, 

includes no new wind energy resources. They write: With policy and market drivers contributing to 

unfavorable economics for new renewable resources, renewable resource additions in the 2013 IRP 

preferred portfolio reflect a near-term unbundled REC compliance strategy. And this appears on page 14:

With renewable portfolio standard (RPS) compliance achieved with unbundled renewable energy credit 

(REC) purchases, the preferred portfolio does not include incremental renewable resources prior to 2024.

If BLM is overstating the high end of possible wind development in Wyoming in the next 10 years, and if 

BLM potentially and incorrectly is assuming that severely restricting wind development by up to 90% is an 

adequate regulatory mechanism to protect sage-grouse habitat, then BLM may end up assuming and 

assigning more "value" to restricting wind development than what actually would exist. In other words, 

restricting what could be practically zero future wind development beyond the two active projects on the 

BLM's list will lead to practically zero changes or effects on sage-grouse habitat, thereby not serving as an 

adequate regulatory mechanism.

Summary: If BLM is overstating the high end of possible wind development in Wyoming in the next 10 

years, and if BLM potentially and incorrectly is assuming that severely restricting wind development by up

to 90% is an adequate regulatory mechanism to protect sage-grouse habitat, then BLM may end up

assuming and assigning more "value" to restricting wind development than what actually would exist. In 

other words, restricting what could be practically zero future wind development beyond the two active 

projects on the BLM's list will lead to practically zero changes or effects on sage-grouse habitat, thereby 

not serving as an adequate regulatory mechanism. It appears that BLM failed to incorporate the best 

available data and information from the BLM's own NEPA Hot Sheet, dated Jan. 7, 2014, page 6, available 

at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA.Par.24843.File.dat/hot_sheet. pd 

This document shows there are only two active wind energy development projects on federal BLM land in 

Wyoming: The 3,000 MW, 1,000-turbine CCSM Project, and the Sandhills Ranch Wind Energy Project, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-527

consisting of 25 turbines for a total of 50 MW. Whatever truly active wind energy projects are listed on the 

most recent version of the BLM NEPA Hot Sheet should be incorporated into the Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS as the best available data.

Response: The BLM thoroughly explained its consideration and analysis of cumulative effects in the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS in Section 4. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS considered the present

effects of past actions, to the extent that they are relevant, and present and reasonably foreseeable (not 

highly speculative) federal and non-federal actions, taking into account the relationship between the 

proposed alternatives and these reasonably foreseeable actions. The BLM explicitly described their 

assumptions regarding proposed projects and other reasonably foreseeable future actions. The BLM has

complied fully with the requirements of 40 CFR 1508.7 and prepared a cumulative impact analysis to the 

extent possible based on the broad nature and scope of the proposed management options under 

consideration at the land use planning level.

Lands and Realty

Best available information-baseline data

Locate renewable energy projects on private previously disturbed land

Comment ID: 1632

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: At the same time, the Center is highly concerned about the impacts from poorly sited renewable

energy projects on rare species and their habitats. We advocate for locating renewable energy projects on 

private or previously disturbed lands near transmission lines, or through roof-top solar distributivecommunity systems.

Summary: Renewable energy projects should be located on private or previously disturbed lands near

transmission lines, or through roof-top solar distributive-community systems.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service do not have management jurisdiction on privately owned lands. 

The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS only addresses the management of wind energy on 

BLMadministered lands and National Forest System lands.

Lands and Realty

Best available information-baseline data

Restrictions on renewable energy development are not based in science.

Comment ID: 1262

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: The NTT report also requires: “Manage[ment of] priority sage-grouse habitat so that discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership.” 

The basis for this recommendation is cited as “professional judgment” derived from several studies cited in 

the report. All of these studies, however, were conducted in non-wind energy development areas, which are 

very different from and orders of magnitude larger and more complex than a typical wind project. The 

assumption that sage grouse will respond to an individual wind project in the same way that they respond 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-528 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

to other development activities that are several orders of magnitude larger is questionable and should not 

be relied upon without further support for such a conclusion.

Comment ID: 14

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Name: Thom Seal

Comment: Do not exclude wind and solar energy development.

Summary: The NTT report states “Manage priority sage-grouse habitat so that discrete anthropogenic

disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage-grouse habitat regardless of ownership.” The basis for this 

recommendation is cited as “professional judgment” derived from several studies cited in the report. All of 

these studies, however, were conducted in non-wind energy development areas, which are very different 

from and orders of magnitude larger and more complex than a typical wind project. The assumption that 

sage-grouse will respond to an individual wind project in the same way that they respond to other 

development activities that are several orders of magnitude larger is questionable and should not be relied 

upon without further support for such a conclusion.

Response: Based on studies, professional judgment, and coordination with other agencies, the BLM and 

Forest service have determined that wind energy development can adversely impact sage-grouse

populations and habitat. This is also disclosed in the analysis of environmental consequences in Chapter 4 

of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. As a result, the BLM and Forest Service have developed a 

reasonable range of alternatives concerning wind energy development and restrictions thereof. These 

alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft EIS. Based on this analysis and comments from the public 

and other agencies, the BLM and Forest Service will make the final decision in the Record of Decision 

regarding which wind energy restrictions will be implemented across the planning area. Lands and Realty

Best available information-baseline data

Restrictions on renewable energy development will reduce or prevent such development, which is 

in conflict with BLM's priority for renewable energy development

Comment ID: 513

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: DEIS Omits Wind Farm Impacts in Rock Springs Before the Wyoming Executive Orders were 

signed, several wind farms were proposed in Sweetwater County and these projects included RSGA lands. 

The regulatory burdens associated with the sage grouse conservation plan directly led to these projects to 

being withdrawn. For instance proposed farms for Kinney Rim were dropped and the Delaney Rim project 

was reduced in size. Similarly, Muller Mountain projects were terminated and projects on Aspen Mountain 

were again reduced in size. Finally, the BLM/RSGA White Mountain project was cancelled despite a 

positive NEPA analysis that when USFWS recommended reducing the project from 250 turbine sites to 50

turbine sites after an avian study. Thus, sage grouse conservation will preclude development of noncarbon

energy in direct conflict with the Interior Department’s priority for such development. For that matter, 

several transmission lines were put on a fast-track for approval, apparently without the benefit of the SG9 

RMP revisions.

Summary: Before the Wyoming Executive Orders were signed, several wind farms were proposed in

Sweetwater County and these projects included RSGA lands. The regulatory burdens associated with the 

sage-grouse conservation plan directly led to these projects being withdrawn. Sage-grouse conservation 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-529

will preclude development of non-carbon energy, which is in direct conflict with the Interior Department’s 

priority for such development.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service realize that some management actions and land use restrictions 

therein may affect the development of wind energy projects; however, the sage-grouse conservation

measures do not preclude development of non-carbon energy, such as wind energy. This is reflected in the 

Chapter 4 analysis of environmental consequences included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The 

various alternatives result in different levels of impact. The final decision regarding management actions 

related to wind energy development will be made by the BLM and Forest Service in the Record of Decision 

after the land use planning process is completed.

Lands and Realty

Best available information-baseline data

Restrictions on wind energy development are more intensive than restrictions on oil and gas 

development.

Comment ID: 1351

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Interestingly, action 36 provides specific limitations for renewable energy yet it fails to 

implement the same requirements for oil and gas development. The EIS is completely silent on the rationale 

as to why these limitations should apply to one type of energy development but not another even though 

the impacts are similar (other than the obvious on that the wind industry lacks the ‘political clout’ of the oil 

and gas industry).

Comment ID: 1270

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: This alternative was developed by Cooperating Agencies and provides for the most resource use 

with reduced sage-grouse habitat restrictions. This alternative calls for a surface disturbance cap of 9% per 

640 acres and it uses the term “Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat” or “core areas.” Wind energy 

development would be prohibited within sage-grouse core habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) unless it can be 

sufficiently demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core 

habitat populations. This would result in a total of 980 2-MW wind turbines projected to be constructed, 

which is a 22% decrease compared to Alternative A (Section 4.5.6) or a reduction in projected development 

to 21,863 turbines compared to Alternative A (Section 2.7). This is much more than the expected 4% 

decrease for oil wells. We note that it is unclear how the wind industry would demonstrate no net loss of 

sagegrouse populations as it is not outlined in the DEIS. While AWEA urges BLM to reconsider in whole 

its options for creating the sage-grouse conservation plan, this appears to be the best alternative proposed 

in the DEIS. Given the significant land areas potentially affected by the land management plan revisions 

policies related to sage-grouse, AWEA appreciates the more balanced and reasoned sage-grouse 

conservation strategies pursued in this alternative. In our opinion, it is less likely to unnecessarily deter 

wind energy development than the policies proposed in the other alternatives, with the exception of the noaction alternative.

Comment ID: 1842

Organization: Powder River Basin Resource Council
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-530 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Shannon Anderson

Comment: We are particularly concerned about how the plan treats oil and gas development vis-à-vis wind

development. Wind energy is greatly restricted under the proposed plan (see Map 2-33) whereas oil and 

gas development is not nearly as restricted (see Map 2-8). As discussed above, all priority habitat areas 

should be closed to all energy development leasing, not just for wind energy. If your final plan continues 

to grant preferential treatment to oil and gas development over wind development, please provide and 

disclose the scientific documentation justifying this contradiction.

Summary: Wind energy is greatly restricted under the proposed plan (see Map 2-33) whereas oil and gas

development is not nearly as restricted (see Map 2-8). As discussed above, all priority habitat areas should 

be closed to all energy leasing and development, not only wind energy development.

Response: The impacts on sage-grouse resulting from wind energy development are substantially different 

than those resulting from oil and gas development. Because of these differences, the restrictions placed on 

wind energy development are different than those placed on oil and gas development. Because of the 

inherent differences between these two energy sources, they are not directly comparable.

Lands and Realty

Best available information-baseline data

The Draft EIS does not provide a wind energy RFD

Comment ID: 1469

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: The DEIS fails to identify reasonably foreseeable future actions. For example, the fact that there 

are 12 wind testing applications does not equate to reasonably foreseeable utility scale wind energy projects.

Summary: The Draft EIS fails to identify reasonably foreseeable future actions for wind energy 

development.

Response: A wind RFD was developed for this planning effort and the number of wind turbines projected 

under each alternative is used and reflected in the Ch. 4 analysis of environmental consequences. These

projections are also included in Table 2-7 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS.

Lands and Realty

Cumulative impact analysis

Cumulative impact analysis needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1471

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: The DEIS also fails to meaningfully identify the spatial scope of cumulative impact area for 

renewable energy.

Summary: The Draft EIS fails to meaningfully identify the spatial scope of the cumulative impact area for

renewable energy.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-531

Response: The spatial scope of the cumulative impact analysis area for wind energy was disclosed on Page 

4- 482 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS.

Lands and Realty

Impact Analysis

The discrepancy regarding the number of wind turbines that are estimated to be constructed 

through 2020 needs to be resolved

Comment ID: 1250

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: Up to 1,254 wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the planning area through 2020

(Section 4.5.3) or a total of 27,970 wind turbines (2 MW) are projected to be developed through 2020 

(Section 2.7). This discrepancy in projected wind turbines should be cleared up in the final report as it is a 

common theme with every alternative.

Summary: The Draft EIS provides conflicting data regarding the reasonably foreseeable development for 

wind turbines. An estimate of 1,254 turbines is provided in some places of the document, while 27,970

turbines are estimated in other places of the document. The Final EIS needs to resolve this issue.

Response: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS contained an error regarding the projected number of 

wind turbines. In some areas of the document, the correct number was used and in other areas of the

document, an incorrect number was used. This error was corrected in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final 

EIS.

Lands and Realty

Impact Analysis

The Draft EIS should include estimates of disturbance associated with energy development

Comment ID: 2563

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: BLM may not make broad statements asserting disturbance without including best available

information and data to support those assertions. The Draft LUPA/EIS references disturbance related to 

wind energy projects; however, there is no description of typical wind farm land use requirements. Neither 

could we find any quantitative descriptions of other human infrastructure, such as the disturbance associated 

with pipelines, transmission lines, well pads, oil field access roads, highways and communication towers. 

If the Draft LUPAIEIS is to assert that energy development activities directly or indirectly cause material 

levels of disturbance in sage-grouse habitat, then estimated disturbance calculations should be provided for 

all of the different types of energy development and other human activities in order to quantify and provide 

context to such disturbance. The CCSM Project, for example, is estimated to have less than 2,000 acres of 

long-term surface disturbance across a 320,000-acre ranch, as documented in the Final EIS and ROD. This 

is less than 1% of the project site and includes turbine footprints, access roads and internal electrical 

distribution facilities. A persistent misunderstanding of wind farms assumes that the entire project area is

disturbed, yet that is never the case. Permanent disturbance is typically simply the tower footings

themselves, above-ground electrical facilities and access roads. Temporary disturbance can be significantly 

reduced by specialized construction techniques. Nevertheless, the Draft LUPAIEIS inaccurately assumes 

degradation of habitat from wind energy ROW ground disturbance as a contributing factor for decreased 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-532 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

habitat availability, increased predation, and spreading of invasive plants. In the case of the CCSM Project, 

99% of the TOTCO ranch land will remain available for wildlife use and migration activities, and our years 

of sage-grouse data collection show that sagegrouse need and use a wide variety of vegetation to support 

their various life activities including agricultural fields, ditches and roadsides.

Comment ID: 2908

Organization: TransWest Express LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: BLM may not make broad statements asserting disturbance without including best available

information and data to support those assertions. The Draft LUPA/EIS references disturbance related to 

transmission lines and references impacts of transmission Lines; however, there is no description of typical 

transmission line land use requirements. Neither could we find any quantitative descriptions of other human 

infrastructure, such as the disturbance associated with pipelines, wind turbines, well pads, oil field access 

roads, highways and communication towers. If the Draft LUPA/EIS is to assert that energy development 

activities directly or indirectly cause material levels of disturbance in sage-grouse habitat, then estimated 

disturbance calculations should be provided for all of the different types of energy development and other 

human activities in order to quantify and provide context to such disturbance. The Draft LUPA/EIS should 

include an accurate description of potential transmission line impacts and accurately reflect best available 

scientific information concerning potential effects of tall structures on sage-grouse.

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS references disturbance related to transmission lines and

references impacts of transmission lines; however, there is no description of typical transmission line land 

use requirements. Neither could we find any quantitative descriptions of other human infrastructure, such 

as the disturbance associated with pipelines, wind turbines, well pads, oil field access roads, highways and 

communication towers. If the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS is to assert that energy development 

activities directly or indirectly cause material levels of disturbance in sage-grouse habitat, then estimated 

disturbance calculations should be provided for all of the different types of energy development and other 

human activities in order to quantify and provide context to such disturbance.

Response: Acres of disturbance were calculated for development associated with oil and gas resources,

including well development, pipelines, and roads. These figures are used throughout the analysis of

environmental consequences included in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS.

Lands and Realty

Impact Analysis

The impacts analysis needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1402

Organization: Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Name: Darlene Steffan

Comment: BLM should consider the cumulative impacts of this LUP with proposed LUPs/RMPs in 

adjacent Planning Areas. Taken one at a time, the LUPs/RMPs may not appear to be overly restrictive, but

considered together (on a state-wide or larger scale) the LUPs/RMPs may be shown to present

insurmountable obstructions to interstate transmission projects. At a minimum, all of the proposed ROW 

restrictions found in LUPs/RMPs currently under consideration within and adjacent to the State of 

Wyoming should be aggregated to depict the range of cumulative impacts (restrictions) on future ROW 

development.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-533

Comment ID: 1882

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: Furthermore, the DLUPA/DEIS omits any discussion or analysis of impacts the proposed 

withdrawals, segregations, and restrictions will have on sage-grouse except to state: ...[n]ot recommending 

withdrawal proposals not associated with mineral activity in Greater Sage- Grouse priority habitat could 

allow for additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat...more acres of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat could be protected from disturbance and habitat loss compared to Alternative A... 

(Ch.4 at 4-288, 293). There is no attempt to quantify the impacts, or describe the impacts with sufficient 

qualitative descriptors, whether beneficial or adverse, instead broad generalizations are used. BLM must 

provide reasoned analysis relating to the prosed withdrawals, segregations, and restrictions proposed

throughout the DLUPA/DEIS.

Comment ID: 362

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: BLM’s analysis of impacts of transmission lines by alternative is incomplete. For example under

Alternative A, there are over 2 million acres of right-of-way “avoidance” corridors (DEIS at 4- 257) that 

suggest, but do not require, that transmission lines be sited outside these areas. Given these restrictions, the 

utility corridor designations currently in place, and the reasonably foreseeable construction of the Energy 

Gateway West, Energy Gateway South, TransWest Express, Zephyr, High Plains Express, and WyomingColorado Intertie projects which have either been announced with proposed alignment options and/or are 

already in the NEPA approval process, how many miles of new transmission line are likely to be constructed 

in Preliminary Priority Habitats and Preliminary General Habitats as designated by the COT (2013) under 

each alternative, implementing “avoidance” direction versus “exclusion” direction? This analysis is

critically important for BLM to understand the differing levels of impact to sage grouse by alternative and 

to make an informed choice among alternatives, pursuant to NEPA and FLPMA mandates.

Comment ID: 1879

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM goes on to describe the impacts from the above management action as “similar” despite 

the significant increase in land subject to the exclusions. BLM fails to recognize that the increase in area,

leads to an increase in impact. Alternative B proposes a 1,698% increase in ROW exclusion areas, while 

Alternative C proposes a 3,932% increase (Ch. 4 at 4-74). Clearly the impacts to ROW holders, applicants 

and projects dependent on ROW approval would be far greater under Alternatives B and C. BLM must 

expand the impact analysis to provide sufficient detail and then re-issue a revised draft to allow for public 

input.

Comment ID: 2595

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-69 Text: Impacts from ROW management would be similar to Alternative A, except ROW

avoidance areas would increase to 6,065,960 acres. This could increase the potential for forest stands to be 

disturbed as ROW development could be displaced from sage-grouse habitat into forested areas. Comment: 

Throughout Chapter 4, BLM does not simply state the differences between the impacts of the alternatives. 

Here, the BLM states that Alternative E will increase ROW avoidance areas to 6,065,960 acres without 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-534 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

providing acres for Alternative A. Instead, BLM should simply state that the Alternative E increases ROW 

avoidance areas by XXXXX acres to a total of 6,065,960 acres. The importance of such a simple revision 

cannot be overstated since the DEIS cannot be properly reviewed if the BLM veils the issues with confusing 

and misleading descriptions between alternatives. Moreover, the EIS should specifically state what 

proportion of the incremental increases from alternative to alternative occur inside GRSG habitat since that 

is the fundamental purpose of the DEIS.

Summary: Issue #1: BLM’s analysis of impacts of transmission lines by alternative is incomplete. The 

analysis should disclose the number of miles of new transmission lines that are likely to be constructed in

sage-grouse priority and general habitats under each alternative. This analysis is critically important for 

BLM to understand the differing levels of impact to sage-grouse by alternative and to make an informed 

choice among alternatives, pursuant to NEPA and FLPMA mandates. Issue #2: Pg 4-69 Text: Impacts from 

ROW management would be similar to Alternative A, except ROW avoidance areas would increase to 

6,065,960 acres. This could increase the potential for forest stands to be disturbed as ROW development 

could be displaced from sage-grouse habitat into forested areas. Comment: Throughout Chapter 4, BLM 

does not simply state the differences between the impacts of the alternatives. For example, on Page 4-69, it 

states “Impacts from ROW management would be similar to Alternative A, except ROW avoidance areas 

would increase to 6,065,960 acres.” Instead, the Draft EIS should simply state that the Alternative E 

increases ROW avoidance areas by XXXXX acres to a total of 6,065,960 acres. Issue #3: Furthermore, the 

Draft EIS omits any discussion or analysis of impacts the proposed withdrawals, segregations, and 

restrictions will have on sage-grouse, except to state: “not recommending withdrawal proposals not 

associated with mineral activity in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could allow for additional 

management for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat...more acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

could be protected from disturbance and habitat loss compared to Alternative A” (Page 4-288, 4-293). There 

is no attempt to quantify the impacts, or describe the impacts with sufficient qualitative descriptors, whether 

beneficial or adverse. Instead broad generalizations are used. BLM must provide reasoned analysis relating 

to proposed withdrawals, segregations, and restrictions. Issue #4: Alternative B proposes a 1,698% increase 

in ROW exclusion areas, while Alternative C proposes a 3,932% increase (Ch. 4 at 4-74). Clearly the 

impacts to ROW holders, applicants and projects dependent on ROW approval would be far greater under 

Alternatives B and C. The analysis does not describe this difference in sufficient detail. Therefore, the BLM 

and Forest Service must expand the impact analysis and re-issue a revised Draft EIS to allow for public 

input. Issue #5: The BLM should consider the cumulative impacts of this LUP Amendments with proposed

LUPs/RMPs in adjacent planning areas. Taken one at a time, the LUPs/RMPs may not appear to be overly 

restrictive, but considered together (on a state-wide or larger scale) the LUPs/RMPs may be shown to 

present insurmountable obstructions to interstate transmission projects.

Response: Issue #1: Because the future construction of transmission lines is dependent on multiple, 

interrelated factors, it is not possible to accurately predict the number of miles of new transmission lines 

that will be constructed in sage-grouse habitat under each alternative. When the specific transmission line

projects are proposed, a separate NEPA analysis will be conducted to disclose the environmental

consequences associated with the project. Issue #2: The analysis of environmental consequences included 

in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS presents the environmental impacts of implementing 

the decisions in Chapter 2 in a manner that allows for comparison among the five alternatives. Text 

descriptions, acreage values, tables, and maps are all used to present a comparative analysis among the

alternatives. Regarding the suggestion included in the comment to state the difference in acres among the 

alternatives is very specific and a minor aspect of the entire analysis. However, the BLM and Forest Service 

made efforts to further clarify the differences among the alternatives in the Final EIS. Issue #3: An analysis 

of impacts on sage-grouse from implementing mineral withdrawals is included in Section 4.14 in Chapter 

4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The detail included in the analysis was increased and included 

in the Final EIS. Issue #4: The analysis of impacts on lands and realty management is included in Section 

4.5 in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The analysis focuses on the constraints and
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-535

opportunities for ROW authorizations (e.g., pipelines, power lines, transmission lines, roads, and

communication sites), land tenure adjustments (disposals and acquisitions), and land ownership

adjustments (purchases, exchanges, and donations). The analysis does not necessarily address specific 

impacts on ROW holders or applicants, as that is not appropriate for an analysis of environmental 

consequences at the land use plan level. The existing analysis is sufficient in that it clearly discloses the 

impacts associated with implementing the decisions included in Chapter 2 and provides a comparative 

analysis among the alternatives. Issue #5: The cumulative effects analysis considered actions and projects 

outside of the planning area, including those contained in other land use plans.

Lands and Realty

Mitigation measures

Conservation easement and mitigation agreement associated with land exchanges should be 

optional

Comment ID: 1486

Organization:

Name: Denise Langley

Comment: FS Land Ownership Adjustment Standard: “Retain public ownership of core Greater Sage 

grouse habitat. Only allow federal land sale of exchange when there is mixed ownership and land exchanges

would allow for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within the Greater Sage- Grouse 

habitat area. In these cases, REQUIRE a mitigation agreement and a PERMANENT conservation easement 

on the federal parcel that is sold or exchanged.” Now think about this: What is the landowner gaining if 

they trade or buy a federal parcel if the FS is requiring a surface easement where the federal agency will 

still control the management of the surface? This mitigation agreement should be optional like the BLM 

has stated they will include rather than REQUIRED. There will be very few landowners willing to accept 

a required conservation easement on the surface they are getting. This mandatory requirement will cause 

the elimination of several future land trades or purchases.

Summary: Forest Service Land Ownership Adjustment Standard: “Retain public ownership of core Greater 

Sage grouse habitat. Only allow federal land sale of exchange when there is mixed ownership and land

exchanges would allow for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within the Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat area. In these cases, REQUIRE a mitigation agreement and a PERMANENT 

conservation easement on the federal parcel that is sold or exchanged.” What is the landowner gaining if 

they trade or buy a federal parcel if the Forest Service is requiring a surface easement where the federal 

agency will still control the management of the surface? This mitigation agreement should be optional like 

the BLM has stated they will include rather than REQUIRED. There will be very few landowners willing 

to accept a required conservation easement on the surface they are getting. This mandatory requirement 

will cause the elimination of several future land trades or purchases.

Response: Based on public comments and analysis, the language contained in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS has been revised to eliminate any requirement for an easement or mitigation 

agreement on a federal parcel that is exchanged.

Lands and Realty

Mitigation measures

The BLM and Forest Service should work collaboratively with industry

Comment ID: 1234
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-536 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: AWEA believes that preservation of the sage-grouse can best be achieved by enlisting the wind 

industry as a partner in conservation and that wind development can be designed and operated to coexist 

with sage-grouse habitats. Site-specific habitat analyses can be completed pre- and post-construction for 

wind facilities to determine how they can best be sited and maintained to mitigate any potential impacts on 

sage-grouse habitats. In addition, such measures as compensatory mitigation measures can also be pursued 

to provide a net benefit to the species, such as establishing conservation banks that benefit specific 

populations in various regions that are most in need.

Summary: Preservation of the sage-grouse can best be achieved by enlisting the wind industry as a partner 

in conservation and that wind development can be designed and operated to coexist with sage-grouse

habitats. Site-specific habitat analyses can be completed pre- and post-construction for wind facilities to 

determine how they can best be sited and maintained to mitigate any potential impacts on sagegrouse

habitats. In addition, such measures as compensatory mitigation measures can also be pursued to provide a 

net benefit to the species, such as establishing conservation banks that benefit specific populations in 

various regions that are most in need.

Response: Teams are formed between the applicant and the affected interest groups to address impacts that

could result if the project is approved. Those teams look at anticipated residual and cumulative effects and 

propose mitigation, both on-site and off-site, to provide a net benefit to the species. Establishing 

conservation banks has been considered and used on many large scale projects. Attention is focused on 

local impacts, but if mitigation cannot be used beneficially, then it can be used off-site to benefit the species 

in other areas. It must be outlined in the agreement as to how the funds will be used. Future ROW/SUP 

applications would be evaluated and approved on a case-bycase basis based upon site-specific 

determinations of the ability to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat at 

the implementation phase, including application of current best management practices (e.g., APLIC 

guidelines). A proposed project's contribution to the amount of disturbance on the landscape would be 

evaluated during site-specific NEPA analysis.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Alternative D discriminates against wind energy and transmission development

Comment ID: 2559

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Alternative D is described as being based on scoping comments and participation by 

Cooperating Agencies. BLM claims that this alternative emphasizes balancing resources and resource use 

among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. We are not

convinced, as this alternative does not adequately demonstrate or include evidence that a balance is actually 

achieved. In particular, it appears biased against wind energy and transmission development.

Comment ID: 2906

Organization: TransWest Express LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-537

Comment: Alternative D is described as being based on scoping comments and participation by 

Cooperating Agencies. BLM claims that this alternative emphasizes balancing resources and resource use 

among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. We are not

convinced, as this alternative does not adequately demonstrate or include evidence that a balance is actually 

achieved. In particular, it seems discriminatory against wind energy and transmission development.

Summary: BLM claims that Alternative D is based on scoping comments and participation by cooperating

agencies and emphasizes balancing resources and resource use among competing human interests, land 

uses, and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. However, this balance is not achieved. In particular, it 

seems discriminatory against wind energy and transmission development.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 

40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, including 

seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. The alternatives include management options 

for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the field office RMPs, as amended, to 

meet the planning criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to 

provide a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the 

planning area while providing protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat based on scoping comments and 

input from cooperating agencies involved in the alternatives development process.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Alternatives B and C are too restrictive

Comment ID: 1268

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: Alternative C consists of recommendations from citizen groups. It presents the greatest

limitation to wind development, closing 11,531,340 acres of land from such development. It also presents 

a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres. Under this alternative, 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected 

to be constructed, which represents a 90% decrease compared to Alternative A (Section 4.5.5) or reduction 

in projected development to 2,821 turbines (Section 2.7), the same as under Alternative B, but limiting 

more areas where they could be developed than Alternative B. Conversely, oil well production will only 

decrease by 32%. Alternative C appears to be far too constrictive regarding land use for renewable energy 

development on BLM land; therefore, we do not support it.

Comment ID: 1243

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: While AWEA recognizes the importance of taking immediate steps to protect the sagegrouse

and does not want to see the species listed, we do think it is important to point out that the conservation 

measures proposed by Alternatives B and C are ironically potentially more burdensome and stringent than 

the conservation scheme that would be triggered if there were an ESA listing. Considering the ESA’s role 

as a species protection statute of last resort, this should not be the case. Conversely, with respect to sagegrouse, Alternatives B, C, and E provide for a blanket prohibition on wind energy development in 

Preliminary Priority Habitats (PPH) areas in which the 3 percent disturbance threshold has already been 

met. Another quantitative restriction mandates that PPH areas must be managed or restored so that at least 

70 percent of the land cover provides sagebrush habitat for the sage-grouse. These inflexible numeric 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-538 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

criteria would effectively halt wind energy development in many circumstances, without even providing 

industry the opportunity to demonstrate the potential mitigation benefits that project development plans 

could bestow on sage-grouse populations. These alternatives expressly adopt an “exclusion area” approach, 

barring wind development from large expanses of land, while the ESA provides for no such absolute bans.

The fact that the development restrictions contemplated by these alternatives are more inflexible and 

provide less certainty than those that would arise pursuant to an ESA listing reveals the need for BLM and 

the FS to pursue a more balanced conservation strategy that preserves the sage-grouse while not halting 

productive renewable energy development on public lands.

Comment ID: 2557

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Map 2-31. "Alternative C Wind Energy Development Restrictions," shows that wind energy

development would in fact be "closed" across what appears to be nearly all federal land in the Planning 

Area. including the CCSM Project area, which has already been approved for wind energy development by 

the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. This alternative should not have been carried forward into the Draft 

LUPA/EIS analysis, given that the CCSM Project was identified as a BLM Renewable Energy Priority 

Project for 2012 and was approved via a Record of Decision in October 2012. Alternative C is not a 

reasonable alternative. It is so restrictive that it fails to meet BLM's statutory obligation and purpose and 

need of th.is plan amendment to manage public lands for multiple use. Alternative C is the no-resource 

development alternative that would, if selected, require ELM to manage for a single resource - sage-grouse. 

While FLPMA does not require BLM to manage for every resource everywhere, it does require BLM to 

strike a balance in the management of public lands and does not allow the BLM to manage a significant 

percentage of its lands within the Planning Area to the benefit of a single species. Alternative C should be 

dropped from further consideration.

Summary: The conservation measures proposed by Alternatives B and C are potentially more burdensome 

and stringent than the conservation scheme that would be triggered if there were an ESA listing.

Considering the ESA’s role as a species protection statute of last resort, this should not be the case.

Conversely, with respect to sage-grouse, Alternatives B, C, and E provide for a blanket prohibition on wind 

energy development in priority habitat areas in which the 3 percent disturbance threshold has already been 

met. Another quantitative restriction mandates that priority habitat areas must be managed or restored so 

that at least 70 percent of the land cover provides sagebrush habitat for the sage-grouse. These inflexible 

numeric criteria would effectively halt wind energy development in many circumstances, without providing 

industry the opportunity to demonstrate the potential mitigation benefits that project development plans 

could bestow on sage-grouse populations. Map 2-31. "Alternative C Wind Energy Development 

Restrictions," shows that wind energy development would in fact be "closed" across what appears to be 

nearly all federal land in the planning area. Alternative C is not a reasonable alternative. It is so restrictive 

that it fails to meet BLM's statutory obligation and purpose and need of this plan amendment to manage 

public lands for multiple use.

Response: The EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives regarding ROW restrictions and wind energy

development. The land use restrictions included under Alternatives B and C were considered and analyzed 

under a range of alternatives designed to conserve sage-grouse habitat. The final decision regarding the 

management actions analyzed in the EIS will be made by the BLM and Forest Service in the Record of 

Decision after the land use planning process is completed.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-539

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Designate a permitted functional access route for maintenance of utility lines.

Comment ID: 2347

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc.

Name: Beth Goodnough

Comment: Utilities facilities must maintain access to transmission lines. In cases of an emergency (outage), 

a utility will be required to access the line and repair the damage to restore power immediately without 

regard for timing or access constraints. Generally, new Special Use Permits and ROW Grants acknowledge 

this exception to travel management stipulations and seasonal buffers/restrictions. Western Fuels believes 

that having a permitted functional access route will minimize overall environmental impacts by keeping 

utility maintenance crews in pre-approved designated areas and minimize unauthorized off-road travel by 

the public.

Summary: Utilities facilities must maintain access to transmission lines. In cases of an emergency (outage), 

a utility will be required to access the line and repair the damage to restore power immediately without 

regard for timing or access constraints. Generally, new Special Use Permits and ROW Grants acknowledge 

this exception to travel management stipulations and seasonal buffers/restrictions. Designating a permitted 

functional access route will minimize overall environmental impacts by keeping utility maintenance crews 

in pre-approved designated areas and minimize unauthorized offroad travel by the public.

Response: Utility lines are considered previous disturbance. It is expected that utility companies will need

access to the lines to provide maintenance checks, and to remove vegetation that can disrupt power service. 

Existing roads would be used to maintain the lines. New roads would have to go through the NEPA process. 

Future ROW/SUP applications would be evaluated and approved on a case-by-case basis based upon sitespecific determination of the ability to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat at the implementation phase, including application of current best management practices (e.g., 

APLIC guidelines). A proposed project's contribution to the amount of disturbance on the landscape will 

be evaluated during site-specific NEPA analysis. The BLM and the Forest Service will protect valid existing 

rights as long as ROW permit holders comply with the terms and conditions of their ROW authorization or 

easement.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Do not agree with restrictions in the alternatives regarding MET towers

Comment ID: 2571

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Met tower restrictions (p. 2-31) Met towers are scientific instruments that measure wind speed 

and collect an important array of weather data necessary for the proper siting, management and operation 

of wind energy projects. By their very nature and design, met towers need guy wires to provide tower 

stability and security, especially in very windy environments such as those found in Wyoming. Met towers 

are necessary both before a wind energy project may formally be proposed, and after a wind energy project

is in operation. The Draft LUPAIEIS includes the following restrictions on met towers in Table 2-1,

Detailed Comparison of Alternatives. Alternative A (No Action Alternative); Kemmerer RMP: New 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-540 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

meteorological towers (MET) towers would be avoided within I mile of occupied sagebrush obligate 

habitats, unless anti-perch devices are installed. MET towers relying on guy wires for support would be 

prohibited in these habitats. Exceptions could be made if NEPA analysis shows little or no impact to 

sagebrush obligate species. Rawlins RMP: MET towers would be authorized on a case-by-case basis from 

0.25 mile to I mile of an occupied Greater Sage-Grouse and sharp-tailed grouse lek. Alternative E (Preferred 

Alternative); In addition to Alternative A: The use of guy wires for MET tower supports would be avoided 

within sage-grouse core habitat areas. All existing and any new unavoidable guy wires should be marked

with recommended bird deterrent devices. The siting of new temporary MET towers within sagegrouse

core habitat areas would be avoided within 2 miles of active sage-grouse leks, unless they are out of the 

direct line of sight of the active lek. It is unclear how "occupied sagebrush obligate habitats" are defined, 

but restricting met towers within 1 mile of any of this type of habitat appears overly broad and unsupported 

by scientific data, as are the requirements to install anti-perch devices. In addition, all pre-construction and 

must post-construction met towers have guy wires, so requiring a met tower without guy wires is effectively 

banning them, a management action that again is not backed up by scientific data. There also is no data 

provided in the Draft LUPA/EIS as to the very limited surface disturbance caused by a met tower, which 

should be disclosed if the BLM is claiming or assuming that restricting met towers will lead to significant 

sage-grouse habitat preservation. The BLM also should include the supporting science for requiring 

"recommended bird deterrent devices" as well as to disclose who is responsible for making the 

recommendation and at what cost.

Summary: Restricting MET towers within 1 mile of occupied sagebrush obligate habitats appears overly 

broad and unsupported by scientific data, as are the requirements to install anti-perch devices. In addition,

all pre-construction and most post-construction MET towers have guy wires, so requiring a MET tower 

without guy wires is effectively banning them, a management action that again is not backed up by scientific 

data. There also is no data provided in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS as to the very limited surface 

disturbance caused by a MET tower, which should be disclosed if the BLM is claiming or assuming that 

restricting MET towers will lead to significant sage-grouse habitat preservation. The BLM also should 

include the supporting science for requiring "recommended bird deterrent devices" as well as to disclose 

who is responsible for making the recommendation and at what cost.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service have determined that restricting the construction of MET towers 

near sage-grouse habitat is an effective measure in protecting sage-grouse populations and habitat. This

determination is based on guidance provided in WO IM 2010-022. Requirements for anti-perch devices for 

existing structures and applications for new MET towers would be evaluated at the time of ROW renewal 

or amendment on a case-by-case basis by the BLM or Forest Service project Deciding Officer. Towers 

designed using guy wires for support that are proposed to be located in known raptor or waterbird 

concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird movement routes or 

stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers (e.g., bird diverter devices) on the wires to prevent 

collisions by these diurnal moving species. For guidance on markers, the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee has published guidance (Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

2012 and Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006). Copies 

can be obtained at http://www.aplic.org/.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Do not agree with ROW exclusion and avoidance areas proposed in the alternatives

Comment ID: 1154

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-541

Comment: Anschutz believes BLM has not sufficiently analyzed the significant extent these limitations on 

future rights-of-way (“ROW”) will have upon oil and gas operations. In particular, Anschutz is concerned

about the management of the priority and even general habitat under Alternative B or Alternative C as 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-18 – 2-20, Action Nos. 30 and 31. The 

BLM has not justified this substantial increase in the number of acres subject to ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas. Anschutz is particularly concerned that the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas will be 

utilized to significantly hamper or decrease oil and gas operations. Anschutz encourages the BLM to reduce 

the area subject to ROW avoidance or exclusion limitations as they may adversely impact oil and gas 

development in the area.

Comment ID: 407

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Under each alternative in the Draft LUPA and EIS, BLM proposes to establish ROW exclusion 

areas in identified habitat areas. Yates is strongly opposed to the number of ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas proposed under each of these alternatives. BLM should justify this proposal. Withdrawing lands from 

potential ROWs may diminish and restrict oil and gas development activities for off lease roads and pipeline 

connects to wells. BLM should remain flexible when working with operators to access oil and gas leases. 

BLM has failed to recognize the need for improved transportation infrastructure and the fact that pipeline 

ROW impacts are temporary.

Comment ID: 1274

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: As discussed below, AWEA is generally in favor of state plans as they tend to strike a better 

balance between the needs of appropriate development activities and sage-grouse conservation. However, 

we note that this alternative [Alternative E] considers a version of the Wyoming State Plan that is far too 

restrictive to wind energy development. Other state plans, such as Nevada and Idaho, have struck a better 

balance by meeting the state’s energy needs and conserving the sage-grouse. It is our hope that the plan 

will ultimately revised to ensure that it does not unnecessarily impede such development. This can be done 

in a thoughtful and responsible manner if Wyoming incorporates into its state plan some of the more sitespecific approaches in the sage-grouse management practices of neighboring states. We hope that is the 

case and that the final DEIS reflects the consideration of a revised Wyoming State Plan that adopts such 

values. The Idaho State Plan allows, for example, the potential for wind development in its most protected 

zone. Likewise, under the Nevada State Plan, even in the highest value sage-grouse management area, there 

are also exemptions for development activities that would allow them to go forward if certain conditions 

are met. Thus, the Idaho and Nevada State Plans take into account the fact that as knowledge of sage-grouse 

and its habitat increases, the plans could allow for the development of wind energy in appropriate locations 

that uphold the sage-grouse conservation needs. The Nevada State Plan has four zones, allowing for a more 

site-specific approach. By delineating activities into four areas, Nevada’s approach, allows for even greater 

flexibility and accuracy with respect to ensuring a zone is properly tailored to provide expanded 

opportunities for economic development activities without impairing the state’s ability to maintain its sage

grouse conservation objectives. In other words, the more zones employed allows a state the opportunity to 

provide more precise management direction based on the quality and location of sage-grouse populations 

and habitats, permitting development opportunities, such as wind development, where appropriate. We also 

note that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines (WEGs) are specifically referenced 

in the Idaho State Plan as an adjunct to the proposed core area approach and are proposed to be made 

mandatory. As we articulated in our comments thereto, there is no reason that they could not also serve as 

a wholesale substitute for a core area approach with respect to assessing the impacts of wind development 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-542 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

on sage-grouse. Indeed, if the WEGs were used instead to analyze the risk to sage-grouse from any 

particular wind project at any given time, it could arguably make the need for a core area approach with

respect to wind development superfluous. Specifically, wind energy projects, unlike other development 

activities, could be exempted from a mapping/zoning approach, such as the one proposed in the Wyoming 

State Plan, because the WEGs, which have been approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service, provide a 

regulatory mechanism that already addresses the interaction of wind development and sage-grouse. Even if 

Oregon does not use the WEGs as a substitute approach for evaluating wind energy’s impacts on sagegrouse, we still encourage the Oregon State Plan to recognize the WEGs as an appropriate wind energy 

regulatory mechanism vis-à-vis sage-grouse conservation and its use for determining if wind development

is compatible with that goal in a particular area on a case-by-case basis, based on actual data collected in 

the field on the presence/absence of sage grouse and the quality of the habitat. We strongly believe and 

scientific evidence appears to suggest that sage-grouse and wind energy can coexist with proper planning 

and management. The flexibility provided under the Nevada and Idaho State Plans, in comparison to the 

Wyoming State Plan, can provide for better management of individual sage-grouse populations and their 

habitat while allowing development that is consistent with those objectives to proceed. Moreover, since 

habitat can vary, and will likely shift and change as a result of climate change, along with sage-grouse

populations, it is important to allow for the most customized stewardship as possible. By incorporating best 

management practices from other state plans and the WEGs, the Oregon State Plan should be able to adopt 

a more site-specific approach to the benefit of both the wind industry and sage-grouse, balancing the 

economic and conservation needs of Oregon.

Comment ID: 410

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Limiting the location and seasonal construction of transmission lines within GSG core and

winter habitats will potentially preclude construction of infrastructure (i.e. power lines) that is not a lease 

production facility and may prohibit a public utility from installing non-lease facilities on adjacent fee 

surface estate. As such, these stipulations proposed under EO 2011-5 may exceed the limits established in 

recent SDR decisions and should be modified to limit the BLM’s authority over construction of overhead 

power lines consistent with SDR findings.

Comment ID: 1400

Organization: Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Name: Darlene Steffan

Comment: Restrictions and Limitations on new ROW Alternatives under consideration by the BLM 

propose designating ROW exclusion areas ranging from 285,390 to 11 ,531,340 acres while designated 

ROW avoidance areas range from 0 to 6,390,010 acres in the Planning Area. Alternative C, the most 

severely restrictive option, includes 11,531 ,340 acres of ROW exclusion areas that would effectively block 

any north-south transmission line development in the western two-thirds of Wyoming. The Preferred 

Alternative proposes 6,065,960 acres as avoidance areas, an alarmingly large percentage in the Planning 

Area. These proposed limitations on ROW, including uses for electric distribution and transmission lines 

within the Planning Area, would have a significant negative impact on Basin Electric's ability to site new 

infrastructure if necessary to support future load growth. BLM ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could 

have the unintended side-effect of shifting ROW development onto adjacent private lands. This shift would

likely result in longer routes with concomitant increases in surface disturbance and cost. In any case, new 

BLM ROW restrictions are expected to impact electric utility customers through increased costs and time 

delays for new projects.

Comment ID: 2565
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-543

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Finally, as documented by Terry A. Messmer et al in Stakeholder Contemporary Knowledge 

Needs Regarding the Potential Effects of Tall Structures on Sage-grouse (Messmer et al. 2013), there are

no peer-reviewed, experimental studies reported in the scientific literature that specifically document

increased avoidance or predation on sage-grouse because of the construction, operation, and maintenance 

of tall structures, such as transmission lines or wind turbines. Neither is it scientifically valid to require antiperching devices on vertical structures. Thus, we question the BLM's apparent conclusion in the Draft 

LUPA/EIS (page 2-20 and elsewhere) that managing portions of sage-grouse general habitat areas as ROW 

avoidance areas for wind turbines is scientifically valid, or will significantly contribute to sage-grouse 

conservation or sagebrush conservation.

Comment ID: 2568

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Map 2-9 through 2-13: ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas All of these maps for Alternatives 

A, B, C, D and E are inconsistent with the October 2012 ROD for the CCSM Project. The ROD, signed by 

the Secretary of the Interior, specifically approves wind energy development within the Chokecherry and 

Sierra Madre Wind Energy Project site, and Figure 3-1 within the ROD shows the areas approved for wind 

energy development. All of these maps, if carried forward, must be corrected for the Final LUPA/EIS as 

they are in direct conflict with the Secretary's 2012 decision. It is inappropriate for BLM to attempt to 

designate ROW avoidance and exclusion areas in places already approved for wind energy development. It 

also is not scientifically demonstrated why ROW avoidance areas should be designated in sage-grouse 

general habitat and outside of core population areas. Finally, Map 2-13 Alternative E, which shows ROW 

avoidance areas placed outside of core population areas, is in conflict with the General Management 

Direction Item 30 on page 2-18, which states for Alternative E that solely "Sage-grouse core habitat areas 

would be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA."

Comment ID: 2569

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Map 2-29 through 2-33: Alternative E Wind Energy Development Restrictions These maps 

appear to be inconsistent with the October 2012 ROD for the CCSM Project. The ROD, signed by the 

Secretary of the Interior, specifically authorizes wind energy development within the CCSM Project site, 

and Figure 3-1 within the ROD shows the areas authorized for wind energy development. Of particular 

concern, Map 2-33 - the Preferred Alternative - is cited in the text in Chapter 4, page 4-77, as only allowing 

127 turbines to be constructed in the entire planning area. However, the CCSM Project was approved with 

lip to 1,000 turbines. These maps and/or the text in the document must be reviewed in context with the 

CCSM Project ROD, and corrected or amended as appropriate, as otherwise it appears all of these maps are 

in direct conflict with the Secretary's October 2012 decision.

Summary: Issue #1: The BLM should justify the proposed ROW exclusion and avoidance areas included 

in the Draft EIS. Management of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas could significantly hamper or

decrease oil and gas operations. The BLM should reduce the area subject to ROW avoidance or exclusion 

limitations, as they may adversely impact oil and gas development in the area. The ROW restrictions 

proposed under EO 2011-5 may exceed the limits established in recent SDR decisions and should be 

modified to limit the BLM’s authority over construction of overhead power lines, consistent with SDR 

findings. Limiting the location and seasonal construction of transmission lines within sage-grouse core and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-544 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

winter habitats will potentially preclude construction of infrastructure (i.e. power lines) and may prohibit a 

public utility from installing non-lease facilities on adjacent fee surface estate. Issue #2: As documented 

by Terry A. Messmer et al in Stakeholder Contemporary Knowledge Needs Regarding the Potential Effects 

of Tall Structures on Sage-grouse (Messmer et al. 2013), there are no peer-reviewed, experimental studies 

reported in the scientific literature that specifically document increased avoidance or predation on sagegrouse because of the construction, operation, and maintenance of tall structures, such as transmission lines 

or wind turbines. In addition, it is not scientifically valid to require anti-perching devices on vertical 

structures. Thus, we question the BLM's apparent conclusion in the Draft EIS (page 2-20 and elsewhere) 

that managing portions of sage-grouse general habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas for wind turbines is 

scientifically valid, or will significantly contribute to sage-grouse conservation or sagebrush conservation.

Issue #3: Maps 2-29 through 2-33 and Maps 2-9 through 2-13 appear to be inconsistent with the October 

2012 ROD for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Project. The ROD, signed by the Secretary of 

the Interior, specifically authorizes wind energy development within the CCSM Project site, and Figure 3-

1 within the ROD shows the areas authorized for wind energy development. Of particular concern, Map 2-

33 is cited in the text in Chapter 4 (Page 4-77) as only allowing 127 turbines to be constructed in the entire 

planning area. However, the CCSM Project was approved to allow up to 1,000 turbines. These maps and/or 

the text in the document must be reviewed in context with the CCSM Project ROD, and corrected or 

amended as appropriate. Otherwise it appears all of these maps are in direct conflict with the Secretary's 

October 2012 decision. It is inappropriate for BLM to attempt to designate ROW avoidance and exclusion 

areas in places already approved for wind energy development.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 

40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, including 

seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. The alternatives include management options 

for the planning area that would modify or amend decisions made in the land use plans, as amended, to

meet the planning criteria, to address issues and comments from cooperating agencies and the public, or to 

provide a reasonable range of alternatives. Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS analyzes the 

impacts on all resource values and uses from managing areas as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. The 

BLM and Forest Service also analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives specifically concerning ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas. The BLM and Forest Service will review the analysis and consider 

comments from the public and other agencies on this issue in order to make a final decision in the Record 

of Decision.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Forest Service cannot dispose of land parcels. On split-estate lands, the BLM controls surface use 

on non-federal surface land.

Comment ID: 485

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: The section on land ownership adjustments on the TBNG refers to purchase, exchanges and 

disposel of these lands. This is something of a joke. We were included in a land exchange which drug on 

for 10+ years--finally we withdrew. Disposal should mean sale, but the Forest Service has said they

cannot(will not?) sell any of these lands. Somewhere in this huge set of volumes there is something

intimating that in any adjustments of land ownership the F.S. would still maintain control of some uses. 

Another point of contention is that on split estate lands--private ownership, federal minerals-- the BLM 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-545

would have a lot of authority over surface use, not just as regards mineral exploration, but also grazing and 

other surface use.

Summary: The section on land ownership adjustments on the TBNG refers to purchase, exchanges and 

disposal of these lands. The Draft EIS suggests that the Forest Service would maintain control of uses on 

lands they dispose/sell. The BLM would also have authority of surface use on split estate lands with 

nonfederal surface lands.

Response: If the Forest Service sells the surface estate, the BLM may choose to lease the mineral estate and 

the lessee would have the right to reasonable use of the surface estate to access the minerals beneath the 

surface. The mineral estate has precedence over the surface estate.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Include flexibility to amend land use restrictions based on site-specific monitoring and data

Comment ID: 1239

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: When exclusion areas are designated under the alternatives, there should be a process for 

amending these designations based on site-specific data. As discussed further below, draft sage-grouse 

plans in other states have recognized the need for site-specific data to provide for a more efficient 

conservation plan with respect to allowing appropriate wind development to proceed. Other such plans 

should inform this DEIS so that efficient conservation plans are adopted that help sage-grouse conservation 

without unnecessarily impeding the deployment of wind energy—by avoiding blanket prohibitions on wind 

development in large areas without appropriate ex ante site-specific evaluations that can harmonize the 

multiple uses of public lands.

Summary: When exclusion areas are designated under the alternatives, there should be a process for 

amending these designations based on site-specific data. As discussed further below, draft sage-grouse 

plans in other states have recognized the need for site-specific data to provide for a more efficient

conservation plan with respect to allowing appropriate wind development to proceed. An efficient sagegrouse conservation plan can be developed without unnecessarily impeding wind energy development by 

avoiding blanket prohibitions on such use.

Response: Land use plan-level analyses are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or 

focused on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 

and Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning). A more

quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the scope of the decision included 

implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come under consideration, the BLM 

and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and 

implementation-level actions. The site-specific analyses will tier to the planlevel analysis and expand the 

environmental analysis when more specific information is known. In addition, as required by NEPA, the 

public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for implementation actions. 

Impacts of lands and realty decisions on renewable energy development are discussed in Chapter 4 of the 

Final EIS. Changes to land use decisions included in RMPs and LRMPs can be made through the LUP 

amendment process. If new information becomes available that shows the delineation of the exclusion areas 

should be revised, this can be accomplished through the amendment process. Site-specific amendments can 

be made on a projectby- project basis.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-546 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Oppose federal acquisition of land

Comment ID: 2080

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson

Comment: The WWGA stands in strong opposition to increased acquisition of lands by the federal agencies.

Further, we strongly oppose any acquisition of lands by federal agencies that is not based on clear multiple 

use benefits, including livestock grazing. We cannot lend our support to any alternative that does not 

acknowledge and respect private land ownership.

Comment ID: 1984

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: Land & Realty Management: The statement requiring retention of public ownership of core 

habitat with narrow exceptions related to ownership patterns fails to recognize that protection/enhancement 

of sage-grouse habitat is often being accomplished more effectively on private lands than on federal lands. 

The private landowner has numerous tools including entering into a CCAA and participating in NRCS 

programs to provide for sage-grouse conservation. WSGA strongly opposes any acquisition of lands by the 

federal agencies that result in an increase in federal land ownership in Wyoming or that are not based on 

clear multiple use benefits. We further oppose the prioritization of parcels for acquisition (Action Number 

42) as this can have the effect of significantly distorting market-based land values.

Comment ID: 202

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company

Name: Doug Cooper

Comment: Chapter 2 Alternatives B C D E-We are strongly opposed to the federal government acquiring 

any additional land within Wyoming. These lands should be transferred to the State of Wyoming for school 

trust lands or sold to the current lease holder. At a minimum, there should be no net gain in federal 

ownership within Wyoming. We also object to mitigation agreements or conservation easements being 

required where there is a disposal of federal land within a core area. A mitigation agreement will simply 

make acquiring federal land within the core areas prohibitively expensive to the private sector.

Summary: We are strongly opposed to the federal government acquiring any additional land within 

Wyoming. At a minimum, there should be no net gain in federal ownership within Wyoming. Further, we

strongly oppose any acquisition of lands by federal agencies that is not based on clear multiple use benefits, 

including livestock grazing. We also object to mitigation agreements or conservation easements being 

required where there is a disposal of federal land within a core area. A mitigation agreement will simply 

make acquiring federal land within the core areas prohibitively expensive to the private sector.

Response: The purpose and need as stated on page 1-2 of the Draft EIS provides the appropriate scope to 

allow the BLM and the Forest Service to analyze a reasonable number of alternatives to cover the full

spectrum of potential impacts. Increasing and/or the net gain of acres in federal ownership in Wyoming is 

not the purpose of this action. However, the federal acquisition of land can be an effective tool to allow for 

additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within sagegrouse core habitat areas, and is 

therefore considered within the range of alternatives in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-547

Mitigation agreements and conservation easements can also be effective in conserving sage-grouse habitat, 

and are therefore considered within the range of alternatives. The final decision regarding these issues will 

be included in the Record of Decision after the land use planning and public involvement processes are 

completed. The Forest Service does not have any authority to require or control uses on lands once they are 

disposed of or sold.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Powerlines should be prohibited within 5.3 mile of sage-grouse leks

Comment ID: 268

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: A 5.3-mile buffer should apply around leks (after Doherty et al. 2011) within which powerlines 

cannot be sited and existing powerlines will be buried or removed, and this level of protection should be

accorded to All Designated Habitats. As perch inhibitors do not fully prevent raptor perching, this measure 

should be amended to allow buried powerline but prohibit new overhead lines under any circumstance. 

Priority habitats should be exclusion areas for all powerline rights-of-way, regardless of size of the line. 

Alternative E applies an inadequate 0.6- mile buffer around leks within which powerlines should not be 

sited. This allows new powerline construction in the heart of prime nesting habitats. The National Technical 

Team fully considered the impacts of overhead powerlines, and also considered the impacts of noxious 

weeds, and both are discussed in detail in the NTT Report. After weighing carefully the relative harms from 

each threat, the NTT unambiguously recommended that electrical distribution lines be buried in all cases.

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service should apply a 5.3-mile buffer around sage-grouse leks in all 

designated habitat within which power lines cannot be sited and existing power lines would be buried or

removed. As perch inhibitors do not fully prevent raptor perching, this measure should be amended to allow 

buried power lines but prohibit new overhead lines under any circumstance. Priority habitats should be 

exclusion areas for all power line rights-of-way, regardless of size of the line. Alternative E applies an 

inadequate 0.6- mile buffer around leks within which power lines should not be sited. This allows new 

power line construction in the heart of prime nesting habitats. The National Technical Team fully 

considered the impacts of overhead power lines, and also considered the impacts of noxious weeds, and 

both are discussed in detail in the NTT report. After weighing carefully the relative harms from each threat, 

the NTT unambiguously recommended that electrical distribution lines be buried in all cases.

Response: The land use restrictions included in the Preferred Alternative would be appropriate to conserve

sage-grouse habitat and potentially reduce the need to list the species under the Endangered Species Act. 

The combination of all the land use restrictions and conservation measures included under the alternative 

would provide an appropriate level of protection to sage-grouse habitat. The BLM and Forest Service 

developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order (WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, 

BLM WY IM 2010-012, BLM WY IM 2012-019, BLM WO IM 2012-044, the National Technical Team 

Report, best available science, and input from the USFWS, State of Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and 

the public to create a management approach to both protect sage-grouse and allow for multiple use of public 

lands. The combination of surface disturbance restrictions, timing limitations, limits on density of 

development, and other management meet the purpose and need of the planning effort and will allow the 

continued existence of the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-548 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Prohibit wind energy development in sage-grouse core areas

Comment ID: 2723

Organization: Sweetwater County

Name: Mark Kot

Comment: For consideration, please note that Sweetwater County's Resolution 13-08-CC-OI, adopted on 

August 6, 2013, prohibits wind energy development within Sage Grouse Core Areas as defined by the

Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-5. Also, this Resolution requires that all lattice style

metrological towers be permitted on a temporary basis for a three year timeframe and that approved bird 

diverters be installed on all guy wires.

Comment ID: 3121

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: Wind projects should be excluded from sage-grouse priority habitat, areas that conflict with 

raptor populations, and other sensitive biological resources. Wind and other renewable energy development 

should be directed to already disturbed lands lacking significant biological values. Protecting raptors must 

be a paramount concern in project siting and design. Proposed facilities must collect several years of sitespecific field data before submitting applications, and, at a minimum, satisfy all guidelines and requirements 

imposed by USFWS and WGFD. Public comment and involvement must be assured through preparing a 

full Environmental Impact Statement.

Summary: Wind projects should be excluded from sage-grouse priority habitat, areas that conflict with 

raptor populations, and other sensitive biological resources. Wind and other renewable energy development 

should be directed to disturbed lands lacking significant biological values. Sweetwater County's Resolution 

13-08-CC-OI, adopted on August 6, 2013, prohibits wind energy development within sage-grouse core 

areas as defined by the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-5. Also, this resolution requires that all 

lattice style metrological towers be permitted on a temporary basis for a three year timeframe and that 

approved bird diverters be installed on all guy wires. In addition, protecting raptors must be a paramount 

concern in project siting and design. Proposed facilities must collect several years of site-specific field data 

before submitting applications, and, at a minimum, satisfy all guidelines and requirements imposed by 

USFWS and WGFD.

Response: The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives regarding restrictions on wind energy

development in sage-grouse core/priority habitat, including a prohibition on wind energy development in 

these habitats. The final decision regarding the alternatives and management actions therein will be made 

in the Record of Decision after the land use planning process is completed.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Questions of clarification

Comment ID: 1413

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-549

Comment: Map 2-13, Alternative E ROW Exclusion and Avoidance Areas. The ROW map generally 

indicates ROW avoidance inside core/priority habitat, however, it also indicates avoidance in many areas

outside of core/priority habitat as well. As an example, several ROW avoidance areas are indicated just 

south of the Seedskadee Core area along the Kemmerer and Rock Springs Field Office boundaries. The 

scale of the map makes it difficult to understand where these particular parcels are located, however, these 

avoidance areas are outside of core/priority habitat and this is not discussed in the text or on the map as to 

why they are avoidance areas. As currently shown on the map, the avoidance areas appear to restrict ROW 

activities outside of core/priority in the same manner as inside of core/priority.

Comment ID: 786

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM suggests that the Forest Service is required to identify inventoried roadless areas

during the Forest Plan Development Process. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-223. As support for this claim, 

the BLM cites 36 C.F.R. § 219.17. As discussed earlier, however, that requirement was found in the 2000 

Planning Regulations which were abrogated by the Forest Service during 2012. As such, this regulation is 

no longer in effect and there is no requirement to inventory potential roadless areas as part of the forest 

planning process. The BLM should correct or explain while they are still utilizing the 2000 regulations 

despite their abrogation.

Comment ID: 1480

Organization:

Name: Denise Langley

Comment: DEIS quote: “Transmission lines should follow existing corridors up to a certain corridor width.” 

If a transmission line does not travel down an existing corridor the DEIS states the line will count towards

the 5% surface disturbance. Is this disturbance for the year of construction or for the life of the power line? 

Does it matter if the power line is AC or DC? Is there a distinct possibility the lessee of the BLM or FS 

allotment will see a reduction in AUMs due to the construction of a power line thru their allotment? If there 

is a reduction in AUMs will there be a fee decrease? The fees should be cut for that pasture during the time 

of decrease or forced non-use. Will there be other pasture available to the lessee for compensation? It is not 

the lessee’s fault if some company determines a transmission line will pass thru the land the livestock 

owners are counting on for forage but it is the lessee that is punished by a cut in AUMs. If you cut the 

pasture usage during construction then bring the AUMs back the following years. You should have grass 

available somewhere else for that lessee to use. Grazing the area during the winter months, if this is possible, 

will help offset the loss of forage. If the lessee is a responsible manager and likes to leave the pastures in 

good condition-why punish an innocent and responsible lessee that is paying for the grass.

Comment ID: 1256

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: This alternative is based on the NTT Report with a recommended surface disturbance cap of 3% 

per 640 acres. 5,000,400 acres will be managed as closed to wind development with an additional 6,530,940 

acres restricted. This would reduce projected development to 127 turbines, which represents a 90% decrease 

as compared to Alternative A (Section 4.5.4) or reduce projected development to 2,821 turbines compared 

to Alternative A (Section 2.7). For comparison, oil well production is projected to only decrease by 16% 

compared to Alternative A. We note that is unclear how the exclusion and avoidance zones would comport 

with the NTT recommendation of no more than 3% anthropogenic disturbances.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-550 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2270

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: Page 2-22: “New electric distribution lines would be buried where feasible.” What constitutes 

“feasible” and who decides? For example, burying lines will be expensive and companies could suggest 

that they are cost-prohibitive and thus not “feasible.” We suggest clear definition and description of 

feasibility and how decisions are to be made.

Comment ID: 3043

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2‐ 1 2‐ 88 Action 79 Alt B Where does money for land purchases come from? Acquisition

prioritized over easements does not seem to make conservation any stronger.

Summary: Issue #1: Map 2-13 and related actions under Alternative E generally indicate ROW avoidance 

inside core/priority habitat; however, it also indicates avoidance in many areas outside of core/priority

habitat. These avoidance areas are outside of core/priority habitat and this is not discussed in the text or on 

the map as to why they are avoidance areas. As currently shown on the map, the avoidance areas appear to 

restrict ROW activities outside of core/priority in the same manner as inside of core/priority. Issue #2: The 

BLM suggests that the Forest Service is required to identify inventoried roadless areas during the Forest 

Plan Development Process (Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments, pg. 3-223). As support for this claim, 

the BLM cites 36 C.F.R. § 219.17. As discussed earlier, however, that requirement was found in the 2000 

Planning Regulations which were abrogated by the Forest Service during 2012. As such, this regulation is 

no longer in effect and there is no requirement to inventory potential roadless areas as part of the forest 

planning process. The BLM should correct or explain why they are still utilizing the 2000 regulations 

despite their abrogation. Issue #3: Regarding Action 79 under Alternative B, where does funding for land 

purchases come from? Acquisition prioritized over easements does not seem to make conservation any 

stronger. Issue #4: In the Draft EIS, it states “Transmission lines should follow existing corridors up to a 

certain corridor width.” If a transmission line does not travel down an existing corridor, the Draft EIS

indicates the line will count towards the 5% surface disturbance. Is this disturbance for the year of

construction or for the life of the power line? Does it matter if the power line is AC or DC? Is there a distinct 

possibility the lessee of the BLM or Forest Service allotment will see a reduction in AUMs due to the 

construction of a power line through their allotment? If there is a reduction in AUMs, will there be a fee 

decrease? The fees should be cut for that pasture during the time of decrease or forced non-use. Will there 

be other pasture available to the lessee for compensation? Issue #5: Alternative B is based on the NTT 

report with a recommended surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres. 5,000,400 acres will be managed 

as closed to wind development, with an additional 6,530,940 acres restricted. It is unclear how the exclusion 

and avoidance zones would comport with the NTT recommendation of no more than 3% anthropogenic 

disturbances. Issue #6: In the Draft EIS, it states (Page 2-22) “New electric distribution lines would be 

buried where feasible.” What constitutes “feasible” and who decides? For example, burying lines will be 

expensive and companies could suggest that they are cost-prohibitive and thus not “feasible.” We suggest 

clear definition and description of feasibility and how decisions are to be made.

Response: Issue #1: ROW avoidance areas outside of sage-grouse priority/core habitat are related to

management action #31, which addresses ROW avoidance areas in sage-grouse general habitat. Issue #2:

The BLM and the Forest Service began working together to address conservation of the Greater SageGrouse and its habitat in 2010. At that time, the Forest Service’s 2012 Planning Rule was not final; it 

became final May 9, 2012. For plan amendments initiated before May 9, 2012, the Forest Service may 

complete and approve the amendments under the prior planning regulations, including its transition 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-551

provisions (36 CFR part 219, published at 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, revised as of July 1, 2010). Land use 

plan amendments associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse conservation effort are using the 1982 planning 

rule procedures that are allowed under the transition procedures of the prior planning rule. The 1982 

planning rule procedures may be found in 36 CFR parts 200 to 299, Revised as of July 1, 2000 or at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html. The text referenced in this comment has been 

revised to clarify this in the Final EIS. Issue #3: Funding acquisition of lands or easements comes from a 

variety of sources including Land and Water Conservation Fund and private donors. Funding comes from 

the benefiting program. Thus, if the Forest Service were acquiring habitat for wildlife, it would be funding 

from the wildlife program. Issue #4: The disturbance is based on the life of the project and the width of the 

authorization. It does not take into account the type or use of the disturbance; it is strictly based on the 

amount of land authorized. It is possible a permittee of a BLM or Forest Service allotment might see a 

reduction in AUMs due to the authorization of a power line through their allotment. Decisions are based on

cumulative amounts of disturbance, type of use (i.e. cattle, sheep, horses, etc.), and health of the allotment. 

It can be a temporary reduction, based on level of disturbance, health of range lands, and reclamation 

success. Yes, there is a fee reduction if the AUMs are reduced. There are no provisions to offer alternative 

pasture if an allotment must be reduced due to a different type of land authorization. If it is a permanent 

reduction, permittees will receive a 2-year notification letter prior to the reduction becoming permanent, 

which allows for the permittee to make alternative arrangements. Issue #5: All activities on BLM- and 

Forest Service-managed lands would be required to comport with the disturbance cap, subject to valid 

existing rights and applicable law. Issue #6: Presently, feasibility is determined based on recommendations 

from the applicant, and the decision is made by the Authorized Officer. It is anticipated that technology 

could be developed that would make burying high voltage power lines more feasible. Line voltage, size, 

distance, resource conditions and use are considered in determining feasibility in addition to cost.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Restrictions on renewable energy development will reduce or prevent such development, which is 

in conflict with BLM's priority for renewable energy development

Comment ID: 895

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz

Comment: The ability to safely maintain, operate, and access our existing electric delivery system facilities 

is crucial to providing a reliable source of electricity to our customers. Tri-State requests that the Agencies 

acknowledge in the final RMP that access is a critical component to existing facility authorizations, and 

that the BLM would not close designated or non-designated roads that may be critical to maintaining 

existing electrical facilities.

Summary: Before the Wyoming Executive Orders were signed, several wind farms were proposed in

Sweetwater County and these projects included RSGA lands. The regulatory burdens associated with the 

sage-grouse conservation plan directly led to these projects being withdrawn. Sage-grouse conservation 

will preclude development of non-carbon energy, which is in direct conflict with the Interior Department’s 

priority for such development.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service realize that some management actions and land use restrictions 

therein may affect the development of wind energy projects; however, the sage-grouse conservation

measures do not preclude development of non-carbon energy, such as wind energy. This is reflected in the 

Chapter 4 analysis of environmental consequences included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The 

various alternatives result in different levels of impact. The final decision regarding management actions 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-552 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

related to wind energy development will be made by the BLM and Forest Service in the Record of Decision 

after the land use planning process is completed.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

ROWs must meet legal requirements

Comment ID: 1168

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: FLPMA also requires that each Right-of-Way (ROW) grant shall, among other things, contain 

(a)terms and conditions which will (i) carry out the purposes of this Act and rules and regulations issued

thereunder; (ii)minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise 

protect the environment...” 42 U.S.C. § 1765. Here, where the DLUPA/DEIS analyzes ROWs under a 

range of alternatives, the agencies must ensure that the terms and conditions imposed by the LUPA will 

achieve these legal requirements.

Summary: FLPMA requires that each ROW grant shall, among other things, contain (a) terms and 

conditions which will (i) carry out the purposes of this Act and rules and regulations issued thereunder;

(ii)minimize damage to scenic and esthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protect the 

environment...” 42 U.S.C. § 1765. Where the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS analyzes ROWs under a 

range of alternatives, the agencies must ensure that the terms and conditions imposed by the LUP 

Amendments will achieve these legal requirements.

Response: All management actions included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS must comply with 

all laws and regulations. This is included as a general assumption in the Chapter 4 analysis of environmental

consequences (Section 4.1.3). This assumption states "Implementation actions will comply with valid

existing rights and all federal laws, regulations, and policies."

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Sage-grouse core areas should be exclusion areas under Alternative E

Comment ID: 267

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: The NTT Report recommends that all electrical distribution lines be buried within Core Areas, 

period. Under Alternative E, Priority Habitats would be an avoidance area, not an exclusion area. In other

sage grouse plan amendment DEISs, BLM itself has pointed out increases in predator concentration within 

4.3 miles of powerlines. Power lines may also cause changes in lek dynamics, with lower growth rates 

observed on leks within 0.25 miles of new power lines in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming as compared 

with those further from the lines, a difference attributed to increased raptor predation (Braun et al. 2002). 

Powerlines should be excluded from Priority Habitats, as in Alternative C.

Summary: Power lines should be excluded from sage-grouse core/priority areas, as they can adversely 

impact sage-grouse and result in increased raptor predation. The NTT report recommends that all electrical

distribution lines be buried in sage-grouse core areas.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-553

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service have authority to manage the habitat and have provided 

numerous management actions across the range of alternatives. Altering the sagebrush habitat of the Greater

Sage-Grouse can create an influx of predators into an area and lead to a population decline. Roads, fences, 

power lines, trails, and other disturbances may make access easier for potential predators and increase risks 

to the species. Alternatives described in the Draft EIS calls for measures that will substantially reduce 

disturbances in the bird’s habitat, thus reducing predation risk. The BLM and Forest Service developed 

Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order (WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 

2010-012, BLM WY IM 2012-019, BLM WO IM 2012-044, the National Technical Team Report, best 

available science, and input from the USFWS, State of Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and the public to 

create a management approach to both protect sage-grouse and allow for multiple use of public lands. The 

combination of surface disturbance restrictions, timing limitations, limits on density of development, and 

other management will meet the purpose and need of the planning effort and allow the continued existence 

of the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Support federal acquisition of land to protect sage-grouse habitat

Comment ID: 3114

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: Audubon supports the land tenure provisions in Alternative B, which the most regulatory 

certainty towards meeting conservation goals. We further support this provision from the Lander 

FEIS/RMP (at 151): “No parcels within an NLCS unit or an ACEC or in greater sage-grouse Core Area are 

identified for disposal unless the disposal would benefit the goals and objectives of the area’s priority values 

or other important resource values ... Acquire lands in areas with mixed ownership and where land

exchanges would result in additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns or would improve 

management for the benefit of priority resources.” The overall goal should be to maintain as many acres as 

possible in public ownership, especially in areas containing habitat for special status wildlife. The plan 

needs to avoid disposal of federal land where that could fragment contiguous habitat blocks and 

connectivity corridors. Retaining important wildlife habitat in federal ownership improves management 

flexibility and furthers regulatory certainty. Land tenure decisions should be informed by the need to 

consolidate ownership and conservation management of large tracts of relatively undisturbed landscapes, 

targeting sensitive habitat for sage-grouse, raptors, passerine species, and other priority species and 

ecosystems.

Summary: We support the land tenure provisions in Alternative B, which provide the most regulatory 

certainty towards meeting conservation goals. We further support this provision from the Lander 

FEIS/RMP (at 151): “No parcels within an NLCS unit or an ACEC or in Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

are identified for disposal unless the disposal would benefit the goals and objectives of the area’s priority 

values or other important resource values ... Acquire lands in areas with mixed ownership and where land

exchanges would result in additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns or would improve 

management for the benefit of priority resources.” The overall goal should be to maintain as many acres as 

possible in public ownership, especially in areas containing habitat for special status wildlife. The plan 

needs to avoid disposal of federal land where that could fragment contiguous habitat blocks and 

connectivity corridors. Retaining important wildlife habitat in federal ownership improves management 

flexibility and furthers regulatory certainty. Land tenure decisions should be informed by the need to 

consolidate ownership and conservation management of large tracts of relatively undisturbed landscapes, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-554 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

targeting sensitive habitat for sage-grouse, raptors, passerine species, and other priority species and 

ecosystems.

Response: The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives regarding land tenure adjustments,

including land exchanges that result in federal acquisition of surface lands. The management actions under 

Alternative B are available for consideration by the BLM and Forest Service. The final decision regarding 

the alternatives and management actions therein will be made in the Record of Decision after the land use 

planning process is completed.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

The agencies should designate areas outside of important sage-grouse habitat in which wind 

energy development is permitted

Comment ID: 2023

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Name: Joy Bannon

Comment: The BLM and the FS play critical roles in ensuring that the boom in wind energy development 

does not lead to declines in the Greater sage-grouse population. The agencies have sufficient data on quality 

of wind resources, potential conflicts with other resources and values, and availability of transmission, 

which should be used to designate wind energy zones, similar to Solar Energy Zones already in place on 

BLM lands. Through amendments to affected land use plans, the BLM and FS can incorporate not only 

wind energy zones but also areas that are off limits to wind energy development.

Summary: The agencies have sufficient data on quality of wind resources, potential conflicts with other

resources and values, and availability of transmission, which should be used to designate wind energy 

zones, similar to Solar Energy Zones already in place on BLM lands. Through amendments to affected land 

use plans, the BLM and Forest Service can incorporate not only wind energy zones but also areas that are 

off limits to wind energy development.

Response: This is correct. Wind energy development and non-development areas are currently being 

addressed in all LUP revisions and amendments. Completed plans that do not include this analysis can be

amended to include those decisions, through the land use planning process.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Transmission lines should avoid sage-grouse core habitat

Comment ID: 3124

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The Lander and Miles City RMPs provide instructive examples for managing transmission lines 

in sagegrouse habitat. The Lander RMP FEIS Record #4102 (Alternative B): Prohibit new, permanent, 

highprofile structures (higher than 12 feet) within 1 mile of occupied greater sage-grouse nesting habitat

(Map 64). FEIS at 130. Similarly in the Miles City Daft RMP, while high voltage transmission lines are

allowed within General Habitat, they should avoid areas within 1 mile of a lek to minimize grouse avoidance 

behavior and increased predation pressure. Research indicates approximately one-third of juvenile sagegrouse mortality is directly attributed to collisions with power lines (Beck, Reese, Connelly, and Lucia 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-555

2006[1]; Flake, Connelly, Kirschenmann, and Lindbloom 2010[2]). Miles City DEIS at 4-133. In addition, 

a study in Idaho found that transmission line collisions resulted in 33 percent of juvenile sage-grouse deaths 

in the study area (Beck et al. 2006; Flake et al. 2010). Miles City DEIS at 4- 158. We support these 

transmission line provisions as a means to prevent area avoidance by sagegrouse, and encourage the 

agencies to incorporate similar provisions in the 9-Plan.

Comment ID: 3122

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: High voltage transmission lines should avoid core habitat, except in designated corridors as 

outlined in the Governor’s Executive Order. While they are allowed within the remaining habitat (general

habitat), they should at least 1 mile from leks to minimize grouse avoidance behavior and increased

predation pressure. Burying transmission lines, while eliminating perching opportunities for avian

predators, may be more detrimental in regards to volume of surface disturbance occurring in such proximity 

to leks. Additional analysis should compare the impacts to sage-grouse from burying versus vertical 

structures.

Summary: The Lander and Miles City RMPs provide instructive examples for managing transmission lines 

in sagegrouse habitat. The Lander RMP FEIS Record #4102 (Alternative B): “Prohibit new, permanent, 

highprofile structures (higher than 12 feet) within 1 mile of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse nesting habitat

(Map 64).” Similarly in the Miles City Daft RMP, while high voltage transmission lines are allowed within 

sage-grouse general habitat, they should avoid areas within 1 mile of a lek to minimize grouse avoidance 

behavior and increased predation pressure. Research indicates approximately one-third of juvenile sagegrouse mortality is directly attributed to collisions with power lines (Beck, Reese, Connelly, and Lucia 

2006[1]; Flake, Connelly, Kirschenmann, and Lindbloom 2010[2]). In addition, a study in Idaho found that 

transmission line collisions resulted in 33 percent of juvenile sage-grouse deaths in the study area (Beck et 

al. 2006; Flake et al. 2010). The agencies should incorporate similar provisions in the Wyoming Sagegrouse 9-Plan Amendment.

Response: The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives regarding the construction of 

transmission lines, including a prohibition on all ROWs within sage-grouse priority and general habitat. 

These alternatives are all available for consideration by the BLM and Forest Service. The final decision

regarding the alternatives and management actions therein will be made in the Record of Decision after the 

land use planning process is completed.

Lands and Realty

Range of alternatives

Transmission project stipulations under Alternative D are appropriate to protect sage-grouse

Comment ID: 408

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Transmission project stipulations proposed under Alternative D are consistent with EO 2011-5 

(e.g. use of 2 mile and 1 mile wide corridor, timing stipulation). As such, these stipulations are adequate 

and biologically justified to provide effective GSG protection for transmission project disturbances. Yates 

supports transmission project stipulations that are consistent with EO 2011-5.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-556 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: Transmission project stipulations proposed under Alternative D are consistent with EO 2011-5 

(e.g. use of 2 mile and 1 mile wide corridor, timing stipulation). As such, these stipulations are adequate

and biologically justified to provide effective Greater Sage-Grouse protection for transmission project

disturbances.

Response: The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives related to the development of 

transmission projects, which are reflected in the Chapter 4 analysis of environmental consequences. Based 

on review of this analysis and public comments, the BLM and Forest Service will make the final decision

on this particular management action in the Record of Decision.

Lands and Realty

Valid Existing Rights

Restrictions to protect sage-grouse should not infringe on valid existing rights

Comment ID: 662

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: In action number 30 (See 2-18) sage-grouse core habitat areas would be managed as right-ofway (“ROW”) avoidance areas for new ROWs or surface use agreements. Anadarko requests that should

this management action move forward that this be subject to valid, existing rights where new ROWs or 

SUAs associated would not be limited or precluded.

Summary: The Draft EIS should be updated to reflect that management of ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas are subject to valid, existing rights.

Response: All management actions within the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS are subject to valid, 

existing rights. This was specifically stated as a general assumption in the Chapter 4 analysis of 

environmental consequences (Section 4.1.3). This assumption states "Implementation actions will comply 

with valid existing rights and all federal laws, regulations, and policies."

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Impact Analysis

How many acres of lands with wilderness characteristics are protected in core/priority/etc.?

Comment ID: 351

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: BLM does not disclose the acreage or location of Lands with Wilderness Character that overlap 

with sage grouse Priority or General Habitats (see Map 3-33), nor is any acreage or identity of LWCs and

Priority or General Habitats disclosed in the Affected Environment section of the EIS (DEIS at 3-71). How 

many acres of LWCs overlap with Priority Habitat/Core Areas? How many of these acres would be 

protected by withdrawing Priority Habitats from oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities, 

and setting limits on industrial incursions on existing leases/claims under each alternative? The EIS is silent 

on these questions, a violation of NEPA’s ‘hard look’ imperative. See DEIS at 4-79 through 86.

Summary: BLM does not disclose the acreage or location of lands with wilderness characteristics that 

overlap with sage grouse priority or general habitats (see Map 3-33), nor is any acreage or identity of lands

with wilderness characteristics and priority or general habitats disclosed in the Affected Environment
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-557

section of the Draft EIS (Draft EIS at 3-71). How many acres of lands with wilderness characteristics

overlap with priority habitat/core areas? How many of these acres would be protected by withdrawing 

priority habitats from oil and gas leasing and other surface-disturbing activities, and setting limits on 

industrial incursions on existing leases/claims under each alternative?

Response: The purpose and need of the Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use

planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. No decisions related to the 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the scope of this plan amendment 

process. Impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from the alternatives being analyzed for this 

planning effort are presented in Chapter 4.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Range of alternatives

Lands with wilderness characteristics decisions are out of scope

Comment ID: 1006

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: On December 23, 2010, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, issued

Secretarial Order No. 3310, commonly referred to as the Wild Lands Policy. On April 14, 2011, the United 

States Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that prohibited the BLM from spending any federal funds 

to implement its Wild Lands Policy. Congress’ defunding mechanism made good sense since only 

wilderness study areas (WSAs) may be managed so as to not impair their wilderness character under Section 

603 of FLPMA. Tri-County Cattleman's Association Idaho Cattlemen's Association, 60 IBLA 305, 314 

(1981). There is no other statutory authority and FLPMA, elsewhere, states that all other public lands are 

to be managed so as to not unduly and unnecessarily degrade the resources. 43 U.S.C. §1732(b). Given the 

lack of authority, BLM may not inventory areas for wilderness character as part of the GRSG amendment. 

The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use 

planning decisions specific to the conservation of GRSG habitats. No decisions related to the management 

of lands with wilderness characteristics are authorized as part of this planning effort. As such, management 

of lands with wilderness characteristics is outside the scope of this amendment.

Comment ID: 1952

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 3-71, Lands With Wilderness Characteristics – The WSGB comments that the narratives 

under this section appear to propose actions to be taken by the BLM that are very close to the recent “Wild

Lands” program which we understand was not funded by Congress. The WSGB does not support a “wild 

Lands” program under the guise of maintaining a periodic inventory of lands with wilderness

characteristics.

Comment ID: 1389

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-71 Text: The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is 

limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-558 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

No decisions related to the management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this 

planning effort; therefore, management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the 

scope of this plan amendment process. Impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from the alternatives 

being analyzed for this planning effort are presented in Chapter 4. Comment: The Coalition supports this 

language but our concern with regards to LWC inventories is addressed in our cover letter. We incorporate 

that discussion by reference here.

Comment ID: 563

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: BLM may not inventory areas for wilderness character as part of the GRSG amendment. The 

purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use 

planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. No decisions related to the

management of lands with wilderness characteristics are authorized as part of this planning effort. As such, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is outside the scope of this amendment.

Comment ID: 1955

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 4-79, Lands With Wilderness Characteristics – We again comment that the BLM should not 

use the grouse issue as justification for additional lands being considered as having wilderness or wild land 

characteristics.

Comment ID: 3126

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 3.6.1 3‐ 72 Pinedale Office Areas noted should remain as current status as per notation on page 

3‐ 71: “No decisions related to the management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be made as

part of this planning effort.”

Comment ID: 2852

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 57 in Table 2-1 under Alternatives B and C discusses removal of water improvements and 

one narrative discusses moving conditions to "predevelopment conditions. This requirement would appear 

to try and move conditions to a "wilderness status" without the necessary steps required for such a 

determination. This action would be totally inappropriate and we strongly reject such a requirement.

Comment ID: 2708

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-232 Text: Updated policy addressing the management of lands with wilderness 

characteristics was issued in 2012. The BLM will inventory and consider lands with wilderness 

characteristics in accordance with BLM Manual 6310 and 6320. This policy will be adhered to during any 

site-specific project NEPA analyses that are conducted in the planning area. Comment: Please refer to our 

cover letter regarding lands with wilderness characteristics.--"Given the lack of authority, BLM may not
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-559

inventory areas for wilderness character as part of the GRSG amendment. The purpose and need of the 

National Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use planning decisions specific to 

the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. No decisions related to the management of lands with 

wilderness characteristics are authorized as part of this planning effort. As such, management of lands with 

wilderness characteristics is outside the scope of this amendment."

Comment ID: 2610

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-79 Text: This section identifies potential impacts to land with wilderness characteristics 

from implementing actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions of lands with wilderness

characteristics are described in Chapter 3. Comment: On December 23, 2010, the Secretary of the

Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, issued Secretarial Order No. 3310, commonly referred to as the 

Wild Lands Policy. On April 14, 2011, the United States Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that 

prohibited the BLM from spending any federal funds to implement its Wild Lands Policy. Congress’ 

defunding mechanism made good sense since only wilderness study areas (WSAs) may be managed so as 

to not impair their wilderness character under Section 603 of FLPMA. Tri-County Cattleman's Association

Idaho Cattlemen's Association, 60 IBLA 305, 314 (1981). There is no other statutory authority and FLPMA, 

elsewhere, states that all other public lands are to be managed so as to not unduly and unnecessarily degrade 

the resources. 43 U.S.C. §1732(b). Given the lack of authority, BLM may not inventory areas for wilderness 

character as part of the GRSG amendment pursuant to the defunct Wild Lands Policy. To the extent that 

BLM does so, the Coalition strongly opposes any such actions.

Summary: Given the lack of authority, BLM may not inventory areas for wilderness character as part of the

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The purpose and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse planning 

effort is limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-grouse 

habitats. No decisions related to the management of lands with wilderness characteristics are authorized as 

part of this planning effort. As such, management of lands with wilderness characteristics is outside the 

scope of this amendment. Under Section 2.5.7, Page 2-13, item 2 and item 8 appear to be the same. The 

concept advocated also appears to be a de facto designation for wilderness whether in name or in fact.

Action 57, Alternatives B and C: The removal of water improvements discusses moving conditions to

"predevelopment conditions.” This requirement would appear to try and move conditions to a wilderness 

status without the necessary steps required for such a determination. Page 3-71: The narratives under this 

section appear to propose actions to be taken by the BLM that are very close to the recent “Wild Lands” 

program which we understand was not funded by Congress. Page 4-79: This section identifies potential 

impacts to land with wilderness characteristics. On December 23, 2010, the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior, Ken Salazar, issued Secretarial Order No. 3310, commonly referred to as the Wild Lands 

Policy. On April 14, 2011, the United States Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that prohibited the 

BLM from spending any federal funds to implement its Wild Lands Policy. Congress’ defunding 

mechanism made good sense since only wilderness study areas (WSAs) may be managed so as to not impair 

their wilderness character under Section 603 of FLPMA. BLM may not inventory areas for wilderness 

character as part of the Draft LUP Amendments pursuant to the defunct Wild Lands Policy.

Response: There are no specific management actions for lands with wilderness characteristics within 

Chapter 2 and Table 2.1 which contains the range of management alternatives. The commenters' assertion 

that the BLM and Forest Service lack authority to inventory or consider lands with wilderness

characteristics is legally incorrect. Bullet 8 in Section 2.5.7 has been removed as it is a duplicate. The 

management for Action 57 is for the management of sage-grouse with regard to riparian areas and reducing 

human impacts and habitat fragmentation. Page 3-71: BLM Manual 6320 page 2 part C 1 directs District 

Managers and Field Managers to "update and maintain the wilderness inventory for lands within the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-560 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

planning area consistent with BLM wilderness characteristics inventory guidance." Section 3.6 is a 

narrative of what each field office has currently inventoried. 4-79: As stated on page 3-71, “The purpose 

and need of the National Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use planning 

decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage- Grouse habitats. No decisions related to the 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the scope of this plan amendment 

process. Impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from the alternatives being analyzed for this 

planning effort are presented in Chapter 4.”

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

Range of alternatives

Wilderness characteristics must be considered

Comment ID: 350

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: This planning amendment addresses the protection of sage grouse habitats across Wyoming,

therefore directly affecting the naturalness and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation. It therefore requires consideration of an alternative that would protect wilderness characteristics 

pursuant to BLM Manual 6320.06. The designation of new Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

(“LWCs”) under BLM inventories in the planning area represents significant new information that must be 

addressed here.

Comment ID: 352

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: None of these lands has been designated for protection of wilderness resources through the land 

use planning process to date. BLM apparently intends to ignore direction to address this issue in this 

landmanagement planning effort, despite the clear value in designating LWCs for protection of wilderness

character to sage grouse conservation. This is arbitrary and capricious. We are concerned that BLM has not 

fully lived up to its obligations under Manual 6320, undertaking the process required for the planning and 

management of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. This must be done under the RMP amendment at 

hand, and the plan amendment should further designate all LWCs falling within sage grouse habitats to 

preserve their naturalness, solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation. Such protections would directly address threats that have been identified as threatening the 

persistence of sage grouse, such as infrastructure. This would confer addition protections on key sage grouse 

habitats, further buttressing the agency effort to apply adequate conservation measures for the bird.

Comment ID: 1798

Organization: The Wilderness Society

Name: Nada Culver

Comment: The Rock Springs Field Office is preparing a draft RMP revision; the Kemmerer, Casper, 

Rawlins, Pinedale and Newcastle plans were finalized prior to the issuance of this guidance and have 

varying degrees of out of date inventories, ongoing updates and information that has been made available

for public input. Ongoing planning efforts should incorporate updated inventories of lands with wilderness 

characteristics (LWC), as directed by Instruction Memorandum 2011-154 and as defined by BLM Manual 

6310. We expect that there is substantial acreage at issue. Currently, the Draft EIS does not address potential 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-561

values of these lands to supporting sage-grouse, does not provide for how to incorporate information from 

ongoing inventories, and does not consider management of lands with wilderness characteristics in the 

scope of this process. Deferring inventory and management decisions until proposed projects will not 

provide maximum benefits for wilderness characteristics or greater sage-grouse. as noted above and 

acknowledged in the Draft EIS and underlying RMPs, many lands with wilderness characteristics have not 

been identified and most identified lands with wilderness characteristics are not being managed to maintain 

their values. Further, given that the preferred alternative would not close any new areas to leasing or impose 

other strong prescriptions for many areas, the management adopted in this plan amendment could 

significantly impact natural areas including lands with wilderness characteristics. While conducting sitespecific analysis prior to approving implementation actions will be important, the values of lands with 

wilderness characteristics should be acknowledged in this EIS. Until full field inventories are completed 

under ongoing efforts and the public is given an opportunity to analyze and comment on these inventories,

these inventories cannot be considered complete, and therefore BLM should adopt a broad approach to 

addressing lands with wilderness characteristics in this EIS. For instance, in the Rock Springs Field Office, 

BLM completed an initial LWC inventory which found substantial acreage of potential LWCs do not 

possess wilderness characteristics, in addition to finding some areas which do possess wilderness 

characteristics. However, the public has not yet had the chance to comment on this inventory and BLM has 

not had the chance to update the inventory in response to public information, a process through which we 

expect BLM to significantly increase the amount of LWCs within the field office. Because the potential 

LWCs were identified on the basis of likely containing at least 5,000 acres of unroaded, undeveloped land, 

BLM should assume for the purposes of this EIS that all potential LWCs overlapping with mapped sagegrouse habitat may likely provide important habitat and represent good opportunities for sage-grouse 

conservation. Where inventoried LWCs are not currently being managed as “natural areas,” the value of 

these lands for sage-grouse should still be evaluated. Additionally, BLM should take this opportunity to 

update and incorporate LWC inventories for field offices rather than deferring to project-level analyses. 

BLM should identify lands with overlapping conservation values for protective designation, including 

considering whether and how protecting lands with wilderness characteristics would contribute to 

protecting and recovering sage-grouse in the planning area, and incorporate an analysis of these benefits 

into developing and selecting a proposed plan. BLM should include all potential LWCs in its analysis and 

management decisions for this EIS, recognizing that LWC inventories are underway in a number of field 

offices, as well. - For the purposes of the sage-grouse EIS, BLM should assume roadless lands adjacent to 

Wilderness Study Areas that overlap with mapped sage-grouse habitat likely provide important habitat 

resources for sage-grouse and should analyze these potential LWCs for sage-grouse conservation 

opportunities. - For purposes of the sage-grouse EIS, BLM should assume that all potential LWC units 

which overlap with mapped sage-grouse habitat may likely provide important sage-grouse habitat and 

identify sagegrouse conservation opportunities on those lands. Alternatively, BLM could utilize the updated 

LWC inventory if BLM is able to publish its draft revised inventory for public review, accept public

comments on the draft revised inventory, complete necessary field work and update the revised inventory 

in time to inform the sage-grouse EIS. - Preliminary general habitat and core habitat in lands with wilderness 

characteristics should be managed as part of priority management areas.

Comment ID: 2947

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: WWA recognizes the scope of this amendment is specific to the conservation of the Greater 

Sage Grouse and thus will only discuss the management of lands that possess wilderness characteristics and 

are within Sage Grouse Core Areas. Moreover, the discussion of our management prescriptions for these 

for areas will also include how the suggested management for these lands will be beneficial to Greater Sage 

Grouse conservation. Additionally, it is important to recognize that any management prescription with 

respect to lands that possess wilderness characteristics in the DRMP, even if it is limited to those decisions 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-562 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

related to sage grouse management, are management decisions that impact LWCs. Thus, a discussion of 

LWCs that within the planning area and sage grouse core habitat is appropriate to the scope of this planning 

process.

Comment ID: 2944

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: The specific ways in which WWA’s prescribed management for our areas of interest in the 

planning area will benefit both sage grouse and wilderness resources will be discussed in greater detail later 

in this document. Our prescriptions will protect both of these multiple uses, which is directly in line with

the multiple use mandate put in place by FLPMA and will also, importantly, benefit existing sage grouse 

populations. Consequently, we ask that BLM incorporate our recommendations into its Agency Preferred 

Alternative.

Comment ID: 3009

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: South Honeycomb Buttes: BLM Unique Identifier- Bear Creek Trail (Revised) WY 040-2011-

088 There is one point at which WWA and the BLM’s inventory results diverge for this unit. Specifically

the inventory results diverge at the determination of the unit’s western boundary. This divergence will be 

discussed below. There is also one major similarity between the inventories. The BLM’s most recent 

inventory for this unit indicates that this unit possesses wilderness characteristics. WWA’s inventory is 

aligned with the BLM’s inventory in that WWA’s inventory also demonstrated that this unit possesses 

wilderness characteristics. The location of the unit as described on the BLM’s current conditions form is 

included below. Description: The area is BLM managed land and does not include the state managed lands 

located T 26 N r 100 W sec 36. It is bounded to the north by the Honeycomb Buttes Wilderness Study Area

boundary road, to the east by an unnamed two track, to the south by county road 4-74 and to the west by an 

unnamed two track”. BLM Current Conditions Form WY 040-2011-088. The one notable difference 

between WWA and the BLM’s inventory results is that WWA’s western boundary differs from the BLM’s 

western boundary for the unit. As described above, the BLM’s western boundary is an unnamed two track. 

In WWA’s inventory, this two track is identified as route 2. Please see the map, photo table, and route 

analysis form (route 2) in Appendix B for the location of this route. As WWA’s route analysis form for 

route 2 indicates, this route does not qualify as a wilderness inventory road. BLM Manual 6310 indicates 

that boundaries “should be determined largely on the basis of wilderness inventory roads and naturalness”. 

As route 2 is not a wilderness inventory road, it should not be used as a boundary for the unit. Moreover, 

as WWA’s inventory report indicates that the portion of the unit that is excluded by using route 2 as a 

boundary possesses the naturalness characteristic, route 2 should not be used as a boundary. The western 

boundary proposed by WWA’s inventory results is County Road 74, which is a wilderness inventory road. 

If the unit is bounded to the west by County Road 74, then the BLM inventory results of the unit will

adequately comply with BLM Manual 6310.

Comment ID: 3019

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: Prospect Mountain: BLM Unique Identifier- WY 040-2011-095 The Rawlins BLM Field Office 

inventory report for the Prospect Mountain unit indicates that the area does not appear to be natural due to

three issues including, (1) routes, (2) reservoirs, and (3) oil and gas wells. WWA’s inventory staff found 

that the area did possess naturalness and each of the three above issues with respect to WWA’s inventory 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-563

will now be addressed in turn. With respect to the routes in the area, they are neither omnipresent nor 

pervasive. Additionally, these routes are easily avoided by the visitor. Excluding this area based on the 

primitive routes is an overly strict approach to determining naturalness. Such an overly strict approach is 

contrary to the guidance provided by BLM Manual 6310. The BLM’s inventory also cites existing 

reservoirs and oil and gas wells as a reason for the unnatural determination. However, WWA also found 

these impacts to be minimal and neither omnipresent nor pervasive. Please see Appendix D for a detailed 

analysis. Additionally, it should be noted that although WWA was on the ground looking for these impacts, 

the staff member was often able to walk for hours at time and not encounter any significant human impacts. 

Additionally, it should be noted that if the Rawlins Field Office determines that it must exclude the unit due 

to existing impacts, the Rawlins Field office staff should attempt to create new boundaries in order to

exclude any disqualifying impacts prior to simply classifying the entire unit as unnatural. This

reconsideration of boundaries would help ensure compliance with BLM Manual 6310. As the divergence 

between inventory results is currently based on the BLM’s divergence from the procedures and guidance 

provided by BLM Manual 6310, these inventories must be updated with specific care to ensure that the 

information this land us plan is based upon is high quality and in compliance with BLM policy.

Comment ID: 3017

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: South Buffalo Hump: BLM Unique Identifier- WY 040-2011-177 There is a major divergence 

in process subsequent results between WWA and the BLM’s inventory results for this unit. Specifically, 

the inventory results diverge in that WWA’s findings conclude that a subunit of the WY 040-2011-177 unit 

possesses wilderness characteristics and the BLM’s inventory findings indicate that the unit does not 

possess wilderness characteristics. After consideration of the BLM’s inventory reports for this unit it is 

reasonable to conclude that the divergence in results is a result of a divergence in process. The following 

description taken from the BLM’s current condition form for the unit in question is the only discussion of 

the BLM’s findings: The inventory area is bounded to the north by the Buffalo Hump and Sand Dunes 

Wilderness Study Area boundary roads, to the south by the checkerboard lands and to the west by the 

Triterritory Short Loop Road. The area does not include WY040-2011-066 (Boars Tusk) or WY 040-2011-

068 (Six Mile Draw) inventories which are evaluated in separate inventories. The area is crossed by 

numerous seismic routes, improved two track routes and other routes and does not meet size. Current

Conditions Form WY 040-2011-177. This description, along with an accompanying map of the unit’s 

boundary gives insight into the BLM’s rationale for disqualifying the unit from Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics consideration. This rationale is, “The area is crossed by numerous seismic routes, improved 

two track routes and other routes and does not meet size”. The process by which the BLM arrived at this 

conclusion is problematic as this process does not meet the requirements of BLM Manual 6310. The 

inventory for this unit was signed on July 3, 2013. Thus, this inventory is subject to the guidance and 

requirements of BLM Manual 6310 Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. This 

manual requires route analysis forms and supporting photo logs, neither of which are included with the 

BLM’s inventory findings for this unit. BLM Manual 6310 at 10. Route analysis forms and photo logs are 

critical to determine the existing characteristics of the routes within a unit. This is particularly critical for 

determining the boundaries of a unit as BLM Manual 6310 indicates that boundaries “should be determined 

largely on the basis of wilderness inventory roads and naturalness”. Without adequate data and analysis 

yielded by route analysis forms and photo tables, it is impossible to comply with this boundary 

determination requirement

Comment ID: 2995

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-564 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: WWA’s inventory submissions meet the minimum standard for further review. However, the 

BLM has yet to evaluate the new information, document their findings, make the findings available to the

public, and retain a record of the evaluation and the findings as evidence of the BLM’s consideration.

Without these steps, the BLM does not have the relevant information to adequately analyze the impacts of 

the amendment alternatives. NEPA requires an adequate analysis and NEPA documents must be “high 

quality”. Additionally, “accurate scientific analysis” is also necessary for successfully carrying out NEPA 

procedures. (40 C.F.R. 1500.1(b)). An analysis that is not based on the most current information possible 

does not demonstrate “high quality” information or “accurate scientific analysis”. If the BLM is basing their 

analysis on older information, then this does not constitute “high quality”. This is especially relevant when 

the BLM has had adequate indication, provided by WWA’s inventory submission, that there is new 

information and that resource conditions may have changed. Additionally, BLM Manual 6310 recognizes 

that conditions related to wilderness characteristics can change over time. BLM Manual 6310 at 2. In order 

to meet the procedural requirements of NEPA and BLM Manual 6310, the BLM should ensure before the 

release of the Record of Decision that the BLM has evaluated the new inventory information, documented 

their findings, made the findings available to the public, and retained a record of the evaluation and the 

findings as evidence of the BLM’s consideration.

Comment ID: 3018

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: South Buffalo Hump: BLM Unique Identifier- WY 040-2011-177. The inventory approach used 

by the BLM for this unit is also problematic because it is based on inaccurate data. Many of the routes on

the route layer that the BLM uses for this unit The inventory approach used by the BLM for this unit is also 

problematic because it is based on inaccurate data. Many of the routes on the route layer that the BLM uses 

for this unit map no longer exist. During WWA’s inventories, it is rare to find that all of the routes on any 

statewide GIS road layer are still in existence. Moreover, the road classifications and descriptions in this 

road layer data are often outdated or inaccurate. Thus, it is critical for accuracy and compliance with BLM 

Manual 6310 to ensure that the BLM’ inventory results are based on data that is collected on the ground by 

BLM staff. WWA’s inventory process for this unit complied with BLM Manual 6310 and the resulting 

current condition form, route analysis forms, photo table, and map indicate that a subunit of WY 040-2011-

177 possesses wilderness characteristics. Contrary to the BLM’s inventory, WWA’s inventory results 

indicate that existing routes within the subunit should not disqualify the subunit from LWC consideration. 

No routes within the unit qualify as wilderness inventory roads, nor are their impacts omnipresent or 

pervasive. Please see route analysis forms in Appendix C for specific route analyses. Although, there are 

primitive routes within the unit they do not detract from the naturalness the average visitor would 

experience. There is ample opportunity for a visitor to intentionally or unintentionally avoid these primitive 

routes. Additionally, there is ample topographic screening throughout the unit and vegetative screening in 

the seasonal drainages to prevent the routes from being omnipresent. The routes within the large unit are 

few enough as to not be pervasive. Thus, these existing primitive routes should not disqualify the unit from 

LWC consideration.

Comment ID: 2999

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: Harris Slough: BLM Unique Identifier- WY 040-2011-095 There is a major divergence in 

process that subsequently produces differences in results between WWA and the BLM’s inventory results 

for this unit. Specifically, the inventory results diverge in that WWA’s findings conclude that a subunit of 

the WY 040-2011-095 unit possesses wilderness characteristics and the BLM’s inventory findings indicate 

that the unit does not possess wilderness characteristics. After consideration of the BLM’s inventory reports 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-565

for this unit it is reasonable to conclude that the divergence in results is a result of a divergence in process.

The following description taken from the BLM’s current condition form for the unit in question is the only 

discussion of the BLM’s findings: The area is bounded to the north and east by the Sulfur Springs Road, to 

the south by the Honeycomb Buttes Wilderness Study Area access road, and to the west by private access 

route ZZ/GD. The area is crossed by numerous improved roads and does not meet size requirements. BLM

Current Conditions Form WY 040-2011-095. This description, along with an accompanying map of the 

unit’s boundary gives insight into the BLM’s rationale for disqualifying the unit from Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics consideration. This rationale is, “The area is crossed by numerous improved 

roads and does not meet size requirements”. The process by which the BLM arrived at this conclusion is 

problematic as this process does not meet the requirements of BLM Manual 6310. The inventory for this 

unit was signed on July 3, 2013. Thus, this inventory is subject to the guidance and requirements of BLM 

Manual 6310 Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. This manual requires route

analysis forms and supporting photo logs, neither of which are included with the BLM’s inventory findings 

for this unit. Route analysis forms and photo logs are critical to determine the existing characteristics of the 

routes within a unit. This is particularly critical for determining the boundaries of a unit as BLM Manual 

6310 indicates that boundaries “should be determined largely on the basis of wilderness inventory roads 

and naturalness”. BLM Manual 6310 at 10. Without adequate data and analysis yielded by route analysis 

forms and photo tables, it is impossible to comply with this boundary determination requirement. The 

inventory approach used by the BLM for this unit is also problematic because it is based on inaccurate data. 

Many of the routes on the route layer that the BLM uses for this unit map no longer exist. During WWA’s 

inventories, it is rare to find that all of the routes on any statewide GIS road layer are still in existence. 

Moreover, the road classifications and descriptions in road layer data are often outdated or inaccurate. Thus, 

it is critical for accuracy and compliance with BLM Manual 6310 to ensure that the BLM’ inventory results 

are based on data that is collected on the ground by BLM staff. WWA’s inventory process for this unit 

complied with BLM Manual 6310 and the resulting current condition form, route analysis forms, photo 

table, and map indicate that unit of WY 040-2011-095 possesses wilderness characteristics. Contrary to the 

BLM’s inventory, WWA’s inventory results indicate that existing routes within the subunit should not 

disqualify the subunit from LWC consideration. No routes within the unit qualify as wilderness inventory 

roads, nor are their impacts omnipresent or pervasive. Please see route analysis forms in appendix A for 

specific route analyses. Although, there are primitive routes within the unit they do not detract from the 

naturalness the average visitor would experience. There is ample opportunity for a visitor to intentionally 

or unintentionally avoid these primitive routes. Additionally, there is ample topographic screening

throughout the unit and vegetative screening in the seasonal drainages to prevent the routes from being 

omnipresent. The routes within the large unit are few enough as to not be pervasive. Thus, these existing 

primitive routes should not disqualify the unit from LWC consideration.

Comment ID: 2957

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: The BLM should update their inventory results for the areas of interest and take special care to 

prior to the finalization of this plan amendment to ensure that the information this land us plan is based

upon is high quality and in compliance with BLM policy. The circumstances surrounding WWA’s

submission of their 2012 wilderness characteristics inventory and this land use plan amendment are in line 

with the guidance outlined above (Manual 6310) regarding when the BLM should update their wilderness 

characteristics inventory. The public, namely WWA representing its membership, has identified wilderness 

characteristics as as issue during this particular NEPA process. WWA’s wilderness characteristics 

inventories meet the requirements of the minimum standards to be considered as new information, which 

fulfills the second circumstance outlined above. Finally, this amendment may impact wilderness 

characteristics, which fulfills the third circumstance outlined above. Given the fulfillment of these three 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-566 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

circumstances, it is clear that the BLM should pursue the next steps following a recognized need to revisit 

their inventory.

Comment ID: 3020

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: Implementing WWA’s preferred stipulations on portions of four LWC’s of interest that fall 

within sage grouse core areas would bolster existing protections in the plan amendment and ensure more

comprehensive protection for sage grouse populations. Eliminating disruptions to breeding and nesting 

imposed by anthropogenic noise and infrastructure as well as related increases in predation is the only way 

to ensure lasting vitality of sage grouse populations in core areas. This, in turn, will help prevent listing of 

the sage grouse as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Similarly, our recommended 

preferred management stipulations would preserve existing naturalness and excellent opportunities for 

solitude and primitive recreation. The importance of keeping these wilderness and sage grouse resources 

intact cannot be overlooked in the land use planning process. Additionally, where two fragile resources 

such as sage grouse and wilderness characteristics can be easily protected by the same management 

prescriptions, these prescriptions should receive serious consideration.

Comment ID: 3021

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: WWA Preferred Stipulations for the Identified Areas of Interest (Harris Slough, South 

Honeycomb Buttes, South Buffalo Hump, and Prospect Mountain WWA Identified LWC’s) • Motorized 

travel limited to existing routes. • Mechanical maintenance limited to routes classified as Wilderness 

Inventory Road. • Administratively unavailable to locatable, salable, and leasable mineral leasing • Closed 

to mineral materials disposal and geophysical exploration

Comment ID: 2946

Organization: Wyoming Wilderness Association

Name: Jennie Trefren

Comment: There are four areas that WWA has identified to possess wilderness characteristics and are 

within the planning area and sage grouse core areas. These areas include Harris Slough, South Honeycomb

Buttes, South Buffalo Hump, and Prospect Mountain. The Harris Slough, South Honeycomb Buttes,

Southern Buffalo Hump units are within the Rock Springs Field Office planning area. The Prospect

Mountain unit is in the Rawlins field office. Our management prescriptions apply to the portions of these 

four units that fall within sage grouse core as depicted by Maps 1 and 2. These units, their corresponding 

BLM unique identifiers, and descriptions of the units are listed below for reference.

Summary: This planning amendment addresses the protection of sage-grouse habitats across Wyoming,

therefore directly affecting the naturalness and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation. It therefore requires consideration of an alternative that would protect wilderness characteristics 

pursuant to BLM Manual 6320.06. The designation of new lands with wilderness characteristics under 

BLM inventories in the planning area represents significant new information that must be addressed. In 

order to meet the procedural requirements of NEPA and BLM Manual 6310, the BLM should ensure before 

the release of the Record of Decision that the BLM has evaluated new wilderness inventory information, 

documented their findings, made the findings available to the public, and retained a record of the evaluation 

and the findings as evidence of the BLM’s consideration. The plan amendment should designate all lands 

with wilderness characteristics falling within sagegrouse habitats to preserve their naturalness, solitude, and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-567

outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation. Such protections would directly 

address threats that have been identified as threatening the persistence of sage-grouse, such as 

infrastructure. This would confer additional protections on key sage-grouse habitats, further buttressing the 

agency effort to apply adequate conservation measures. Specific lands with wilderness characteristics to 

protect include Harris Slough, South Honeycomb Buttes, South Buffalo Hump, and Prospect Mountain. 

These LWCs should have the following management applied: • Motorized travel limited to existing routes.

• Mechanical maintenance limited to routes classified as Wilderness Inventory Road. • Administratively 

unavailable to locatable, salable, and leasable mineral leasing • Closed to mineral materials disposal and 

geophysical exploration.

Response: The purpose and need of the Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use

planning decisions specific to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. No decisions related to the 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics will be made as part of this planning effort; therefore, 

management of lands with wilderness characteristics is considered outside the scope of this plan amendment 

process. Impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from the alternatives being analyzed for this 

planning effort are presented in Chapter 4.

Leasable Minerals

Appendices

Appendix B revisions

Comment ID: 1581

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 7, pg. B-4 “Restrict the construction of 

tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.” It is unclear what is meant by ―tall‖. 

Certain facilities, particularly those for compression or natural gas treatment, require the use of designs 

which incorporate vessels or equipment that, by their design, can involve height. Furthermore, fences are 

typically installed for reasons of security, reclamation, and safety. Although some flexibility is mentioned 

such as the "minimum number and amount needed", this requirement lacks specificity and the reality of 

what is needed to construct a facility and what needs to be removed. The BLM should specifically describe 

what types of tall facilities and fences they are referring to.

Comment ID: 1590

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features for Noise, No. 3, pg. B-5 “Locate new compressor 

stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be directed towards priority 

habitat.” This requirement is overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive. There are many items to consider

when siting compressor stations, such as the engineering and design constraints inherent to gas gathering 

systems. Further, some wells may require well site compression due to gas lift because of the directional 

requirements, or simply due to surface terrain. With regard to directing compressor station noise away from 

priority habitat, proximity to other receptors, such as homes, also needs to be considered. This item needs 

to be subject to technological feasibility, as well as landowner preferences when private land is involved.

Comment ID: 1588

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-568 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features for Noise, No. 1, pg. B-5 “Limit noise to less than 10 

decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 decibels) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek

season (Patricelli et al. 2010; Bickley et al. In preparation).” This measure is poorly written and infeasible 

for several reasons. First, it prescribes a starting point from which this restriction would be imposed 

(sunrise), but no end, which makes it unclear as to whether it is intended to apply only during daylight hours 

or 24/7 throughout an active lek season. More importantly, however, 10db is an extremely low threshold 

roughly equivalent to a human voice speaking at an elevated level. Next, the BLM has not identified how

background ambient noise levels are to be measured or evaluated. Obviously ambient noise levels vary 

from day to day depending on meteorological conditions and even natural activities. Finally, and most 

importantly, the BLM has not adequately justified the scientific basis for the restrictions. This requirement 

should be removed.

Comment ID: 1587

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 18, pg. B-4 “Design or site permanent 

structures which create movement (e.g., pump jacks) to minimize impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse.” This 

requirement is unreasonable and lacks scientific justification. We are unaware of any studies on GRSG 

which correlate movement and distances relative to GRSG response. We recommend this requirement be 

removed.

Comment ID: 1586

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 16, pg. B-4 “Use remote monitoring 

techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use.” Remotely 

monitoring a site may not always identify all operational considerations, so there is still the need to 

physically inspect a well or facility. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain 

inspection and maintenance activities must be conducted regularly. We recognize that limitations on some 

disruptive activities and access to well locations during critical seasons may be necessary, such as 

prohibiting construction activities (e.g., well pads, roads, pits). However, basic maintenance and operational 

activities are necessary to maintain safe, effective, and environmentally sound operations. Further, the 

installation and utilization of telemetry equipment may not always be technologically feasible or 

economically viable. This requirement should be subject to operational considerations, technological 

feasibility, and economic viability.

Comment ID: 1585

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 14, pg. B-4 “Place liquid gathering 

facilities outside of priority areas. Have no tanks at well locations within priority areas to minimize truck 

traffic and perching and nesting sites for ravens and raptors. Pipelines must be under or immediately 

adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010).” This requirement is confusing. Placing liquids gathering facilities 

inside priority habitat would reduce truck traffic which would be advantageous in priority habitat. Tanks 

and trucking may be the only economical alternative for low liquids volume wells. Further, if liquids 

gathering or trucking is not allowed inside priority habitat, there is no way to remove liquids production 

from the lease. This requirement conflicts with standard operational practices, is not feasible and needs to 

be removed.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-569

Comment ID: 1584

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 13, pg. B-4 “Apply a phased 

development approach with concurrent reclamation.” EOG strongly encourages the BLM to eliminate 

RDFs for phased development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. B-2. EOG opposes phased development that only 

allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time and requires the first portion to be 

plugged, abandoned, or reclaimed before an oil and gas operator may proceed to another portion of the 

leasehold or unit. This is an unreasonable restriction that may render development uneconomic and is a 

clear violation of valid existing rights. Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 

Circuit, which has authority over all of Wyoming, recently affirmed a BLM decision not to require a phased 

leasing RMP in the Buffalo Field Office specifically because such an alternative would delay the production 

of energy resources and was not otherwise practical. Further, allowing oil and gas developers to secure

leases in only one portion of a geologic basin or area at a time will limit and preclude exploration and

development activities. Before an oil and gas operator will be willing to commit the millions of dollars

necessary to drill even a single exploratory oil and gas well, it must secure a large enough lease position to 

justify the expense. If phased leasing was mandated by the BLM, the operator may be unable to secure such 

lease positions and new exploration would come to a halt, along with the economic benefits associated 

therewith. The term ―phased development‖ needs clarification. This means different things to different 

people. EOG opposes phased development which only allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to be

developed over time and requires the first portion to be plugged, abandoned or reclaimed before an oil and 

gas operator may proceed to another portion of the leasehold or unit. It is an unreasonable restriction that 

may render development uneconomic. This is a clear violation of existing lease terms, since this type of 

terminology has not been used in federal lease forms before, and valid existing rights.

Comment ID: 1595

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features for Vegetation, No. 6, pg. B-6 “Power wash all vehicles 

and equipment involved in vegetation treatment activities prior to entering the area to minimize the 

introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species” EOG requires vehicles to be cleaned regularly 

and whenever mud develops on our vehicles, although washing vehicles can only be done in developed 

areas such as towns and shops. Clean vehicles leaving such areas are still likely to travel across roads 

impacted by non-native plant seeds, and often the maintenance of such roads is outside EOG‘s jurisdiction.

Comment ID: 1582

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 10, pg. B-3 “Cluster disturbances, 

operations (e.g., fracture stimulation and liquids gathering), and facilities.” The intent of this measure and 

how it is supposed to be implemented is unclear. For example, how could one "cluster" unrelated operations 

such as those described in the parenthetical example? The BLM needs to define "cluster" and clarify the 

specific intent of this measure in each context before EOG or anyone else can provide meaningful 

comments.

Comment ID: 1594

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-570 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features for Reclamation, No. 5, pg. B-5 “Utilize mulching 

techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils.” The RFD is unclear. "Mulching techniques" is 

vague and does not describe duration, frequency, equipment, or materials. EOG supports proven 

reclamation techniques but is not aware of any standards of supporting scientific data that would allow 

―mulching techniques‖ to become an RDF. As such, this RDF should be eliminated.

Comment ID: 1580

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 3, pg. B-3 “Bury power lines to the 

extent technologically feasible.” This requirement is excessive and cost-prohibitive and does not include 

any information related to proper power distribution design. Buried distribution lines are not always feasible 

or practical. Power companies must comply with power factors and buried power often cannot be used due 

to losses when large load lines are buried. Terrain must be a consideration where issues such as endangered

plants, streams, hard rock, and other factors impact the ability to install buried distribution lines. We applaud 

BLM for allowing flexibility that takes into account technological feasibility, but encourage the BLM to 

also consider safety and economic considerations.

Comment ID: 1579

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 2, pg. B-3 “Place new utility 

developments (power lines, pipelines, etc.) and transportation routes in existing utility or transportation 

corridors.” Locating power lines and pipelines under existing roads may not be possible due to numerous 

ROW holders and various owners. The phrase "where practicable" should be added to ensure flexibility.

Comment ID: 1578

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Roads, No. 6, pg. B-3 “Establish trip restrictions (Lyon 

and Anderson 2003) or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g., Supervisory 

Control and Data Acquisition).” Remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all operational 

considerations, so there is still the need to physically inspect a well or facility. In order to conduct safe and 

effective oil and gas operations, certain inspection and maintenance activities must be conducted regularly 

without restrictions. Remote monitoring itself requires maintenance and remote monitoring will not

eliminate corrosion, spills, and leaks. Regular visits by qualified personnel are necessary for required

activities such as production, environmental compliance, and spill reporting.This requirement should be 

subject to operational considerations, technological feasibility and economic viability.

Comment ID: 1591

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features for Fluid Minerals, Reclamation, General Habitat, No. 

1, pg. B-5 “Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in

reclamation practices/sites (Pyke 2011). Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such 

that goals and objectives are to enhance or restore sage-grouse habitat.” EOG supports reclamation to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-571

original pre-disturbance conditions. Enhanced reclamation is vague and means different things to different 

people. This RDF should be eliminated.

Comment ID: 446

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Enclosed tanks should not be the only option for management of fluids. Rather, BLM should 

retain the flexibility to allow use of either lined pits or storage tanks on a case-by-case basis. It is not

reasonable to require closed loop mud systems for drilling. Many drilling rigs are not equipped for closed 

loop drilling (no reserve pit). Further, some type of pit will be needed for drilling cuttings if a closed system 

were available on a drilling rig.

Comment ID: 579

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson applauds the BLM's recognition that LUPs are not the appropriate place to make sitespecific decisions. Nonetheless, in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM proposes several site-specific COAs

contained in Appendix B that will be applied to all site-specific projects. The BLM should recognize the 

contradiction in its decision making and remove any attempts to make site-specific decisions in the SageGrouse DLUPA. This error should be corrected.

Comment ID: 1583

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Operations, No. 11, pg. B-4 “Use directional and 

horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.” The BLM incorrectly assumes that all oil and gas 

resources in the Planning Area can be accessed and developed via directional and horizontal drilling 

techniques. The phrase ―where technologically feasible and economically viable‖ should be added to 

provide necessary flexibility to this requirement.

Comment ID: 810

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 18, pg. B-4 "Design or site 

permanent structures which create movement (e.g. pump jack) to minimize impacts on Greater SageGrouse." This requirement is unreasonable and lacks scientific justification. We are unaware of any studies

on GRSG which correlate movement and distances relative to GRSG response. We recommend this 

requirement be removed.

Comment ID: 802

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2..1, Roads, No. 6, pg. B-3 "Establish trip restrictions 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003) or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g., 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)." Remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all 

operational considerations, so there is still the need to physically inspect a well or facility. In order to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-572 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain inspection and maintenance activities must be 

conducted regularly without restrictions. This requirement should be subject to operational considerations,

technological feasibility and economic viability.

Comment ID: 803

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No.10, pg.B-3 "Cluster disturbances, 

operations (e.g., fracture stimulation and liquids gathering), and facilities." The intent of this measure and 

how it is supposed to be implemented is unclear . For example, how could one "cluster" unrelated operations 

such as those described in the parenthetical example? The BLM needs to define "cluster" and clarify the 

specific intent of this measure in each context before Devon or anyone else can provide meaningful 

comments.

Comment ID: 804

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 11, pg. B-4 and General Habitat, 

No.2, pg. J-4 "Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance." The BLM incorrectly 

assumes that all oil and gas resources in the Planning Area can be accessed and developed via directional 

and horizontal drilling techniques. The phrase "where technologically feasible and economically viable" 

should be added to provide necessary flexibility to this

Comment ID: 805

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations "Apply a phased development 

approach with concurrent reclamation." Devon strongly encourages the BLM to eliminate RDFs for phased 

development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, B-2. Devon opposes phased development that only allows certain 

portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time and requires the first portion to be plugged, 

abandoned, or reclaimed before an oil and gas operator may proceed to another portion of the leasehold or 

unit. This is an unreasonable restriction that may render development uneconomic and is a clear violation 

of valid existing rights. The term "phased development" needs clarification. This means different things to 

different people. Devon opposes phased development which only allows certain portions of a leasehold or 

unit to be developed over time and requires the first portion to be plugged, abandoned or reclaimed before 

an oil and gas operator may proceed to another portion of the leasehold or unit. It is an unreasonable 

restriction that may render development uneconomic. This is a clear violation of existing lease terms, since 

this type of terminology has not been used in federal lease forms before, and valid existing rights.

Comment ID: 806

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No.14, pg.B•4 "Place liquid gathering 

facilities outside of priority areas. Have no tanks at well locations within priority areas to minimize truck

traffic and perching and nesting sites for ravens and raptors. Pipelines must be under or immediately 

adjacent to the road (Bui et. at. 2010)." This requirement is confusing. Placing liquids gathering facilities 

inside priority habitat would reduce truck traffic which would be advantageous in priority habitat. Tanks 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-573

and trucking may be the only economical alternative for low liquids volume wells. Further, if liquids 

gathering or trucking is not allowed inside priority habitat, there is no way to remove liquids production 

from the lease. This requirement conflicts with standard operational practices, is not feasible and needs to 

be removed.

Comment ID: 807

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, Priority Habitat, No. 14, pg. B-4

"Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed." It is 

unclear what is meant by "tall". Certain facilities, particularly those for compression or natural gas 

treatment, require the use of designs which incorporate vessels or equipment that, by their design, can 

involve height. Furthermore, fences are typically installed for reasons of security, reclamation, and safety.

Although some flexibility is mentioned such as the "minimum number and amount needed", this 

requirement lacks specificity and the reality of what is needed to construct a facility and what needs to be 

removed. The BLM should specifically describe what types of tall facilities and fences they are referring 

to.

Comment ID: 1592

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Reclamation, No. 3, pg. B-5 “Restore disturbed areas at 

final reclamation to the pre‐ disturbance landforms and desired plant community.” If the disturbance is on 

non-federal surface land, this requirement needs to be subject to the preferences of landowners.

Comment ID: 809

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 3, pg. B-3 "Bury power lines to 

the extent technologically feasible." This requirement is excessive and cost-prohibitive and does not include 

any information related to proper power distribution design. Buried distribution lines are not always feasible 

or practical. Power companies must comply with power factors and buried power often cannot be used due 

to losses when large load lines are buried. Terrain must be a consideration where issues such as endangered 

plants, streams, hard rock. and other factors impact the ability to install buried distribution lines. We applaud 

BLM for allowing flexibility that takes into account technological feasibility, but encourage the BLM to 

also consider safety, and economic considerations.

Comment ID: 1593

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features for Fluid Minerals, Reclamation, Priority Habitat, No. 

4, pg. B-5 “Implement irrigation during interim or final reclamation for sites where establishment of 

seedlings has been shown or is expected to be difficult due to dry conditions.” This RDF should be reworded 

to recognize feasibility and to reflect that irrigation needs to be done in a way that will prevent vegetation 

from being unable to withstand drought conditions after the irrigation has been removed. Additionally, 

BLM should consider several potential issues this RDF could present. For example, irrigation could require 

a pump and a fresh water supply. The pump would require a fuel source and may require an air quality 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-574 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

permit. The fresh water supply would likely need to be trucked in. The BLM should address these issues in 

the development of this RDF.

Comment ID: 811

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4 Noise, No.1, pg. B-5 "Limit noise to less than 10 

decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 decibels) at sunrise of the perimeter of a lek during active lek 

season (Patricelli et al. 2010; Bickley et al. In preparation)." This measure is poorly written and infeasible 

for several reasons. First, it prescribes a starting point from which this restriction would be imposed 

(sunrise), but no end, which makes it unclear as to whether it is intended to apply only during daylight hours 

or 24/7 throughout an active lek season. More importantly, however, 1Odb is an extremely low threshold 

roughly equivalent to a human voice speaking at an elevated level. Next, the BLM has not identified how 

background ambient noise levels are to be measured or evaluated. Obviously ambient noise levels vary 

from day to day depending on meteorological conditions and even natural activities. Finally, and most

importantly, the BLM has not adequately justified the scientific basis for the restrictio11s. This requirement 

should be removed.

Comment ID: 812

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4, Operations, No.2, pg. B-5 "Require noise shields 

when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering seasons." This requirement is too broad 

and vague. First, the measure does not define the types of noise shields that are required. Further, the shield 

can take any number of shape and form. lt is also important to realize that noise shields cannot be used at a 

site without being engineered for safety factors such as wind load. This requirement needs to be completely 

reworded to provide more clarification and flexibility.

Comment ID: 813

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4, Noise, No.3, pg. B-5 "Locate new compressor 

stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be directed towards priority 

habitat." This requirement is overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive. This item needs to be subject to 

technological feasibility, as well as landowner preferences when private land is involved.

Comment ID: 814

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 16, pg. B-4 "Use remote 

monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce vehicular traffic frequency of 

vehicle use." Remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all operational considerations, so there is 

still the need to physically inspect a well or facility. ln order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas

operations, certain inspection and maintenance activities must be conducted regularly. We recognize that 

limitations on some disruptive activities and access to well locations during critical seasons may be 

necessary, such as prohibiting construction activities (e.g. well pads, roads, pits). Basic maintenance and 

operational activities are necessary to maintain safe, effective, and environmentally sound operations. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-575

Further, the installation and utilization of telemetry equipment may not always be technologically feasible 

or economically viable. This requirement should be subject to operational considerations, technological 

feasibility, and economic viability.

Comment ID: 815

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.5, Reclamation, No. 3, pg. B-5 "Restore disturbed 

areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance landforms and desired plant community." If the disturbance 

is on non-federal surface land, this requirement needs to be subject to the preferences of landowners.

Comment ID: 1577

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Roads, No. 2, pg. B-3 “Locate roads to avoid important 

areas and habitats.” The BLM needs to clarify the definition of "important areas and habitats." This 

requirement also needs to be made subject to the preferences of landowners on split estate lands where the 

surface is owned by non-federal landowners. BLM must defer decisions regarding road location with those 

nonfederal surface owners. Exceptions should also be allowed for topographical, archeological and other

considerations.

Comment ID: 801

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features 8.2..1 Roads, No.2, pg. B-3 "Locate roads to avoid 

important areas and habitats." The BLM needs to clarify the definition of "important areas and habitats." 

This requirement also needs to be made subject to the preferences of landowners on split estate lands where 

the surface is owned by non-federal landowners. BLM must defer decisions regarding road location with 

those non-federal surface owners. Exceptions should also be allowed for topographical, archeological and 

other considerations.

Comment ID: 808

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 2, pg.B-3 "Place new utility 

developments (e.g. power lines and pipelines) and transportation routes in existing utility or transportation 

corridors." Few such corridors exist within the Planning Area and placement within existing ROWs held 

by third parties is not allowed since ROWs are permitted exclusively to the ROW holder. The phrase "where 

practicable" should be added to ensure flexibility.

Comment ID: 2081

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: B.2.5 Reclamation Page B-5, Paragraph 2 "Maximize the area of interim reclamation on longterm access roads and well pads, including reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut-and-fill slopes." If

private landowners are involved, they may not support this requirement if they have alternate use of the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-576 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

areas under consideration for reclamation. A reference to landowner preferences should be included in this 

requirement.

Comment ID: 2077

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-5, Paragraph 2 "Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, broodrearing, or wintering season." This item is too broad and vague. First, what types of noise shields are being

referenced? These can take any number of shape and form. Additionally, larger well pads may be needed 

to accommodate the configuration of a "shield". Attenuation of noise from a site to receptors such as leks, 

nesting, and brood rearing must also be considered. Further, simply stating that noise shields are required 

may not be necessary if the drilling is occurring where the noise attenuation is not an issue. This requirement 

needs to be completely reworded to provide more direction and flexibility.

Comment ID: 2084

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-5, Paragraph 4 "Implement irrigation during interim or final reclamation for sites where

establishment of seedlings has been shown or is expected to be difficult due to dry conditions." We

recommend BLM reword this requirement to reflect that irrigation needs to be done in a way that will 

prevent vegetation from being unable to withstand drought conditions after the irrigation has been removed.

Comment ID: 2024

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 6 The special use authorizations are typically written to the user of the 

roads which would be the energy companies. The county may take authority for the road later, but not

typically at issuance. Requiring that the all other terms and conditions be included is too broad. This 

measure should read “Ensure rights-of-way or special use authorizations on newly constructed energy

development roads are issued using only appropriate terms and conditions included in this document.”

Comment ID: 2026

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 8 "Apply dust abatement on roads, well pads, and other surface 

disturbances." This needs to be rewritten to specify what types of dust abatement may be considered as 

effective (i.e. chemical applicants or water).

Comment ID: 693

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No.3, pg. B-3 "Bury power lines to 

the extent technologically feasible." This requirement is excessive and cost-prohibitive and does not include 

any information related to proper power distribution design. Buried distribution lines are not always feasible 

or practical. Power companies must comply with power factors and buried power often cannot be used due 

to losses when large load lines are buried. Terrain must be a consideration where issues such as endangered
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-577

plants, streams, hard rock, and other factors impact the ability to install buried distribution lines. We applaud 

BLM for allowing flexibility that takes into account technological feasibility, but encourage the BLM to 

also consider safety, and economic considerations.

Comment ID: 694

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 18, pg. B-4 "Design or site 

permanent structures which create movement (e.g. pump jack) to minimize impacts on Greater SageGrouse." This requirement is unreasonable and lacks scientific justification. We are unaware of any studies 

on GRSG which correlate movement and distances relative to GRSG response. We recommend this

requirement be removed.

Comment ID: 2082

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-5, Paragraph 3 If the disturbance is on private land, this requirement needs to be subject 

to the preferences of landowners.

Comment ID: 2100

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 7th Bullet Point "Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and 

develop a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use." See previous comment with regard to remote

monitoring.

Comment ID: 2033

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 2 It may be acceptable for pipelines to be placed under or immediately 

adjacent to the road, provided enough room exists topographically to make it feasible. If a pipeline adjacent 

to a road results in significant cut and fill, it may be more appropriate to consider a different approach. This 

requirement needs to be reworded to say "Place new utility developments (e.g., power lines and pipelines) 

and transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors taking into account any surface use 

constraints such as steep terrain or soil conditions which would make this approach inappropriate."

Comment ID: 2021

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 5 This requirement is inconsistent with the EO and we recommend it be

removed. BLM must recognize that remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all operational 

considerations. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain onsite inspection and 

maintenance activities must be conducted regularly. We recognize that limitations placed on access to well 

locations during critical seasons may be necessary, such as prohibiting construction activities (e.g. well 

pads, roads, pits) or limiting the number of trips allowed. However, basic maintenance and operation 

activities are crucial to maintaining safe, effective, and environmentally sound operations. Further, some 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-578 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

operations cannot economically absorb the costs of telemetry. This requirement must be subject to 

operational considerations and economic viability.

Comment ID: 2079

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-5, Paragraph 3 It is important to understand that the farther the distance between 

production wells and compressor stations, the larger the amount of compression will be needed outside the

priority habitat area which will actually create more noise. Also, there are many considerations when siting 

compressor stations, such as the engineering and design constraints inherent to gas gathering systems. With 

regard to directing compressor station noise away from priority habitat, proximity to other receptors, such 

as homes, also needs to be considered. This requirement must be revised to account for technical feasibility, 

as well as landowner preferences when private land is involved.

Comment ID: 2040

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 3 "Bury power lines to the extent technically feasible." Not only is this

requirement not feasible in all cases, it is also excessive and cost prohibitive. We urge BLM to add

flexibility that takes into account technical feasibility and economic considerations.

Comment ID: 2101

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 8th Bullet Point "Control the spread and effects from non-native plant species. (e.g., 

by washing vehicles and equipment)." See previous comment with regard to vehicle wash stations.

Comment ID: 2102

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 9th Bullet Point "Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate

augmenting threats from West Nile virus (Dougherty 2007)." See previous comment with regard to pit and 

impoundment construction.

Comment ID: 2042

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 4 "Cover all fluid-containing pits and open tanks with netting (maximum 

1.5-inch mesh size) regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality." We recommend this requirement 

be eliminated because fine mesh netting is not only extremely difficult to deploy, but it is also difficult to

maintain, especially during winter with heavy snow accumulation. BLM fails to acknowledge that drilling 

pits are temporary and will be closed soon after drilling and completion operations are concluded.

Comment ID: 2044

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-579

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 6 "Control the spread and effects of invasive non-native plant species

(Evangelista et al. 2011), including treating weeds prior to surface disturbance and washing vehicles and 

equipment at designated wash stations when constructing in areas with weed infestations." This requirement 

fails to describe how the wash areas and runoff associated with wash stations will be handled. Can the fluid 

and associated substances be hauled off, injected or disposed of at a facility onsite and are special permits 

required? This RDF attempts to address concerns regarding a perceived problem but fails to fully consider 

the ramifications of such a requirement. Also, BLM must identify the degree to which the general public or 

recreationalist crossing Public Lands on motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation spread 

invasive non-native plants species and how the agency will both control and monitor this form of threat.

Comment ID: 2046

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Last Paragraph "Cluster disturbances, operations (hydraulic fracture stimulation, 

liquids gathering, etc.) and facilities." This requirement will not be possible with multiple leaseholders in 

an area. Due to such things as ownership, royalties, operational differences and safety considerations, this 

is not feasible in many cases. This could be the case with even a single operator. This item should be 

reworded to state "Taking into account ownership, royalty accounting, operational and safety, consideration 

may be given to clustering disturbances, operations (e.g., fracture stimulation and liquids gathering), and 

facilities."

Comment ID: 2048

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, First Paragraph While directional and horizontal drilling are effective in some 

reservoirs, they may not be possible in others. The phrase "where technically feasible and as part of the

downhole design objectives" needs to be added to provide the necessary flexibility to this requirement. 

Moreover, it must also be recognized that pad sizes associated with directional drilling of several wells 

from a single pad will increase to accommodate additional well bores. While surface issues may give rise 

to considering directional or horizontal techniques, the federal land management agencies must recognize 

that these decisions can only be made with careful consideration of many other factors that influence a 

project’s viability. Therefore, it is unreasonable to impose a requirement across the study area that could 

render a well or wells uneconomic or infeasible, particularly in cases where existing leases do not require 

the use of alternative drilling techniques.

Comment ID: 2029

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 9 Careful consideration of what constitutes "duplicate roads" is required. 

An agency may believe a road to be a duplicate when actually it may not be the case for other land users or 

landowners in the vicinity. Also, before restoring roads to “original land form”, the practicality of doing so 

must be considered. This item should be reworded to say, "Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring 

original landform, and establishing desired vegetation only after taking into account the practicality of doing 

so and careful consideration of current and future use of the road by permit holders and landowners in the 

vicinity."

Comment ID: 689

Organization: Samson Resources Company
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-580 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations "Apply a phased development 

approach with concurrent reclamation." Samson strongly encourages the BLM to eliminate RDFs of phased 

development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, B-2. Samson opposes phased development that only allows certain 

portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time and requires the first portion to be plugged, 

abandoned, or reclaimed before an oil and gas operator may proceed to another portion of the leasehold or 

unit. This is an unreasonable restriction that may render development uneconomic and is a clear violation 

of valid existing rights. Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, what has

authority over all of Wyoming, recently affirmed a BLM decision not to require a phased leasing RMP in 

the Buffalo Field Office specifically because such an alternative would delay the production of energy 

resources and was not otherwise practical. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, et al. v. Bureau of Land 

Management, et al ., 608 F.3d 709, 715 (1Oth Cir. 2010). The BLM need not analyze such an unreasonable 

and impractical alternative. Further, allowing oil and gas developers to secure leases in only one portion of 

a geologic basin or area at a time will limit and preclude exploration and development activities. Before an 

oil and gas operator will be willing to commit the millions of dollars necessary to drill even a single 

exploratory oil and gas well, it must secure a large enough lease position to justify the expense. If phased 

leasing was mandated by the BLM, the operator may be unable to secure such lease positions and new 

exploration would come to a halt, along with the economic benefits associated therewith. The term "phased 

development" needs clarification. This means different things to different people. Samson opposes phased 

development which only allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time and 

requires the first portion to be plugged, abandoned or reclaimed before an oil and gas operator may proceed 

to another portion of the leasehold or unit. It is an unreasonable restriction that may render development 

uneconomic. This is a clear violation of existing lease terms, since this type of terminology has not been 

used in federal lease forms before, and valid existing rights.

Comment ID: 2097

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 2nd Bullet Point "Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface 

disturbance." See previous comment with regard to directional and horizontal drilling.

Comment ID: 2095

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Operations Page B-9, 1st Bullet Point "Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, 

liquids gathering, etc.) and facilities." See previous comment with regard to clustering disturbances.

Comment ID: 685

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.1 Roads, No.2, pg. B-3 "Locate roads to avoid 

important areas and habitats." The BLM needs to clarify the definition of "important areas and habitats." 

This requirement also needs to be made subject to the preferences of landowners on split estate lands where

the surface is owned by non-federal landowners. BLM must defer decisions regarding road location with 

those nonfederal surface owners. Exceptions should also be allowed for topographical, archeological and 

other considerations.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-581

Comment ID: 686

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.1, Roads, No.6, pg. B-3 "Establish trip restrictions 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003) or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g.. 

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)." Remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all 

operational considerations, so there is still the need to physically inspect a well or facility. In order to 

conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain inspection and maintenance activities must be 

conducted regularly without restrictions. Remote monitoring itself requires maintenance and remote 

monitoring will not eliminate corrosion, spills, and leaks. Regular visits by qualified personnel are 

necessary for required activities such as production, environmental compliance, and spill reporting, 

Weather has a substantial impact on operations: cold weather causes freezes to liquids and wet gas; wind 

blows out burners used to process gas and oil for sales; fog reduces the effectiveness and reliability of solar

power and batteries used in measurement and automation. Further, the installation and utilization of

telemetry equipment may not always be technologically feasible or economically viable. This requirement 

should be subject to operational considerations, technological feasibility and economic viability.

Comment ID: 687

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2 Operations, No. 10, pg. B-3 “Cluster disturbances, 

operations (e.g., fracture stimulation and liquids gathering), and facilities.” The intent of this measure and 

how it is supposed to be implemented is unclear. For example, how could one “cluster” unrelated operations 

such as those described in the parenthetical example? The BLM needs to define “cluster” and clarify the 

specific intent of this measure in each context before Samson or anyone else can provide meaningful 

comments.

Comment ID: 688

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 11, pg. B-4 and General Habitat, 

No. 2, pg. J-4 “Use direction and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.” The BLM incorrectly 

assumes that all oil and gas resources in the Planning Area can be accessed and developed via directional 

and horizontal drilling techniques. The phrase “where technologically feasible and economically viable” 

should be added to provide necessary flexibility to this requirement.

Comment ID: 2098

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 4th Bullet Point "Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum

number and amount needed." See previous comment with regard to tall facilities and fences.

Comment ID: 692

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-582 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No.2, pg. B-3 "Place new utility 

developments (e.g. power lines and pipelines) and transportation routes in existing utility or transportation 

corridors." Few such corridors exist within the Planning Area and placement within existing ROWs held 

by third parties is not allowed since ROWs are permitted exclusively to the ROW holder. The phrase "where

practicable" should be added to ensure flexibility.

Comment ID: 2094

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 4th Bullet Point "Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring original landform 

and establishing desired vegetation." See previous comment with regard to closing and reclaiming duplicate 

roads.

Comment ID: 2089

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 1st Bullet Point "Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders." See 

previous comment with regard to coordinating road construction.

Comment ID: 2012

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: B.1 INTRODUCTION, Page B-1, Paragraph 2 “Additional COAs developed through 

consultation with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies may be applied when 

supported by site-specific analysis.” The process must be explained by which the applicant would be 

involved in developing or responding to COAs not included as part of a project proposal. Also, BLM must 

be careful to infer, as this statement may, that COAs cannot be developed absent involvement of other

federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies. BLM needs to instead specify that COAs will be 

developed in conjunction with the project proponent.

Comment ID: 2093

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 3rd Bullet Point "Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads." See previous 

comment with regard to dust abatement.

Comment ID: 2091

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 2nd Bullet Point "Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and

stream crossings." See previous comment with regard to constructing road crossings at right angles to 

ephemeral drainages and stream drainages.

Comment ID: 1589

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-583

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features Noise, No. 2, pg. B-5 “Require noise shields when 

drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering seasons.” This requirement is too broad and 

vague. First, the measure does not define the types of noise shields that are required. Further, the shield can 

take any number of shape and form.This requirement needs to be completely reworded to provide more 

clarification and flexibility.

Comment ID: 2018

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 2 Not all users may be able to coordinate activities on roads. Some 

authorization holders may pre-date others and activities may not coincide among users. This requirement 

should be reworded to say “Coordinate road construction and use among right-of-way or special use

authorization holders consistent with rights granted.”

Comment ID: 690

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features 8.2.2, Operations, No. 14, pg. 8-4 "Place liquid gathering 

facilities outside of priority areas. Have no tanks at well locations within priority areas to minimize truck 

traffic and perching and nesting sites for ravens and raptors. Pipelines must be under or immediately 

adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010) .” This requirement is confusing. Placing liquids gathering facilities 

inside priority habitat would reduce truck traffic which would be advantageous in priority habitat. Tanks 

and trucking may be the only economical alternative for low liquids volume wells. Further, if liquids 

gathering or trucking is not allowed inside priority habitat, there is no way to remove liquids production 

from the lease. This requirement conflicts with standard operational practices, is not feasible and needs to 

be removed.

Comment ID: 691

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, Priority Habitat, No. 14, pg. 8-4

"Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed." It is 

unclear what is meant by "tall". Certain facilities, particularly those for compression or natural gas 

treatment, require the use of designs which incorporate vessels or equipment that, by their design, can 

involve height. Furthermore, fences are typically installed for reasons of security, reclamation, and safety. 

Although some flexibility is mentioned such as the "minimum number and amount needed", this 

requirement lacks specificity and the reality of what is needed to construct a facility and what needs to be 

removed. The BLM should specifically describe what types of tall facilities and fences they are referring 

to.

Comment ID: 2088

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-8, 2nd Bullet Point "Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, 

unless for a temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document." See

previous comment with regard to ROW to counties on energy development roads.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-584 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2099

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-9, 5th Bullet Point "Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all 

drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality." See previous

comment with regard to covering drilling and production pits.

Comment ID: 2071

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 2 These requirements need to be subject to the preferences of landowners. 

On split estate lands where the surface is owned by private landowners, BLM must defer decisions with

regard to such things as what remains on the land and the size of ponds to those private landowners. Also, 

with regard to (c), while the intent of steep shorelines may be advantageous for the control of mosquito 

species, it presents a hazard to mammals being able to escape from the impoundment. This is something 

that needs to be considered in administering this measure.

Comment ID: 695

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4 Noise, No.1, pg. B•5 "Limit noise to less than 10 

decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 decibels) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek 

season (Patricelli et al. 2010; Bickley et at. In preparation)." This measure is poorly written and infeasible 

for several reasons. First, it prescribes a starting point from which this restriction would be imposed 

(sunrise), but no end, which makes it unclear as to whether it is intended to apply only during daylight hours 

or 24/7 throughout an active lek season. More importantly, however, 10db is an extremely low threshold 

roughly equivalent to a human voice speaking at an elevated level. Next, the BLM has not identified how 

background ambient noise levels are to be measured or evaluated. Obviously ambient noise levels vary 

from day to day depending on meteorological conditions and even natural activities. Finally, and most 

importantly, the BLM has not adequately justified the scientific basis for the restrictions. This requirement 

should be removed. Studies cited by the BLM, including the Patricelli and Blickley studies did not find 

population declines as a result of noise from oil and gas operations. Rather, they observed a transient period 

of disturbance at leks where playing high levels of noise occurred. Even if they stood for the proposition

cited, there are numerous deficiencies with the indiscriminate use of the studies. These reports and others 

are described in more detail in the API comments and the Report of Dr. Rob Ramey evaluating the NTT 

Report. Absent sufficient scientific basis, the BLM simply cannot and should not impose such an onerous 

restriction on oil and gas operations.

Comment ID: 2059

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 6 "Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop 

a plan to reduce the frequency of vehicle use (Lyon and Anderson 2003)." This requirement is inconsistent 

with the EO and we recommend it be removed. BLM must recognize that remotely monitoring a site may 

not always identify all operational considerations. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas 

operations, certain on-site inspection and maintenance activities must be conducted regularly. We recognize 

that limitations placed on access to well locations during critical seasons may be necessary, such as 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-585

prohibiting construction activities (e.g. well pads, roads, pits) or limiting the number of trips allowed. 

However, basic maintenance and operation activities are crucial to maintaining safe, effective, and 

environmentally sound operations. Further, the economics associated with some leases may not allow 

telemetry to be installed. This requirement must be subject to operational considerations and economic 

viability.

Comment ID: 2056

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 3 The term "phased development" is vague and requires clarification 

because it is subject to a variety of interpretations. We oppose phased development which only allows 

certain portions of a leasehold unit or NEPA analysis area to be developed over time until that portion is

plugged or abandoned before proceeding to another portion of the leasehold, unit or NEPA analysis area. 

This approach would constitute a clear violation of existing lease terms since this type of terminology 

departs from the existing language in the federal lease form. Recognition must also be given to the fact that 

multiple operators may often develop an area under a specific NEPA analysis, thereby necessitating BLM 

to consider impacts to valid existing rights under a phased development scenario. Until this terminology 

and its limits on application are specifically defined, this requirement needs to be removed.

Comment ID: 2064

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 9 It is not reasonable to require closed loop mud systems for all drilling. 

Many drilling rigs are not equipped for closed loop drilling (no reserve pit). Further, some type of pit will 

be needed for drilling cuttings if a closed system were available on a drilling rig. This requirement should

be qualified to allow this as an option, not a requirement.

Comment ID: 2066

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 10 "Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities where

topography permits to reduce vegetation disturbance and for temporary roads between closely spaced wells 

to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment 

following drilling." While this technique has been used in some locations, it can only be used in areas with 

flat terrain otherwise a safety risk exists when the drilling equipment is erected on the site. This should be 

recognized by stating: "Subject to safety considerations, consider using oak (or other material) mats for 

drilling activities to reduce vegetation disturbance".

Comment ID: 2057

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 4 "Place liquid gathering facilities outside priority areas. To reduce truck 

traffic and perching and nesting sites for ravens and raptors, do not place tanks at well locations within

priority habitat areas." This requirement is confusing. Placing liquid gathering facilities inside priority areas 

would reduce truck traffic, which would be more advantageous in priority areas. Further, if liquid gathering 

or trucking is not allowed inside priority areas, there is no way to remove liquid production from the lease. 

This requirement conflicts with standard operational practices and is not feasible and needs to be removed.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-586 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 698

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 16, pg. B-4 "Use remote 

monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce vehicular traffic frequency of 

vehicle use.” Remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all operational considerations, so there is 

still the need to physically inspect a well or facility. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas

operations, certain inspection and maintenance activities must be conducted regularly. We recognize that 

limitations on some disruptive activities and access to well locations during critical seasons may be 

necessary, such as prohibiting construction activities (e.g. well pads, roads, pits). Basic maintenance and 

operational activities are necessary to maintain safe, effective, and environmentally sound operations. 

Further, the installation and utilization of telemetry equipment may not always be technologically feasible 

or economically viable. This requirement should be subject to operational considerations, technological 

feasibility, and economic viability.

Comment ID: 2050

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 2 "Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has 

not been fully restored." There are several issues with this requirement. First, private landowners may not 

want additional infrastructure placed in already disturbed locations. Second, if reclamation is underway and 

restoration objectives are strict and must be met to allow continued development, this requirement will not 

work. This needs to be re-worded to state, "Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the 

habitat has not been fully restored with consideration to landowner preferences and the overall reclamation 

objectives for the area where this requirement will be used."

Comment ID: 696

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4, Operations, No.2, pg. B-5 "Require noise shields 

when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering seasons " This requirement is too broad 

and vague. First, the measure does not define the types of noise shields that are required. Further, the shield 

can take any number of shape and form. It is also important to realize that noise shields cannot be used at a 

site without being engineered for safety factors such as wind load. Shields are not merely installed near a 

noise source. They must be carefully anchored, potentially with a foundation, to meet wind load 

requirements depending upon the material used to build a "shield." Additionally, expanded well pads may 

be needed to accommodate the configuration of a "shield", which increases surface disturbance. It is also 

important to consider the attenuation of noise from a site to receptors such as leks, nesting, and brood 

rearing. Moreover, simply stating that noise shields are required during "wintering seasons" may not be 

necessary if the drilling is occurring where the noise attenuation would not be a problem. This requirement 

needs to be completely reworded to provide more clarification and flexibility.

Comment ID: 699

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-587

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.S, Reclamation, No.3, pg. 8-5 "Restore disturbed 

areas at final reclamation to the pre-disturbance landforms and desired plant community." If the disturbance 

is on non-federal surface land, this requirement needs to be subject to the preferences of landowners.

Comment ID: 2062

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 8 "Design or site permanent structures to minimize impacts to sage-grouse, 

with emphasis on locating and operating facilities that create movement (e.g., pump jacks) or attract

frequent human use and vehicular traffic (e.g., fluid storage tanks) in a manner that will minimize

disturbance of sage-grouse or interference with habitat use." This requirement is unreasonable and lacks 

scientific justification. BLM has failed to identify any studies on GRSG which correlate movement and 

distances relative to GRSG response. Considering the existing NSO from leks, pump jacks at a distance of 

at least 0.6 mile, as under Wyoming core area management, will not create an issue. We recommend this 

requirement be removed.

Comment ID: 697

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4, Noise, No.3, pg. B-5 "Locate new compressor 

stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be directed towards priority 

habitat.” This requirement is overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive. There are many items to consider

when siting compressor stations, such as the engineering and design constraints inherent to gas gathering 

systems. Further, some wells may require well site compression due to gas lift because of the directional 

requirements, or simply due to surface terrain. With regard to directing compressor station noise away from 

priority habitat, proximity to other receptors, such as homes, also needs to be considered. This item needs 

to be subject to technological feasibility, as well as landowner preferences when private land is involved.

Comment ID: 2060

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-4, Paragraph 7 "Restrict the construction of tall facilities, distribution powerlines, and 

fences to the minimum number and amount needed." It is unclear what is meant by "tall". Although some

flexibility is mentioned such as the "minimum number and amount needed", this requirement is inviting 

possible conflicts due to the lack of specificity and the reality of what is needed to construct a facility. We 

strongly recommend this requirement be eliminated.

Comment ID: 2671

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-9, bullet 7: Remote monitoring is not always possible; suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2299

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-588 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.1, Roads, No. 6, pg. B-3 Remotely monitoring a site 

may not always identify all operational considerations, so there is still the need to physically inspect a well

or facility. This requirement should be subject to operational considerations, technological feasibility and 

economic viability.

Comment ID: 2300

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 10, pg. B-3 The intent of this 

measure and how it is supposed to be implemented is unclear. For example, how could one “cluster”

unrelated operations such as those described in the parenthetical example? The BLM needs to define

“cluster” and clarify the specific intent of this measure in each context before Encana or anyone else can 

provide meaningful comments.

Comment ID: 2302

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 11, pg. B-4 and General Habitat, 

No. 2, pg. J-4 The BLM incorrectly assumes that all oil and gas resources in the Planning Area can be

accessed and developed via directional and horizontal drilling techniques. The phrase “where

technologically feasible and economically viable” should be added to provide necessary flexibility to this 

requirement.

Comment ID: 2303

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations Encana strongly encourages the BLM 

to eliminate RDFs for phased development. Sage- Grouse DLUPA, B-2. Encana opposes phased

development that only allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time and requires 

the first portion to be plugged, abandoned, or reclaimed before an oil and gas operator may proceed to 

another portion of the leasehold or unit. This is an unreasonable restriction that may render development 

uneconomic and is a clear violation of valid existing rights. The term “phased development” needs 

clarification. This means different things to different people. Encana opposes phased development which 

only allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to be developed over time and requires the first portion 

to be plugged, abandoned or reclaimed before an oil and gas operator may proceed to another portion of 

the leasehold or unit. It is an unreasonable restriction that may render development uneconomic. This is a 

clear violation of existing lease terms, since this type of terminology has not been used in federal lease 

forms before, and valid existing rights.

Comment ID: 2306

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, Priority Habitat, No. 14, pg. B-4 It is 

unclear what is meant by “tall”. Certain facilities, particularly those for compression or natural gas 

treatment, require the use of designs which incorporate vessels or equipment that, by their design, can 

involve height. Furthermore, fences are typically installed for reasons of security, reclamation, and safety.

Although some flexibility is mentioned such as the “minimum number and amount needed”, this
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-589

requirement lacks specificity and the reality of what is needed to construct a facility and what needs to be 

removed. The BLM should specifically describe what types of tall facilities and fences they are referring 

to.

Comment ID: 2310

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4 Noise, No. 1, pg. B-5 This measure is poorly 

written and infeasible for several reasons. First, it prescribes a starting point from which this restriction 

would be imposed (sunrise), but no end, which makes it unclear as to whether it is intended to apply only

during daylight hours or 24/7 throughout an active lek season. More importantly, however, 10db is an 

extremely low threshold roughly equivalent to a human voice speaking at an elevated level. Next, the BLM 

has not identified how background ambient noise levels are to be measured or evaluated. Obviously ambient 

noise levels vary from day to day depending on meteorological conditions and even natural activities. 

Finally, and most importantly, the BLM has not adequately justified the scientific basis for the restrictions. 

This requirement should be removed.

Comment ID: 2309

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 18, pg. B-4 This requirement is

unreasonable and lacks scientific justification. We are unaware of any studies on GRSG which correlate 

movement and distances relative to GRSG response. We recommend this requirement be removed.

Comment ID: 2670

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-9, bullet 6: Further explanation on the types/methods for deterrence is warranted.

Comment ID: 2307

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 2, pg. B-3 Few such corridors 

exist within the Planning Area and placement within existing ROWs held by third parties is not allowed

since ROWs are permitted exclusively to the ROW holder. The phrase “where practicable” should be added 

to ensure flexibility.

Comment ID: 2308

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 3, pg. B-3 This requirement is 

excessive and cost-prohibitive and does not include any information related to proper power distribution

design. We applaud BLM for allowing flexibility that takes into account technological feasibility, but

encourage the BLM to also consider safety, and economic considerations.

Comment ID: 2304
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-590 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 14, pg. B-4 This requirement is

confusing. Placing liquids gathering facilities inside priority habitat would reduce truck traffic which would 

be advantageous in priority habitat. Tanks and trucking may be the only economical alternative for low 

liquids volume wells. Further, if liquids gathering or trucking is not allowed inside priority habitat, there is 

no way to remove liquids production from the lease. This requirement conflicts with standard operational 

practices, is not feasible and needs to be removed.

Comment ID: 2668

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-9, bullet 5: Covering pits is impractical for larger pits and it is unnecessary at active

developments.

Comment ID: 2667

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-9, Operations bullets 1 &2: Clustering and the use of directional and horizontal drilling 

may not always be possible. Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2311

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4, Operations, No. 2, pg. B-5 This requirement is 

too broad and vague. First, the measure does not define the types of noise shields that are required. Further,

the shield can take any number of shape and form. Moreover, simply stating that noise shields are required 

during "wintering seasons" may not be necessary if the drilling is occurring where the noise attenuation 

would not be a problem. This requirement needs to be completely reworded to provide more clarification 

and flexibility.

Comment ID: 2665

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-5, paragraph 4: QEP asks that the RDFs beginning with "locate new compressor stations" 

be stricken.

Comment ID: 2315

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.2, Operations, No. 16, pg. B-4 Remotely monitoring 

a site may not always identify all operational considerations, so there is still the need to physically inspect 

a well or facility. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain inspection and

maintenance activities must be conducted regularly. We recognize that limitations on some disruptive 

activities and access to well locations during critical seasons may be necessary, such as prohibiting 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-591

construction activities (e.g. well pads, roads, pits). Basic maintenance and operational activities are 

necessary to maintain safe, effective, and environmentally sound operations. Further, the installation and 

utilization of telemetry equipment may not always be technologically feasible or economically viable. This 

requirement should be subject to operational considerations, technological feasibility, and economic 

viability.

Comment ID: 2664

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-5, paragraph 3: Further definition of "noise shields" is needed as are the locations where

shields may be required.

Comment ID: 2140

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Based on the BLM’s own policies and binding legal precedent, the BLM should ensure that the 

agency does not utilize the land use planning process to impose site-specific COAs or unreasonably limit

future management actions when revising the Sage- Grouse DLUPA. The BLM attempts to make too many 

specific decisions in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA that may unreasonably restrict its management opportunities 

in the future. With this background in mind, Encana is very concerned the BLM’s development of Required 

Design Features (“RDF”) will be imposed on all future projects under most of the action alternatives. 

Imposing site-specific COAs in a land use plan is fundamentally in contrast to federal court precedent and 

BLM policies. Encana encourages BLM to provide sufficient flexibility not to require all of the RDFs, as 

discussed in more detail later. Many of the RDFs are not appropriate in every circumstance. The BLM 

should reconsider identifying RDFs in a land use plan.

Comment ID: 2662

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-4, paragraphs 5, 6, and 9: Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2661

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-4, paragraph 4: Liquid gathering facilities will need to be among well locations 

regardless of where wells are located (i.e., within or outside priority areas). Tanks to handle upset conditions 

will be required at most well locations even with liquids gathering. Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2659

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-4, paragraph 3: Phased development requires further definition and may not be feasible 

in areas with multiple Operators. Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2658

Organization: QEP Energy Company
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-592 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-4, paragraph 2: Placing infrastructure at previously disturbed locations may not be 

feasible. Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2657

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-3, last paragraph: Clustering may not be feasible in many areas (e.g., liquids gathering).

Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2656

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-3, paragraph 14: The requirement to equip all above-ground tanks and facilities with

structures or devices to discourage nesting and perching by raptors and corvids is untenable. QEP suggests 

as an alternative that monitoring for raptor/corvid perching/nesting be implemented by operators and that 

anti-perching/nesting structures/devices be installed only at locations where problematic nesting/perching 

is found.

Comment ID: 2655

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-3, paragraph 13: This requirement to net all fluid-containing pits and open tanks is

unnecessary at locations with high levels of human activity. QEP asks that it be removed.

Comment ID: 2666

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-8, paragraph 10: Making all applicable BMPs mandatory as COAs is problematic due 

to considerations like prior rights and it notably restricts development outside "core", which is inconsistent 

with the intent of the EO.

Comment ID: 3169

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.6 B‐ 9 Operations Bullet 5 Covering pits is impractical for larger pits (add text on alternative

means), and it is unnecessary at active developments (add text identifying need only at sites with low levels 

of human presence).

Comment ID: 3154

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-593

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 3 Paragraph 13 on the page This requirement to net all fluid containing pits and open 

tanks is unnecessary at locations with high levels of human activity. Additionally, consideration of

alternatives to netting is appropriate for larger pits.

Comment ID: 3155

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 3 Paragraph 14 on the page The requirement to equip all aboveground tanks and 

facilities with structures or devices to discourage nesting and perching by raptors and corvids is untenable. 

It is suggested as an alternative that monitoring for raptor/corvid perching/nesting be implemented by

Operators, and that anti‐ perching/nesting structures/devices be installed only at locations where

problematic nesting/perching is found.

Comment ID: 3156

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 3 Last paragraph on page Clustering may not be feasible in many areas (e.g., liquids

gathering). Suggest adding “where feasible”.

Comment ID: 3157

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 4 Paragraph 2 Placing infrastructure at previously disturbed locations may not be 

feasible. Suggest adding "where feasible."

Comment ID: 3158

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 4 Paragraph 3 Phased development requires further definition and may not be feasible 

in areas with multiple Operators. Suggest adding "where feasible."

Comment ID: 3159

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 4 Paragraph 4 Liquid gathering facilities will need to be among well locations 

regardless of where wells are located (i.e., within or outside priority areas). Tanks to handle upset conditions 

will be required at most well locations even with liquids gathering. Suggest adding "where feasible."

Comment ID: 3160

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.2 B‐ 4 Paragraphs 5, 6 & 9 Suggest adding "where feasible."

Comment ID: 3161

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-594 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.4 B‐ 5 Noise Ambient measures noted at 20‐ 24 dBA the Governors Sage Grouse 

Implementation Team is making this determination. This is premature.

Comment ID: 3164

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.4 B‐ 5 Noise, 2nd Sentence This should only be considered if drilling is being conducted 

within the sage‐ grouse buffers associated with the timing stipulations.

Comment ID: 3166

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.4 B‐ 5 Paragraph 4 New compressors may be required in priority habitats; please delete this 

item.

Comment ID: 3168

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.6 B‐ 9 Operations Bullets 1 & 2 Clustering and the use of directional and horizontal drilling 

may not always be possible. Suggest adding "where feasible".

Comment ID: 2313

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.4, Noise, No. 3, pg. B-5 This requirement is overly 

broad and unnecessarily restrictive. This item needs to be subject to technological feasibility, as well as

landowner preferences when private land is involved.

Comment ID: 3170

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.6 B‐ 9 Operations Bullet 6 Further definition on the types/methods for deterrence is 

warranted.

Comment ID: 2316

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Appendix B, Required Design Features B.2.5, Reclamation, No. 3, pg. B-5 If the disturbance is 

on nonfederal surface land, this requirement needs to be subject to the preferences of landowners.

Comment ID: 2654

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-595

Comment: Page B-1, paragraph 2, lines 2-6: QEP asks that this material be removed because prior rights 

are not considered.

Comment ID: 2741

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg B-8 Text: Establish speed limits to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be 

driven at slower speeds. Comment: Roads are designed to specific standards at certain speeds. BLM need 

not require additional speed limits or travel obligations. This provision should be deleted.

Comment ID: 2742

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Page B-9 Text: Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring original landform and establishing

desired vegetation. Comment: Travel management decisions are not to be made as part of the SG9

amendment. This provision should be deleted.

Comment ID: 2672

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-IO, paragraph 5: Off-site mitigation must be recognized as voluntary on the part of the 

project proponent.

Comment ID: 3172

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.7 B‐ 10 Paragraph 4 Establishment of WAFWA Management Zone‐ specific Mitigation

Implementation Teams could begin immediately to provide greater assurance to the USFWS regarding 

regulatory mechanisms. Teams must be established well in advance of the USFWS decision.

Comment ID: 3173

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.7 B‐ 10 Paragraph 5 USQ supports the use of carefully designed off‐ site mitigation efforts;

however, off‐ site mitigation must be recognized as voluntary on the part of the project proponent.

Comment ID: 3167

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.6 B‐ 8 Paragraph 10 Making all applicable BMPs mandatory as COAs is problematic 

because this approach restricts existing rights, notably restricts development outside "core," and conflicts 

with current national energy policy.

Comment ID: 3171

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-596 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: B.2.6 B‐ 9 Operations Bullet 7 Remote monitoring is not always possible; suggest adding 

"where feasible".

Summary: LUPs are not the appropriate place to make site-specific decisions. Nonetheless, in the SageGrouse Draft LUP Amendments, the BLM proposes several site-specific COAs contained in Appendix B 

that will be applied to all site-specific projects. The BLM should recognize the contradiction in its decision

making and remove any attempts to make site-specific decisions in the Sage-Grouse Draft LUP

Amendments. The following revisions should be made to Appendix B: Page B-1, Paragraph 2, lines 2-6: 

QEP asks that this material be removed because prior rights are not considered. Page B-1, Paragraph 2, last 

sentence: The process must be explained by which the applicant would be involved in developing or 

responding to COAs not included as part of a project proposal. Also, BLM must be careful to infer, as this 

statement may, that COAs cannot be developed absent involvement of other federal, state, and local 

regulatory and resource agencies. BLM needs to instead specify that COAs will be developed in conjunction 

with the project proponent. Page B-3, Paragraph 1: The BLM needs to clarify the definition of "important 

areas and habitats." This requirement also needs to be made subject to the preferences of landowners on 

split estate lands where the surface is owned by non-federal landowners. Exceptions should also be allowed 

for topographical, archeological and other considerations. Page B-3, Paragraph 2: Not all users may be able 

to coordinate activities on roads. Some authorization holders may pre-date others and activities may not 

coincide among users. This requirement should be reworded to say “Coordinate road construction and use 

among right-of-way or special use authorization holders consistent with rights granted.” Page B-3, 

Paragraph 5: This requirement is inconsistent with the EO and should be removed. Remotely monitoring a 

site may not always identify all operational considerations, so there is still the need to physically inspect a 

well or facility. In order to conduct safe and effective oil and gas operations, certain inspection and 

maintenance activities must be conducted regularly without restrictions. Remote monitoring itself requires 

maintenance and remote monitoring will not eliminate corrosion, spills, and leaks. Regular visits by 

qualified personnel are necessary for required activities such as production, environmental compliance, and 

spill reporting. This requirement should be subject to operational considerations, technological feasibility, 

and economic viability. Page B-3, Paragraph 6: The special use authorizations are typically written to the 

user of the roads which would be the energy companies. The county may take authority for the road later, 

but not typically at issuance. Requiring that the all other terms and conditions be included is too broad. This

measure should read “Ensure rights-of-way or special use authorizations on newly constructed energy 

development roads are issued using only appropriate terms and conditions included in this document.” Page 

B-3, Paragraph 8: This needs to be rewritten to specify what types of dust abatement may be considered as 

effective (i.e. chemical applicants or water). Page B-3, Paragraph 9: Careful consideration of what 

constitutes "duplicate roads" is required. An agency may believe a road to be a duplicate when actually it 

may not be the case for other land users or landowners in the vicinity. Also, before restoring roads to 

“original land form,” the practicality of doing so must be considered. This item should be reworded to say, 

"Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring original landform, and establishing desired vegetation only 

after taking into account the practicality of doing so and careful consideration of current and future use of 

the road by permit holders and landowners in the vicinity." Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 2: Locating power 

lines and pipelines under existing roads may not be possible due to numerous ROW holders and various 

owners. Few such corridors exist within the planning area and placement within existing ROWs held by 

third parties is not allowed since ROWs are permitted exclusively to the ROW holder. The phrase "where 

practicable" should be added to ensure flexibility. Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 2: It may be acceptable for 

pipelines to be placed under or immediately adjacent to the road, provided enough room exists 

topographically to make it feasible. If a pipeline adjacent to a road results in significant cut and fill, it may 

be more appropriate to consider a different approach. This requirement needs to be reworded to say "Place 

new utility developments (e.g., power lines and pipelines) and transportation routes in existing utility or 

transportation corridors taking into account any surface use constraints such as steep terrain or soil 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-597

conditions which would make this approach inappropriate." Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 3: This requirement 

is excessive and cost-prohibitive and does not include any information related to proper power distribution 

design. Buried distribution lines are not always feasible or practical. Power companies must comply with 

power factors and buried power often cannot be used due to losses when large load lines are buried. Terrain 

must be a consideration where issues such as endangered plants, streams, hard rock, and other factors impact 

the ability to install buried distribution lines. We applaud BLM for allowing flexibility that takes into 

account technological feasibility, but encourage the BLM to also consider safety and economic 

considerations. Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 4: We recommend this requirement be eliminated because fine 

mesh netting is not only extremely difficult to deploy, but it is also difficult to maintain, especially during

winter with heavy snow accumulation. BLM fails to acknowledge that drilling pits are temporary and will 

be closed soon after drilling and completion operations are concluded. This requirement is unnecessary at 

locations with high levels of human activity. Additionally, consider alternatives to netting for larger pits. 

Delete this RDF. Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 5: The requirement to equip all aboveground tanks and 

facilities with structures or devices to discourage nesting and perching by raptors and corvids is untenable. 

It is suggested as an alternative that monitoring for raptor/corvid perching/nesting be implemented by

operators, and that anti‐ perching/nesting structures/devices be installed only at locations where

problematic nesting/perching is found. Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 6: This requirement fails to describe 

how the wash areas and runoff associated with wash stations will be handled. Can the fluid and associated 

substances be hauled off, injected, or disposed of at a facility onsite and are special permits required? This 

RDF attempts to address concerns regarding a perceived problem but fails to fully consider the ramifications 

of such a requirement. Also, BLM must identify the degree to which the general public or recreationalist

crossing Public Lands on motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation spread invasive nonnative

plants species and how the agency will both control and monitor this form of threat. Page B-3, B.2.2, 

Paragraph 10: Clustering may not be feasible in many areas (e.g., liquids gathering). Suggest adding "where 

feasible.” Page B-3, B.2.2, Paragraph 10: The intent of this measure and how it is supposed to be 

implemented is unclear. For example, how could one "cluster" unrelated operations such as those described 

in the parenthetical example? The BLM needs to define "cluster" and clarify the specific intent of this

measure in each context. Page B-4, Paragraph 1: Not all oil and gas resources can be accessed and developed 

via directional and horizontal drilling techniques. The phrase “where technologically feasible and 

economically viable” should be added. Page B-4, Paragraph 2: Placing infrastructure at previously disturbed 

locations may not be feasible. Suggest adding "where feasible.” Page B-4, Paragraph 3: Phased 

development requires further definition and may not be feasible in areas with multiple operators. Suggest 

adding "where feasible.” Page B-4, Paragraph 3: Eliminate RDFs for phased development. The term phased 

development needs clarification. Phased development only allows certain portions of a leasehold or unit to 

be developed over time and requires the first portion to be plugged, abandoned, or reclaimed before an oil 

and gas operator may proceed to another portion of the leasehold or unit. This is an unreasonable restriction 

that may render development uneconomic and is a clear violation of valid existing rights. Further, allowing 

oil and gas developers to secure leases in only one portion of a geologic basin or area at a time will limit 

and preclude exploration and development activities. Before an oil and gas operator will be willing to 

commit the millions of dollars necessary to drill even a single exploratory oil and gas well, it must secure 

a large enough lease position to justify the expense. Page B-4, Paragraph 4: Liquid gathering facilities will 

need to be among well locations regardless of where wells are located (i.e., within or outside priority areas). 

Tanks to handle upset conditions will be required at most well locations even with liquids gathering. 

Suggest adding "where feasible.” Page B-4, Paragraph 4: This requirement is confusing. Placing liquid 

gathering facilities inside priority areas would reduce truck traffic, which would be more advantageous in 

priority areas. Further, if liquid gathering or trucking is not allowed inside priority areas, there is no way to 

remove liquid production from the lease. This requirement conflicts with standard operational practices and 

is not feasible and needs to be removed. Page B-4, paragraphs 5, 6, and 9: Suggest adding "where feasible."

Page B-4, Paragraph 6: This requirement is inconsistent with the EO and we recommend it be removed. 

Remotely monitoring a site may not always identify all operational considerations. In order to conduct safe 

and effective oil and gas operations, certain on-site inspection and maintenance activities must be conducted 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-598 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

regularly. Further, the economics associated with some leases may not allow telemetry to be installed. This

requirement must be subject to operational considerations and economic viability. Page B-4, Paragraph 7: 

It is unclear what is meant by “tall.” Certain facilities, particularly those for compression or natural gas 

treatment, require the use of designs which incorporate vessels or equipment that, by their design, can 

involve height. Furthermore, fences are typically installed for reasons of security, reclamation, and safety. 

Although some flexibility is mentioned such as the "minimum number and amount needed,” this 

requirement lacks specificity and the reality of what is needed to construct a facility and what needs to be 

removed. The BLM should specifically describe what types of tall facilities and fences they are referring 

to. Page B-4, Paragraph 8: This requirement is unreasonable and lacks scientific justification. BLM has

failed to identify any studies on Greater Sage-Grouse which correlate movement and distances relative to 

Greater Sage-Grouse response. Considering the existing NSO from leks, pump jacks at a distance of at least 

0.6 mile, as under Wyoming core area management, will not create an issue. We recommend this 

requirement be removed. Page B-4, Paragraph 9: It is not reasonable to require closed loop mud systems 

for all drilling. Many drilling rigs are not equipped for closed loop drilling (no reserve pit). Further, some 

type of pit will be needed for drilling cuttings if a closed system were available on a drilling rig. This 

requirement should be qualified to allow this as an option, not a requirement. Page B-4, Paragraph 10: This 

technique can only be used in areas with flat terrain, otherwise a safety risk exists when the drilling 

equipment is erected on the site. This should be recognized by stating: "Subject to safety considerations, 

consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to reduce vegetation disturbance.” Page 

B-4, B.2.3, Paragraph 2: On split estate lands where the surface is owned by private landowners, BLM must 

defer decisions with regard to such things as what remains on the land and the size of ponds to those private 

landowners. Also, with regard to (c), while the intent of steep shorelines may be advantageous for the 

control of mosquito species, it presents a hazard to mammals being able to escape from the impoundment. 

This is something that needs to be considered in administering this measure. Page B-5, B.2.4, Paragraph 1: 

For ambient noise measures noted at 20‐ 24 dBA, the Governors SageGrouse Implementation Team is 

making this determination. This is premature. Page B-5, B.2.4, Paragraph 1: This measure is poorly written 

and infeasible for several reasons. First, it prescribes a starting point from which this restriction would be 

imposed (sunrise), but no end, which makes it unclear as to whether it is intended to apply only during 

daylight hours or 24/7 throughout an active lek season. More importantly, however, 10db is an extremely 

low threshold roughly equivalent to a human voice speaking at an elevated level. Next, the BLM has not 

identified how background ambient noise levels are to be measured or evaluated. Obviously ambient noise

levels vary from day to day depending on meteorological conditions and even natural activities. Finally, 

and most importantly, the BLM has not adequately justified the scientific basis for the restrictions. This 

requirement should be removed. Page B-5, B.2.4, Paragraph 2: This item is too broad and vague. First, what 

types of noise shields are being referenced? These can take any number of shapes and forms. Additionally, 

larger well pads may be needed to accommodate the configuration of a "shield.” Attenuation of noise from 

a site to receptors such as leks, nesting, and brood rearing must also be considered. Further, simply stating

that noise shields are required may not be necessary if the drilling is occurring where the noise attenuation 

is not an issue. This requirement needs to be completely reworded to provide more direction and flexibility.

Page B-5, B.2.4, Paragraph 2: This should only be considered if drilling is being conducted within the

sage‐ grouse buffers associated with the timing stipulations. Page B-5, B.2.4, Paragraph 3: New 

compressors may be required in priority habitats; delete this item. Page B-5, B.2.4, Paragraph 3: This 

requirement is overly broad and unnecessarily restrictive. There are many items to consider when siting 

compressor stations, such as the engineering and design constraints inherent to gas gathering systems. 

Further, some wells may require well site compression due to gas lift because of the directional 

requirements, or simply due to surface terrain. With regard to directing compressor station noise away from 

priority habitat, proximity to other receptors, such as homes, also needs to be considered. This item needs 

to be subject to technological feasibility, as well as landowner preferences when private land is involved.

Page B-5, B.2.5, Paragraph 1: Enhanced reclamation is vague and means different things to different people. 

This RDF should be eliminated. Page B-5, B.2.5, Paragraph 2: If private landowners are involved, they may 

not support this requirement if they have alternate use of the areas under consideration for reclamation. A 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-599

reference to landowner preferences should be included in this requirement. Page B-5, B.2.5, Paragraph 3: 

If the disturbance is on non-federal surface land, this requirement needs to be subject to the preferences of 

landowners. Page B-5, B.2.5, Paragraph 4: Reword this requirement to reflect that irrigation needs to be 

done in a way that will prevent vegetation from being unable to withstand drought conditions after the

irrigation has been removed. Additionally, BLM should consider several potential issues this RDF could 

present. For example, irrigation could require a pump and a fresh water supply. The pump would require a 

fuel source and may require an air quality permit. The fresh water supply would likely need to be trucked 

in. The BLM should address these issues in the development of this RDF. Page B-5, B.2.5, Paragraph 5: 

"Mulching techniques" is vague and does not describe duration, frequency, equipment, or materials. There 

is no supporting scientific data that recommend “mulching techniques.” This RDF should be eliminated.

Page B-6, Paragraph 3: Operators often require vehicles to be cleaned regularly and whenever mud develops 

on the vehicles, although washing vehicles can only be done in developed areas such as towns and shops. 

Clean vehicles leaving such areas are still likely to travel across roads impacted by non-native plant seeds, 

and often the maintenance of such roads is outside operator’s jurisdiction. Pg. B-8: Establish speed limits 

to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower speeds. Comment: Roads are 

designed to specific standards at certain speeds. BLM need not require additional speed limits or travel 

obligations. This provision should be deleted. Page B-8, General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, BMPs: 

Making all applicable BMPs mandatory as COAs is problematic due to considerations like prior rights and 

it notably restricts development outside "core,” which is inconsistent with the intent of the EO and it restricts 

existing rights, notably development outside "core," and conflicts with current national energy policy. Page 

B-8, General Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, Roads, 2nd Bullet: See previous comment with regard to ROW 

to counties on energy development roads. Page B-9: "Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring 

original landform and establishing desired vegetation." Travel management decisions are not to be made as 

part of these amendments. This provision should be deleted. Page B-9, 1st Bullet: See previous comment 

with regard to coordinating road construction. Page B-9, 2nd Bullet: See previous comment with regard to 

constructing road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream drainages. Page B-9, 3rd 

Bullet: See previous comment with regard to dust abatement. Page B-9, 4th Bullet: See previous comment 

with regard to closing and reclaiming duplicate roads. Page B-9, Operations, 1st Bullet: See previous 

comment with regard to clustering disturbances. Add "where feasible.” Page B-9, Operations, 2nd Bullet: 

See previous comment with regard to directional and horizontal drilling. Add "where feasible.” Page B-9, 

Operations, 4th Bullet: See previous comment with regard to tall facilities and fences. Page B-9, Operations, 

5th Bullet: See previous comment with regard to covering drilling and production pits. Covering pits is 

impractical for larger pits (add text on alternative means), and it is unnecessary at active developments (add 

text identifying need only at sites with low levels of human presence). Page B-9, Operations, 6th Bullet: 

Further explanation on the types/methods for deterrence is warranted. Page B-9, Operations, 7th Bullet: See 

previous comment with regard to remote monitoring. Add "where feasible.” Page B-9, Operations, 8th 

Bullet: See previous comment with regard to vehicle wash stations. Page B-9, Operations, 9th Bullet: See 

previous comment with regard to pit and impoundment construction. Page B‐ 10, Paragraph 4: Specific 

Mitigation Implementation Teams could begin immediately to provide greater assurance to the USFWS 

regarding regulatory mechanisms. Teams must be established well in advance of the USFWS decision.

Page B-10, Paragraph 5: Off-site mitigation must be recognized as voluntary on the part of the project 

proponent.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service complied with NEPA by including a discussion of measures 

that may mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendment/Draft 

EIS. See 40 CFR 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h). The BLM and the Forest Service must include mitigation 

measures in an EIS pursuant to NEPA; yet the BLM and the Forest Service have full discretion in selecting 

which mitigation measures are most appropriate, including which forms of mitigation are inappropriate.

Additionally, site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions will be addressed when 

project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, 

as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-600 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

site-specific actions. RDFs included in the Draft EIS are based on best management practices included in 

the NTT report and are based on the best available science at the time of publication. RDFs are BMPs; 

BLM describes BMPs as “state-of-the-art mitigation measures”. The aim of BMPs is to protect wildlife, air 

quality, landscapes, and other natural resources. BLM’s policy is that all “Field Offices consider BMPs in 

NEPA documents to mitigate anticipated impacts to surface and subsurface resources. BMPs are not "one 

size fits all." The actual practices and mitigation measures best for a particular site are evaluated through 

the NEPA process and vary to accommodate unique, sitespecific conditions and local resource conditions. 

There are no site specific decisions being made in the LUP Amendments. COAs are an implementation 

action. As specific actions come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct 

subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions and, at that 

stage, may determine that particular RDFs or BMPs are not applicable or otherwise inappropriate for a 

particular authorization (see Appendix B). Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental 

descriptions will be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR

1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to 

participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. "Consistent with Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-110 Change 1, Fluid Mineral Leasing and Related Planning and 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Processes and Best Management Practices, more extensive/

expansive/ restrictive mitigation, including adaptive management, could be developed during the sitespecific NEPA analysis that would be required to address any specific exploration or development actions 

that are proposed. In this document, valid existing rights refers to rights that were held before the LUPs are 

modified. These rights are not modified by the LUP modifications. They include rights under the mining 

laws as well as things such as leases (oil and gas, geothermal, etc.).

Leasable Minerals

Appendices

Appendix C revisions

Comment ID: 680

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Appendix C; Page C-19 under Mulch noting the use of “Gravel or other inorganic material...”

Recommendation: Gravel at a depth of two inches would be prohibitive to seedling growth and

establishment and would not promote reclamation. Anadarko suggests eliminating this option.

Comment ID: 2108

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: C.2.8 Reporting, Page C-9 It is unclear if the BLM or the project proponent will be required to

complete this for project disturbances. We would like to point out that not all proponents have GIS

capabilities adding issue to this already overly burdensome requirement. As such, it should be removed.

Comment ID: 681

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Comment Page C-19 under Mulch last paragraph noting “Any mulch used must be certified free 

from mold, fungi, or noxious or invasive weed seeds.” Recommendation: Anadarko suggests this read "Any 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-601

mulch used must be certified weed free". There is no mechanism/authority set up to certify mulch from 

mold and/or fungi.

Comment ID: 3178

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: C.2.5 C‐ 5 Paragraph 3 Please clarify the purpose and need as well as the parties involved in 

these potential Cooperative Agreements.

Comment ID: 3175

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: C.1 C‐ 1 Paragraph 3, lines 4‐ 7 It is unclear due to the use of the word "should" whether post‐

approval Adaptive Management changes will only be required with proponent agreement. Please clarify.

Comment ID: 2680

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 1: It is not the proponent's responsibility to create ESDs with State and

Transition Models.

Comment ID: 3180

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 1 It is not the proponent’s responsibility to create ESDs with State and 

Transition Models.

Summary: The following revisions should be made to Appendix C: Page C‐ 1, C.1, Paragraph 3, lines 4‐

7: It is unclear due to the use of the word "should" whether post‐ approval Adaptive Management changes 

will only be required with proponent agreement. Please clarify. Page C‐ 5, C.2.5, Paragraph 3: Please 

clarify the purpose and need as well as the parties involved in these potential Cooperative Agreements.

Page C‐ 6, C.2.6, Paragraph 1: It is not the proponent’s responsibility to create ESDs with State and

Transition Models. Page C-9, C.2.8 Reporting: It is unclear if the BLM or the project proponent will be 

required to complete this for project disturbances. We would like to point out that not all proponents have 

GIS capabilities adding issue to this already overly burdensome requirement. As such, it should be removed.

Page C-19 under Mulch: Note the use of “Gravel or other inorganic material...” Gravel at a depth of two 

inches would be prohibitive to seedling growth and establishment and would not promote reclamation. 

Eliminate this option. Page C-19 under Mulch: Change to read "Any mulch used must be certified weed 

free". There is no mechanism/authority set up to certify mulch from mold and/or fungi.

Response: Specified reclamation standards have been developed by subject matter experts, utilizing the 

best available scientific research and experience, to provide standards which will apply within designated

core habitat areas. The reclamation processes included in Appendix C are specific to reclamation activities 

in sage-grouse core habitat areas designated within the project area.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-602 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Leasable Minerals

Appendices

Appendix D revisions

Comment ID: 3191

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: D.1 D‐ 1 Paragraph 2, last sentence The indication that funding and personnel support decisions 

will be made annually through normal budget processes provides little if any assurance that the monitoring 

would be consistently implemented. It is suggested that some level of permanent/10‐ year/until grouse are 

no longer sensitive support be immediately dedicated for this effort.

Comment ID: 2127

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Appendix D should identify the entity that will be charged with collecting the monitoring data 

on oil/gas leases, and explain how this data could be used to adaptively feed back into the monitoring

process and refine adaptive management needs on a planning area basis. This discussion should also explain 

what types of findings, or more specifically, what type of numeric thresholds (both hard and soft), might 

trigger adaptive management. Table D-1 outlines "Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of Decisions, 

Sage-grouse Habitat, and Sage-grouse Populations at the Broad and Mid Scales", but does not specify how

thresholds are defined or what numeric measurements might constitute an "ecological threshold". Summary 

The following revisions should be made to Appendix D: Appendix D should identify the entity that will be 

charged with collecting monitoring data on oil and gas leases, and explain how this data could be used to 

adaptively feed back into the monitoring process and refine adaptive management needs on a planning area 

basis. This discussion should also explain what types of findings, or more specifically, what type of numeric 

thresholds (both hard and soft), might trigger adaptive management. Table D-1 outlines "Indicators for 

Monitoring Implementation of Decisions, Sage-grouse Habitat, and Sage-grouse Populations at the Broad 

and Mid Scales,” but does not specify how thresholds are defined or what numeric measurements might

constitute an "ecological threshold.” Page D‐ 1, D.1, Paragraph 2, last sentence: The indication that funding 

and personnel support decisions will be made annually through normal budget processes provides little if 

any assurance that the monitoring would be consistently implemented. It is suggested that some level of 

support (permanent, 10‐ years, or until grouse are no longer sensitive) be immediately dedicated for this

effort.

Response: The agencies will use the data collected from monitoring (Appendix D) to identify any changes 

in habitat conditions related to the goals and objectives of the plan. The BLM and Forest Service will use 

the information collected through monitoring to determine when adaptive management triggers are met. 

The adaptive management soft and hard triggers and land use planning responses to these triggers are in 

Management Actions 23 and 24, in Table 2-1 of the Draft EIS. Soft triggers represent an intermediate 

threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the project/implementation level to address 

habitat and population losses. Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is 

necessary to stop a severe deviation from Greater Sage- Grouse conservation goals and objectives as set 

forth in the BLM and Forest Service plans. As a landscape level planning effort, none of the alternatives 

prescribe project-level or site-specific activities on BLM- or Forest Service-managed lands. Furthermore, 

the agencies’ selection of an alternative does not authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor 

does it directly tie into the agencies’ budgets as appropriated annually through the federal budget process. 

As a consequence, agencies’ costs and differences in program costs across alternatives have not been
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-603

quantified. Information has been presented in several resource impact sections on the types of costs that 

might be associated with various sage-grouse conservation measures.

Leasable Minerals

Appendices

Appendix E opposition/revisions

Comment ID: 1600

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #125, Alternative B, NSO, Greater Sage-Grouse leks inside

designated core areas and connectivity areas, pgs. E-6 – E-7 EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s 

proposed no surface occupancy stipulation for fluid minerals within GRSG priority and connectivity areas, 

including winter concentration areas. EOG also strongly opposes BLM‘s proposal to prohibit surface 

occupancy or disturbance within four miles of active leks. Given the variable topography of the planning 

area and ongoing land uses, there is substantial acreage within four miles of active leks that is not GRSG 

habitat. The four mile buffer also does not address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. 

Furthermore, the BLM‘s blanket application of the four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As 

already discussed, the BLM cannot impose such limitations on EOG‘s existing oil and gas lease rights. 

Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a 

nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development 

on the leasehold. Further, the BLM cannot deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly 

or indirectly.

Comment ID: 1599

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #123, Alternative E, CSU, Density and disturbance inside 

Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, pgs. E-5 – E-6 EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposed 

conditional surface use stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface disturbance to no more 

than five percent per 640 acres within GRSG connectivity areas. As already discussed, the BLM cannot 

impose such limitations on EOG‘s existing oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil 

and gas lease without NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition 

against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold.Further, the BLM 

cannot deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly.

Comment ID: 1598

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #123, Alternative D, CSU, Density and disturbance inside 

Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, pgs. E-4 – E-5 EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposed 

conditional surface use stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface disturbance to no more 

than nine percent per 640 acres within GRSG connectivity areas. As already discussed, the BLM cannot 

impose such limitations on EOG‘s existing oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil 

and gas lease without NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-604 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. Further, the BLM 

cannot deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly.

Comment ID: 1596

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #122, Alternative E, CSU, Density and disturbance inside 

Greater Sage-Grouse designated core areas, pgs. E-2 – E-3 EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s 

proposed conditional surface use stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface disturbance to no 

more than five percent within a particular area. As already discussed, the BLM cannot impose such 

limitations on EOG‘s existing oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease 

without NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against 

development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. Further, the BLM cannot 

deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly.

Comment ID: 1597

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #123, Alternative B, CSU, Density and disturbance inside 

Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, pgs. E-3 – E-4 EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposed 

conditional surface use stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface disturbance to no more 

than three percent per 640 acres within GRSG connectivity areas. As already discussed, the BLM cannot 

impose such limitations on EOG‘s existing oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil 

and gas lease without NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition 

against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. Further, the BLM 

cannot deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly.

Comment ID: 2608

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 2-72 - 2-75, Table 2-1, Action 63, Alternative E: The requirement to consider new COAs 

on previously issued leases where habitat protections are not provided in lease terms could easily conflict 

with prior existing rights. QEP asks that this reference be removed.

Summary: The following revisions should be made to Appendix E: Action 63, Alternative E: The 

requirement to consider new COAs on previously issued leases where habitat protections are not provided 

in lease terms would conflict with prior existing rights. The reference should be removed. Action 122, 

Alternative E: The commenter opposes the proposed CSU stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas 

surface disturbance to no more than five percent within a particular area. The BLM cannot impose such 

limitations on existing oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without 

NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the 

BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. Further, the BLM cannot deprive an entity of 

its valid and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly. Action 123, Alternative B: The commenter 

opposes the proposed CSU stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface disturbance to no more 

than three percent per 640 acres within Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas. Action 123, Alternative D: 

The commenter opposes the proposed CSU stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface 

disturbance to no more than nine percent per 640 acres within connectivity areas. Action 123, Alternative 

E: The commenter opposes the proposed CSU stipulation for fluid minerals to limit oil and gas surface 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-605

disturbance to no more than five percent per 640 acres within connectivity areas. Action 125, Alternative 

B: The commenter opposes the proposed NSO stipulation for fluid minerals within priority and connectivity 

areas, including winter concentration areas, as well as the proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or 

disturbance within four miles of active leks. Given the variable topography of the planning area and ongoing 

land uses, there is substantial acreage within four miles of active leks that is not sage-grouse habitat. The 

four mile buffer also does not address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the 

BLM‘s blanket application of the four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Objectives Team Report published by the USFWS.

Response: Specific to the oil and gas program, the alternatives in the Draft EIS would apply to LUPs and 

activity level decisions that are not yet implemented by addressing the availability of lands for future oil 

and gas leasing, potential lease stipulations, and additional mitigation to be considered and applied during 

the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) process. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid 

existing right, and BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of a lease. Agencies 

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

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

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

to reduce habitat fragmentation and loss, and effective conservation of seasonal habitats and habitat 

connectivity to support management objectives set by the WGFD) are included in all project proposals 

whenever possible, consistent with the rights granted in the lease. In determining the disturbance cap level 

for each alternative, the BLM utilized the recommendations and input specific to each alternative. Ample 

literature establishes a relationship between disturbance and Greater Sage-Grouse occupancy and 

persistence. Two papers in particular establish thresholds of disturbance related to development and Greater 

Sage-Grouse persistence. See specifically references to Kirol 2012 and Knick 2013, which are recent 

studies done on disturbance thresholds and Greater Sage-Grouse. Based on this literature, the alternatives 

consider a range of appropriate disturbance caps. While the caps would set a particular level of disturbance, 

the implementation of the disturbance caps would occur after the LUP Amendments are approved in the

Record of Decision. The BLM inventoried the habitat with the best available information at the time of the 

Draft EIS, but would also do additional in-depth analysis and inventory within Management Zones at the 

implementation stage. There are no site specific decisions being made in the EIS. COAs are an 

implementation action. As specific actions come under consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will 

conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include site-specific project and implementation-level actions and, 

at that stage, may determine that particular RDFs or BMPs are not applicable or otherwise inappropriate 

for a particular authorization (see Appendix B). Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental

descriptions will be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR

1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to 

participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions.

Leasable Minerals

Appendices

Appendix K would make coal mining impractical

Comment ID: 2521

Organization: Converse County

Name: Richard C. Grant

Comment: Table K-3, p. K-16, MA 73: As a county that produces coal we believe that this is an example 

of restriction on coal mine siting. Practically speaking, no proposed coal mine could meet the surface

occupancy, disturbance and density standards, and guidelines.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-606 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: Page K-16, Table K-3, Action 73: As a county that produces coal we believe that this is an 

example of restrictions on coal mine siting. Practically speaking, no proposed coal mine could meet the 

surface occupancy, disturbance and density standards, and guidelines.

Response: The restriction you are concerned with, MA #73, deals with coal exploration only. Drilling of

exploratory holes to delineate the coal resource is subject to disturbance, density standards, and potentially 

other restrictions. Actions associated with coal leasing are found in MA #71 and 72 of Appendix K. Valid 

existing rights granted in existing leases will be honored by the BLM and the Forest Service.

Leasable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

Baseline fails to consider previously-leased acreage against total core

Comment ID: 1613

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Unfortunately, many sage-grouse Core Areas are already encumbered with prior existing oil and 

gas leases at the time of their establishment, and the BLM is in many cases citing the existence of these

prior existing leases (the majority of which are undeveloped paper assets that have yet to have any effect 

on sage-grouse habitat on the ground) as a justification for allowing new leasing inside Core Areas. As of 

July 10, 2012, twelve of the 31 Core Areas in Wyoming were at least 20 percent leased according to WGFD 

data, ranging up to 82 percent leased. These 12 Core Areas represent almost 4.5 million acres of sagegrouse habitat. Compounding this problem, all but three of the 31 Core Areas have at least 20 percent nonfederal mineral ownership, meaning that a large proportion of Core Area is exempt from protection from 

future federal leasing. A significant quantity of Core Area is already leased. Yet the BLM in its Affected 

Environment section has failed to analyze the amount of acreage leased currently within Core Areas, and 

in its impacts analyses the agency has not determined what acreage of Core Areas would be ineligible for 

withdrawal from future leasing under Alternative E. It is reasonable to expect BLM to perform this analysis 

in the EIS, due to the ready availability of the GIS data to support it and the fact that BLM performs exactly 

such an analysis for each lease parcel for every quarterly lease sale Environmental Assessment; failure to 

present this analysis represents a critical failure to take the ‘hard look’ required by NEPA.

Summary: Many sage-grouse core areas are encumbered with prior existing oil and gas leases. The BLM 

is citing the existence of these prior existing leases (the majority of which are undeveloped paper assets that

have yet to have any effect on sage-grouse habitat on the ground) as a justification for allowing new leasing 

inside core areas. Twelve of the 31 core areas in Wyoming are at least 20 percent leased according to WGFD 

data, ranging up to 82 percent leased. These 12 core areas represent almost 4.5 million acres of sage-grouse 

habitat. Compounding this problem, all but three of the 31 core areas have at least 20 percent non-federal 

mineral ownership, meaning that a large proportion of them are exempt from protection from future federal 

leasing. The affected environment section has failed to analyze the amount of acreage leased currently 

within core areas, and in its impacts analyses the agency has not determined what acreage of core areas 

would be ineligible for withdrawal from future leasing under Alternative E.

Response: The acreage within designated core areas currently leased for fluid minerals development is

disclosed in Chapter 3 within the discussion of each LUP being amended by this plan, and the analysis

summarized in Chapter 4 included consideration of these areas which are currently leased. Specific to the 

oil and gas program, the alternatives in this Draft EIS would apply to LUPs and activity level decisions that 

are not yet implemented by addressing the availability of lands for future oil and gas leasing, potential lease 

stipulations, and additional mitigation to be considered and applied during the Application for Permit to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-607

Drill process. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right, and BLM cannot 

unilaterally change the terms and conditions of a lease. Agencies (BLM/Forest Service) will work with 

proponents holding valid existing leases that include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, 

distance, and density restrictions described within this plan to ensure that measurable sage-grouse 

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

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

management objectives set by the WGFD) are included in all project proposals whenever possible, 

consistent with the rights granted in the lease.

Leasable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

BLM did not issue mineral potential report

Comment ID: 1874

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: In addition, BLM Manual Section 3060 (MS 3060) clearly establishes that actions involving 

planning documents require a mineral report (MS 3060 at .1). BLM has failed to produce an up-to-date

mineral occurrence and potential development report for the Planning Area in conjunction with this

planning effort, and therefore BLM must prepare the required report(s), and then re-issue the DLUPA/DEIS 

for public comment with the revised mineral information.

Summary: BLM has failed to produce an up-to-date mineral occurrence and potential development report 

for the planning area in conjunction with this planning effort, and therefore BLM must prepare the required 

report(s), and then re-issue the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS for public comment with the revised 

mineral information.

Response: Mineral resources are adequately discussed in Chapter 3.8 Minerals and Energy. Mineral 

Occurrence and Development Potential Reports are available for the six existing BLM RMPs and the three

existing Forest Service LRMPs as referenced in the Literature Cited.

Leasable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

Directional drilling is not always applicable

Comment ID: 1999

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: 4.8.2 Assumptions, Page 4-103 While we appreciate BLM’s recognition of the limitations to 

using directional drilling in every situation, it must also be recognized that pad sizes associated with

directional drilling of several wells from a single pad will increase to accommodate additional well bores. 

While surface issues may give rise to considering directional or horizontal techniques, the federal land 

management agencies must recognize that these decisions can only be made with careful consideration of 

many other factors that influence a project’s viability. BLM must keep in mind that it is unreasonable to 

impose a requirement across the study area that could render a well or wells uneconomic or infeasible, 

particularly in cases where existing leases do not require the use of alternative drilling techniques.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-608 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2731

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg B-4 Text: Use directional and horizontal drilling to the extent feasible Comment: Please refer 

to our earlier comment regarding the differences between horizontal and directional drilling and BLM’s

need to distinguish these terms in the glossary.

Comment ID: 2639

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 103 Text: Directional drilling could be used to access hydrocarbon resources under areas

constrained by surface use restrictions (e.g., NSO restrictions) that necessitate relocating wells outside the 

drilling window established by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC). 

Directional drilling viability and offset distance varies with the target formation, the top depth of the target 

formation, and formation productivity. Comment: BLM assumes that mineral resources can be reached 

using directional drilling but BLM has not shown such a capability. BLM must analyze and disclose the 

impacts of directional drilling since it has assumed that it can apparently reach all resources with such a 

method. BLM must also analyze and disclose the difference between the ability to recover resources with 

a vertical hole and the impacts associated with that drilling, versus the ability to drill directional or

horizontal holes and the impacts associated with that method. BLM cannot assume that the impacts are the 

same. Directional drilling, although allowing more wells per pad (i.e. per surface disturbance) has increased 

costs, decreased efficiencies, and could therefore lead to premature abandonments. BLM should analyze 

these secondary effects in the EIS.

Comment ID: 2644

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-103, paragraph 4, bullet 6, lines 1-3: This is misleading. It gives the public the impression 

that it is always possible to horizontally or directionally drill to obtain minerals, which is not correct. QEP

asks that this bullet point be stricken.

Comment ID: 2593

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: The DLUPA/EIS mentions that existing leases should be reached using directional drilling. 

Much of the BLM's analysis in this DLUPA/EIS assumes that oil and gas extraction can be done by 

directionally drilling from outside of core habitat areas, but that may not be the case. While QEP does use

directional and horizontal drilling technologies in some of its fields, directional drilling is not necessarily 

an answer to be employed in every field for every type of development. Challenges include limitations due 

to maximum reach capabilities, production success, drainage area, and engineering technology just to 

mention a few. It is not proven at this time that horizontal or directional drilling are feasible alternatives for 

developing the mineral resources in all areas.

Summary: BLM assumes that mineral resources can be reached using directional drilling but BLM has not 

shown such a capability. Pad sizes associated with directional drilling of several wells from a single pad 

will increase to accommodate additional well bores. While surface issues may give rise to considering

directional or horizontal techniques, the federal land management agencies must recognize that these 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-609

decisions can only be made with careful consideration of many other factors that influence a project’s 

viability. Challenges include limitations due to maximum reach capabilities, production success, drainage 

area, and engineering technology just to mention a few. BLM must keep in mind that it is unreasonable to 

impose a requirement across the study area that could render a well or wells uneconomic or infeasible, 

particularly in cases where existing leases do not require the use of alternative drilling techniques. BLM 

must also analyze and disclose the difference between the ability to recover resources with a vertical hole 

and the impacts associated with that drilling, versus the ability to drill directional or horizontal holes. BLM 

cannot assume that the impacts are the same. Directional drilling, although allowing more wells per pad 

(i.e. per surface disturbance) has increased costs, decreased efficiencies, and could therefore lead to 

premature abandonments. BLM should analyze these secondary effects in the EIS. Page 4-103, 4.8.2 

Assumptions, Bullet 6: This is misleading. It gives the public the impression that it is always possible to 

horizontally or directionally drill to obtain minerals, which is not correct. This bullet point be stricken. Page 

4-103, 4.8.2 Assumptions, Bullet 7: While we appreciate BLM’s recognition of the limitations to using 

directional drilling in every situation, it must also be recognized that pad sizes associated with directional 

drilling of several wells from a single pad will increase to accommodate additional well bores. While 

surface issues may give rise to considering directional or horizontal techniques, the federal land 

management agencies must recognize that these decisions can only be made with careful consideration of 

many other factors that influence a project’s viability. BLM must keep in mind that it is unreasonable to 

impose a requirement across the study area that could render a well or wells uneconomic or infeasible, 

particularly in cases where existing leases do not require the use of alternative drilling techniques.

Response: Section 4.8.2 of the Draft EIS recognizes that there are technical limitations on both horizontal 

and directional drilling and that the use of these technologies may not provide access to all formations

containing fluid mineral resources. BLM and Forest Service have drafted a range of acres unavailable for 

new oil and gas leasing and projected number of oil and gas wells for each of the Alternatives. The technical 

limitations on both horizontal and directional drilling falls within this range. BLM and Forest Service will 

consider the entire range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision when the land 

use planning process is completed. All development proposals are evaluated on a site-specific basis.

Leasable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

Minerals development data and RFDs used are outdated

Comment ID: 1391

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-101 Text: Based on production records from the State of Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission for 2002, 14% of the state’s oil and 5% of the state’s gas were produced from 

Natrona and Converse Counties. Comment: Production records are available for all relevant counties on 

the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission website up to, and including, 2014. The BLM’s

reliance on data from 2002, unless relevant for a specific reason, is strongly indicative that the BLM has 

not properly described the affected environment. Moreover, BLM discusses only two counties (Natrona 

and Converse), which is insufficient when addressing the full potential and the cumulative impacts 

(addressed later) throughout the entire project area. This data must be analyzed and disclosed before the 

decision maker can make a decision.

Comment ID: 1871

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-610 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Indeed, § 1502.15 provides that the agency describe the affected environment in a clear and 

concise manner, and to a degree as to limit superfluous information; but § 1502.15 does not condone

reckless oversight of the description of the affected environment on key issues. BLM’s haphazard and

inconsistent description of the geology and mineral potential across the Planning Area and within field 

offices does not give an adequate picture of the existing locatable mineral production or future mineral 

potential (See Ch. 3). What the discussion lacks is any useful information of the mineral potential within 

the Planning Area. Without a discussion of geology, mineral potential, and existing conditions, it makes it 

impossible to analyze the potential impacts the proposed alternatives will have on various resources, 

especially locatable minerals.

Comment ID: 1929

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Table 2-6. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Federal Oil and Gas and Coalbed

Natural Gas Wells and Associated Surface Disturbance Areas The BLM must ensure that the Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) is based on the most information BLM has including proposed 

projects, such as the Powder River Oil and Gas Project, and other relevant geologic industry information.

Comment ID: 1392

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-101 Text: The Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario for oil and gas 

describes studies pertaining to the Casper Field Office, including their assumptions and results (BLM 

2005a). Comment: "FLPMA requires the BLM to manage public lands and resources according to the

principles of multiple use and sustained yield, including recognizing the nation’s needs for domestic sources 

of minerals, food, timber, and fiber." DEIS at 4-1 (emphasis added). BLM must address reasonably 

foreseeable development in the context of the state, regional, and national demands for energy resources in 

Wyoming.

Comment ID: 1390

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-100 Text: The Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2004f) 

contains a more detailed explanation of these processes. Table 3-31 lists important oil- and gas-producing

formations in the Denver-Cheyenne, Powder River, and Wind River basins (BLM 2005f). Comment:

Chapter 3 provides the baseline for the BLM’s analysis of the impacts of the alternatives. Incorrectly

describing the affected environment in Chapter 3 will therefore misconstrue the possible impacts addressed 

in Chapter 4. Thus it is extremely important to use reliable and up-to-date information when describing the 

affected environment. The BLM, however, continues to use studies, reports, data and other information that 

reflect the affected environment as it existed approximately 10 years ago. Relying on data nearly 10 years 

old produces assumptions about energy development that do not accurately reflect prices, demand, and 

other important variables. Furthermore, courts have held that data older than 6 years cannot be used to 

support key assumptions in an FEIS. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005). Listing 

“important oil- and gas-producing formations” is exactly the type of key assumption that needs to be 

accurately reflected with the most current information. Furthermore, the BLM may not rely on stale and 

inaccurate data from EIS documents. See Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 

668 F.3d 1067 (2011) (aerial surveys from the 1980s-1997 rather than current aerial surveys and 

photography or actual onthe- ground surveys was arbitrary and capricious). Moreover, mineral potential 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-611

reports are based on known geologic conditions and recovery technology at a particular time. Over time, 

mineral potential can be revised and technology and market conditions can result in updated RFDs. 

Therefore, assessments made on outdated potential and RFD reports are likely to underestimate the effects 

of management actions that limit development. Basing a decision on these reports is severely flawed.

Comment ID: 2621

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-102 Comment: The Coalition believes it essential the GRSG EIS disclose that the estimates 

of future production are very likely to be conservative because they are based on an RFD that reflects

current knowledge of the geologic resources and current recovery technology. Recent improvements by 

industry with respect to exploration, development and recovery across Wyoming and elsewhere have been 

behind a major increase in the estimates of economically recoverable reserves. There’s no reason to expect 

that further improvements won’t continue in the future. Closing areas to fluid mineral leasing of the known 

resources would also foreclose future development. The CLG is not asking the BLM and USFS to speculate 

as to the timing and level of development involved, or economic effects foregone, however, it is imperative 

for the BLM and USFS to acknowledge the persistence of a closure to leasing beyond the 2020 time frame. 

The closure, foregone resource recovery and the economic benefits that would’ve otherwise accrued to the 

local residents, communities and to the state as a whole represent an otherwise unrecognized opportunity 

cost to the state.

Comment ID: 3127

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 3.8 3‐ 119 Paragraph 3, lines 4‐ 6 Replace "as many as eight wells have been drilled from a 

single pad in the Pinedale Field Office, and proposals have been submitted to potentially drill as many as 

21 wells from a single pad." with "many wells may be drilled from a single pad in the Pinedale Field Office, 

with some pads presently having more than 40 wells on a pad."

Comment ID: 2632

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 3-259, last paragraph & page 3-260 paragraph 1: QEP asks the BLM to delete "However, 

with oil and gas prices reaching all-time highs and with strong support from the current political

administration," as well as the last sentence in the paragraph. The first statement is no longer applicable 

and the second is entirely subjective.

Comment ID: 2623

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 3-119, paragraph 3, lines 4-6: Replace "as many as eight wells have been drilled from a 

single pad in the Pinedale Field Office, and proposals have been submitted to potentially drill as many as 

21 wells from a single pad" with "many wells may be drilled from a single pad in the Pinedale Field Office, 

with some pads presently having more than 40 wells on a pad."

Comment ID: 2624

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-612 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: 4-103 Text: The potential for mineral resources is a prediction of the likelihood of the occurrence 

of these resources. The occurrence of a mineral resource does not necessarily imply that the mineral can be 

economically exploited or is likely to be developed; mineral occurrence potential includes both exploitable 

and potentially exploitable occurrences. The potential for the occurrence of a mineral resource also does 

not imply that the quality and quantity of the resource are known. Comment: Mineral potential reports are 

based on known geologic conditions and recovery technology at a particular time. Over time, mineral 

potential can be revised and technology and market conditions can result in updated RFDs. Therefore, 

assessments made on outdated potential and RFD reports are likely to underestimate the effects of 

management actions that limit development making the BLM’s analysis similarly shallow and the BLM 

must disclose this deficiency in the EIS.

Comment ID: 2566

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-105 Text: Of the approximately 1.6 million acres of oil and gas mineral estate managed by 

the Kemmerer Field Office, approximately 1,070,000 acres are currently leased for oil and gas

development. The majority of federal mineral estate in the Kemmerer Field Office (1,118,602 acres or 71%) 

is considered by the BLM to have low development potential for oil and gas resources. Approximately 

315,651 acres (20%) of federal mineral estate are classified as moderate and 112,160 (7%) are classified as 

high development potential for oil and gas. Comment: This text is almost word for word from Kemmerer 

Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) written in 2005. BLM incorrectly assumes that no new leases 

and no new APDs have been issued in the last 8 years. It also relies on an RFD report written in 2003 

(Crockett, 2003). See also, AMS at 25. Relying on data more than 10 years old produces assumptions about 

energy development that do not accurately reflect prices, demand, and other important variables. 

Furthermore, courts have held that data older than 6 years cannot be used to support key assumptions in an 

FEIS. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005). The RMP data being cut and pasted into the 

DEIS are more than 10 years out of date. Thus, BLM's reliance on the data is misplaced and certain to be 

set aside. Similarly, the Mineral Assessment report was final in 2004, inconsistent with then-existing field

development, has not been updated, and the Kemmerer RFD was revised as final in 2006. The BLM appears 

to omit the Moxa Arch Proposal to drill 1,861 wells when stating that the number of wells will not change. 

The Moxa Arch FEIS should soon be released and the alternatives will impact the Moxa Arch proposal yet 

the BLM does not analyze and disclose these impacts.

Comment ID: 2570

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-120 Rawlins Field Office discussion. Comment: This discussion also relies on out-of-date 

data. The number of wells that existed in 2003 will not provide an accurate representation of the number of 

wells that currently exist and the corresponding conclusions will necessarily be unreliable. The BLM’s 

discussion omits any mention of the expansion of Continental Divide and other new developments.

Comment ID: 2572

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-128 Text: Based on the Mineral Report for the Pinedale Field Office, 287,230 acres were

nominated and offered for lease between 1996 and 2001. As of June 2004, approximately 1,174 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-613

BLMadministered federal oil and gas leases covered 734,020 acres, or approximately 61%, of the federal

mineral estate in the Pinedale Field Office. Comment: The discussion of Pinedale mineral potential and 

likely number of wells is similarly out-of-date. The RFD was written in 2006, using data that predated much 

of the Jonah field as well as the expansion of the Pinedale Anticline. BLM must include the appropriate 

data in Chapter 3 in order to draw the appropriate analysis in Chapter 4 and the BLM has not used the best 

available data to determine the cumulative impacts of the number of leases in the entire project area (i.e. 

Rock Springs data is missing).

Summary: The BLM continues to use studies, reports, data and other information that reflect the affected

environment as it existed approximately 10 years ago. Relying on data nearly 10 years old produces

assumptions about energy development that do not accurately reflect prices, demand, and other important 

variables. Mineral potential reports are based on known geologic conditions and recovery technology at a 

particular time. Over time, mineral potential can be revised and technology and market conditions can result 

in updated RFDs. Assessments made on outdated RFD reports are likely to underestimate the effects of 

management actions that limit development making the BLM’s analysis shallow. The discussion of 

Pinedale mineral potential and likely number of wells is out of date. The RFD was written in 2006, using 

data that predated much of the Jonah field as well as the expansion of the Pinedale Anticline. The Chapter 

3 discussion on Rawlins refers to numbers from the RFD written in 2003. The BLM’s discussion omits any 

mention of the expansion of Continental Divide and other new developments. Disclose that the estimates 

of future production are very likely to be conservative because they are based on an RFD that reflects 

current knowledge of the geologic resources and current recovery technology. Courts have held that data 

older than 6 years cannot be used to support key assumptions in a Final EIS. Lands Council v. Powell, 395 

F.3d 1019. Specific examples and changes include the following: Pg. 3-101 states “Based on production 

records from the State of Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 2002, 14% of the state’s oil 

and 5% of the state’s gas were produced from Natrona and Converse Counties.” Production records are 

available for all relevant counties on the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission website up to, 

and including, 2014. The BLM’s reliance on data from 2002, unless relevant for a specific reason, is 

strongly indicative that the BLM has not properly described the affected environment. Moreover, BLM 

discusses only two counties (Natrona and Converse), which is insufficient when addressing the full potential 

and the cumulative impacts throughout the entire project area. Page 3-105: This text is almost word for 

word from Kemmerer Analysis of Management Situation (AMS) written in 2005. BLM incorrectly assumes 

that no new leases and no new APDs have been issued in the last 8 years. It also relies on an RFD report 

written in 2003. The Mineral Assessment report was final in 2004, inconsistent with then-existing field 

development, has not been updated, and the Kemmerer RFD was revised as final in 2006. Page 3-119, 

paragraph 3, lines 4-6: Replace "as many as eight wells have been drilled from a single pad in the Pinedale 

Field Office, and proposals have been submitted to potentially drill as many as 21 wells from a single pad" 

with "many wells may be drilled from a single pad in the Pinedale Field Office, with some pads presently 

having more than 40 wells on a pad." Page 3-259, last paragraph and page 3-260 paragraph 1: Delete 

"However, with oil and gas prices reaching all-time highs and with strong support from the current political 

administration," as well as the last sentence in the paragraph. The first statement is no longer applicable 

and the second is entirely subjective.

Response: Mineral resources are adequately discussed in Chapter 3.8, Minerals and Energy of the Final 

EIS. BLM and Forest Service have drafted a range of acres unavailable for new oil and gas leasing and 

projected number of oil and gas wells for each of the alternatives as presented in Chapter 2 in the Draft EIS. 

The RFD Scenario is not a limit and should not be a constraint on future oil and gas. Many variable 

circumstances could increase or decrease the level of drilling activity and associated surface disturbance 

acreage throughout the expected life of the RMP. If the projections in the RFD prove to be inaccurate, then 

BLM will evaluate the RMP when the well numbers or surface disturbances in the RFD are approached to 

determine if a plan amendment or revision is warranted. Chapter 4 presents the impacts anticipated form 

the various alternatives based on best available science and professional judgment. The Draft LUP 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-614 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Amendments/Draft EIS provided sufficiently detailed information to aid in determining whether to proceed 

with the preferred alternative or make a reasoned choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that 

the public could have an understanding of the environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, 

in accordance with CFR 1502.1.

Leasable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

RFD consistency issue

Comment ID: 2605

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pgs 4-71, 4-104, 4-179 Comment: These pages list the numbers of future wells to be developed

under Alt A, and presumably on federal minerals that have not yet been leased, as 16,411, 13,653 and 

12,585. Please ensure the consistency of the well numbers between the different resource assessments. The 

application of inconsistent assumptions regarding the number of wells, with nearly a 25% difference, would 

result in an inaccurate characterization of difference in economic impacts in Section 4.11.

Summary: Pgs. 4-71, 4-104, 4-179 Comment: These pages list the numbers of future wells to be developed

under Alternative A, and presumably on federal minerals that have not yet been leased, as 16,411, 13,653 

and 12,585. Please ensure the consistency of the well numbers between the different resource assessments. 

The application of inconsistent assumptions regarding the number of wells, with nearly a 25% difference, 

would result in an inaccurate characterization of difference in economic impacts in Section 4.11.

Response: These errors have been corrected in the Final EIS. The correct number is 13,653.

Leasable Minerals

CBNG

CBNG activity is overestimated in the Powder River Basin

Comment ID: 648

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Section 3.8 - Minerals and Energy. Samson also believes the BLM places far too much emphasis 

on the development of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) within the Casper Field Office. As the BLM is certainly

aware, CBNG development has almost entirely ceased within the Powder River Basin. Given current

pricing scenarios and the expenses associated with CBNG development, it is unlikely CBNG will be

developed significantly within the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 784

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is concerned that the unconstrained RFD Scenario for oil and gas development within 

the Casper Field Office is outdated and too low. Devon is aware of a proposal by several oil and gas

operators to propose the development of over 5,000 wells within the Converse County portion of the Casper 

Field Office. This one project alone exceeds the current RFO Scenario. As noted earlier, however, the RFD 

Scenario is not a limit and should not be a constraint on future oil and gas development. Devon also believes 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-615

the BLM places far too much emphasis on the development of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) within the 

Casper Field Office. As the BLM is certainly aware, CBNG development has almost ceased entirely within 

the Powder River Basin. Given current pricing scenarios and the expenses associated with CBNG 

development, It Is extremely unlikely CBNG will be developed significantly within the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 1548

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is concerned that the unconstrained RFD Scenario for oil and gas development within the 

Casper Field Office is outdated and too low. EOG is aware of a proposal by several oil and gas operators 

for the development of over 5,000 wells within the Converse County portion of the Casper Field Office.

This one project alone exceeds the current RFD Scenario. As noted earlier, however, the RFD Scenario is 

not a limit and should not be a constraint on future oil and gas development. EOG also believes the BLM 

places far too much emphasis on the development of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) within the Casper Field 

Office. As the BLM is certainly aware, CBNG development has almost ceased entirely within the Powder 

River Basin. Given current pricing scenarios and the expenses associated with CBNG development, it is 

extremely unlikely CBNG will be developed significantly within the Planning Area.

Summary: BLM places far too much emphasis on the development of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) within 

the Casper Field Office. CBNG development has almost entirely ceased within the Powder River Basin.

Given current pricing scenarios and the expenses associated with CBNG development, it is unlikely CBNG 

will be developed significantly within the planning area.

Response: Mineral resources are adequately discussed in Chapter 3.8 Minerals and Energy of the Draft EIS. 

BLM and Forest Service have drafted a range of acres unavailable for new oil and gas leasing and projected 

number of oil and gas wells for each of the alternatives. The RFD Scenario is not a limit and should not be 

a constraint on future oil and gas. Many variable circumstances could increase or decrease the level of 

drilling activity and associated surface disturbance acreage throughout the expected life of the LUPs. If the 

projections in the RFD prove to be inaccurate, then BLM will evaluate the LUPs when the well numbers or 

surface disturbances in the RFD are approached to determine if a plan amendment or revision is warranted.

Leasable Minerals

Geophysical Exploration

Further restrict geophysical exploration

Comment ID: 1708

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --In existing 

leased and permitted areas, apply a 10 km non-surface occupancy around active leks and limit permitted 

disturbance to 1 per section and no more than 3% surface disturbance per section. Only allow geophysical 

exploration activities by helicopter portable drilling methods in accordance with appropriate seasonal and 

timing restrictions.

Comment ID: 1707

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-616 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat. --Only allow 

geophysical exploration activities by helicopter portable drilling methods in accordance with appropriate 

seasonal and timing restrictions.

Summary: On existing leases inside core areas, only allow geophysical exploration activities by

helicopter/portable drilling methods in accordance with appropriate seasonal and timing restrictions.

Response: This measure is considered in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS under Alternatives B and 

C.

Leasable Minerals

Geophysical Exploration

Geophysical exploration should not be restricted

Comment ID: 1756

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips also does not support the BLM’s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative 

C, and to a lesser extent Alternative E, that would significantly curtail the use of geophysical and other

seismic exploration within the Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62.

ConocoPhillips does not agree that the BLM should close the entire Greater Sage-Grouse key habitat area 

to geophysical exploration or propose unnecessary restrictions on geophysical exploration. Overall, 

ConocoPhillips believes that seismic exploration can actually reduce impacts to the environment because 

operators will be less likely to drill unsuccessful wildcat wells in previously undisturbed areas. The BLM 

should not place unnecessary requirements, limitations, or procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys. 

For example, it is not reasonable to allow geophysical operations only using heliportable drills. SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62. Such a restriction is far too onerous. Further, on a national scale, 

the BLM has recognized that geophysical exploration is the type of activity that does not individually have 

a significant effect on the human environment because geophysical exploration has been identified as a 

Department-wide categorical exclusion. The language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not sufficiently 

recognize the fact that geophysical surveys are designed to have very little impact and rarely cause adverse 

impacts to the natural environment. The BLM should develop language to encourage seismic exploration 

in the Sage-Grouse DLUPAs.

Comment ID: 606

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson also does not support the BLM's proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C, and 

to a lesser extent Alternative E, that would significantly curtail the use of geophysical and other seismic

exploration within the Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62. Samson does not

agree that the BLM should close the entire Greater Sage-Grouse key habitat area to geophysical exploration 

or propose unnecessary restrictions on geophysical exploration. Overall, Samson believes that seismic 

exploration can actually reduce impacts to the environment because operators will be less likely to drill 

unsuccessful wildcat wells in previously undisturbed areas. The BLM should not place unnecessary 

requirements, limitations, or procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys.The BLM should ensure that 

nothing in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA eliminates or discourages the use of geophysical exploration or the 

approval of such exploration using categorical exclusions.The language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA does 

not sufficiently recognize the fact that geophysical surveys are designed to have very little impact and rarely 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-617

cause adverse impacts to the natural environment. The BLM should develop language to encourage seismic 

exploration in the SageGrouse DLUPAs.

Comment ID: 1164

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz also does not support the BLM’s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C, and 

to a lesser extent Alternative E, that would significantly curtail the use of geophysical and other seismic

exploration within the Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62. Anschutz does not 

agree that the BLM should close the entire Greater Sage-Grouse key habitat area to geophysical exploration 

or propose unnecessary restrictions on geophysical exploration. Overall, Anschutz believes that seismic

exploration can actually reduce impacts to the environment because operators will be less likely to drill 

unsuccessful wildcat wells in previously undisturbed areas. The BLM should not place unnecessary 

requirements, limitations, or procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys. The BLM should ensure that 

nothing in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA eliminates or discourages the use of geophysical exploration or the 

approval of such exploration using categorical exclusions. The language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA does 

not sufficiently recognize the fact that geophysical surveys are designed to have very little impact and rarely 

cause adverse impacts to the natural environment. The BLM should develop language to encourage seismic 

exploration in the Sage-Grouse DLUPAs. For geophysical exploration activity the BLM the BLM should 

incorporate Categorical Exclusions instead of EA’s.

Comment ID: 1489

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG also does not support the BLM‘s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C, and to a 

lesser extent Alternative E, that would significantly curtail the use of geophysical and other seismic

exploration within the Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62. EOG does not agree 

that the BLM should close the entire GRSG key habitat area to geophysical exploration or propose 

unnecessary restrictions on geophysical exploration. Overall, EOG believes that seismic exploration can 

actually reduce impacts to the environment because operators will be less likely to drill unsuccessful wildcat 

wells in previously undisturbed areas. The BLM should not place unnecessary requirements, limitations, or 

procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys. The BLM should ensure that nothing in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA eliminates or discourages the use of geophysical exploration or the approval of such exploration 

using categorical exclusions. The language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not sufficiently recognize the 

fact that geophysical surveys are designed to have very little impact and rarely cause adverse impacts to the 

natural environment. The BLM should develop language to encourage seismic exploration in the SageGrouse DLUPAs.

Comment ID: 758

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon also does not support the BLM's proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C, and to 

a lesser extent Alternative E, that would significantly curtail the use of geophysical and other seismic

exploration within the Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62. Devon does not agree 

that the BLM should close the entire Greater Sage-Grouse key habitat area to geophysical exploration or 

propose unnecessary restrictions on geophysical exploration. Overall, Devon believes that seismic 

exploration can actually reduce impacts to the environment because operators will be less likely to drill 

unsuccessful wildcat wells in previously undisturbed areas. The BLM should not place unnecessary 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-618 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

requirements, limitations, or procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys. For example, it is not 

reasonable to allow geophysical operations only using heliportable drills. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, 

Action No. 62. Such a restriction is far too onerous. Further, on a national scale, the BLM has recognized 

that geophysical exploration is the type of activity that does not individually have a significant effect on the 

human environment because geophysical exploration has been identified as a Department-wide categorical 

exclusion. The language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not sufficiently recognize the fact that 

geophysical surveys are designed to have very little impact and rarely cause adverse impacts to the natural

environment. The BLM should develop language to encourage seismic exploration in the Sage- Grouse 

DLUPAs.

Comment ID: 2197

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana also does not support the BLM’s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C, and 

to a lesser extent Alternative E, that would significantly curtail the use of geophysical and other seismic

exploration within the Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-64, Action No. 62. Encana does not

agree that the BLM should close the entire Greater Sage-Grouse key habitat area to geophysical exploration 

or propose unnecessary restrictions on geophysical exploration. Overall, Encana believes that seismic 

exploration can actually reduce impacts to the environment because operators will be less likely to drill 

unsuccessful wildcat wells in previously undisturbed areas. The BLM should not place unnecessary 

requirements, limitations, or procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys. The BLM should ensure that 

nothing in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA eliminates or discourages the use of geophysical exploration or the 

approval of such exploration using categorical exclusions. The language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA does 

not sufficiently recognize the fact that geophysical surveys are designed to have very little impact and rarely 

cause adverse impacts to the natural environment. The BLM should develop language to encourage seismic 

exploration in the Sage-Grouse DLUPAs.

Summary: Alternatives B and C, and to a lesser extent Alternative E, would significantly curtail the use of

geophysical and other seismic exploration within the planning area. Seismic exploration can actually reduce 

impacts to the environment because operators will be less likely to drill unsuccessful wildcat wells in 

previously undisturbed areas. The BLM should not place unnecessary requirements, limitations, or 

procedures on seismic and geophysical surveys. For example, it is not reasonable to allow geophysical 

operations only using heliportable drills. Such a restriction is far too onerous. The language in the SageGrouse Draft LUP Amendments does not sufficiently recognize the fact that geophysical surveys are 

designed to have very little impact and rarely cause adverse impacts to the natural environment. The BLM 

should develop language to encourage seismic exploration in the Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments. 

For geophysical exploration activity, the BLM should incorporate Categorical Exclusions instead of EA’s.

Response: The agencies are required to analyze a range of management strategies within the considered

alternatives. Some management strategies will be more restrictive to other land uses, and some will be less 

restrictive. Requiring limitations on geophysical exploration methods within sensitive habitats is a 

reasonable consideration which complies with NEPA and FLPMA. BLM and Forest Service will consider 

the entire range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision when the land use 

planning process is completed.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-619

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Drilling technology has already decreased impacts

Comment ID: 639

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: More and more wells are now drilled directionally and horizontally, significantly decreasing 

surface use and associated impacts due to the ability to consolidate wells and associated infrastructure.

Additionally, improved reclamation practices and reduction in oil and gas field traffic due to remote

monitoring have also reduced oil and gas field impacts to wildlife but are not addressed herein. Future 

reasonable foreseeable development (“RFD”) forecasts and management decisions should recognize this 

step change in technology, and the lower impact afforded to species such as sagegrouse. New directional 

drilling technologies are on the rise in the planning area, suggesting that impacts to sage-grouse habitat can 

be reduced through partnering with oil and gas developers on placement and timing of development. The 

increasing use of new technologies should be accounted for in the Final LUPA and mitigation measures 

should reflect its availability for deep oil and gas drilling.

Comment ID: 647

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: With regard to foreseeable impacts from oil and gas development in Wyoming, the regulatory

framework of the Wyoming Core Area Policy, in combination with a technological shift in drilling

technology to directional and horizontal drilling will ensure the ongoing viability of sage-grouse in

Wyoming into the foreseeable future. Other changes in how oil and gas development is implemented that 

will benefit sage-grouse not discussed in detail in these comments, include reclamation practices and remote 

monitoring of oil and gas production facilities to name only a few. The BLM and USFS need to take these 

easily verifiable conclusions into account when assessing foreseeable threats to sage-grouse habitats, the 

likelihood of sage-grouse persistence, and management prescriptions on lands deemed by law for multiple 

uses.

Comment ID: 638

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Technological changes over the past ten years have dramatically shifted drilling technology from

vertical well bores to directional and horizontal well bores, with the consequence that disturbance and 

fragmentation levels are declining at the same time that reservoir recovery rates are increasing.

Summary: Technological changes over the past ten years have dramatically shifted drilling technology from

vertical well bores to directional and horizontal well bores, with the consequence that disturbance and 

fragmentation levels are declining at the same time that reservoir recovery rates are increasing. New 

directional drilling technologies are on the rise in the planning area, suggesting that impacts to sage-grouse 

habitat can be reduced through partnering with oil and gas developers on placement and timing of 

development. The increasing use of new technologies should be accounted for in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments and mitigation measures should reflect its availability for deep oil and gas drilling. Other new 

technologies that reduce impacts include reclamation practices and remote monitoring of oil and gas 

production facilities.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-620 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The use of environmentally protective practices are included in the LUP Amendments, Appendix 

B, as best management practices and would be implemented wherever practical. BLM does not mandate

directional drilling.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Impacts analysis does not compare RFD to existing development levels

Comment ID: 1365

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The proposed action is expected to result in nearly 13,000 new oil and gas wells during the life 

of the plan but no information is provided regarding how this compares to the current numbers that already 

exist. From adding up the partial information provided in the NEPA document it appears that this is more 

than double the current number of producing wells. The EIS completely fails to compare and contrast the 

current level of oil and gas development with its attendant impacts on sage grouse with this massive 

increase.

Summary: The proposed action is expected to result in nearly 13,000 new oil and gas wells during the life 

of the plan but no information is provided regarding how this compares to the current numbers that already 

exist. From adding up the partial information provided in the NEPA document it appears that this is more 

than double the current number of producing wells. The LUP Amendments completely fail to compare and 

contrast the current level of oil and gas development with its attendant impacts on sage-grouse with this 

massive increase.

Response: In Chapter 3, Affected Environment, BLM and Forest Service discuss the current level of 

development within the project area, as well as the impacts of current development on Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. The projected oil and gas development will be subject to more stringent restrictions for the 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse, upon implementation of the LUP Amendments. An analysis of the 

impacts associated with the projected development under the management strategies for each alternative is 

found in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Table 2-6 in the Draft EIS presents the RFD and 

estimates for Alternative A (No action) 13,653 conventional and 2,758 coal bed natural gas wells compared 

to Alternative E 12,355 conventional and 2,462 coal bed natural gas wells.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Impacts need to consider increased disruption from collocation

Comment ID: 3062

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The DEIS does not appear to have analyzed the potential for high-intensity disturbances 

resulting in regulatory uncertainty by causing more significant impacts than might be expected based on 

only considering the total area disturbed and number of disturbances. For instance, using a single wellpad

for 20-plus wells could result in levels of traffic, activity, noise, and associated disturbances that are much 

greater than an individual wellpad that can be drilled in a far shorter time period and required limited routine 

or special maintenance. For multi-well pads, disturbance periods would be expected to be longer and the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-621

nature of disturbance greater corresponding to the number of wells and the area being developed. It is 

reasonably foreseeable that a smaller acreage footprint and less total disturbances associated with full-field 

development could have significant impacts stemming from both the intensity of the disturbance, and the 

distance-effect documented for energy fields whereby sage-grouse are negatively influenced.

Summary: The Draft EIS does not appear to have analyzed the potential for high-intensity disturbances 

resulting in regulatory uncertainty by causing more significant impacts than might be expected based on 

only considering the total area disturbed and number of disturbances. For instance, using a single wellpad

for 20-plus wells could result in levels of traffic, activity, noise, and associated disturbances that are much 

greater than an individual wellpad that can be drilled in a far shorter time period and required limited routine 

or special maintenance. For multi-well pads, disturbance periods would be expected to be longer and the 

nature of disturbance greater corresponding to the number of wells and the area being developed. It is 

reasonably foreseeable that a smaller acreage footprint and less total disturbances associated with full-field 

development could have significant impacts stemming from both the intensity of the disturbance, and the 

distance-effect documented for energy fields whereby sage-grouse are negatively influenced.

Response: Chapter 4 has been modified to include analysis of impacts from collocating operations.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Impacts on oil and gas development are understated

Comment ID: 1284

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential impacts the restrictions on future

leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize, study, and report the

economic impact that its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make 

significant portions of the Planning Area only available with major constraints, will have upon future 

exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing lease 

rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by future 

limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario. Contrary to the requirements of BLM‘s Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, the 

BLM has not properly identified lands within the Planning Area that are open to oil and gas leasing with 

moderate constraints and those that are available only with major constraints. BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601, Appd. C.II.H., pgs. 23 – 24 (Rel. 1-1693 03/11/05). The BLM should supplement the 

information contained in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA with this information as soon as possible.

Comment ID: 663

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM has significantly underestimated the potential impact the restrictions proposed under

Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil and gas development. The BLM seems to suggest 

the many RDFs and other limitations on surface disturbing activities would only delay mineral

development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with additional timing restrictions, surface occupancy 

restrictions, and other mitigation measures would make it uneconomic for most oil and gas operators to 

develop oil and gas resources within sage-grouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to simply suggest 

that development may be delayed. The overall minerals management under Alternative B and Alternative 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-622 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

C are inappropriate because they unreasonably limit oil and gas development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

4•8. As noted above, the BLM is significantly limiting potential future oil and gas development in the 

Planning Area by making 6,809,580 acres under Alternative B and 16,878,220 acres under Alternative C 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing. The adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would significantly 

curtail domestic production compared to both the baseline scenario and any of the other alternatives 

analyzed by the BLM. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, Table 2-6, Section 4.8. The loss of such an enormous energy 

supply is contrary to the best interests of the nation, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Comment ID: 597

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson believes BLM has not sufficiently analyzed the significant extent these limitations on 

future rights-of-way ("ROW") will have upon oil and gas operations. In particular, Samson is concerned

about the management of the priority and even general habitat under Alternative B or Alternative C as 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-18 - 2-20, Action Nos. 30 and 31. The 

BLM has not justified this substantial increase in the number of acres subject to ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas. Samson is particularly concerned that the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas will be 

utilized to significantly hamper or decrease oil and gas operations. The BLM must be willing to work with 

oil and gas lessees and operators to design access routes for proposed oil and gas development projects. 

Samson encourages the BLM to reduce the area subject to ROW avoidance or exclusion limitations as they 

may adversely impact oil and gas development in the area.

Comment ID: 790

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon believes the BLM has significantly underestimated the potential impact the restrictions

proposed under Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil and gas development. The BLM 

seems to suggest the many ROFs and other limitations on surface disturbing activities would only delay 

mineral development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with additional timing restrictions, surface 

occupancy restrictions and other mitigation measures would make it uneconomic for most oil and gas 

operators to develop oil and gas resources within sage-grouse habitat. The overall minerals management 

under Alternative B and Alternative C are inappropriate because they unreasonably limit oil and gas 

development. The adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would significantly curtail domestic 

production compared to both the baseline scenario and any of the other alternatives analyzed by the BLM. 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, Table 2-6, Section 4.8. The loss of such an enormous energy supply is contrary to 

the best interests of the nation, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The removal of vast 

areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions on existing leases under 

Alternative B and Alternative C would also significantly restrict regional earnings, jobs, and tax revenue. 

According to the information presented in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the adoption of Alternatives a and C 

would reduce regional earnings significantly and reduce local jobs over the current management. See SageGrouse DLUPA. Table 4.43. In these difficult economic times, it is inappropriate for the BLM to 

significantly restrict economic development opportunities. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed 

the potential impacts the restrictions on future leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. The 

BLM must recognize, study, and report the economic impact of its decision to close significant portions of 

the Planning Area to leasing, or to make significant portions of the Planning Area only available with major 

constraints will have upon future exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to 

simply assert that existing lease rights will be protected, the BLM must analyze further how existing lease 

rights will be impacted by future limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford

existing leases in the above-described scenario. Devon is concerned about the BLM's decision to
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-623

significantly increase the number of acres subject to NSO restrictions under Alternative E. The BLM

indicates there would be a 400% increase in areas subject to NSO but has not clearly identified or explained 

its rationale for this decision. Sage- Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-111. The BLM should provide far more 

information regarding the significant increase in areas subject to NSO restrictions.

Comment ID: 997

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Alternative B analyzes closing 6,809,580 acres to oil and gas leasing. Alternative C closes a 

staggering 16,878,220 acres. Oil and gas development is a significant economic driver within the Planning 

Area and the BLM and USFS analysis demonstrates Alternative B and C will have significant adverse

impacts to the local and state economy. It is estimated that Alternative B would reduce oil and gas economic 

output by $3,457,294,000 and Alternative C would reduce economic output by $8,047,983,000. The BLM

and USFS analysis indicates that Alternative C would result in a loss of more than 7,000 jobs per year 

roughly one third of the oil and gas related jobs in the Planning Area. Most of the 15 counties in the Planning 

Area derive more than 50% of the county's assessed value from oil and gas. Sublette County's assessed 

valuation is 97% attributed to oil and gas. Sweetwater County estimates that approximately 86% of its 

operating budget (approximately $140 million) is generated from oil and gas and other mineral development 

revenues and property taxes - mostly from production on BLM lands. These are significant figures and not 

easily replaced by other revenue streams.

Comment ID: 1565

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG believes the BLM has significantly underestimated the potential impact the restrictions

proposed under Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil and gas development. The BLM 

seems to suggest the many RDFs and other limitations on surface disturbing activities would only delay 

mineral development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with additional timing restrictions, surface 

occupancy restrictions and other mitigation measures would make it uneconomic for most oil and gas 

operators to develop oil and gas resources within GRSG habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to simply 

suggest that development may be delayed. The overall minerals management under Alternative B and 

Alternative C are inappropriate because they unreasonably limit oil and gas development. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pg. 4-8. The adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would significantly curtail domestic 

production compared to both the baseline scenario and any of the other alternatives analyzed by the BLM. 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, Table 2-6, Section 4.8. The loss of such an enormous energy supply is contrary to 

the best interests of the nation, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The removal of vast 

areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions on existing leases under 

Alternative B and Alternative D would also significantly restrict regional earnings, jobs, and tax 

revenue.The BLM must not adopt an alternative that would reduce economic development, decrease 

domestic energy supplies, and harm the local tax base. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the 

potential impacts the restrictions on future leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. As the 

BLM acknowledges in Map 3-1, a significant portion of the Planning Area is currently leased for oil and 

gas development. Some leases, however, are isolated making them virtually impossible and not 

economically feasible to develop in their current state. The BLM must recognize, study, and report the 

economic impact of its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make 

significant portions of the Planning Area only available with major constraints, will have upon future 

exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing lease 

rights will be protected, the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by future 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-624 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario.

Comment ID: 1216

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz believes the BLM has significantly underestimated the potential impact the restrictions

proposed under Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil and gas development. The BLM 

seems to suggest the many RDFs and other limitations on surface disturbing activities would only delay 

mineral development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with additional timing restrictions, surface 

occupancy restrictions and other mitigation measures would make it uneconomic for most oil and gas 

operators to develop oil and gas resources within sage-grouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to 

simply suggest that development may be delayed.

Comment ID: 586

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential impacts the restrictions on future

leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. As the BLM acknowledges, a significant portion of 

the Planning Area is currently leased for oil and gas development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, § 3.8.1. Some 

leases, however, are isolated making them virtually impossible and not economically feasible to develop in 

their current state. Any responsible oil and gas producer who decides to take the risk of exploring by drilling 

a wildcat area must do so only after assembling a large enough block of leasehold acreage so that, if the 

drilling is successful, it can obtain an adequate return on the highrisk dollars invested. The BLM has, in 

another context, recognized the need for control of a reasonable acreage block. See Prima Oil & Gas Co., 

148 IBLA 45, 51, (1999) (BLM policy to suspend leases when "a lessee is unable to explore, develop, and 

produce leases due to the proximity, or commingling of other adjacent Federal lands needed for logical 

exploration and development that are currently not available for leasing"). The BLM must recognize, study, 

and report the economic impact of its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, 

or to make significant portions of the Planning Area only available with major constraints will have upon 

future exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing

lease rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by 

future limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario.

Comment ID: 1966

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: CHAPTER 4 4.6.7 Alternative E, Page 4-85 "Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 

304,970 acres (Map 2-3) would be the same type of impacts as described in Alternative A, except 236,420 

more acres (more than 4 times as many as Alternative A) would be prohibited. Restricting surface

disturbance on 21,950 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impact as described in Alternative A, except 

restrictions would occur on only 20% as much area, mainly from prohibiting surface disturbance on lands 

that only have restrictions under Alternative A." This sentence is very poorly written and incomprehensible 

and needs to be revised. We question the notion that a prohibition of surface disturbing activities on 4 times 

as many acres could logically be considered the same type of impact. Similarly, it is unclear how restrictions 

occurring on 20% as much area can be construed as having the same impact.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-625

Comment ID: 1142

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential impacts the restrictions on future

leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize, study, and report the

economic impact that its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make 

significant portions of the Planning Area available only with major constraints, will have upon future 

exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing lease 

rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by future 

limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario.

Comment ID: 2642

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-75, paragraph 6: Oil and gas development would be further restricted and may be 

precluded due to the inability to develop roads and pipelines in core. QEP asks that those restrictions be

included in the socioeconomic analysis.

Comment ID: 2651

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-272, paragraph 6: This paragraph is misleading and gives the public the impression this 

is not already done by proponents. There are many instances of leaseholder/project proponents agreeing to 

BMPs to reduce "additional habitat loss and fragmentation due to oil and gas development by protecting 

existing habitat resources from new development with buffer distances, additional reclamation, or seasonal 

closures." These are all current BMPs that operators agree to comply with in order for concessions on 

development in other areas.

Comment ID: 2646

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-111: "In total, 12,355 oil and gas wells (10% fewer than Alternative A) ... are projected 

over the life of the plan under Alternative E." How were these figures determined? Considering Alternative 

E has NSO on 689,300 acres and CSU on 6,146,570 acres, far more than Alternative A, it seems the decrease 

in oil and gas wells is extremely low.

Comment ID: 3146

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 4.8.7 4‐ 111 Last sentence on page What determined avoiding roads within 1.9 miles of the 

perimeter of lek? This is extreme even in core areas.

Comment ID: 2289

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-626 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential impacts the restrictions on future

leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. As the BLM acknowledges in Map 3-1, a significant 

portion of the Planning Area is currently leased for oil and gas development. Some leases, however, are 

isolated making them virtually impossible and not economically feasible to develop in their current state. 

The BLM must recognize, study, and report the economic impact of its decision to close significant portions 

of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make significant portions of the Planning Area only available with 

major constraints will have upon future exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the 

BLM to simply assert that existing lease rights will be protected, the BLM must analyze further how existing 

lease rights will be impacted by future limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will 

afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario.

Comment ID: 3145

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 4.8.2 4‐ 103 Bullet 5, lines 4‐ 6 This language implies that additional protection measures that 

go beyond what is currently deemed necessary under existing leases and project‐ level authorizations could 

be required as COAs on APDs and ROWs. This assumption requires removal to ensure our existing 

development operations are not newly impeded in existing and authorized development areas.

Comment ID: 2643

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-103, paragraph 4, bullet 5, lines 4-6: This language implies that additional protection

measures that go beyond what is currently deemed necessary under existing leases and project-level

authorizations could be required as COAs on APDs and ROWs. QEP requests that this assumption be

removed to ensure our existing development operations are not impeded in existing and authorized

development areas.

Comment ID: 2287

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana believes the BLM has significantly underestimated the potential impact the restrictions

proposed under Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil and gas development. The BLM 

seems to suggest the many RDFs and other limitations on surface disturbing activities would only delay 

mineral development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with additional timing restrictions, surface 

occupancy restrictions and other mitigation measures would make it uneconomic for most oil and gas 

operators to develop oil and gas resources within sage-grouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to 

simply suggest that development may be delayed. The overall minerals management under Alternative B 

and Alternative C are inappropriate because they unreasonably limit oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 2622

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 2-168, Table 2-2: Under fluid mineral leasing, NSO in Alternative E is 689,300 acres, 

which is 648,320 more acres than the NSO under Alternative A. Controlled Surface Use (CSU) in 

Alternative E is 6,146,570 acres, which is 1,131,360 more acres than the CSU under Alternative A. The 

ROW avoidance areas went from 2.5 million in Alternative A to almost 6 million acres in Alternative E. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-627

The negative socioeconomic consequences are grossly underestimated considering the amount of land

being restricted in the preferred alternative. In their current form, Alternatives B, C, D, and E have the 

potential to substantially decrease oil and gas production thereby greatly reducing royalty and tax payments.

Comment ID: 3140

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Chapter 4 Throughout Alternative D impacts are understated due to the preclusion of 

ROWs/SUAs in core. Where these features are denied, many other developments would not be achievable.

Comment ID: 3142

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 4.5.6 4‐ 75 Paragraph 6 O&G development would be further restricted and may be precluded 

due to the inability to develop roads and pipelines in core.

Comment ID: 2176

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential impacts the restrictions on future

leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize, study, and report the

economic impact of its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make 

significant portions of the Planning Area only available with major constraints will have upon future 

exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing lease 

rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by future 

limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario. Contrary to the requirements of BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, the 

BLM has not properly identified lands within the Planning Area that are open to oil and gas leasing with 

moderate constraints and those that are available only with major constraints. The BLM should supplement 

the information contained in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA with this information as soon as possible.

Summary: BLM has significantly underestimated the potential impact the restrictions proposed under

Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil and gas development. The BLM seems to suggest 

the many RDFs, the preclusion of ROWs/SUAs, and other limitations on surface disturbing activities would 

only delay mineral development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with additional timing restrictions, 

surface occupancy restrictions, and other mitigation measures would make it uneconomic for most oil and 

gas operators to develop oil and gas resources within sagegrouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to 

simply suggest that development may be delayed. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the 

potential impacts that restrictions on future leasing could have on existing leases. The BLM must recognize, 

study, and report the economic impact of its decision to close significant portions of the planning area to 

leasing, or to make significant portions of the planning area only available with major constraints. Most of 

the 15 counties in the planning area derive more than 50% of the county's assessed value from oil and gas.

Sublette County's assessed valuation is 97% attributed to oil and gas. Sweetwater County estimates that 

approximately 86% of its operating budget (approximately $140 million) is generated from oil and gas and 

other mineral development revenues and property taxes - mostly from production on BLM lands. These are 

significant figures and not easily replaced by other revenue streams. It is not enough for the BLM to simply 

assert that existing lease rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze how existing lease rights will be 

impacted by future limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-628 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Specific changes that should be made to Chapter 4 include: Page 4‐ 75 Paragraph 6: Oil and gas 

development would be further restricted and may be precluded due to the inability to develop roads and 

pipelines in core. Page 4-85, 4.6.7, Alternative E, "Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 304,970 acres 

(Map 2-3) would be the same type of impacts as described in Alternative A, except 236,420 more acres 

(more than 4 times as many as Alternative A) would be prohibited. Restricting surface disturbance on

21,950 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impact as described in Alternative A, except restrictions would 

occur on only 20% as much area, mainly from prohibiting surface disturbance on lands that only have 

restrictions under Alternative A." This sentence is very poorly written and incomprehensible and needs to 

be revised. The notion that a prohibition of surface disturbing activities on four times as many acres could 

logically be considered the same type of impact is questionable. Similarly, it is unclear how restrictions 

occurring on 20% as much area can be construed as having the same impact. Page 4-75, paragraph 6: “Oil 

and gas development would be further restricted and may be precluded due to the inability to develop roads 

and pipelines in core.” Those restrictions should be included in the socioeconomic analysis. Page 4‐ 103 

Bullet 5, lines 4‐ 6: This language implies that additional protection measures that go beyond what is 

currently deemed necessary under existing leases and project‐ level authorizations could be required as 

COAs on APDs and ROWs. This assumption requires removal to ensure our existing development 

operations are not newly impeded in existing and authorized development areas. Page 4-111: "In total, 

12,355 oil and gas wells (10% fewer than Alternative A) ... are projected over the life of the plan under 

Alternative E." How were these figures determined? Considering Alternative E has NSO on 689,300 acres 

and CSU on 6,146,570 acres, far more than Alternative A, it seems the decrease in oil and gas wells is 

extremely low. Page 4‐ 111: Last sentence on page: What determined avoiding roads within 1.9 miles of 

the perimeter of lek? This is extreme even in core areas. Page 4-272, paragraph 6: This paragraph is 

misleading and gives the public the impression this is not already done by proponents. There are many 

instances of leaseholder/project proponents agreeing to BMPs to reduce "additional habitat loss and 

fragmentation due to oil and gas development by protecting existing habitat resources from new 

development with buffer distances, additional reclamation, or seasonal closures." These are all current 

BMPs that operators agree to comply with in order for concessions on development in other areas.

Response: Chapter 4 presents the impacts anticipated form the various alternatives based on best available

science and professional judgment. The Draft LUP Amendment/Draft EIS provided sufficiently detailed 

information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the preferred alternative or make a reasoned 

choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an understanding of the 

environmental consequences associated with the alternatives, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Because 

land use plan-level decisions are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on sitespecific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, 

B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning), the associated analyses are 

correspondingly high level. Impacts were considered on numerous resources, resource uses, and 

socioeconomic conditions, which included economic impacts, social impacts, and environmental justice. 

See Section 4.11 of the Draft EIS. The impacts analysis for mineral leasing notes repeatedly under all 

alternatives, particularly Alternatives B and C, state that many conservation measures would eliminate and 

restrict, not merely delay, the development of leases. BLM and Forest Service have drafted a range of acres 

unavailable for new oil and gas leasing and projected number of oil and gas wells for each of the 

Alternatives. BLM and Forest Service will consider the entire range of alternatives and make a final 

decision in the Record of Decision when the land use planning process is completed. Existing leases would 

not be affected by new closures and/or areas administratively unavailable for lease, and restrictions could 

not be added to existing leases. Surface use and timing restrictions resulting from this RMPA cannot be 

applied to existing leases. Surface disturbance that is the result of the exercise of valid existing rights will 

not be precluded because of the cap or density restriction, but will be counted by the BLM toward the cap

and the density restriction when BLM is considering whether to authorize new discretionary surface

development. Other aspects of the plan, such as RDFs and buffer distances, will be applied to existing rights 

to the extent they do not interfere with those rights. The BLM will also seek to engage with authorized users 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-629

of the public lands so that the exercise of valid existing rights occurs while providing for the maximum 

conservation of the species. Existing leases would not be terminated until the lease expires. Once a lease 

expires, the parcel would be subject to the final decision on the management actions and alternatives 

included in the Record of Decision.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Impacts to coal and trona are understated

Comment ID: 514

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Impacts on Trona and Coal Mining DEIS 2-88; 4-119 The DEIS concurs that trona mining will 

be affected either through denial of leases, 2-88 and through DDCT calculations. The DEIS does not fully

estimate the adverse impacts to state severance taxes or local taxes. Trona mining is very important to 

Sweetwater County.

Comment ID: 1408

Organization: Cloud Peak Energy Resources

Name: Bob Green

Comment: Assumptive determination of leasing unsuitability for sage-grouse priority habitat The text in 

Section 4.8 (Page 4-102) outlines that: “This analysis assumes areas identified as sagegrouse priority habitat 

would be determined to be unsuitable for further consideration for coal leasing and development, and 

therefore, no development of the coal resource would occur on these lands.” This assumption is highly 

restrictive and appears to reflect a foregone conclusion in advance of any site-specific screenings or 

assessments, and is inconsistent with discussions in Section 4.12.7 for Alternative E. This assumptive 

approach should be modified to reflect the spectrum of potential outcomes from actual screenings and 

assessments. At a minimum, qualifying considerations of effective on-site and off-site mitigation measures, 

compensatory conservation measures or other alternatives should be added to this discussion as well as 

specific provisions for these alternatives.

Comment ID: 2502

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-375 4.18.5 Alternative C: Are we to understand that the first phrase in the first sentence 

of the seventh paragraph would spell the doom for all coal mining in the TBNG?

Summary: Impacts to coal and trona mining from sage-grouse conservation measures are understated in

Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments. Coal and trona mining will be affected either through denial of 

leases and through DDCT calculations. The Draft EIS does not fully estimate the adverse impacts to state 

severance taxes or local taxes. The text in Section 4.8 (Page 4-102) outlines that: “This analysis assumes 

areas identified as sagegrouse priority habitat would be determined to be unsuitable for further 

consideration for coal leasing and development, and therefore, no development of the coal resource would 

occur on these lands.” This assumption is highly restrictive and appears to reflect a foregone conclusion in 

advance of any site-specific screenings or assessments, and is inconsistent with discussions in Section 

4.12.7 for Alternative E. This assumptive approach should be modified to reflect the spectrum of potential

outcomes from actual screenings and assessments. At a minimum, qualifying considerations of effective 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-630 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

on-site and off-site mitigation measures, compensatory conservation measures, or other alternatives should 

be added to this discussion as well as specific provisions for these alternatives.

Response: Chapter 4 presents the impacts anticipated form the various alternatives based on best available

science and professional judgment. The Draft LUP Amendment/Draft EIS provided sufficiently detailed 

information to aid in determining whether to proceed with the Preferred Alternative or make a reasoned 

choice among the other alternatives in a manner such that the public could have an understanding of the 

environmental consequences associated with the alternatives in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.1. Because 

land use plan-level decisions are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or focused on sitespecific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and Chapter IV, 

B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning), the associated analyses are 

correspondingly high level. Impacts were considered on numerous resources, resource uses, and 

socioeconomic conditions, which included economic impacts, social impacts, and environmental justice. 

See Section 4.11 of the Draft EIS. We agree that applying unsuitability criteria #15 to an area proposed for 

coal leasing using surface methods may result in a number of outcomes. However, our analysis needs to 

make assumptions in order to properly describe potential impacts, and for this particular analysis it was 

determined we would examine impacts assuming no development of coal would occur on high priority 

lands for sagegrouse. When BLM receives a coal lease application in an area identified as acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing, consistent with our coal regulations at 43 CFR 3420 and 3461, BLM will

examine each individual situation and consult with the State of Wyoming to determine if leasing will be 

suitable on land identified as high priority areas for sage-grouse.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Mineral and energy development impacts sage-grouse

Comment ID: 1704

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: The impacts from the various minerals development activities – fluid, coal, locatable, leasable 

and sand and gravel have been amply documented in by Connelly, Naugle and others and have been cited

elsewhere in our comments. While the impacts are much akin to those of energy development, onthe- whole 

they involve much greater human presence and activity and noise, and hence have a much greater impact 

on the grouse. In addition, we wish to highlight a few of the examples. Energy development can cause 

radical changes to sagebrush ecosystems. Analysis of oil and gas developments found cases where such 

lands contained twice as many roads and power lines and the density of development far exceeded the 

grouse’s threshold of tolerance. Energy development and its related infrastructure impacts grouse in many 

ways, both direct and indirect, cumulatively and synergistically.

Comment ID: 822

Organization:

Name: Laurinda Reinhart

Comment: the impacts of energy development also need to be considered. until the involved agencies 

manage our public lands holistically and sustainably, using science and not politics, nothing is going to 

improve

Summary: The impacts from the various minerals development activities – fluid, coal, locatable, leasable, 

and sand and gravel have been amply documented in by Connelly, Naugle, and others. Impacts from mineral 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-631

and energy development involves human presence, activity, and noise. Energy development can cause 

radical changes to sagebrush ecosystems. Analysis of oil and gas developments found cases where such 

lands contained twice as many roads and power lines and the density of development far exceeded the 

grouse’s threshold of tolerance. Mineral and energy development and its related infrastructure impacts 

grouse in many ways, both direct and indirect, cumulatively, and synergistically.

Response: An analysis of the impacts associated with the projected development under the management

strategies for each alternative is found in Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Need scientific reference or source for assertions

Comment ID: 2653

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-366, paragraph 4: "Groundwater in these areas could also be affected by oil and gas 

leasing activities through withdrawal, injection, or mixing of material from different geologic layers or the

surface. Withdrawal of groundwater could affect local groundwater flow patterns and create changes in 

quality and quantity of the remaining groundwater." There is no source listed for these claims. There have 

been no incidences of hydraulic fracturing fluids contaminating groundwater. Therefore, QEP requests that 

the BLM either remove this statement, or provide evidence and specific citations to support this assumption.

Summary: Page 4-366, Paragraph 4: "Groundwater in these areas could also be affected by oil and gas 

leasing activities through withdrawal, injection, or mixing of material from different geologic layers or the

surface. Withdrawal of groundwater could affect local groundwater flow patterns and create changes in 

quality and quantity of the remaining groundwater." There is no source listed for these claims. There have 

been no incidences of hydraulic fracturing fluids contaminating groundwater. BLM should remove this 

statement or provide evidence and specific citations to support this

Response: There are no impacts from leasing. The potential impacts listed are from exploration or 

production, and are dealt with at the time the downhole (BLM) portion of the SUPO is approved in the 

APD process. The statement is not specific to hydraulic fracturing fluids or techniques, but refers to the

generic injection or mixing of foreign materials into groundwater. The agencies believe the statement is 

correct. The effects to groundwater by hydraulic fracturing is beyond the scope of this document.

Leasable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Valid existing rights discussion is missing in Chapter 4 for Alternative E

Comment ID: 2196

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company

Name: Steven J. Beil

Comment: For most of the Alternatives addressed in Section 4.8 (Minerals and Energy) there are specific

discussions recognizing valid existing rights. That is not the case for the discussions in Subsection 4.8.7 

(Alternative E). While the assumptions listed in Subsection 4.1.3 imply that implementation actions would 

comply with valid existing rights, Subsection 4.8.7 needs to specifically state that all valid existing rights 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-632 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

will be recognized and respected, relative to potential implementation of any new restrictions or stipulations 

related to the Nine-Plan Amendments.

Comment ID: 3006

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association

Name: Marion Loomis

Comment: For most of the Alternatives addressed in Section 4.8 (Minerals and Energy) there are specific

discussions recognizing valid existing rights. That is not the case for the discussions in Subsection 4.8.7 

(Alternative E). While the assumptions listed in Subsection 4.1.3 imply that implementation actions would 

comply with valid existing rights, Subsection 4.8.7 needs to specifically state that all valid existing rights 

will be recognized and respected, relative to potential implementation of any new restrictions or stipulations 

related to the Nine-Plan Amendments.

Summary: For most of the Alternatives addressed in Section 4.8 (Minerals and Energy) there are specific

discussions recognizing valid existing rights. That is not the case for the discussions in Subsection 4.8.7 

(Alternative E). While the assumptions listed in Subsection 4.1.3 imply that implementation actions would 

comply with valid existing rights, subsection 4.8.7 needs to specifically state that all valid existing rights 

will be recognized and respected, relative to potential implementation of any new restrictions or stipulations 

related to the Draft LUP Amendments.

Response: All management actions included in the LUP Amendments must comply with all laws, 

regulations, and valid existing rights. This is included as a general assumption in the Chapter 4 analysis of

environmental consequences (Section 4.1.3). This assumption states "Implementation actions will comply 

with valid existing rights and all federal laws, regulations, and policies."

Leasable Minerals

Mitigation measures

BLM's draft Regional Mitigation manual should not be considered

Comment ID: 590

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Further, throughout section 2.3.3 the BLM refers to BLM's regional mitigation manual section 

1794. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-8 - 2-9. To date, however, the BLM has not released BLM Manual 

1794 in a final format. Instead, the BLM has merely released a preliminary draft section of the manual for

public review and comment. It is wholly inappropriate for the BLM to rely upon this draft Manual in the 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA until it has been finally promulgated.

Comment ID: 707

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: MS 1794 unquestionably imposes new obligations on private interests. MS 1794 states that BLM 

will “locate mitigation sites, projects, and measures . . . where the impacts of the use authorization can be 

best mitigated . . . regardless of land ownership.” Draft at 1-6. In other words, the BLM is claiming the 

authority to determine that the best site for mitigation is a privately-owned parcel outside the project area. 

Once located, the BLM will impose what it determines to be adequate management and protection measures 

to mitigate the effects for the entire lifetime of the project on those privately-owned parcels. Id. at 7. The 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-633

BLM may even demand legally binding “written assurances from the relevant . . . surface owner . . . that 

mitigation conducted on those lands is agreed to and will receive adequate management, protection, [and] 

site access during the expected lifetime of the land-use authorization...” Id. In effect, the BLM grants to 

itself a sweeping right to impose upon landowners significant obligations to comply with mitigation 

measures for projects with which landowners have absolutely no relation and apparently, without just 

compensation. This is a regulatory taking that violates the U.S. and Wyoming Constitutions. U.S. 

Constitution, Fifth amendment; Wyo. Const., Art. 1, §32; Pater v. City of Casper, 646 F.3d 1290, 1294-96 

(10th Cir. 2013) (holding that notice of lien that clouded title was a regulatory taking). Imposition of land 

use restrictions to mitigate a distant public land project is similarly a regulatory taking. It certainly exceeds 

BLM’s authority, which is limited to public lands. 43 U.S.C. §1702(e). Under MS 1794, existing rights, 

such as infrastructure, may also need to be removed. Id. at 1-1. Roads, wells, pipes, transmission lines likely 

all qualify under BLM’s undefined term “infrastructure” and those property rights appear to be either 

stripped or burdened in the name of mitigation throughout the Draft. Notice and comment as well as the 

rulemaking analysis are essential because landowners, citizens, and several interested agencies and local 

government entities may face the loss of existing property rights and new mitigation obligations. There is 

no question that expanding mitigation to a regional scale will increase regulatory costs and burdens on small 

businesses. BLM fails to address any of these adverse impacts.

Comment ID: 741

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM cannot require compensatory offsite mitigation for all oil and gas development. Such 

a policy ignores the fact that oil and gas development is an appropriate use of federal lands. Further, 

throughout section 2.3.3 the BLM refers to BLM's Regional Mitigation Manual Section 1794. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 2-8 – 2-9. To date, however, the BL.M has not released BLM Manual 1794 in a final format. 

Instead, the BLM has merely released a preliminary draft section of the Manual for public review and 

comment. It is wholly inappropriate for the BLM to rely upon this draft Manual in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA 

until the BLM has finalized the Manual. Also, there is no need to establish a Mitigation Implementation 

Team in Wyoming. Currently the BLM participates in the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Implementation Team 

("SGIT"). Establishing a separate Mitigation Implementation Team would confuse and complicate the 

current role of SGIT.

Comment ID: 708

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: No law or rule authorizes regional or landscape mitigation in addition to on-site and 

compensatory off-site mitigation. MS 1794 cites FLPMA, MLA, Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and 

several other statutes as authority for regional mitigation. MS 1794 1-1. The ESA provides for mitigation 

of a federal undertaking for listed species only, not generic impacts. 16 U.S.C. §1736. BLM also relies on 

FLPMA as its authority to implement MS 1794. Id. at 1-20 citing multiple use management, 43 U.S.C. 

§1712(a); and policies to protect scenic, historic, scientific and ecological values, §1701(a)(8),1 and 

nondegradation management, §1732(b). BLM restates the “undue degradation” policy provisions of 

FLPMA but fails to identify a single provision that authorizes mitigation, let alone regional mitigation. 

Draft at 1-20, 1-21; 43 U.S.C. §1732(b). BLM has no authority to stipulate land uses on private or state 

lands. BLM’s regulatory authority is limited to public lands, 43 U.S.C. §§1702(e), 1712, 1732. MS 1794 

purports to exercise this authority as a condition of approving a public land project, whether it be a drilling 

permit, pipeline or transmission line right-of-way, or a wind farm. MS 1794 fails to connect how BLM can 

require landowners unaffiliated with the project to burden their land with what would essentially be a

conservation easement. The omission demonstrates the significant gaps in BLM’s claim to authority to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-634 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

require regional mitigation as a condition of approving public land uses. NEPA or NEPA regulations also 

do not support MS 1794. It is well settled that “NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply 

prescribes the necessary process.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). 

Methow Valley is controlling with regards to MS 1794. In that case, the Supreme Court set aside a lower 

court ruling that approval of a ski area expansion should be conditioned on mitigating the impacts of related 

development. Id. at 332. The Supreme Court held that “it would be inconsistent with NEPA's reliance on 

procedural mechanisms-as opposed to substantive, result-based standards-to demand the presence of a fully

developed plan that will mitigate environmental harm before an agency can act.” Id. at 353. NEPA has not 

been amended to require mitigation since Methow Valley and it certainly has not been amended to even 

require regional mitigation measures.

Comment ID: 706

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: The Coalition has previously commented on the BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual Section 

1794 (MS 1794) and BLM now implements MS 1794 while entirely ignoring the Coalition’s advice. The 

Coalition is increasingly concerned about the implementation of MS 1794 and the cursory mention provided 

in the DEIS. See DEIS at 2-8. Our concerns follow. A. MS 1794 Must Undergo Rulemaking With Notice 

and Comment FLPMA explicitly provides that when dealing with public lands, the Secretary shall, . . . 

promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act and of other laws applicable to the 

public lands, and the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within the National Forest System, 

shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of this Act. The promulgation of such rules 

and regulations shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States Code, without 

regard to section 553 (a) (2). Prior to the promulgation of such rules and regulations, such lands shall be

administered under existing rules and regulations concerning such lands to the extent practical. 43 U.S.C. 

§1740. FLPMA also provides for public comment on public land management and programs, policies, and 

guidelines. Id. §§1712(f); 1739(e). Undoubtedly, MS 1794 relates to the management of public lands, 

because BLM relies on FLPMA as its authority and MS 1794 significantly impacts private property 

interests. BLM must, therefore, comply with FLPMA by undertaking rulemaking before attempting to 

implement regional mitigation. MS 1794 goes well beyond merely restating duties already contained in 

existing BLM regulations and cannot be considered an “interpretive rule.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(3)(A); Gen. 

Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d 1561, 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1984). To the contrary, as explained below, 

MS 1794 purports to implement statutory authority under FLPMA, NEPA and ESA and imposes new 

obligations on private interests. It is instead, a “legislative rule.” Steinhorst Associates v. Preston, 572 F. 

Supp.2d 112, 120 (D. D.C. 2008). Legislative rules must undergo notice and comment pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to give interested parties ample opportunity to participate by 

submitting written data, views, analysis, and uniquely effected perspectives. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). Rulemaking 

also ensures that the regulatory costs are addressed by a cost-benefit analysis, Ex. Order 12,12,866, 3 C.F.R. 

Parts 638, 639 (1993), The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1501–04 (1994 & Supp 

1995), and (Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §§3501-3521) as well as disparate impacts on small 

businesses, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. §§601-612) and impacts on 

minority communities, Ex. Order 12898 (1994). BLM evades these important regulatory checks by

implementing new authority without rulemaking.

Comment ID: 709

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: MS 1794 provides that “[w]hen conditioning a BLM authorization on the performance of 

mitigation outside the area of impact, the BLM should identify a “reasonable relationship” between the
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-635

resources and values affected by the authorization and the resources and values benefitted by the

mitigation.” Id. at 1-5,1-6 (emphasis added). The relationship will be identified during the NEPA process 

and the BLM may expressly condition its approval on the applicant’s commitment “to perform or cover the 

costs of mitigation, both onsite and outside the area of impact.” Id. Here, the BLM incorrectly states a wellestablished rule of law. When conditioning approval of a permit upon mitigating impacts of a proposed 

development, the BLM must comply with the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Koontz v. St. Johns 

River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2595 (2013). Under this doctrine, the BLM “may not leverage 

its legitimate interest in mitigation to pursue governmental ends that lack an essential nexus and rough

proportionality to those impacts.” Id. (Emphasis added). Conditioning permit approval includes two steps. 

Id.; see also Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 387-88 (1994). First, the BLM cannot rely on attenuated 

relationships and gimmickry to claim a nexus between a proposed project and the environmental effects to 

be mitigated. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 387. Secondly, the BLM must make “individualized determinations” that 

the on-the-ground efforts are related in “both nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” 

Id. at 389. Combined, these two steps ensure that the BLM will not overstep its considerable power over 

public land projects. In light of the above precedent, MS 1794 already misstates the law. MS 1794 only 

requires BLM to claim a “reasonable relationship” between a project and the benefit to be produced by 

mitigation, rather than only applying regional mitigation when there is an essential nexus between the 

project and its impacts plus a separate determination that the nature and extent of the mitigation required

are roughly proportionate to the impacts. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 387. A “reasonable relationship,” is an

ubiquitous legal term that the US Supreme Court explicitly rejected because it would be easily confused 

with rational basis. Instead the court held that any condition must be roughly proportionate to the nature 

and extend of development impacts. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 392; Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 

133 S. Ct. at 2595 (affirming need to justify condition on nexus and rough proportionality). An appropriate 

notice and comment period would allow the public to demonstrate the consequences of the BLM’s misstated 

legal principles. Numerous agencies, landowners, employees and people involved in large resource 

development projects rely on federal policies for guidance, when those policies are incorrect or unclear, 

citizens and the environment pay the price.

Comment ID: 684

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: B.2.7 - Regional Mitigation Strategy Samson is concerned about the BLM's incorporation of the 

mitigation strategy described in BLM Draft Manual Section 1794. As this document has not been finally 

implemented or developed by the BLM and is only in draft form, it has no binding effect. The BLM should 

refrain from using non-final documents.

Summary: Throughout section 2.3.3 the BLM refers to BLM's Regional Mitigation manual, section 1794. 

To date, the BLM has not released BLM Manual 1794 in a final format. Instead, the BLM has merely 

released a preliminary draft section of the manual for public review and comment. It is wholly inappropriate 

for the BLM to rely upon this draft manual in the Draft LUP Amendments until it has been finally

promulgated. MS 1794 Must Undergo Rulemaking With Notice and Comment: FLPMA explicitly provides 

that when dealing with public lands, the Secretary shall, . . . Promulgate rules and regulations to carry out 

the purposes of this Act and of other laws applicable to the public lands, and the Secretary of Agriculture,

with respect to lands within the National Forest System, shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out 

the purposes of this Act. The promulgation of such rules and regulations shall be governed by the provisions 

of chapter 5 of title 5 of the United States Code, without regard to section 553 (a) (2). Prior to the 

promulgation of such rules and regulations, such lands shall be administered under existing rules and 

regulations concerning such lands to the extent practical. FLPMA also provides for public comment on 

public land management and programs, policies, and guidelines. Undoubtedly, MS 1794 relates to the 

management of public lands, because BLM relies on FLPMA as its authority and MS 1794 significantly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-636 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impacts private property interests. BLM must, therefore, comply with FLPMA by undertaking rulemaking 

before attempting to implement regional mitigation. MS 1794 goes well beyond merely restating duties 

already contained in existing BLM regulations and cannot be considered an “interpretive rule.” 5 U.S.C. § 

553(a)(3)(A); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 742 F.2d 1561, 1565. To the contrary, as explained below, 

MS 1794 purports to implement statutory authority under FLPMA, NEPA and ESA and imposes new 

obligations on private interests. It is instead, a “legislative rule.” Legislative rules must undergo notice and 

comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to give interested parties ample opportunity 

to participate by submitting written data, views, analysis, and uniquely effected perspectives. Rulemaking 

also ensures that the regulatory costs are addressed by a cost-benefit analysis, Ex. Order 12,12,866, 3 C.F.R. 

Parts 638, 639, The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and Paperwork Reduction Act as well as 

disparate impacts on small businesses, Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and impacts 

on minority communities. BLM evades these important regulatory checks by implementing new authority 

without rulemaking. MS 1794 unquestionably imposes new obligations on private interests. MS 1794 states 

that BLM will “locate mitigation sites, projects, and measures . . . Where the impacts of the use 

authorization can be best mitigated . . . Regardless of land ownership.” In other words, the BLM is claiming 

the authority to determine that the best site for mitigation is a privately-owned parcel outside the project 

area. Once located, the BLM will impose what it determines to be adequate management and protection 

measures to mitigate the effects for the entire lifetime of the project on those privately-owned parcels. The 

BLM may even demand legally binding “written assurances from the relevant . . . Surface owner . . . That 

mitigation conducted on those lands is agreed to and will receive adequate management, protection, [and] 

site access during the expected lifetime of the land-use authorization...” In effect, the BLM grants to itself 

a sweeping right to impose upon landowners significant obligations to comply with mitigation measures 

for projects with which landowners have absolutely no relation and apparently, without just compensation. 

This is a regulatory taking that violates the US and Wyoming Constitutions. US Constitution, Fifth 

amendment; Wyo. Const., Art. 1, §32; Pater v. City of Casper, 646 F.3d 1290, 1294-96 (holding that notice 

of lien that clouded title was a regulatory taking). Imposition of land use restrictions to mitigate a distant 

public land project is similarly a regulatory taking. It exceeds BLM’s authority, which is limited to public 

lands. 43 U.S.C. §1702(e). Under MS 1794, existing rights, such as infrastructure, may also need to be 

removed. Roads, wells, pipes, transmission lines likely all qualify under BLM’s undefined term 

“infrastructure” and those property rights appear to be either stripped or burdened in the name of mitigation

throughout the Draft. Notice and comment as well as the rulemaking analysis are essential because

landowners, citizens, and several interested agencies and local government entities may face the loss of 

existing property rights and new mitigation obligations. There is no question that expanding mitigation to 

a regional scale will increase regulatory costs and burdens on small businesses. BLM fails to address any 

of these adverse impacts. MS 1794 provides that “[w]hen conditioning a BLM authorization on the 

performance of mitigation outside the area of impact, the BLM should identify a “reasonable relationship” 

between the resources and values affected by the authorization and the resources and values benefitted by 

the mitigation.” The relationship will be identified during the NEPA process and the BLM may expressly

condition its approval on the applicant’s commitment “to perform or cover the costs of mitigation, both 

onsite and outside the area of impact.” Here, the BLM incorrectly states a well-established rule of law.

When conditioning approval of a permit upon mitigating impacts of a proposed development, the BLM 

must comply with the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 

133 S. Ct. 2586, 2595. Under this doctrine, the BLM “may not leverage its legitimate interest in mitigation 

to pursue governmental ends that lack an essential nexus and rough proportionality to those impacts.” 

Conditioning permit approval includes two steps. Id.; see also Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 387-

88. First, the BLM cannot rely on attenuated relationships and gimmickry to claim a nexus between a 

proposed project and the environmental effects to be mitigated. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 387. Secondly, the BLM 

must make “individualized determinations” that the on-the-ground efforts are related in “both nature and 

extent to the impact of the proposed development.” Combined, these two steps ensure that the BLM will 

not overstep its considerable power over public land projects. In light of the above precedent, MS 1794 

already misstates the law. MS 1794 only requires BLM to claim a “reasonable relationship” between a 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-637

project and the benefit to be produced by mitigation, rather than only applying regional mitigation when 

there is an essential nexus between the project and its impacts plus a separate determination that the nature 

and extent of the mitigation required are roughly proportionate to the impacts. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 387. A 

“reasonable relationship,” is an ubiquitous legal term that the US Supreme Court explicitly rejected because 

it would be easily confused with rational basis. Instead the court held that any condition must be roughly

proportionate to the nature and extend of development impacts. Dolan, 512 U.S. at 392; Koontz v. St. Johns 

River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. at 2595 (affirming need to justify condition on nexus and rough 

proportionality).

Response: The Regional Mitigation Framework was developed to follow the BLM’s Regional Mitigation 

Manual MS-1794, Forest Service Handbook FSH 1909.15, and CEQ 40 CFR 1508.20. Per IM 2013-142 

the interim policy is effective and is to be implemented. A final policy is being developed, but in the interim, 

implement IM 2013-142. BLM manuals and handbooks can be developed and implemented without a rulemaking. The Regional Mitigation manual is not a legislative rule requiring notice-andcomment rulemaking 

under the APA and is within BLM's broad authority to regulate the public lands. Moreover, the principles 

in the Regional Mitigation Framework are now undergoing notice-andcomment as part of this planning 

process. The fact that the Draft Manual (MS 1704 -BLM's Regional Mitigation Manual) has not been 

finalized does not mean the BLM is without authority to continue to consider the guidance set forth therein 

as it undertakes the current land use planning effort and that Draft Manual and its implementing IM 

specifically provides that it is to be followed pending finalization. The BLM is appropriately considering 

and evaluating the guidance set forth in the Draft Manual, in addition to any other relevant internal agency 

guidance, through the Greater Sage-grouse planning process. The objectives of the Draft Manual are to 

provide guidance to BLM on how to 1) develop regional mitigation strategies, (2) incorporate regional 

mitigation into the land use planning process, and (3) identify and implement appropriate mitigation 

measures for particular land-use authorizations.

Leasable Minerals

Mitigation measures

Develop collaborative mitigation programs

Comment ID: 653

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: An Enhanced Mitigation/Expanded Use Authorizations Program would serve many benefits to 

both the sage-grouse population while also ensuring reasonable access and multi-use activities. It could

allow for a reduced need for non-core sage-grouse timing stipulations which are often extremely costly and 

difficult for energy projects to effectively work around. Therefore timing stipulations should not be applied 

as a default requirement, but considered in light of a program balancing both wildlife protections and 

industrial activities. As it relates to the oil and gas industry, the ability to conduct coordinated and well 

planned operations during wildlife timing stipulations makes for faster, safer, less impactful and more

efficient operations. An Enhanced Mitigation/Expanded Use Authorizations Program could allow operators 

to consistently apply techniques and practices, and to immediately implement lessons learned and reducing 

cycle times and decreasing temporal impacts for the overall operation. Anadarko welcomes the opportunity 

to meet with the agencies to further discuss and contribute to the development of such potential program.

Comment ID: 887

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-638 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Tri-State requests that the Agencies initiate a dialogue with members of industry to develop a 

better understanding of the construction and operational constraints relative to the recommended

conservation measures. Tri-State believes that such a dialogue would positively impact the Agencies

understanding of other federal and state agency requirements, as well as general operational requirements 

for the transmission system as they move forward to implement reasonable and feasible conservation 

measures.

Comment ID: 140

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: Permits will include requirements for mitigation that promote genetic diversity, critical 

connectivity, and population viability. This is new language for industry. What agency would come up with 

these requirements and when would we see them?

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service should initiate a dialogue with members of industry to develop a 

better understanding of the construction and operational constraints relative to recommended conservation 

measures. An Enhanced Mitigation/Expanded Use Authorizations Program would serve many benefits to 

both the sage-grouse population while also ensuring reasonable access and multiuse activities. It could 

allow for a reduced need for non-core sage-grouse timing stipulations which are often costly and difficult 

for energy projects to effectively work around. Therefore, timing stipulations should not be applied as a 

default requirement, but considered in light of a program balancing both wildlife protections and industrial 

activities. As it relates to the oil and gas industry, the ability to conduct coordinated and well planned 

operations during wildlife timing stipulations makes for faster, safer, less impactful and more efficient 

operations. An Enhanced Mitigation/Expanded Use Authorizations Program could allow operators to 

consistently apply techniques and practices, to immediately implement lessons learned, reducing cycle 

times, and decreasing temporal impacts for the overall operation.

Response: Specific mitigation strategies, based on the Regional Mitigation Framework, will be developed 

by regional teams within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision and be consistent with the

BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794, Forest Service Handbook FSH 1909.15, and CEQ

regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20.

Leasable Minerals

Mitigation measures

Opposition to mitigation policies, measures are overly prescriptive

Comment ID: 589

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM makes it clear in section 2.3.3 that it intends to rely on a significant level of off-site

mitigation in order to protect and improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. BLM needs to reconsider the 

BLM's appeal policy regarding off-site mitigation in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA for several reasons. SageGrouse DLUPA pgs. 2-8 - 2-9. First, the BLM needs to ensure that its proposed requirements for off-site 

or voluntary mitigation are consistent with existing BLM policy. This provision is inconsistent with the 

BLM's current policy regarding off-site mitigation as expressed in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 

2008-204. Instruction Memorandum 2008-204 makes it clear that off-site mitigation may be offered 

voluntarily by a project proponent and can only be a condition of a permit on a site-specific basis, under 

very specific criteria. It is contrary to BLM's policy to require off-site mitigation for any and all surface 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-639

disturbing authorization. The Instruction Memorandum makes it clear that it "is not the intent of the policy 

to solicit or require aptly committed mitigation that exceeds the impact of the Applicant's proposed project. 

Furthermore, not all adverse impacts can or must be fully mitigated either on-site or off-site. A certain level 

of adverse impacts may be acceptable and should be identified during the environmental review and 

acknowledged in its decision document." Instruction Memorandum 2008-204, pg. 2. The BLM's current 

policy regarding off-site mitigation makes it absolutely clear that off-site mitigation is only required or 

appropriate when impacts cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level on-site. It is not intended to be applied 

in all circumstances. Such a position is contrary to BLM policy and past procedures. The BLM cannot

require offsite mitigation for all oil and gas development. Such a policy ignores the fact that oil and gas 

development is an appropriate use of federal lands.

Comment ID: 542

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Anadarko requests that the agencies reconsider the sage-grouse mitigation measures set out in 

the Draft LUPA at Appendix B and discussed in more detail in Section II below, in light of the scientific

information contained in these comments and the practical and economic implications of imposing

mitigation measures not supported by scientific data. As currently drafted, some of the conservation and 

mitigation measures proposed in the Draft LUPA are overly prescriptive and are not supported by the best 

available science. Specifically, Anadarko offers these comments, as discussed in more detail in the 

following sections: 1. The agencies must consider data that shows sage-grouse populations are no longer 

declining as suggested by earlier literature; 2. The Draft LUPA does not adequately account for the 

Wyoming Core Area Policy and the rangewide protections afforded to sage-grouse by that policy; 3. Oil 

and gas activities must be considered under the lens of today’s technologies in use and actual development;

4. The agencies summary of sage-grouse threats in Northeastern Wyoming is overstated; 5. Oil and gas 

energy impacts are mischaracterized - summary conclusions; 6. Anadarko requests that the agencies amend 

the exception-request process to expressly allow for a programmatic process for reasonable access;

Comment ID: 1854

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: We oppose any requirement for compensatory mitigation unless it is offered voluntarily by a 

project proponent. Moreover, before an operator considers compensatory mitigation, BLM must

scientifically demonstrate that protective requirements which are already in place to reduce or eliminate 

impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands are not sufficiently effective. We emphasize 

that industry is already obligated to conduct multiple resource surveys on behalf of BLM as well as to 

comply with numerous BMPs; COAs; restrictive regulatory thresholds; NEPA analyses; in addition to a 

host of additional federal agency and state requirements. We strongly recommend BLM provide a 

framework of compensatory mitigation which may be voluntarily considered by a project proponent. We 

are concerned that absent specific guidance, resource specialists could be predisposed to requiring 

compensatory mitigation whenever it suits them, without regard for need or implementation of operator 

committed mitigation measures.

Comment ID: 675

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: The Wyoming Core Area Policy is designed to limit disturbances in Sage-grouse Core Area 

habitats and maintain sage-grouse population viability across the State of Wyoming. Stating that all new
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-640 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

energy development projects will require mitigation above and beyond the Wyoming Core Area Policy is 

fundamentally inconsistent with the informal stakeholder agreements that led to the establishment of the 

Core Area Policy. Establishing a monitoring program to determine if the Wyoming Core Area Policy is 

working would seem much more important and prudent than stating at this juncture that nearly all energy 

development projects will need to conduct mitigation beyond what is inherent to the Wyoming Core Area 

Policy, especially in light of the research noted previously from Doherty et al. (2010) that bolsters the 

effectiveness of this policy and its ability to mitigate impacts from development to a level that provides 

indiscernible impacts to sage-grouse. The Draft LUPA appears to create a framework whereby all projects 

will have additional regional mitigation elements required. This additional requirement is unnecessary 

given that the efficacy of the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Policy, endorsed by the FWS, is working and 

will continue to work to maintain the viability of sage-grouse populations and the habitats on which they 

depend.

Comment ID: 447

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Yates has several concerns with the Regional Mitigation policy provided in BLM IM 2013-142, 

Draft Regional Mitigation Manual Section 1794 (Draft Manual), as referred to in Appendix B of the Draft

LUPA and EIS. In general, BLM’s policy was to place a priority on onsite mitigation while considering

voluntary off-site mitigation projects. BLM has now adopted a policy that compels project mitigation

outside a project area of impact at a regional scale. The Draft Manual proposes a one-size-fits-all approach 

to off-site mitigation on both federal and non-federal lands on an unprecedented landscape scale.

Comment ID: 2009

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page 4-336, Paragraph 2 It is imperative BLM clarify the term “disruptive activities” to ensure 

it specifically and clearly excludes operator well visits and routine maintenance. There are several reasons 

for this, not the least of which include environmental exposure and risk of an unknown release increases 

significantly if a well cannot be accessed on a regular or frequent basis (this is especially true during winter 

months), vandalism of equipment could occur which would be unknown until the site could be accessed 

after the closure, and if a well maliciously becomes active, response times for any resulting environmental 

impacts (spills, product releases, etc.) would be delayed significantly due to the need for extensive snow 

clearing to obtain access for equipment. In addition, extended periods of shut-in can result in reservoir 

damage which can significantly reduce the productive life and economic viability of a well.

Comment ID: 1533

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG does not believe the BLM‘s reliance upon off-site or voluntary mitigation is consistent 

with existing BLM policy. The BLM seems to assume off-site mitigation should be required for more

projects, particularly under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-135 – 2-136,

Action No. 128. This provision is inconsistent with the BLM‘s current policy regarding off-site mitigation 

as expressed in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-204. The BLM cannot require offsite mitigation 

for all oil and gas development. Such a policy ignores the fact that oil and gas development is an appropriate 

use of federal lands.

Comment ID: 770
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-641

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon does not believe the BLM's reliance upon compensatory off-site or voluntary mitigation 

is consistent with existing BLM policy. The BLM seems to assume that compensatory off-site mitigation 

should be required for more projects, particularly under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 2-135- 2-136, Action No. 128. This provision is inconsistent with the BLM's current policy 

regarding off-site mitigation as expressed In BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2088-24. 23 [BLM 

Instruction Memorandum 2008-204 expired in September 2009. To date, however, no additional guidance 

has been issued by the BLM, and thus this is the most current guidance regarding off-site or compensatory 

mitigation. Although the BLM released Instruction Memorandum 2014-142 on January 17, 2014, it did not 

contain any final, binding guidance]

Comment ID: 1467

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: As discussed earlier, EOG also objects to the BLM‘s attempt to impose site-specific mitigation

measures in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, 

recognized that under FLPMA, and the BLM‘s own regulations, land use plans are not ordinarily the 

medium for making affirmative decisions. The Forest Service Planning Regulations and past Supreme 

Court decisions also recognize Forest Plans should not be used to make site-specific decisions.

Comment ID: 710

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: “Out-of-kind” mitigation is the “replacement or substitution of resources or values that are not 

the same type and kind as those impacted, but are related or similar.” Draft at 1-9. Initially, the Coalition

notes that the BLM does not have legal authority to require out-of kind mitigation, and opposed outof- kind 

proposals have been rejected. See Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. at 334 (“...although NEPA 

and CEQ regulations require detailed analysis of off-site mitigation measures, there is no basis to conclude 

that the [Agency’s] own regulations must also be read in all cases to condition permit issuance on 

consideration (and implementation) of such measures.”); see also 40 C.F.R. §1508.20. Even if required, the 

Coalition is confident that had the BLM chosen appropriate notice and comment procedures, this provision 

would be significantly altered, if not entirely deleted.

Comment ID: 1175

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is significantly opposed to the proposal to require full reclamation bonds for all oil 

and gas operations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-77, Action No. 69. 

The BLM should not attempt to override national policies and regulations through a regional RMP. Given

the release of Instruction Memorandum 2013-151 in July of 2013, the BLM absolutely must eliminate this 

proposal from the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 448

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-642 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Yates has additional concerns with the Draft Manual that include the following: 1) BLM has 

already begun “strategically pre-identifying” offsite mitigation areas without going through the NEPA

process, 2) mitigation strategies will be developed outside the NEPA process, 3) BLM will develop

mitigation obligations even for non-significant impacts contrary to the mandates of NEPA, 4) the Regional 

Mitigation policy appears contrary to the multiple use mandate of FLPMA, which recognizes mineral 

development is a principal use of federal lands, and 5) BLM can deny an application if they cannot reach 

an agreement on the scope and level of mitigation, which is inconsistent with existing law and may infringe 

upon valid existing rights. In light of these concerns Yates is opposed to the Draft Manual and its explicit 

adoption in the Draft LUPA and EIS. Yates would like to emphasize the BLM does not have the authority 

to implement such sweeping policy without going through the formal notice and comment rulemaking 

process. As such, Yates urges to eliminate this policy from the Draft LUPA and EIS.

Comment ID: 1778

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is very concerned about the onerous mitigation measures BLM intends to impose

under all alternatives in order to protect sage-grouse. ConocoPhillips is particularly concerned because the 

BLM is utilizing oil and gas development in places such as Pinedale, Wyoming as the basis for the 

imposition of COAs and other lease stipulations. The oil and gas development that took place in the Pinedale 

Anticline and the Jonah Fields is unlikely to be repeated across much of Wyoming especially given 

improvements in technology since those fields were developed. The BLM places far too much emphasis on 

the Holloran study from 2005 and it should not be cited for the proposition that oil and gas development 

necessarily causes adverse impacts to GRSG given the limitations of the study. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

3-241. In discussing the Holloran study, and any potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should 

specifically disclose the fact that the BLM purposely waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally 

associated with GRSG leks and specifically allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active 

lek during the strutting season in order to assess the potential impacts. When discussing the potential 

impacts of fluid minerals on GRSG, the BLM often overstates potential impacts to the GRSG. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 3-241 – 3-2-42. The BLM’s statements are contradicted by other reports that have been

prepared regarding GRSG. Ramey (2011). Additionally, Taylor et. Al., in 2007

Comment ID: 2242

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana does not believe the BLM’s reliance upon off-site or voluntary mitigation is consistent 

with existing BLM policy. The BLM seems to assume off-site mitigation should be required for more

projects, particularly under Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM’s current policy regarding offsite

mitigation makes it absolutely clear that off-site mitigation is only required or appropriate when impacts 

cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level on-site. It is not intended to be applied in all circumstances. Such 

a position is contrary to BLM policy and past procedures. The BLM cannot require offsite mitigation for 

all oil and gas development. Such a policy ignores the fact that oil and gas development is an appropriate 

use of federal lands.

Comment ID: 3153

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-643

Comment: B.2 B‐ 2 Paragraph 1 We appreciate the recognition that BMPs are continually improving and 

that application of all BMPs may not be appropriate in all areas and/or situations, but should be applied in

consideration of the specific circumstances associated with each project.

Summary: The mitigation measures BLM intends to impose under all alternatives in order to protect 

sagegrouse are onerous and not backed by science. The BLM places far too much emphasis on the Holloran 

study from 2005 and it should not be cited for the proposition that oil and gas development necessarily 

causes adverse impacts to Greater Sage-grouse given the limitations of the study. In discussing the Holloran 

study, and any potential conclusions derived therefrom, the BLM should specifically disclose the fact that 

the BLM purposely waived the seasonal and timing stipulations normally associated with Greater Sagegrouse leks and specifically allowed oil and gas operators in the area to drill near an active lek during the 

strutting season in order to assess the potential impacts. When discussing the potential impacts of fluid 

minerals on Greater Sage-grouse, the BLM often overstates potential impacts. The BLM’s statements are 

contradicted by other reports such as Ramey (2011) and Taylor et al. (2007). The BLM cannot require 

compensatory off-site mitigation for all oil and gas development. This provision is inconsistent with the 

BLM's current policy regarding off-site mitigation as expressed In BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 

2088-24. (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2008-204 expired in September 2009. To date, no additional

guidance has been issued by the BLM. Although the BLM released Instruction Memorandum 2014-142 on 

January 17, 2014, it did not contain any final, binding guidance) .It is contrary to BLM's policy to require 

off-site mitigation for any and all surface disturbing authorization. The BLM's current policy regarding offsite mitigation makes it absolutely clear that off-site mitigation is only required or appropriate when impacts 

cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level on-site. It is not intended to be applied in all circumstances. Such 

a position is contrary to BLM policy and past procedures. The Draft LUP Amendments appears to create a

framework whereby all projects will have additional regional mitigation elements required. This additional 

requirement is unnecessary given that the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Policy, endorsed by the USFWS, 

is working and will continue to work to maintain the viability of sage-grouse populations and the habitats 

on which they depend. Compensatory mitigation should be offered voluntarily to a project proponent. 

Before an operator considers compensatory mitigation, BLM must scientifically demonstrate that protective 

requirements are not sufficiently effective. Industry is already obligated to conduct multiple resource 

surveys on behalf of BLM as well as to comply with numerous BMPs, COAs, restrictive regulatory 

thresholds, and NEPA analyses, in addition to a host of additional federal agency and state requirements. 

Remove the requirement for full reclamation bonds for all oil and gas operations under Alternative B and 

Alternative C. The BLM should not attempt to override national policies and regulations through a regional 

RMP. “Out-of-kind” mitigation is the “replacement or substitution of resources or values that are not the

same type and kind as those impacted, but are related or similar.” Draft at 1-9. BLM does not have legal 

authority to require out-of kind mitigation. See Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. at 334

(“...although NEPA and CEQ regulations require detailed analysis of off-site mitigation measures, there is 

no basis to conclude that the [Agency’s] own regulations must also be read in all cases to condition permit 

issuance on consideration (and implementation) of such measures.”); see also 40 C.F.R. §1508.20. Even if 

required, had the BLM chosen appropriate notice and comment procedures, this provision would be 

significantly altered, if not entirely deleted. Clarify the term “disruptive activities” to ensure it specifically 

and clearly excludes operator well visits and routine maintenance. There are several reasons for this, not 

the least of which include environmental exposure and risk of an unknown release increases significantly 

if a well cannot be accessed on a regular or frequent basis (this is especially true during winter months), 

vandalism of equipment could occur which would be unknown until the site could be accessed after the 

closure, and if a well maliciously becomes active, response times for any resulting environmental impacts

(spills, product releases, etc.) would be delayed significantly due to the need for extensive snow clearing to 

obtain access for equipment. In addition, extended periods of shut-in can result in reservoir damage which 

can significantly reduce the productive life and economic viability of a well.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-644 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The BLM and Forest Service have developed a reasonable range of alternatives for the Draft 

LUP Amendments and Draft EIS. The BLM and Forest Service complied with NEPA and the CEQ

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for this Draft EIS, including 

seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. Mitigation has been further defined as a 

Regional Mitigation Framework and is detailed in Appendix D. The Framework is incorporated in the 

Wyoming Draft LUP Amendment and Draft EIS and was developed to achieve a net conservation gain to 

the species by implementing conservation actions. Regional mitigation is a landscape-scale approach to 

mitigating impacts to resources. This involves anticipating future mitigation needs and strategically 

identifying mitigation sites and measures that can help achieve the greatest conservation benefit for Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitats. If impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitat from authorized land uses 

remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures, then compensatory mitigation projects will 

be used to fully offset impacts to achieve conservation benefits. Any compensatory mitigation will be 

durable, timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation.

Specific mitigation strategies, based on the framework, will be developed by regional teams within one 

year of the issuance of the Record of Decision and be consistent with the BLM’s Regional Mitigation 

Manual MS-1794, Forest Service Handbook FSH 1909.15, and CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20. The 

definition of “Disruptive Activities” can be found in the Draft EIS Glossary and states “Those public land 

resource uses/activities that are likely to alter the behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to existing 

animal or human populations occurring at a specific location and/or time. In this context, disruptive 

activity/activities refers to those actions that alter behavior or cause the displacement of individuals such 

that reproductive success is negatively affected, or an individual's physiological ability to cope with 

environmental stress is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical disturbance of the land 

surface, vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction (e.g., No Disruptive Activities), 

this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above ambient levels, light beyond 

background levels, and/or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is commonly used in 

conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages (e.g., breeding, nesting, birthing, etc.), 

although it could apply to any resource value on the public lands. The use of this land use restriction is not 

intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses. For actions other than those taken for human health and 

safety, regulatory compliance or emergency, BLM must determine if any activity proposed in sage-grouse 

nesting, brood-rearing or WCA habitat is “disruptive” by determining if the activity would require people 

and/or the structure or activity to be present in these habitats for a duration of more than 1 hour during any 

one 24 hour period during the applicable season in the site-specific area.”

Leasable Minerals

Noise

Opposition to noise restrictions

Comment ID: 438

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Alternative E uses the phrase “expected to reduce functionality of habitats” as a potential limit 

to project related noise. This is a vague term that cannot be clearly defined. As a result, it provides no

consistency or predictability for the BLM or operators regulating and developing project operations. This 

makes implementation by the BLM difficult and operator compliance impossible. Yates requests BLM 

eliminate this vague stipulation from Alternative E and stick to a measurable noise level (i.e. dBA) based 

on actual ambient noise for regulating project noise levels.

Comment ID: 795

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-645

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Under Alternative E, Devon is also opposed to noise restrictions similar to those proposed under

Alternative 6 at the 0.6 mile perimeter around leks from March 1 to May 15. See Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

4-240.This restriction has not been previously proposed, and the BLM has not demonstrated a sound 

scientific basis for such a restriction. As discussed earlier, Devon is adamantly opposed to the BLM's 

proposal to limit noise to less than 1Odba above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter 

of a lek during active lek season under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-166- 2-167, Action 

No.136. Devon is also opposed to the BLM's assumption that background ambient levels are around 20 to 

.Z4dba. There is no science to support this across the Planning Area. Studies cited by the BLM in previous 

planning documents, including Patricelli and Bilckley did not find population declines as a result of noise 

associated with oil and gas operations. Rather, they observed a transient period of disturbance at leks where 

playing high level of noise occurred. Even if they stood for the propositions cited, there are numerous 

deficiencies with the indiscriminate use of the studies. These reports and others described in more detail in 

a report by Dr. Rob Ramey evaluating the NTT report. Absent scientific basis, the BLM cannot and should 

not impose such onerous restrictions oil and gas operations. Additionally, the proposals to limit noise above 

ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how background noise levels would be 

measured or quantified. As noted earlier, the BLM has not adequately supported with valid scientific 

justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba background level 

cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, the BLM's restriction is unnecessarily onerous because 10dba is 

a very low threshold. Limiting noise levels from facilities to only 10dba above the ambient noise level is 

extraordinarily limiting, unreasonable, and not justified by current science.

Comment ID: 439

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: How can BLM establish a predetermined ambient noise level of 20-24 dBA when ambient noise 

is site specific and will vary by location? Yates requests BLM eliminate this predetermined range of ambient

noise levels as proposed under Alternative B as it is not scientifically justified. Additionally, alternative B 

applies the proposed noise stipulation “during active lek season.” This is a vague time frame that should be 

redefined to establish consistency with EO 2011-5 (i.e. March 1 – May 15). Furthermore, to establish 

consistency with EO 2011-5, Yates requests BLM limit application of the noise stipulation from 6:00 p.m. 

to 8:00 a.m. during this time of year. Broader application of noise stipulations has not been justified by 

BLM.

Comment ID: 2075

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: B.2.4 Noise Page B-5, Paragraph 1 The reference to 20-24 decibels has no basis for being used 

as ambient. Varying ambient levels exist across the landscape depending upon terrain and wind. This item 

must be revised to allow site specific ambient levels to be determined instead of numerical metrics which 

cannot be duplicated across the landscape. We recommend this be revised to reflect the EO which limits 

noise to 10 dBA above ambient and directs that ambient noise be determined by measurements taken at the

perimeter of a lek at sunrise during active lek season.

Comment ID: 634

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-646 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Samson is adamantly opposed to the BLM's proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba at the

parameter of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-166 - 2-167, Action 

No. 136. Samson is also opposed to the BLM's assumption that background ambient levels are around 20 

to 24dba. There is no science to support this across the Planning Area. Absent scientific basis, the BLM 

cannot and should not impose such onerous restrictions oil and gas operations. Additionally, the proposal 

to limit noise above ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how background noise 

levels would be measured or quantified. As noted earlier, the BLM has not adequately supported with valid 

scientific justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba 

background level cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, the BLM's restriction is unnecessarily onerous 

because 1Odba is a very low threshold. Just for the sake of comparison, a soft whisper approximates 20dba 

and the sound of leaves rustling or very soft music easily reaches 30dba. Normal human speech is usually

as high as 60dba, and the sound of a lawnmower or shop tool can be as loud as 90dba. Limiting noise levels 

from facilities to only 10dba above the ambient noise level is extraordinarily limiting, unreasonable, and 

not justified by current science.

Comment ID: 1774

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba at the 

parameter of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-166 – 2-167, Action 

No. 136. ConocoPhillips is also opposed to the BLM’s assumption that background ambient levels are 

around 20 to 24dba. There is no science to support this across the Planning Area. Additionally, the proposals

to limit noise above ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how background noise 

levels would be measured or quantified. As noted earlier, the BLM has not adequately supported with valid 

scientific justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba 

background level cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, the BLM’s restriction is unnecessarily onerous 

because 10dba is a very low threshold.

Comment ID: 440

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Yates generally supports the flexible approach to noise stipulations proposed under Alternative 

E. At a minimum, operators should retain the opportunity to gather ambient noise data at a specific location 

to establish the baseline ambient noise level. A predetermined ambient noise level may be unworkable. 

Yates further supports measuring noise levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek. Since the purpose of this 

stipulation is to protect GSG from excessive noise that may modify behavior, it makes sense to measure the 

noise level from the perimeter of a lek rather than create a blanket noise level threshold that applies to all 

facilities equally regardless of distance from the nearest lek. Measuring noise from a lek takes into account 

actual potential impact on GSG behavior.

Comment ID: 1544

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is adamantly opposed to the BLM‘s proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba at the 

perimeter of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-166 – 2-167, Action 

No. 136. EOG is also opposed to the BLM‘s assumption that background ambient levels are around 20 to

24dba. There is no science to support this across the Planning Area. Absent scientific basis, the BLM cannot 

and should not impose such onerous restrictions on oil and gas operations. Additionally, the proposals to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-647

limit noise above ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how background noise 

levels would be measured or quantified. As noted earlier, the BLM has not adequately supported with valid 

scientific justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba 

background level cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, the BLM‘s restriction is unnecessarily onerous 

because 10dba is a very low threshold.

Comment ID: 781

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon Is adamantly opposed to the BLM's proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba above

ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-166 – 2-167, Action No. 136. Devon is also opposed to the BLM’s assumption 

that background ambient levels are around 20 to 24dba. There is no science to support this across the 

Planning Area. Studies cited by the BLM in previous planning documents, including Patricelli and Bilckley 

did not find population declines as a result of noise associated with oil and gas operations. Additionally, 

the proposals to limit noise above ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how 

background noise levels would be measured or quantified. Finally, the BLM's restriction is unnecessarily 

onerous because 10dba is a very low threshold.

Comment ID: 1204

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba at the parameter of 

a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-166 – 2-167, Action No. 136.

Anschutz is also opposed to the BLM’s assumption that background ambient levels are around 20 to 24dba. 

There is no science to support this across the Planning Area. Additionally, the proposals to limit noise above 

ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how background noise levels would be 

measured or quantified. As noted earlier, the BLM has not adequately supported with valid scientific 

justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba background level 

cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, the BLM’s restriction is unnecessarily onerous because 10dba 

is a very low threshold. Limiting noise levels from facilities to only 10dba above the ambient noise level is 

extraordinarily limiting, unreasonable, and not justified by current science.

Comment ID: 1605

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #132, Alternative E, TLS, Noise levels affecting Greater SageGrouse leks inside designated core areas, pgs. E-17 – E-18 EOG is adamantly opposed to the BLM‘s 

proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba at the perimeter of a lek under Management Action #132. There 

is no science to support this across the Planning Area. Absent scientific basis, the BLM cannot and should 

not impose such onerous restrictions on oil and gas operations. Additionally, the proposals to limit noise 

above ambient levels is difficult because the BLM has not explained how background noise levels would 

be measured or quantified. As noted earlier, the BLM has not adequately supported with valid scientific 

justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba background level 

cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, the BLM‘s restriction is unnecessarily onerous because 10dba 

is a very low threshold.

Comment ID: 1915
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-648 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Action Number 136, Page 2-166 COMMENT: This provision is vague and ambiguous. BLM 

needs to fully explain how it will determine what measures will be used to gauge whether noise from an

activity “would be expected to reduce functionality of habitats”. The uncertainty regarding how BLM will 

judge such impacts upfront makes it difficult for a project proponent to determine the feasibility and 

viability of a potential project. Additionally, ambient noise conditions vary widely across Wyoming making 

it difficult to establish a sound level that could reasonably be uniform to all leks across GRSG range. 

Moreover, all studies need to be carefully peer reviewed to ensure proper noise protocols for collecting data 

are followed. Also, the phrase “specific new limitations appropriate to the type of project” is far too broad 

and consideration needs to be given to the economic and technical practicality of mitigation. Additionally, 

the criteria need to be specifically referenced in this provision.

Comment ID: 2279

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is adamantly opposed to the BLM’s proposal to limit noise to less than 10dba at the

parameter of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Encana is also opposed to the BLM’s assumption 

that background ambient levels are around 20 to 24dba. There is no science to support this across the 

Planning Area. Absent scientific basis, the BLM cannot and should not impose such onerous restrictions 

oil and gas operations. Additionally, the proposals to limit noise above ambient levels is difficult because 

the BLM has not explained how background noise levels would be measured or quantified. As noted earlier, 

the BLM has not adequately supported with valid scientific justification the suggestion that noise levels 

should be limited above the 20dba to 24dba background level cited in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Finally, 

the BLM’s restriction is unnecessarily onerous because 10dba is a very low threshold. Limiting noise levels 

from facilities to only 10dba above the ambient noise level is extraordinarily limiting, unreasonable, and 

not justified by current science.

Comment ID: 2663

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page B-5, paragraph 2: The ambient measures (20-24 dBA) are extremely quiet and may not be

representative of many leks. Furthermore, the term "sunrise" provides for only a very brief period. Suggest 

deleting "(20-24)" and further defining "sunrise" hours.

Comment ID: 2596

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: The noise requirement in the preferred alternative is straight from the flawed and biased NTT 

report. The preferred alternative restricts noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient (20-24 db(A)) at the

0.6 mile perimeter of the lek. The studies cited in the NTT report were not able to find population declines 

as a result of noise from oil and gas operations. Rather, they observed a transient period of disturbance to 

GRSG at leks where playbacks of high levels of noise were conducted utilizing deficient equipment 

(substandard microphone, recorder, and playback speakers). Of equal importance is that the data from these 

studies is not publically available, which renders the results irreproducible. Therefore, QEP asks that current 

noise requirements stay in place until further research can be conducted to find concrete evidence on how 

GRSG respond to noise at various decibels.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-649

Summary: Remove noise restrictions similar to those proposed under Alternative E at the 0.6 mile perimeter

around leks from March 1 to May 15. The BLM has not demonstrated a sound scientific basis for such a 

restriction. BLM's proposal to limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20- 24 decibels) 

at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek under Alternatives B and C should be removed. Studies cited by the 

BLM in previous planning documents, including Patricelli and Bilckley did not find population declines as 

a result of noise associated with oil and gas operations. Rather, they observed a transient period of 

disturbance at leks where playing a high level of noise occurred. These reports and others are described in 

more detail in a report by Dr. Rob Ramey evaluating the NTT report. Absent a scientific basis, the BLM 

cannot and should not impose such onerous restrictions on oil and gas operations. BLM has not adequately 

supported with valid scientific justification the suggestion that noise levels should be limited above the 20 

to 24 decibel background level. Ten decibels is a very low threshold. By comparison, a soft whisper 

approximates 20 decibels and the sound of leaves rustling or very soft music easily reaches 30 decibels. 

Normal human speech is usually as high as 60 decibels, and the sound of a lawnmower or shop tool can be 

as loud as 90 decibels. Limiting noise levels from facilities to only 10 decibels above the ambient noise 

level is extraordinarily limiting, unreasonable, and not justified by current science. Some commenters 

support the more flexible approach to noise stipulations proposed under Alternative E. At a minimum, 

operators should retain the opportunity to gather ambient noise data at a specific location to establish the 

baseline ambient noise level. A predetermined ambient noise level may be unworkable. Measuring noise 

levels at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek makes sense rather than creating a blanket noise-level threshold 

that applies to all facilities equally regardless of distance from the nearest lek. Ambient noise is site specific 

and varies by location. Eliminate the predetermined range of ambient noise levels (20-24 decibels) as 

proposed under Alternative B as it is not scientifically justified. Additionally, alternative B applies the 

proposed noise stipulation “during active lek season.” This is a vague time frame that should be redefined 

to establish consistency with EO 2011-5 (i.e. March 1 – May 15). Furthermore, to establish consistency 

with EO 2011-5, BLM should limit application of the noise stipulation from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. during 

this time of year. Broader application of noise stipulations has not been justified by BLM. Alternative E 

uses the phrase “expected to reduce functionality of habitats” as a potential limit to project related noise. 

This is a vague term that cannot be clearly defined. As a result, it provides no consistency or predictability 

for the BLM or operators regulating and developing project operations. This makes implementation by the 

BLM difficult and operator compliance impossible. BLM should eliminate this vague stipulation from 

Alternative E and stick to a measurable noise level (i.e. decibels) based on actual ambient noise for 

regulating project noise levels. Moreover, all studies need to be carefully peer reviewed to ensure proper 

noise protocols for collecting data are followed. Also, the phrase “specific new limitations appropriate to 

the type of project” is far too broad and consideration needs to be given to the economic and technical 

practicality of mitigation. Additionally, the criteria need to be specifically referenced in this provision. The 

text in Appendix B, Page B-5, paragraph 2, limiting noise to ambient levels (20-24 decibels), is not

representative of many leks. The term "sunrise" provides for only a very brief period. Delete the 20- 24 

decibel requirement and further define "sunrise" hours.

Response: Blickley et al’s research on noise and Greater Sage-Grouse was included in the Draft EIS as 

Blickley J.L, D. Blackwood, and G.L. Patricelli. 2012. Experimental evidence for the effects of chronic 

anthropogenic noise on abundance of Greater Sage-Grouse at leks. Conservation Biology Vol. 26. No 3. 

461-471. Additional publications have been considered and included, such as Blickley, J. L., K. R. Word, 

A. H. Krakauer, J. L. Phillips, S. N. Sells, J. C. Wingfield, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012b. Experimental chronic 

noise exposure is related to elevated fecal corticosteroid metabolites in lekking male Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). This literature has been added to the noise section in the Final EIS. BLM has 

reviewed this literature and made no changes to the text as the preferred Alternative supports actively 

working with proponents to reduce impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from noise sources.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-650 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Leasable Minerals

Predators

Predator RDFs should not be industry responsibility

Comment ID: 2133

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: APPENDIX F PREDATOR MANAGEMENT F.2. REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

RELATIVE TO SAGEGROUSE PREDATORS IN LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 9th Bullet 

Point We do not believe it is the project proponent’s obligation to inventory predator populations. This 

could become an extensive project with large geographical areas involved. As such, this requirement needs 

to be removed.

Comment ID: 2134

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: APPENDIX F PREDATOR MANAGEMENT F.2. REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

RELATIVE TO SAGEGROUSE PREDATORS IN LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 10th Bullet

Point Solar pumps can be expensive to purchase and install depending upon the depth of the water well and 

the volume of water being removed. Therefore, it is important that economic considerations should be 

considered with this requirement.

Summary: Appendix F predator-related RDFs should consider Industry costs and other economic 

considerations, specifically, on Page F-2, bullet 9, it is not the project proponent’s obligation to inventory 

predator populations and on Page F-2, bullet 10, solar pumps can be expensive to purchase and install

depending upon the depth of the water well and the volume of water being removed.

Response: Because of site-specific circumstances and regulatory constraints, some conservation measures 

may not apply to all activities (e.g., a resource or conflict is not present on a given site) and/or may require 

slight variations. Proposed variations in conservation measures will be analyzed and may be applied in the 

site-specific permitting process. The determination of adequate application of the mitigation measures and 

conservation actions for specific projects will remain with the BLM’s and Forest Service’s Authorized 

Officers.

Leasable Minerals

Produced Water

Restrict disposal of produced water

Comment ID: 1714

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Avoid the 

surface disposal of produced water unless it can be proven to be beneficial to sagegrouse and includes 

measures to preclude the spread of West Nile virus.

Comment ID: 1711

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-651

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Avoid the 

surface disposal of produced water129 unless it can be proven to be beneficial to sagegrouse and includes 

measures to preclude the spread of West Nile virus.

Summary: Avoid the surface disposal of produced water unless it can be proven to be beneficial to sagegrouse and includes measures to preclude the spread of West Nile virus.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service understands the potential threat to Greater Sage-Grouse from the 

West Nile virus and has made reference to it in the Draft EIS under the Chapter 4 Impacts Analysis (Section

4.14). The development of artificial ponds can increase the likelihood of the creation of pools of standing 

water, which can serve as mosquito breeding habitat, increasing the ability for West Nile virus to spread 

into landscapes otherwise not at risk to the pathogen (Walker and Naugle 2011). To prevent the spread of 

the West Nile virus, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS specifically addresses the design of artificial 

water impoundments to prevent mosquito breeding habitat (Appendix B).

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Alternatives B and C must not be adopted or are illegal

Comment ID: 1743

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: Overall, many of the alternatives in the Sage-grouse DLUPA are overly restrictive and 

unnecessarily limiting to oil and gas development in Wyoming, and should be eliminated from further

consideration. The BLM’s adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would have devastating economic 

impacts upon the region, the State of Wyoming, and even the nation. Oil and gas development, even on 

existing leases, would be significantly hampered by the BLM’s management actions under Alternative B 

or Alternative C. Although ConocoPhillips understands the importance of having a wide range of 

alternatives to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, the BLM must not adopt Alternative B or Alternative C. 

Under FLPMA, BLM is required to foster and develop mineral development, not stifle and prohibit such 

development. Alternative B and Alternative C do not comply with the BLM’s multiple use mandate and 

must be eliminated. The overall minerals management under Alternative B and Alternative C is 

inappropriate because they limit oil and gas development. The adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C 

would curtail domestic production compared to both the baseline scenario and any of the other alternatives

analyzed by the BLM. The loss of such an enormous energy supply is contrary to the best interests of the 

nation, and inconsistent with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The removal of vast areas of lands from future 

oil and gas development and potential restrictions on existing leases under Alternative B or C would also 

restrict regional earnings, jobs, and tax revenue. According to the information presented in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, the adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would reduce regional earnings significantly and 

reduce local jobs over the current management. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential 

impacts the restrictions on future leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. As the BLM 

acknowledges, a significant portion of the Planning Area is currently leased for oil and gas development. 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, § 3.8.1. Some leases, however, are isolated, making them virtually impossible and 

not economically feasible to develop in their current state. The BLM must recognize, study, and report the 

economic impact that its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make 

significant portions of the Planning Area available only with major constraints, will have upon future 

exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing lease 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-652 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by future 

limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario.

Comment ID: 1735

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is particularly concerned about the onerous restrictions imposed on oil and gas

development under Alternative B and Alternative C and strongly urges the BLM not to adopt either

alternative.

Comment ID: 1282

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The BLM‘s adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would have devastating economic 

impacts upon the region, State of Wyoming, and even the nation. Oil and gas development, even on existing 

leases, would be significantly hampered by the BLM‘s management actions under Alternative B or

Alternative C. Although EOG understands the importance of having a wide range of alternatives to satisfy 

the requirements of NEPA, the BLM must not adopt Alternative B or Alternative C. In particular, 

Alternatives B and C are not reasonable alternatives because they virtually eliminate oil and gas 

development from the public lands contrary to the BLM‘s multiple use mandate. Under FLPMA, BLM is 

required to foster and develop mineral development, not stifle and prohibit such development. Alternative 

B and Alternative C do not comply with the BLM‘s multiple use mandate and must be eliminated.

Comment ID: 1140

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Oil and gas development, even on existing leases, would be significantly hampered by the 

BLM’s management actions under Alternative B or Alternative C. Although Anschutz understands the

importance of having a wide range of alternatives to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, the BLM must not 

adopt Alternative B or Alternative C.

Comment ID: 722

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: From a National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") perspective, Devon understands 

the need to analyze a range of alternatives but suggests the BLM was not required to analyze either

Alternative B or Alternative C in detail given the inherently unreasonable nature of these alternatives. Given 

the drastic limitations Alternative B and Alternative C would have upon oil and gas development, neither 

of those alternatives is reasonable and they must not be selected. Devon urges the BLM not to adopt 

Alternative B or Alternative C because of the drastic adverse impacts they would have upon oil and gas 

development and, thus, on the economy of the Planning Area. Similarly, the BLM is not required to pursue 

alternatives that are not reasonable because they are not technically or economically feasible. For example, 

overly stringent restrictions or conditions of approval ("COAs"), such as requiring directional drilling In all 

Instances regardless of technical or economic considerations, may render development uneconomic and 

need not be analyzed. The restrictions included in both Alternatives B and C are not reasonable and, thus, 

neither is an appropriate alternative.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-653

Comment ID: 1245

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Given the drastic limitations Alternative B and Alternative C would have upon oil and gas

development, neither of their alternatives are reasonable and they must not be selected. EOG urges the BLM 

not to adopt either Alternative B or Alternative C because of the drastic adverse impacts they would have 

upon oil and gas development and, thus, on the economy of the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 1753

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C to 

close the vast majority of sage-grouse habitat to all fluid mineral leasing and development. Sage-Grouse

DLUPA, pg. 2-63, Action No. 60. The BLM has not justified such closures of the federal estate nor has it 

complied with the withdrawal requirements of FLPMA. ConocoPhillips also believes the BLM has failed 

to adequately analyze the potential impact such a closure would have on existing operations. The BLM 

must recognize, study, and report the economic impact of its decision to close such a significant portion of 

the Planning Area to oil and gas leasing.

Comment ID: 1416

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Alternatives, Solid Leasable Minerals (other than Coal and Oil Shale), Page 2-86, Item #78.

Alternatives B and C suggest that; “Priority habitat would be closed to non-energy leasable mineral leasing. 

This would include not permitting any new leases to expand an existing mine (Map 2-25).” It is 

unacceptable to close leasing completely as suggested by Alternatives B and C. These options are not 

consistent with the BLM’s multiple use policy. Further, the assumption that closing leasing adjacent to 

currently operating facilities would reduce disturbance is incorrect, in fact it would result in increased 

disturbance across the range due to new infrastructure requirements. Lastly, the socioeconomic analysis 

provided in Appendix N does not include the socioeconomics associated with mining. Wyoming’s economy 

is largely dependent on mining, and if Alternatives B or C are going to be considered further, as related to 

Solid Leasable Minerals, then a full socioeconomic analysis for mining must be completed. In that 

socioeconomic analysis, it would need to include impacts to international economies because much of the 

Solid Leasable Minerals are exported from Wyoming. As an example, approximately 50% of the natural 

soda ash produced in Wyoming is exported, which is then utilized to make products such as glass and 

detergents that are used worldwide. As an alternative, and to be consistent with the EO, we recommend that 

Solid Leasable Minerals be managed in accordance with the DDCT process inside core/priority habitat.

Comment ID: 1479

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C to 

close the vast majority of GRSG habitat to all fluid mineral leasing and development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, 

pg. 2- 63, Action No. 60. The BLM has not justified such significant closures of the federal estate nor has 

it complied with the withdrawal requirements of FLPMA. EOG also believes the BLM has failed to

adequately analyze the potential impact such a closure would have on existing operations. The BLM must 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-654 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

recognize, study, and report the economic impact of its decision to close such a significant portion of the 

Planning Area to oil and gas leasing.

Comment ID: 2053

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: In addition, the seasonal use prohibitions and restrictions proposed under Alternatives B and C 

are far too vague, and do not provide any useful information in terms of when the restrictions would apply 

and where (See Table 2-1 at 2-145 to 2-163), which is necessary to determine the potential impacts to 

operators or the intended benefits to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

Comment ID: 1833

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: As evidenced in our discussion above, employment and tax revenue from oil and gas 

development is one of Wyoming’s primary sources of employment and tax revenue. We, therefore, strongly 

oppose Alternatives A and B as they place unreasonable and unjustified restrictions on oil and gas

development.

Comment ID: 2139

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Given the drastic limitations Alternative B and Alternative C would have upon oil and gas

development, neither of their alternatives are reasonable and they must not be selected. Encana urges the 

BLM not to adopt either Alternative B or Alternative C because of the drastic adverse impacts they would 

have upon oil and gas development and, thus, on the economy of the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 2192

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is strenuously opposed to the BLM’s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C to 

close the vast majority of sage-grouse habitat to all fluid mineral leasing and development. The BLM has

not justified such significant closures of the federal estate nor has it complied with the withdrawal

requirements of FLPMA. Encana also believes the BLM has failed to adequately analyze the potential

impact such a closure would have on existing operations. The BLM must recognize, study, and report the 

economic impact of its decision to close such a significant portion of the Planning Area to oil and gas 

leasing.

Comment ID: 2948

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc.

Name: John Cash

Comment: Proposed alternatives B thru E will each remove massive tracts of land from multiple uses as

established under FLPMA, remove substantial areas from mineral entry as established by the 1872 Mining 

Law and remove substantial areas from energy development as established by Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

Subordinating the requirements of these laws to sage grouse protection, a species that is only a candidate 

species not formally protected by law, and without substantial scientific evidence, is arbitrary, unreasonable 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-655

and inappropriate and is not likely to withstand legal scrutiny. Indeed, it would take an act of Congress, not 

an EIS, to override these laws. Removal of land from mineral entry assumes sage grouse preservation is the 

highest and best use of the land but this action is not supported under the Endangered Species Act or 

FLPMA. Instead of continuing down this path, the BLM should replace the proposed alternatives with new 

alternatives that respect each of the aforementioned laws while minimizing impacts to sage grouse.

Comment ID: 2218

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is strenuously opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on surface disturbing 

operations, fluid minerals under Alternatives B, and C, and to a lesser extent, E. As already discussed, the 

BLM cannot impose such limitations on Encana’s existing oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has 

issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO stipulations and, in the absence of a nondiscretionary

statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold.

Comment ID: 3046

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-63, action 60, alt C: This action essentially eliminates all oil and gas activity 

in the analyzed area aside from a couple areas in the southeast and east. This will result in large economic

impacts to the State of Wyoming and should be reconsidered.

Comment ID: 3106

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2‐ 5 2‐ 195 Minerals and Energy Alt C This action essentially eliminates all oil and gas 

activity in the analyzed area aside from a couple areas in the SE and E. It seems as though there was no 

thought to the economic impact that this would result in the State of Wyoming.

Summary: The BLM‘s adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would have devastating economic 

impacts upon the region, the State of Wyoming, and even the nation. Leasable mineral extraction, including 

oil and gas development, coal, oil shale, and other solid leasable minerals, even on existing leases, would 

be significantly hampered by the BLM‘s management actions under Alternative B or Alternative C.

Although it is important to have a wide range of alternatives to satisfy the requirements of NEPA, the BLM 

must not adopt Alternatives B or C. In particular, Alternatives B and C are not reasonable because they 

virtually eliminate oil and gas development from public lands contrary to the BLM‘s multiple use mandate. 

Under FLPMA, BLM is required to foster and develop mineral development, not stifle and prohibit such 

development. In addition, the seasonal use prohibitions and restrictions proposed under Alternatives B and 

C are far too vague, and do not provide any useful information in terms of when the restrictions would 

apply, and where; which is necessary to determine the potential impacts to operators or the intended benefits 

to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater

Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1)

require that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. While there are many possible 

alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and 

the Forest Service fully considered the management opportunities presented in the Analysis of the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-656 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Management Situation (AMS) and the planning issues and criteria developed during the scoping process to 

determine a reasonable range of alternatives. As a result, five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that best addressed the issues and concerns identified by the affected 

public. Both the Forest Service’s and BLM’s planning processes allow for analysis and consideration of a 

range of alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendment/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and to eliminate, 

reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach was achieved. 

The plan includes alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in various use 

programs, but would not eliminate or invalidate any valid existing development rights.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

BLM cannot "close" oil and gas because it is a withdrawal

Comment ID: 567

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: FLPMA also requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with specified procedural 

requirements before making a management decision that totally eliminates a principal or major use of the 

BLM public lands for a period of two or more years on a tract of land more than 100,000 acres in size. 43

U.S.C. § 1712(e). Oil and gas development is defined as a principal or major use of the public lands. 43 

C.F .R. § 1702(1). Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM would make over 100,000 acres of oil and gas 

leasing unavailable for a period of two years or more, yet BLM has not complied with the clear and 

unequivocal requirements of FLPMA. BLM must notify Congress of its intent to close significant areas to 

future oil and gas development prior to finalizing the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. While the COT report says 

that "there is an urgent need to 'stop the bleeding' of continued population declines" it fails to cite hunting, 

which is the most well documented source of sage-grouse mortality with 207,433 sage-grouse harvested 

between 2001 and 2007. Moreover, peer review of the COT report was inadequate. A number of the relevant 

peer review regulations and guidance stress the importance of independence and the need to avoid conflicts 

of interest. In addition to conflicts of interest and reliance upon questionable data to assess threats, more 

than one reviewer cited real uncertainties regarding management and potential impacts on sage-grouse

populations. In fact, "...the majority of the reviewers found that the report fell short of meeting its stated 

goals in several important areas, and they identified opportunities to better achieve those goals and improve 

its utility for decision making ....", Reviewers also identified an astonishing lack of reference to at least 15 

relevant scientific papers. Given these significant flaws, we advise the BLM to reconsider its reliance on 

the COT report in the DLUPA To do otherwise would be inconsistent with the ESA, the Data Quality Act 

("DQA") and current Presidential and Interior Department memoranda and orders.

Comment ID: 1261

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The BLM cannot escape the withdrawal requirements imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands 

are not ―closed "to development, but merely ―administratively unavailable" to leasing for several reasons.

First, the BLM‘s Land Use Planning Handbook does not recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands

―administratively unavailable " or ―removed." Rather, the Handbook only recognized closed or open 

with varying levels of constraint. Finally, regardless of whether the BLM terms the closure as

―unavailable,‖ eliminating the land from oil and gas leasing for the life of the plan still meets the definition 

of a withdrawal because they make large areas of the public lands unavailable for a significant period of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-657

time. Such a formal closure constitutes a withdrawal. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(j). As such, the BLM must comply 

with the withdrawal requirements set forth in FLPMA. Because the BLM‘s decisions under Alternative B 

and Alternative C constitute a withdrawal, the Secretary is required to comply with certain procedural 

requirements because it is closing large portions of the Planning Area to oil and gas leasing. FLPMA also 

requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with specified procedural requirements before making a 

management decision that totally eliminates a principal or major use of the public lands for a period of two 

or more years on a tract of land more than 100,000 acres in size.

Comment ID: 564

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM proposes to make large areas of land unavailable to oil 

and gas leasing. Closing an area to fluid mineral leasing constitutes a withdrawal under FLPMA. Under

Alternative B, the BLM proposes to close almost 6,809,580 acres and render them unavailable for oil and 

gas leasing and under Alternative C, over 16,876,220 acres. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-195. Because 

closing areas to oil and gas leasing constitutes a withdrawal, the DOl will be required to comply with the 

procedural provisions of section 204 of FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1714. The BLM cannot escape the withdrawal 

requirements imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands are not "closed" to development, but merely 

"administratively unavailable" to leasing for several reasons. First, the BLM's Land Use Planning 

Handbook does not recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands "administratively unavailable" or 

"removed." Rather, the Handbook only recognized closed or open with varying levels of constraint. BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, Appd. C.I1.H., pgs. 23-24 (Rel. 1-169303/11/05). There is simply 

no distinction between areas "removed" from leasing and those that are closed. Finally, regardless of 

whether the BLM terms the closure as "unavailable," eliminating the land from oil and gas leasing for the 

life of the plan still meets the definition of a withdrawal because they make large areas of the public lands 

unavailable for a significant period of time. BLM is making a conscious, deliberate choice not to allow 

leasing in these areas. It is not merely deferring a few parcels from a particular lease sale. Such a formal 

closure constitutes a withdrawal. 43 U.S.C. § 1702(j).

Comment ID: 195

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company

Name: Doug Cooper

Comment: Map 2-8 shows this withdrawal as being closed to oil and gas leasing. There does not appear to 

be any explanation as to how this closure benefits sage grouse. I am concerned that this closure will

adversely affect development of private minerals that are adjacent to the closed area. The plan should also 

make clear that the BLM can only prohibit surface occupancy on federal land and not on private 

surface/private minerals.

Comment ID: 565

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Section 204 of FLPMA requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with certain procedural

mandates prior to closing an area of 5,000 acres or more to mineral development. 43 U.S.C. § 1714. Because 

Alternatives B and C propose to close areas of 5,000 acres or more to mineral development, they must 

comply with section 204 of FLPMA. Among the other requirements imposed on the DOl is the requirement 

for the Secretary of the Interior, as compared to the Director of the BLM or a State Director, to make all 

withdrawals of federal lands. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(a). The Secretary--or a designee in the Secretary's office 

appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate-is authorized to make withdrawals under FLPMA. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-658 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The Secretary is also required to provide notice of the proposed withdrawal in the Federal Register and 

conduct hearings regarding the withdrawal. 43 U.S.C. § 1714(b)(1), (h). Finally, the Secretary is required 

to notify both houses of Congress of the proposed withdrawal. See 43 C.F.R. § 1610.6. The notice must 

include information: (1) regarding the proposed use of the land; (2) an inventory and evaluation of the 

current natural resource uses and value of the land and adjacent public and private land which may be 

affected; (3) an identification of present users and how they will be affected; (4) an analysis of the manner 

in which the existing and potential uses are incompatible with or in conflict with the proposed uses; (5) an 

analysis of the manner in which such lands will be used in relation to the specific requirements for the 

proposed uses; (6) a statement as to whether suitable alternative sites are available; (7) a statement of the 

consultation which has been or will be had with other federal, regional, state, and local government bodies; 

(8) a statement regarding the potential effects of the withdrawal on the state, local, and regional economy; 

(9) a statement of the length of time needed for the withdrawal; (l0) the time and place of the hearings 

regarding the withdrawal; (II) the place where the records of the withdrawal can be examined; and (12) a 

report prepared by a qualified mining engineer, engineering geologist, or geologist, which shall include 

information on mineral deposits, mineral production, existing mining claims, and an evaluation of future 

mineral potential. 43 U.S.C. § 1 714(c)(2). To date, the DOl has not complied with the requirements set 

forth in section 204 of FLPMA. Prior to finalizing the Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment, the BLM 

must comply with these provisions and inform the public how it will be impacted.

Comment ID: 730

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM cannot escape the withdrawal requirements imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands 

are not "closed" to development, but merely "administratively unavailable" to leasing for several reasons.

First, the BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook does not recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands

"administratively unavailable'' or "removed." Finally, regardless of whether the BLM terms the closure as 

"unavailable," eliminating the land from oil and gas leasing for the life of the plan still meets the definition 

of a withdrawal because they make large areas of the public lands unavailable for a significant period of 

time. BLM is making a conscious, deliberate choice not to allow leasing in these areas. It is not merely 

deferring a few parcels from a particular lease sale. Such a formal closure constitutes a withdrawal. 43 

U.S.C. § 1702(j). As such, the BLM must comply with the withdrawal requirements set forth in FLPMA. 

Because the BLM's decisions under Alternative B and Alternative C constitute a withdrawal, the Secretary 

is required to comply with certain procedural requirements because it is closing large portions of the 

Planning Area to oil and gas leasing. To date, the DOl has not complied with the requirements set forth in 

section 204 of FLPMA. Prior to approving the Sage- Grouse DLUPA, the BLM must comply with these 

provisions and inform the public how it will be impacted. Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM would 

make over 100,000 acres of oil and gas leasing unavailable for a period of two years or more, yet BLM has 

not complied with the clear and unequivocal requirements of FLPMA. BLM must notify Congress of its 

intent to close significant areas to future oil and gas development prior to finalizing the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA.

Comment ID: 2351

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc.

Name: Beth Goodnough

Comment: Pursuant to FLMPA Section 204, only Congress or the Secretary of the Interior can legally enact 

a mineral withdrawal. Land Use Plans or RMPs cannot legally effect a mineral withdrawal. Restrictions on 

access to particular regions and minerals year-round through seasonal habitat restrictions, no surface 

occupancy stipulations or unjustified buffers is also a de-facto mineral withdrawal inconsistent with 

FLMPA Section 204.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-659

Comment ID: 2430

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals

Name: Joel Severin

Comment: Burdensome regulations on particular habitat result in a defacto and impermissible withdrawal 

of BLM lands. Pursuant to FLMPA Section 204, only Congress or the Secretary of the Interior can legally

enact a mineral withdrawal. Land Use Plans or RMPs cannot legally effect a mineral withdrawal.

Restrictions on access to particular regions and minerals year-round through seasonal habitat restrictions, 

no surface occupancy stipulations or unjustified buffers is also a defacto mineral withdrawal inconsistent 

with FLMPA Section 204.

Comment ID: 2154

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Under Alternatives B and C, the BLM proposes to make large areas of land unavailable to oil 

and gas leasing. Closing an area to fluid mineral leasing constitutes a withdrawal under FLPMA. Because

closing areas to oil and gas leasing constitutes a withdrawal, the DOI will be required to comply with the 

procedural provisions of section 204 of FLPMA. The BLM cannot escape the withdrawal requirements 

imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands are not “closed” to development, but merely “administratively 

unavailable” to leasing for several reasons. First, the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook does not 

recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands “administratively unavailable” or “removed.” Rather, the 

Handbook only recognized closed or open with varying levels of constraint. Finally, regardless of whether 

the BLM terms the closure as “unavailable,” eliminating the land from oil and gas leasing for the life of the 

plan still meets the definition of a withdrawal because they make large areas of the public lands unavailable 

for a significant period of time. To date, the DOI has not complied with the requirements set forth in section 

204 of FLPMA. Prior to approving the Sage- Grouse DLUPA, the BLM must comply with these provisions 

and inform the public how it will be impacted. BLM must notify Congress of its intent to close significant 

areas to future oil and gas development prior to finalizing the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 2960

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc.

Name: John Cash

Comment: Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative, withdraws large tracts of land from mineral entry and 

also proposes additional land to be considered for withdrawal from mineral entry (areas highlighted in green 

on Map 2-23 "Alternative E Areas Withdrawn from Mineral Entry"). FLPMA does not allow BLM to use 

the planning process to withdraw lands from mineral entry, only Congress and the Secretary of the Interior 

may do so under very specific procedures, none of which has been followed here. The LUP also does not 

provide a description of the process or criteria that it believes will be used as the basis to remove said lands 

from mineral entry. Therefore, it is impossible for the public to comment on this significant and draconian 

measure of most of the LUP alternatives. Before proceeding with this alternative, the BLM must provide 

the public with the process and criteria for removing these lands from mineral entry so the public can

provide comments as provided for by NEP A. Simply stating that these lands will be considered for removal 

from mineral entry" ... based on risk to the sage-grouse and its habitat in core habitat areas from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development" is wholly inadequate. NEPA requires a "hard look" and 

removing up to 3.44 million acres of land from locatable mineral entry based on the above quote does not 

constitute a hard look. Removing such large tracts of land from mineral entry and other uses under the 

auspices of a LUP conflicts with the multiple use mandate established by FLPMA, and the purposes of the 

Mining Law and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act. FLPMA specifically states that none of its land use 

planning provisions " ... shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-660 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

or claims under that Act. including. but not limited to. rights of ingress and egress" (43 U.S.C. § 1732(b).

BLM must balance protection of wildlife with other land uses, including mining, and removal of millions 

of acres from mineral entry fails to strike a balance.

Summary: Closing an area to fluid mineral leasing constitutes a withdrawal under FLPMA. Because closing 

areas to oil and gas leasing constitutes a withdrawal, the DOI will be required to comply with the procedural 

provisions of section 204 of FLPMA. 43 U.S.C. § 1714. The BLM cannot escape the withdrawal 

requirements imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands are not "closed" to development, but merely 

"administratively unavailable" to leasing for several reasons. First, the BLM's Land Use Planning 

Handbook does not recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands "administratively unavailable" or 

"removed." Rather, the handbook only recognized closed or open with varying levels of constraint.

Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative, withdraws large tracts of land from mineral entry and also proposes 

additional land to be considered for withdrawal from mineral entry. FLPMA does not allow BLM to use 

the planning process to withdraw lands from mineral entry, only Congress and the Secretary of the Interior 

may do so under very specific procedures, none of which has been followed here. The LUP also does not 

provide a description of the process or criteria that it believes will be used as the basis to remove said lands 

from mineral entry. Therefore, it is impossible for the public to comment on this significant and draconian 

measure of most of the LUP alternatives. Before proceeding with this alternative, the BLM must provide 

the public with the process and criteria for removing these lands from mineral entry so the public can 

provide comments as provided for by NEPA. Simply stating that these lands will be considered for removal 

from mineral entry " ... based on risk to the sage-grouse and its habitat in core habitat areas from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development" is wholly inadequate. NEPA requires a "hard look" and 

removing up to 3.44 million acres of land from locatable mineral entry based on the above quote does not 

constitute a hard look.

Response: A withdrawal is not required in order to close lands to fluid mineral leasing and other 

discretionary uses. A withdrawal is only required to close lands to location and entry under the 1872 Mining 

Law. The BLM is aware of their requirement to notify the US Congress of any decision for mineral

withdrawal on an aggregate of 5,000 acres or more, or removing one or more of the principle uses on 

100,000 acres or more, as required by Sections 202 and 204 of FLPMA. In the event that BLM makes 

decisions that trigger such notification and reporting requirements, it will notify the Congress as required 

by law.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

BLM should adopt an alternative from the NTT report

Comment ID: 284

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: The NTT report takes a much stricter approach to future mineral leasing. It recommends two

alternatives: closing all priority habitat (Core Areas) to future leasing, or closing all priority habitat to future 

leasing unless it could be shown that proposed development would result in a net gain in sagegrouse

populations for that Core Area. It is particularly important to begin now with the no-leasing approach to 

Core Areas, so that existing leases can begin to expire without renewal. Over the life of the RMP, a ‘no 

future leasing’ policy would reduce the acreage leased toward zero as existing leases expire unless they are 

held by production.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-661

Summary: The NTT report takes a much stricter approach to future mineral leasing. It recommends two

alternatives: closing all priority habitat (core areas) to future leasing, or closing all priority habitat to future 

leasing unless it could be shown that proposed development would result in a net gain in sagegrouse

populations for that core area. It is particularly important to begin now with the no-leasing approach to core 

areas, so that existing leases can begin to expire without renewal. Over the life of the RMP, a ‘no future 

leasing’ policy would reduce the acreage leased toward zero as existing leases expire unless they are held 

by production.

Response: The NTT report was not the sole source of management decisions for the range of alternatives. 

A National Technical Team (NTT) was formed as an independent, science-based team to ensure that the 

best information about how to manage the Greater Sage-Grouse is reviewed, evaluated, and provided to the 

BLM and the Forest Service in the planning process. The group produced a report in December 2011 that 

identified science-based management considerations to promote sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. The NTT is staying involved as the BLM and the Forest Service work through the strategy to 

make sure that relevant science is considered, reasonably interpreted, and accurately presented; and that 

uncertainties and risks are acknowledged and documented. In addition to the NTT report, the BLM and 

Forest Service used the COT report based upon the best scientific and commercial data available at the time 

that identifies key areas for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation, key threats in those areas, and the extent to 

which they need to be reduced for the species to be conserved, and the Summary of Science, Activities, 

Programs, and Policies That Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) (referred to as the BER) as additional sources of baseline information and management 

objectives. The range of alternatives is based upon analysis of public scoping comments as well as 

information provided in the NTT report, the BER, the COT report, Forest Service Interim Conservation 

Recommendations for Greater Sage-Grouse and Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat (2012), and state 

management plans. Input from the BLM and Forest Service interdisciplinary teams and cooperating 

agencies has also been incorporated. The BLM and Forest Service also incorporated information from 

scientific literature not included in the above recommendations (e.g., science regarding noise, tall structures, 

and roads). The alternatives represent different degrees of and approaches to balancing Greater SageGrouse species and habitat conservation among other resources and resource uses, competing human

interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values, while sustaining and 

enhancing ecological integrity across the landscape, including plant, wildlife, and fish habitat.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

BLM should adopt the DDCT tool

Comment ID: 767

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is opposed to the proposed restriction on road construction within four miles of an active

sage-grouse lek under Alternative C. Not allowing new road construction within four miles of an active lek 

Will significantly hamper oil and gas development. Devon is opposed to the limitations on upgrading 

existing roads within sage-grouse core areas or habitat under all of the alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, 

pg. 2-99, Action No. 89. Such restrictions are inconsistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and BLM 

Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012-019. Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading 

or reconstruction, Devon urges the BLM to utilize the DDCT policy as authorized under Executive Order 

2011-005 and Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012-019. Given variable topography and habitat 

conditions, It Is more appropriate to allow the upgrading of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-662 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 619

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is opposed to the limitations on upgrading existing roads within sage-grouse core areas 

or habitat under all of the alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-99, Action No. 89. Such restrictions are 

inconsistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012- 019. 

Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading or reconstruction, Samson urges the BLM to 

utilize the DDCT policy as authorized under Executive Order 2011-005 and Wyoming Instruction 

Memorandum 2012-019. Given variable topography and habitat conditions, it is more appropriate to allow 

the upgrading of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.

Comment ID: 449

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: It is unclear from the discussion in Appendix I how the BLMs interpretation and implementation 

of the DDCT mesh with EO 2011-5. For example, considering potential effects up to an 11-mile radius,

and consideration of “large” or “small” projects is inconsistent with EO 2011-5. Yates urges BLM to

explicitly adopt the DDCT strategy established in EO 2011-5 to eliminate confusion and establish

consistency.

Comment ID: 1415

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Alternatives, Minerals Management, Page 2-62, Item #56. To be consistent with the EO, we

recommend that minerals be managed in accordance with the DDCT process inside core/priority habitat.

Summary: To be consistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012-

019, minerals should be managed in accordance with the DDCT process inside core/priority habitat. It is

unclear from the discussion in Appendix I how the BLM’s interpretation and implementation of the DDCT 

mesh with EO 2011-5. For example, considering potential effects up to an 11-mile radius, and consideration 

of “large” or “small” projects is inconsistent with EO 2011-5. BLM should adopt the DDCT strategy 

established in EO 2011-5 to eliminate confusion and establish consistency. Not allowing new road 

construction within four miles of an active lek as under Alternative C would significantly hamper oil and 

gas development. Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading or reconstruction, BLM 

should adopt the DDCT tool. Given variable topography and habitat conditions, it is more appropriate to 

allow the upgrading of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order 

(WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, BLM WY IM 2012-019, BLM WO IM 

2012-044, the National Technical Team report, best available science, and input from the USFWS, State of

Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to both protect sagegrouse and allow for multiple use of public lands. For clarification, BLM WY IM 2012-019 defines a 

"large" project as including, but not limited to oil and gas field developments, wind energy farm/field 

development projects, large interstate transmission power lines and vegetation treatments that eliminate 

functional habitat for sage-grouse. The IM further clarifies that in all cases, the distances are only a 

suggested distance for evaluation and project specific distances for evaluation can be modified based on 

available data and information.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-663

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

BLM should apply the minimum standard to protect sage-grouse

Comment ID: 729

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding oil and gas 

leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, coordinated between agencies, and

“only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the stipulations are applied." Based on 

Devon's review of the proposed alternatives in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM did not follow the 

guidance in this MOU or the express direction in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 particularly with respect 

to Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM must consider the Energy Policy Act MOU when selecting 

the agency's preferred alternative or adopting the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 562

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: BLM should ensure that stipulations developed for future oil and gas leasing are the least 

restrictive as necessary to adequately protect other resource values as amended by the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of the Interior and the

Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding oil and gas 

leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, coordinated between agencies, and 

"only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the stipulations are applied." Based on 

Samson's review of the proposed alternatives in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM did not follow the 

guidance in this MOU or the express direction in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 particularly with respect 

to Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM must consider the Energy Policy Act MOU when selecting 

the agency's preferred alternative or adopting the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 2143

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: When revising the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM should ensure that stipulations developed 

for future oil and gas leasing are the least restrictive as necessary to adequately protect other resource value 

as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 

(“MOU”) regarding oil and gas leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, 

coordinated between agencies, and “only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the 

stipulations are applied.” Based on Encana’s review of the proposed alternatives in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, the BLM did not follow the guidance in this MOU or the express direction in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 particularly with respect to Alternative B and Alternative C.

Summary: BLM should ensure that stipulations developed for future oil and gas leasing are the least 

restrictive as necessary to adequately protect other resource values as amended by the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005. Section 363 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires the Secretary of the Interior and the

Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") regarding oil and gas 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-664 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, coordinated between agencies, and

"only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the stipulations are applied." The BLM 

did not follow the guidance in this MOU or the express direction in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

particularly with respect to Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM must consider the Energy Policy 

Act MOU when selecting the agency's Preferred Alternative or adopting the Sage-Grouse Draft LUP 

Amendments.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater

Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1)

require that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. The range of alternatives in the Draft 

LUP Amendment/Draft EIS represented a full spectrum of options including an alternative designed to 

minimize impacts to other resources and resource uses (Alternative D). Additionally, the resulting action 

alternatives offer a range of possible management approaches for responding to planning issues and 

concerns identified through public scoping, and to maintain or increase Greater Sage-Grouse abundance 

and distribution in the planning area. While the goal is the same across alternatives, each alternative contains 

a discrete set of objectives and management actions and constitutes a separate LUP Amendment with the 

potential for different long-range outcomes and conditions.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Do not renew expired mineral leases

Comment ID: 1614

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: The NTT report takes a much stricter approach to future mineral leasing. It recommends two

alternatives: closing all priority habitat (Core Areas) to future leasing, or closing all priority habitat to future 

leasing unless it could be shown that proposed development would result in a net gain in sagegrouse

populations for that Core Area. It is particularly important to begin now with the no-leasing approach to 

Core Areas, so that existing leases can begin to expire without renewal. Over the life of the RMP, a ‘no 

future leasing’ policy would reduce the acreage leased toward zero as existing leases expire unless they are 

held by production.

Comment ID: 1706

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Upon 

expiration or termination of existing leases, do not re-lease the area.

Summary: Upon expiration or termination of existing leases, do not re-issue new leases. The NTT report 

takes a much stricter approach to future mineral leasing. It recommends two alternatives: closing all priority

habitat (core areas) to future leasing, or closing all priority habitat to future leasing unless it could be shown 

that proposed development would result in a net gain in sage-grouse populations for that core area. It is 

particularly important to begin now with the no-leasing approach to core areas, so that existing leases can 

begin to expire without renewal. Over the life of the LUP, a ‘no future leasing’ policy would reduce the 

acreage leased toward zero as existing leases expire unless they are held by production.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-665

Response: Depending upon the commodity, leases can expire, be relinquished, or be cancelled. If there is a

proposal for future leasing of the same lands, they would be subject to the final decision on the LUP

management actions and alternatives including this and any other applicable Record of Decision.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Exceptions, modifications, and waivers should be case-by-case

Comment ID: 1160

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on exceptions, waivers, and 

modifications to lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-62, 

Action No. 58. Anschutz does not believe it is appropriate for the BLM to limit potential management 

options with strict limitations on exceptions, waivers, and modifications within the DLUPA. . Rather, as

discussed earlier in these comments, land use plans are intended to provide broad objectives and flexibility 

to support future management actions. For that reason, Anschutz supports the BLM’s proposal to continue 

to consider exceptions, waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D and 

Alternative E.

Comment ID: 1752

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on exceptions, waivers, and

modifications to lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2- 62, 

Action No. 58. ConocoPhillips does not believe it is appropriate for the BLM to limit potential management 

options with strict limitations on exceptions, waivers, and modifications within the DLUPA. Rather, as 

discussed earlier in these comments, land use plans are intended to provide broad objectives and flexibility 

to support future management actions. For that reason, ConocoPhillips supports the BLM’s proposal to 

continue to consider exceptions, waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D 

and Alternative E. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-62, Action No. 58. ConocoPhillips believes the BLM should 

retain as much flexibility as possible to make site-specific decisions based on changing conditions and new 

information. ConocoPhillips particularly encourages the BLM to ensure it has sufficient flexibility to grant 

exceptions, modifications, and waivers to lease stipulations on a broad-based and programmatic method 

when appropriate.

Comment ID: 602

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is opposed to the BLM's proposed limitation on exceptions, waivers, and modifications 

to lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Samson supports the BLM's proposal to

continue to consider exceptions, waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D 

and Alternative E. Samson believes the BLM should retain as much flexibility as possible to make sitespecific decisions based on changing conditions and new information. Samson particularly encourages the 

BLM to ensure it has sufficient flexibility to grant exceptions, modifications, and waivers to lease 

stipulations on a broad-based and programmatic method when appropriate. Many oil and gas operators in 

Wyoming are currently working with the SIGT to implement and develop comprehensive mitigation 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-666 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

strategies that would allow operators to pursue year-round development within sage-grouse habitat while 

meeting the state's conservation goals. The BLM should ensure that nothing in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA 

prohibits the BLM from considering and implementing these innovative conservation strategies.

Comment ID: 1477

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to the BLM‘s proposed limitation on exceptions, waivers, and modifications to 

lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-62, Action No. 58. 

EOG does not believe it is appropriate for the BLM to limit potential management options with strict

limitations on exceptions, waivers, and modifications within the DLUPA. Rather, as discussed earlier in 

these comments, land use plans are intended to provide broad objective and flexibility to support future 

management actions. For that reason, EOG supports the BLM‘s proposal to continue to consider exceptions, 

waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D and Alternative E. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pg. 2-62, Action No. 58. EOG believes the BLM should retain as much flexibility as possible to 

make site-specific decisions based on changing conditions and new information. EOG particularly 

encourages the BLM to ensure it has sufficient flexibility to grant exceptions, modifications, and waivers 

to lease stipulations on a broad-based and programmatic method when appropriate. Many oil and gas 

operators in Wyoming are currently working with the SGIT to implement and develop comprehensive 

mitigation strategies that would allow operators to pursue year-round development within GRSG habitat. 

The BLM should ensure that nothing in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA prohibits the BLM from considering and 

implementing these innovative conservation strategies.

Comment ID: 755

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is opposed to the BLM's proposed limitation on exceptions, waivers, and modifications 

to lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-62, Action No. 58. 

Devon does not believe it is appropriate for the BLM to limit potential management options with strict 

limitations on exceptions, waivers, and modifications within the DLUPA. Rather, as discussed earlier in 

these comments, land use plans are intended to provide broad objectives and flexibility to support future 

management actions. For that reason, Devon supports the BLM's proposal to continue to consider 

exceptions, waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D and Alternative E.

Comment ID: 2191

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on exceptions, waivers, and modifications 

to lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Encana does not believe it is appropriate for the 

BLM to limit potential management options with strict limitations on exceptions, waivers, and

modifications within the DLUPA. For that reason, Encana supports the BLM’s proposal to continue to

consider exceptions, waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D and

Alternative E.

Summary: BLM should continue to consider exceptions, waivers, and modifications on a case-by-case basis 

as under Alternatives D and E. Many oil and gas operators in Wyoming are currently working with the

SGIT to implement and develop comprehensive mitigation strategies that would allow operators to pursue 

year-round development within sage-grouse habitat while meeting the state's conservation goals. The BLM 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-667

should ensure that nothing in the Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments prohibits the BLM from considering 

and implementing these innovative conservation strategies. Proposed limitations on exceptions, waivers, 

and modifications to lease stipulations under Alternative B and Alternative C should not be considered.

Response: Exceptions, modifications, and waivers are considered on a case-by-case basis under 

Alternatives D and E.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Exceptions, waivers, and modifications should not be granted

Comment ID: 1361

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 58 provides "exceptions, waivers and modifications" to various requirements but the 

DEIS is completely silent regarding the impacts of these waivers. In data obtained from the Pinedale field

office, we have seen that approximately 96% of the waiver requests are granted.

Summary: Action 58 provides "exceptions, waivers and modifications" to various requirements but the 

Draft EIS is completely silent regarding the impacts of these waivers. In data obtained from the Pinedale 

field office, approximately 96% of the waiver requests are granted.

Response: Not granting exceptions, modifications, and waivers is considered under Alternative B within 

priority habitat and under Alternative C within priority and general habitat.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Mine Safety Act consistency

Comment ID: 2713

Organization: Solvay Chemicals, Inc.

Name: Tim Brown

Comment: All surface and underground mining operations must adhere to very specific safety practices as

mandated by the Mine Safety Act of 1977. References in the draft plan are made to the State of Wyoming 

Executive Order (EO) No. 2011-5 but no reference is made to the Specific Stipulations on Page 12. 

Consistency with the EO regarding mining and miner safety must be addressed and maintained. Stipulation 

2d in the EO states: "Surface disturbance and surface occupancy stipulations will be waived within the Core 

Area when implementing underground mining practices that are necessary to protect the health, welfare, 

and safety of miners, mine employees, contractors and the general public. The mining practices include but 

are not limited to bore holes or shafts necessary to: 1) provide adequate oxygen to an underground mine; 

2) supply inert gases or other substances to prevent, treat, or suppress combustion or mine fires; 3) inject 

mine roof stabilization substances; and 4) remove methane from mining areas. Any surface disturbance or 

surface occupancy necessary to access the sites to implement these mining practices will also be exempt 

from any stipulation." In order to provide proper ventilation, boreholes and shafts must be placed over the 

workings of an underground mine, these locations are dictated by the location of the underground ore body 

or seam. These surface manifestations can and do currently exist in the Greater Sage Grouse Core Area.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-668 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Solvay Chemicals believes that the language in Stipulation 2d must be included in any alternative or any 

combination of alternatives that may be adopted.

Summary: All surface and underground mining operations must adhere to very specific safety practices as

mandated by the Mine Safety Act of 1977. References in the draft plan are made to the State of Wyoming 

Executive Order (EO) No. 2011-5 but no reference is made to the Specific Stipulations on Page 12. 

Consistency with the EO regarding mining and miner safety must be addressed and maintained. Stipulation 

2d in the EO states: "Surface disturbance and surface occupancy stipulations will be waived within the core 

area when implementing underground mining practices that are necessary to protect the health, welfare, 

and safety of miners, mine employees, contractors and the general public. The mining practices include but 

are not limited to bore holes or shafts necessary to: 1) provide adequate oxygen to an underground mine; 

2) supply inert gases or other substances to prevent, treat, or suppress combustion or mine fires; 3) inject 

mine roof stabilization substances; and 4) remove methane from mining areas. Any surface disturbance or 

surface occupancy necessary to access the sites to implement these mining practices will also be exempt 

from any stipulation." In order to provide proper ventilation, boreholes and shafts must be placed over the 

workings of an underground mine, these locations are dictated by the location of the underground ore body 

or seam. These surface manifestations can and do currently exist in the Greater Sage-Grouse core area. The 

language in Stipulation 2d must be included in any alternative or any combination of alternatives that may 

be adopted.

Response: The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments must be consistent with all federal laws 

and regulations (see 43 CFR 1610), including the Mine Safety Act. The Draft EIS sets consistency with all

applicable law and regulations as one of the planning criteria (Draft EIS at 1-15.).

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Need to show areas open to oil and gas leasing

Comment ID: 739

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM's adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would have devastating economic 

impacts upon the region, State of Wyoming, and even the nation. Oil and gas development, even on existing

leases, would be significantly hampered by the BLM's management actions under Alternative B or

Alternative C. Alternative B and Alternative C do not comply with the BLM's multiple use mandate and 

must be eliminated. The removal of vast areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential 

restrictions on existing leases under Alternative B or C would also significantly restrict regional earnings, 

jobs, and tax revenue. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or disclosed the potential impacts the restrictions 

on future leasing may have upon operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize, study, and report 

the economic impact of its decision to close significant portions of the Planning Area to leasing, or to make 

significant portions of the Planning Area only available with major constraints will have upon future 

exploration and development in the area. It is not enough for the BLM to simply assert that existing lease 

rights will be protected; the BLM must analyze further how existing lease rights will be impacted by future 

limitations on leasing and development and what protection it will afford existing leases in the abovedescribed scenario. Contrary to the requirements of BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, the BLM 

has not properly identified lands within the Planning Area that are open to oil and gas leasing with moderate

constraints and those that are available only with major constraints.

Comment ID: 587
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-669

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Contrary to the requirements of BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, the BLM has not

properly identified lands within the Planning Area that are open to oil and gas leasing with moderate

constraints and those that are available only with major constraints. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

BLM Greater Sage-Grouse EIS Page 16 of44 H-1601, Appd. C.I1.H., pgs. 23 - 24 (Rel. 1-1693 03/11/05). 

The BLM should supplement the information contained in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA with this information 

as soon as possible.

Summary: Contrary to the requirements of BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, the BLM has not

properly identified lands within the planning area that are open to oil and gas leasing with moderate

constraints and those that are available only with major constraints.

Response: Acreages by alternative of leasing restrictions with moderate (i.e. CSU) and major (i.e. NSO)

constraints are detailed in Table 2-2 of the Draft EIS.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Oil shale leasing not discussed specifically

Comment ID: 315

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: BLM has failed to distinguish oil shale leasing from any of these other types of mineral leasing 

or location, which likewise have significant negative impacts on sage grouse habitats, habitat use, and

population dynamics. BLM’s failure to consider impacts of oil shale leasing and development, and its

failure to develop alternatives that protect sage grouse from oil shale leasing and the development that is 

reasonably foreseeable to follow, are both serious violations of NEPA that invalidate this Draft EIS.

Summary: BLM has failed to distinguish oil shale leasing from other types of mineral leasing or location, 

which will likewise have significant negative impacts on sage-grouse habitats, habitat use, and population

dynamics. BLM’s failure to consider impacts from oil shale leasing and development, and its failure to

develop alternatives that protect sage-grouse from oil shale leasing and the development that is reasonably 

foreseeable to follow, are both serious violations of NEPA that invalidate this Draft EIS.

Response: Alternatives that include stipulations for protection of sage-grouse habitat from oil shale 

resources were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis (see Section 2.2.2 of the Draft EIS). The 

lack of specific information regarding the technological requirements and environmental consequences that

might be associated with the development of oil shale resources on the public lands also means that, with 

respect to this sage-grouse planning effort, it would be premature for the BLM to consider specific 

protective stipulations. The Oil Shale Tar Sands Programmatic EIS considered Greater Sage- Grouse habitat 

management in this planning area.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Ongoing MLPs should be considered and acknowledged

Comment ID: 1799
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-670 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: The Wilderness Society

Name: Nada Culver

Comment: The Greater Little Mountain RMP is formally under consideration as part of the Rock Springs 

RMP revision. MLPs have also been proposed in the other RMPs being amended by this process, including

Greater Adobe Town MLP (Rock Springs and Rawlins RMPs), Bates Hole MLP (Casper RMP) and Miller

Mountain MLP (Pinedale RMP). 2

[http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Oil_and_Gas/Leasing/reform.html] These MLPs can and 

should be incorporated into the final plans that will be approved prior to finalizing this sagegrouse EIS. 

BLM can then acknowledge the management approaches in those MLPs as part of analyzing and adopting 

conservation measures for management of sage-grouse habitat. We recommend that the BLM use the MLPs 

under consideration, as well as some of those proposed that overlap with important sage-grouse habitat, as 

a way to fulfill the purposes of this planning effort, and incorporate them into the analysis of alternatives.

Summary: The Greater Little Mountain RMP is formally under consideration as part of the Rock Springs 

RMP revision. MLPs have also been proposed in the other RMPs being amended by this process, including

Greater Adobe Town MLP (Rock Springs and Rawlins RMPs), Bates Hole MLP (Casper RMP) and Miller

Mountain MLP (Pinedale RMP). These MLPs can and should be incorporated into the final plans that will 

be approved prior to finalizing the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. BLM can then acknowledge the 

management approaches in those MLPs as part of analyzing and adopting conservation measures for 

management of sage-grouse habitat. BLM should use the MLPs under consideration, as well as some of 

those proposed that overlap with important sage-grouse habitat, as a way to fulfill the purposes of this 

planning effort, and incorporate them into the analysis of alternatives.

Response: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS contains only planning actions and does not include any

implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if the 

scope of the decision included implementation actions. Specific actions that may affect the area, such as 

MLPs, would conduct independent NEPA analyses for actions that could include site-specific project and 

implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions would 

be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 

1508.28).

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Oppose all alternatives

Comment ID: 2349

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA appreciates the difficult balancing act BLM must achieve when dealing with competing

resources. However, BLM must recognize that the need for mineral development to reduce the Nation’s 

reliance on foreign sources of the minerals, to maintain our way of life and defend the country, may in fact 

be greater than the need to conserve millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat. As such, BLM must 

demonstrate its compliance with the mandate under the Mining and Minerals Policy Act (30 U.S.C. §21(a)), 

and FLPMA (43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(12)) to recognize the Nation’s need for domestic minerals.

Comment ID: 2317

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-671

Comment: Encana does not support any of the Alternatives as drafted. The BLM’s preferred management

proposal would unreasonably restrict access and impose unnecessary and burdensome operational

restrictions on oil and gas development. The BLM should find a more reasonable and balanced approach 

that promotes oil and gas development, respects valid existing lease rights, provides adequate flexibility for 

future site-specific planning decisions, and recognizes the limitations of the agency’s authority and 

expertise.

Summary: The commenter does not support any of the Alternatives as drafted. The BLM’s preferred

management proposal would unreasonably restrict access and impose unnecessary and burdensome

operational restrictions on oil and gas development. The BLM should find a more reasonable and balanced 

approach that promotes oil and gas development, respects valid existing lease rights, provides adequate 

flexibility for future site-specific planning decisions, and recognizes the limitations of the agency’s 

authority and expertise. BLM must recognize that the need for mineral development to reduce the nation’s 

reliance on foreign sources of the minerals, to maintain a way of life and defend the country, may in fact 

be greater than the need to conserve millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat. As such, BLM must 

demonstrate its compliance with the mandate under the Mining and Minerals Policy Act and FLPMA to 

recognize the Nation’s need for domestic minerals.

Response: The BLM’s FLPMA (Section 103(c)) defines "multiple-use" as the management of the public 

lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the

present and future needs of the American people. Accordingly, the BLM is responsible for the complicated 

task of striking a balance among the many competing uses to which public lands can be put. The BLM’s 

multiple-use mandate does not require that all uses be allowed on all areas of the public lands. The purpose 

of the mandate is to require the BLM to evaluate and choose an appropriate balance of resource uses which 

involves tradeoffs between competing uses. The FLPMA also directs the United States Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management to develop and periodically revise or amend its Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs), which guide management of BLM-administered lands, and provides an arena 

for making decisions regarding how public lands would be managed and used. Consistent with the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (MUSYA), the Forest Service manages National 

Forest System land to sustain the multiple-use of its renewable resources in perpetuity while maintaining 

the long-term health and productivity of the land. Resources are managed through a combination of 

approaches and concepts for the benefit of human communities and natural resources. Land management 

plans guide sustainable, integrated resource management of the resources within the plan area in the context 

of the broader landscape, giving due consideration to the relative values of the various resources in

particular areas. The Forest Service is required by statute to have a national planning rule: the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976, requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations under the principles of the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 for the development and revision of land management plans. The 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments is a targeted amendment specifically addressing goals, 

objectives, and conservation measures to conserve Greater Sage- Grouse and to respond to the potential of 

it being listed (see Draft EIS Section 1.3, Purpose of and Need for the Land Use Plan Amendments). Both 

the Forest Service’s and BLM’s planning processes allow for analysis and consideration of a range of 

alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and to eliminate, 

reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach was 

recommended. The plan includes alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in 

various use programs, but would not eliminate or invalidate any valid existing development rights. 

Additionally, the BLM and the Forest Service developed the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS with involvement from cooperating agencies to ensure that a balanced multiple-use 

management strategy to address the protection of Greater Sage-Grouse while allowing for utilization of 

renewable and nonrenewable resources on the public lands.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-672 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Oppose timing restrictions or specific dates of closures

Comment ID: 777

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is also concerned that the BLM's proposed management action to apply seasonal closures

would pose significant safety concerns to existing facilities. To the extent the BLM applies the limitation 

on even routine maintenance in this action, it is very possible minor issues necessitating repairs will not be 

timely corrected, which could contribute to significant or even catastrophic spills and other hazards. Devon 

encourages the BLM not to adopt this radical alternative. Further, seasonal closures may prohibit routine 

maintenance operations. As the BLM is aware, many types of routine oil and gas operations and 

maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas welts. BLM must recognize the 

routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to the operations.

Comment ID: 630

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Under Alternative E, Samson objects to the BLM's proposal to expand seasonal limitation period 

by up to 14 days within sage-grouse core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-146, Action No. 131. This

limitation is inconsistent with the Wyoming Core Policy as expressed in Executive Order 2011-005. The 

Governor of Wyoming in conjunction with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department developed the Core 

Area Policy based upon the best scientific information available. As the BLM is aware, the Core Area 

Policy was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as an appropriate 

mechanism to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to attempt to 

modify or alter the mitigation measures set forth in the Core Area Policy.

Comment ID: 775

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Under Alternative E, Devon objects to the BLM's proposal to expand seasonal limitation period

within sage-grouse core areas by up to 14 days. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-146, Action No. 131. This 

limitation is inconsistent with the Wyoming Core Area Policy as expressed in Executive Order 2011-005. 

As the BLM is aware, the Core Area Policy was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service as an appropriate mechanism to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. lt is inappropriate for 

the BLM to attempt to modify or alter the mitigation measures set forth in the Core Area Policy. If the BLM 

seeks to begin the seasonal limitation period before March 1, the BLM must at least correspondingly end 

the seasonal limitation period earlier by as many days.

Comment ID: 631

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is strenuously opposed to the management action under Alternative C that would impose

seasonal restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat during the 

lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing seasons. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-151, Action No. 132, 133. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-673

As the BLM is aware, current seasonal stipulations in most RMPs prohibit construction and drilling 

activities in specific crucial winter ranges, but do not prohibit routine production operations necessary to 

safely maintain facilities or other routine operations. It would be inappropriate for the BLM to preclude all 

production operations in crucial winter range areas. Such a decision would essentially preclude year-round 

production operations and would lead to a significant decrease in domestic energy production.

Comment ID: 632

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is also concerned that the BLM's proposed management action to apply seasonal 

closures would propose significant safety concerns to existing facilities. To the extent the BLM applies the

limitation on even routine maintenance in this action, it is very possible minor issues necessitating repairs 

will not be timely corrected, which could contribute to significant or even catastrophic spills and other 

hazards. Samson encourages the BLM not to adopt this radical alternative. Further, seasonal closures may 

prohibit routine maintenance operations. As the BLM is aware, many types of routine oil and gas operations 

and maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas wells. BLM must recognize 

the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to the 

operations. See 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3-2 (subsequent well operations). The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not 

indicate whether or if it intends to impose timing limitations on these routine activities in apparent violation 

of the BLM's regulations. Further, the BLM has not indicated whether it intends to impose timing 

limitations on other routine subsequent operations, including those that require prior approval. Second 

closures will also prevent year-round production operations. Even the very threat of such a radical and

unjustified restriction on production operations would seriously hamper future oil and gas development in 

the Planning Area because oil and gas operators would be unwilling to invest the millions of dollars 

necessary to drill an oil and gas well if they would be unable to produce the wells throughout the year. The 

BLM would effectively eliminate all oil and gas development in areas where production would be limited. 

Further, the BLM has not analyzed or considered the damage that could be done to oil and gas wells if they 

are shut-in on an annual basis. The BLM has also not analyzed the very real threat that federal minerals 

would be effectively drained by offsetting wells on State of Wyoming and private lands if federal wells are 

annually shut-in. The BLM must prepare this analysis in order to disclose the significant adverse impacts 

that would be associated with the closure of oil and gas development on a seasonal basis, including the 

potential loss of federal reserves and royalties. It also appears the BLM failed to consider the significant 

detrimental impact that a seasonal prohibition on oil and gas operations could have upon the local economy. 

By precluding production during several months of the year, the BLM would force operators to significantly 

reduce their workforces on an annual basis. The management action would create a seasonal boom and bust

cycle with routine maintenance workers and pumpers being laid off annually. The inconsistent nature of 

the work would almost certainly reduce the number of local employees operators are able to hire, which 

would restrict or eliminate the long-term beneficial impacts of the oil and gas development to the local 

economy. The BLM's current socio-economic analysis does not account for this cycle. The BLM must 

eliminate this proposed management action under Alternative C. To the extent the BLM intends to apply 

these restrictions to existing leases, the BLM may be violating Samson's existing lease rights or engaging 

in a taking of Samson's property rights.

Comment ID: 1601

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix D, Management Action #127, Alternative E, TLS, Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat in designated core areas, pgs. E-10 – E-11 EOG is extremely 

opposed to the BLM‘s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities between March 1 and June 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-674 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

30 to protect GRSG breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside core areas. The BLM has 

extended the timing restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011-005. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-

019 (Feb. 10, 2012). The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 1 to March 15. The 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically 

endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect GRSG. The BLM should 

not modify or alter the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing 

restrictions to be consistent with the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum. EOG is 

also concerned that the BLM‘s proposed management action to apply seasonal closures would result in 

significant safety concerns to existing facilities. To the extent the BLM applies the limitation on even 

routine maintenance in this action, it is very possible minor issues necessitating repairs will not be timely 

corrected, which could contribute to significant or even catastrophic spills and other hazards. Further, 

seasonal closures may prohibit routine maintenance operations. As the BLM is aware, many types of routine 

oil and gas operations and maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas wells. 

BLM must recognize the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM 

approval prior to the operations. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether it intends to impose 

timing limitations on these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM‘s regulations. Further, the 

BLM has not indicated whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent 

operations, including those that require prior approval.

Comment ID: 774

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is extremely opposed to the BLM's prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive

activities between March 1 and June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early broodrearing

habitat inside core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. The BLM has extended the 

timing restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-

005. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019 (Feb. 

10, 2012). The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 1 to March 15. The Wyoming SageGrouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically endorsed by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect sage-grouse. The BLM should not modify or alter 

the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent 

with the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum.

Comment ID: 1604

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #130, Alternative D, TLS, Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas supporting connectivity populations, pgs. E-15 – E-16 EOG is extremely opposed to 

the BLM‘s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities between November 15 and March 14 

within winter concentration areas. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction 

Memorandum WY-2012-019 (Feb. 10, 2012). The Wyoming Sage- Grouse Conservation Strategy 

developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service as adequate to protect GRSG. The BLM should not modify or alter the timing restrictions set forth 

in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent with the existing Executive 

Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum. EOG is also concerned that the BLM‘s proposed management 

action to apply seasonal closures would result in significant safety concerns to existing facilities. Further, 

seasonal closures may prohibit routine maintenance operations. As the BLM is aware, many types of routine 

oil and gas operations and maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas wells. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-675

BLM must recognize the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM

approval prior to the operations. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether it intends to impose 

timing limitations on these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM‘s regulations. Further, the 

BLM has not indicated whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent 

operations, including those that require prior approval.

Comment ID: 776

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is strenuously opposed to the management action under Alternative C that would impose

seasonal restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat during the 

lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing seasons. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-151, Action No. 132, 133. 

As the BLM is aware, current seasonal stipulations in most RMPs prohibit construction and drilling 

activities in specific crucial winter ranges, but do not prohibit routine production operations necessary to 

safely maintain facilities or other routine operations. It would be inappropriate for the BLM to preclude all 

production operations in crucial winter range areas. Such a decision would essentially preclude year-round 

production operations and would lead to a significant decrease in domestic energy production.

Comment ID: 820

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is extremely opposed to the BLM's prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive 

activities between March 1 and June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing

habitat inside core areas. The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent with the existing 

Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum.

Comment ID: 1190

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling under Alternative 

B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. First, the BLM has not defined

what constitutes exploratory drilling. What criterion has the BLM utilized to determine whether or not the 

proposed well is exploratory or not? The BLM must provide more information regarding this proposed 

management action in order for Anschutz to understand how it may impact its operations. Further, the 

proposed timing limitations are likely inconsistent with existing lease rights.

Comment ID: 1193

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities 

between March 1 and June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat 

inside core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. The BLM has extended the timing

restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. The 

timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019 (Feb. 10, 2012). 

The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 1 to March 15. The Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically endorsed by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect sage-grouse. The BLM should not modify or alter the 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-676 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent with 

the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum.

Comment ID: 1539

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to the BLM‘s seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling under Alternative B 

and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. First, the BLM has not defined what

constitutes exploratory drilling. What criterion will the BLM utilize to determine whether or not a proposed 

well is exploratory or not? The BLM must provide more information regarding this proposed management 

action in order for EOG to understand how it may impact its operations.

Comment ID: 1198

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is strenuously opposed to the management action under Alternative C that would 

impose seasonal restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat

during the lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing seasons. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-151, Action No. 

132, 133. As the BLM is aware, current seasonal stipulations in most RMPs prohibit construction and 

drilling activities in specific crucial winter ranges, but do not prohibit routine production operations 

necessary to safely maintain facilities or other routine operations. It would be inappropriate for the BLM to 

preclude all production operations in crucial winter range areas. Such a decision would essentially preclude 

year-round production operations and would lead to a significant decrease in domestic energy production.

Comment ID: 1770

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities

between March 1 and June 30 to protect sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat 

inside core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. The BLM has extended the timing 

restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. The 

timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2012- 019 (Feb. 10, 2012). 

The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent with the existing Executive Order and BLM 

Instruction Memorandum.

Comment ID: 1540

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is extremely opposed to the BLM‘s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive 

activities between March 1 and June 30 to protect GRSG breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat

inside core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. The BLM has extended the timing

restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. The 

timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY-2012-019 (Feb. 10, 2012). 

The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 1 to March 15. The Wyoming Sage- Grouse 

Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically endorsed by the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect GRSG. The BLM should not modify or alter the timing 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-677

restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing restrictions to be consistent with the 

existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum.

Comment ID: 1772

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is strenuously opposed to the management action under Alternative C that would

impose seasonal restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat 

during the lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing seasons. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-151, Action No. 

132, 133. As the BLM is aware, current seasonal stipulations in most RMPs prohibit construction and 

drilling activities in specific crucial winter ranges, but do not prohibit routine production operations 

necessary to safely maintain facilities or other routine operations. It would be inappropriate for the BLM to 

preclude all production operations in crucial winter range areas. ConocoPhillips is also concerned that the 

BLM’s proposed management action to apply seasonal closures would propose significant safety concerns 

to existing facilities. Further, seasonal closures may prohibit routine maintenance operations. BLM must 

recognize the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to 

the operations. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether or if it intends to impose timing 

limitations on these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM’s regulations. Further, the BLM has 

not indicated whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent operations, 

including those that require prior approval. Second closures will also prevent year-round production 

operations. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or considered the damage that could be done to oil and gas 

wells if they are shut-in on an annual basis. The BLM has also not analyzed the very real threat that federal

minerals would be effectively drained by offsetting wells on State of Wyoming and private lands if federal 

wells are annually shut-in. The BLM must prepare this analysis in order to disclose the significant adverse 

impacts that would be associated with the closure of oil and gas development on a seasonal basis, including 

the potential loss of federal reserves and royalties. It also appears the BLM failed to consider the significant 

detrimental impact seasonal prohibition on oil and gas operations could have upon the local economy. By 

precluding production during several months of the year, the BLM would force operators to significantly 

reduce their workforces on an annual basis. The BLM must eliminate this proposed management action 

under Alternative C.

Comment ID: 778

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether it intends to impose timing limitations on 

these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM's regulations. Further, the BLM has not indicated 

whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent operations, including those that 

require prior approval. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or considered the damage that could be done to 

oil and gas wells if they are shut-in on an annual basis. The BLM has also not analyzed the very real threat 

that federal minerals would be effectively drained by offsetting wells on State of Wyoming and private 

lands if federal wells are annually shutin.

Comment ID: 1769

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling under 

Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. First, the BLM has not 

defined what constitutes exploratory drilling. What criterion has the BLM utilized to determine whether or
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-678 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

not the proposed well is exploratory or not? The BLM must provide more information regarding this

proposed management action in order for ConocoPhillips to understand how it may impact its operations. 

Further, the proposed timing limitations are likely inconsistent with existing lease rights.

Comment ID: 1893

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Action Number 134, Page 2-162 “Sage-grouse winter concentration areas: COMMENT: As the 

first part of this provision currently reads, it would prohibit activity throughout core areas that contain

winter habitat for 7 months out of the year (March 15-June 30; December 1-March 14). This is unreasonable 

and needs to be changed to reflect that activities in winter concentration areas (not throughout core) are 

prohibited from December 1-March 14. Further, “disruptive activities” needs to be defined as not including 

routine maintenance and operator site visits. With regard to the part of this provision that reads, “Protection 

of additional areas of winter concentration that are not located within the current core area boundaries would 

be implemented where winter concentration areas are identified as supporting populations of sage-grouse 

that attend leks within core habitat.” We recommend additional clarification be added to this section, like

that contained in the EO which states additional winter concentration areas located outside core are

“necessary for supporting biologically significant numbers of sage-grouse nesting in Core Population

Areas.” We also recommend language be included requiring winter concentration areas be verified with 

scientifically-based field assessments on a site-specific basis. Lastly, with regard to the language

“Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat protections measures”, clarification needs to be added 

outlining what appropriate seasonal timing restrictions are and who will consider, evaluate and determine 

the timing restrictions and habitat protection measures.

Comment ID: 1201

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is also concerned that the BLM’s proposed management action to apply seasonal 

closures would propose significant safety concerns to existing facilities. To the extent the BLM applies the

limitation on even routine maintenance in this action, it is very possible minor issues necessitating repairs 

will not be timely corrected, which could contribute to significant or even catastrophic spills and other 

hazards. Anschutz encourages the BLM not to adopt this radical alternative. Further, seasonal closures may 

prohibit routine maintenance operations. As the BLM is aware, many types of routine oil and gas operations 

and maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas wells. BLM must recognize 

the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to the 

operations. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether or if it intends to impose timing limitations 

on these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM’s regulations. Further, the BLM has not 

indicated whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent operations, including 

those that require prior approval. Second, closures will also prevent year-round production operations. Even 

the very threat of such a radical and unjustified restriction on production operations would seriously hamper 

future oil and gas development in the Planning Area because oil and gas operators would be unwilling to

invest the millions of dollars necessary to drill an oil and gas well if they would be unable to produce the 

wells throughout the year. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or considered the damage that could be done 

to oil and gas wells if they are shut-in on an annual basis. The BLM has also not analyzed the very real 

threat that federal minerals would be effectively drained by offsetting wells on State of Wyoming and 

private lands if federal wells are annually shut-in. The BLM must prepare this analysis in order to disclose 

the significant adverse impacts that would be associated with the closure of oil and gas development on a 

seasonal basis, including the potential loss of federal reserves and royalties. It also appears the BLM failed 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-679

to consider the significant detrimental impact seasonal prohibition on oil and gas operations could have 

upon the local economy. The BLM must eliminate this proposed management action under Alternative C.

Comment ID: 629

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM's prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities between March I and June 

30 inside core areas must be revised. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. The BLM has

extended the timing restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of Wyoming Executive 

Order 2011-005. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY- 2012-

019 (Feb. 10, 2012). The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 1 to March 15. The 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was specifically 

endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect sage-grouse. The BLM 

should not modify or alter the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the timing 

restrictions to be consistent with the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum.

Comment ID: 1603

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix E, Management Action #130, Alternative D, TLS, Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas inside designated core areas, pgs. E-14 – E-15 EOG is extremely opposed to the BLM‘s 

prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities between November 15 and March 14 within winter 

concentration areas. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum WY2012-019 (Feb. 10, 2012). The Wyoming Sage- Grouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of 

Wyoming was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect 

GRSG. The BLM should not modify or alter the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must 

revise the timing restrictions to be consistent with the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction 

Memorandum. EOG is also concerned that the BLM‘s proposed management action to apply seasonal 

closures would result in significant safety concerns to existing facilities Further, seasonal closures may 

prohibit routine maintenance operations. As the BLM is aware, many types of routine oil and gas operations

and maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas wells. BLM must recognize 

the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to the 

operations The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether it intends to impose timing limitations on 

these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM‘s regulations. Further, the BLM has not indicated 

whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent operations, including those that 

require prior approval.

Comment ID: 1602

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Appendix D, Management Action #128, Alternative E, TLS, Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat inside connectivity areas, pg. E-12 EOG is extremely opposed to 

the BLM‘s prohibition on surface disturbing or disruptive activities between March 1 and June 30 to protect 

GRSG breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat within four miles of a lek within connectivity 

areas. The BLM has extended the timing restriction from March 15 to March 1 in direct contradiction of 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction 

Memorandum WY-2012-019 (Feb. 10, 2012). The BLM should not impose timing restrictions from March 

1 to March 15. The Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming was 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-680 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as adequate to protect GRSG. The 

BLM should not modify or alter the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. The BLM must revise the 

timing restrictions to be consistent with the existing Executive Order and BLM Instruction Memorandum.

EOG also strongly opposes BLM‘s proposal to prohibit surface disturbance or disruptive activities within 

four miles of active leks. Given the variable topography of the planning area and ongoing land uses, there 

is substantial acreage within four miles of active leks that is not GRSG habitat. The four mile buffer also 

does not address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the BLM‘s blanket application 

of the four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage- Grouse Conservation Objectives Team 

Report published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Comment ID: 1542

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is strenuously opposed to the management action under Alternative C that would impose

seasonal restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat during the 

lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing seasons. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-151, Action No. 132, 133. 

EOG is also concerned that the BLM‘s proposed management action to apply seasonal closures would result 

in significant safety concerns to existing facilities. EOG encourages the BLM not to adopt this radical 

alternative. Further, seasonal closures may prohibit routine maintenance operations. BLM must recognize 

the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to the

operations. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether it intends to impose timing limitations on 

these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM‘s regulations. Further, the BLM has not indicated 

whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent operations, including those that 

require prior approval. Seasonal closures will also prevent yearround production operations. Even the very 

threat of such a radical and unjustified restriction on production operations would seriously hamper future

oil and gas development in the Planning Area because oil and gas operators would be unwilling to invest 

the millions of dollars necessary to drill an oil and gas well if they would be unable to produce the wells 

throughout the year. It also appears the BLM failed to consider the significant detrimental impact seasonal 

prohibition on oil and gas operations could have upon the local economy. By precluding production during 

several months of the year, the BLM would force operators to significantly reduce their workforces on an 

annual basis. The BLM must eliminate this proposed management action under Alternative C.

Comment ID: 1771

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: Under Alternative E, ConocoPhillips objects to the BLM’s proposal to expand seasonal 

limitation period by up to 14 days within sage-grouse core areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-146, Action 

No. 131. This limitation is inconsistent with the Wyoming Core Policy as expressed in Executive Order

2011-005. The Governor of Wyoming in conjunction with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

developed the Core Area Policy based upon the best scientific information available. As the BLM is aware, 

the Core Area Policy was specifically endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as an 

appropriate mechanism to protect sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. It is inappropriate for the BLM to 

attempt to modify or alter the mitigation measures set forth in the Core Area Policy.

Comment ID: 2354

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-681

Comment: The lengthy seasonal timing and widespread distance limitations on priority/core habitat, 

occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration 

areas under all the alternatives would “further limit the ability of mineral operators to access operations

during restricted seasons” (Ch. 4 at 4-109). AEMA contends these restrictions and limitations are illegal. 

The General Mining Law (30 U.S.C. 21, et.seq.) ensures pre-discovery access, use, and occupancy rights 

to enter lands open to location for mineral exploration and development. Prohibiting or restricting mineral 

exploration and development on lands co-located with sage-grouse habitat is contrary to the rights granted 

by § 22 of the General Mining Law; and therefore Alternatives B, C, E, and to a lesser extent Alternative 

D, must be revised. Loss of access to explore for and develop mineral deposits as a result of the various 

restrictions and prohibitions violates the rights guaranteed by the General Mining Law and in particular 30 

U.S.C. § 22. Those restrictions and prohibitions must be removed from the various alternatives.

Comment ID: 2259

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the BLM’s seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling under Alternative 

B and Alternative C. First, the BLM has not defined what constitutes exploratory drilling. What criterion 

the BLM utilized to determine whether or not the proposed well is exploratory or not? The BLM must

provide more information regarding this proposed management action in order for Encana to understand 

how it may impact its operations. Further, the proposed timing limitations are likely inconsistent with 

existing lease rights. As discussed above, the BLM cannot use the development of a land use plan to impose 

COAs or other limitations that are inconsistent with existing lease rights.

Comment ID: 2407

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals

Name: Joel Severin

Comment: Inappropriate reliance on "seasonal" restrictions. Alternatives in the DEIS restrict or prohibit

geophysical and mining activities during Regional Winter Habitat, Regional Nesting Habitat and Regional 

Summer Habitat. The scientific rationale supporting these seasonal periods and the accompanying 

restrictions applicable to each period is absent from the Draft EIS. In some instances, BLM apparently used 

the movements of only a very few collared sage-grouse to determine landscape level habitat designations. 

All-encompassing regulations should not be based upon the movement of a limited number of collared 

sage-grouse that may not be representative. Moreover, it is unclear how BLM will use these landscape maps 

in the future, particularly if new scientific data emerges or if the sage-grouse is listed. BLM must account 

for project-level analyses and should not amend seasonal maps or how they are used with BLM management 

actions without going through a notice and comment process. In Alternative C, Chapter 2 page 2-65, 

seasonal restrictions would completely preclude geophysical exploration activities in breeding, nesting, 

brood rearing, and winter habitats during sage-grouse seasonal use of habitat. This would eliminate 

exploration drilling year round for some operations. Alternative B & C restricts nearly all mineral 

development and disruptive activities on seasonal timing areas and distance limitations for priority, nesting, 

brood rearing, winter habitats and winter concentrations areas. This is unjustified and unacceptable within 

BLM's multiple use mandates. In Alternative A, Chapter 2 page 2-163 for the Newcastle Field Office states 

"Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided in sage-grouse winter habitat from 

November 15 through March 14." If winter habitat restrictions and nesting habitat restrictions were 

implemented, this would only allow mining activities to take place from July 2nd to November 13th, thus 

reducing mining activities to a 4.5 month season on BLM land. While preferred Alternative E restricts 

activities for winter concentration areas, Alternative E properly acknowledges that exceptions and 

modifications can be made on a case-by-case basis for "activities in unsuitable habitat." However, 

"unsuitable habitat" is never defined. Such a concept should not just include existing anthropogenic 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-682 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

structures but should also account for the type of habitat present and any effects from wildfire or invasive 

species. Topographic features and current activities should be considered as natural buffers that may reduce 

the need for overly burdensome restrictions.

Comment ID: 2277

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is strenuously opposed to the management action under Alternative C that would impose

seasonal restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat during the 

lekking, nesting, and early brood rearing seasons. Encana is also concerned that the BLM’s proposed 

management action to apply seasonal closures would propose significant safety concerns to existing 

facilities. To the extent the BLM applies the limitation on even routine maintenance in this action, it is very 

possible minor issues necessitating repairs will not be timely corrected, which could contribute to 

significant or even catastrophic spills and other hazards. Encana encourages the BLM not to adopt this 

radical alternative. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA does not indicate whether or if it intends to impose timing 

limitations on these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM’s regulations. Further, the BLM has 

not indicated whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent operations, 

including those that require prior approval. Second closures will also prevent year-round production 

operations. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or considered the damage that could be done to oil and gas 

wells if they are shut-in on an annual basis. The BLM has also not analyzed the very real threat that federal 

minerals would be effectively drained by offsetting wells on State of Wyoming and private lands if federal 

wells are annually shut-in. The BLM must prepare this analysis in order to disclose the significant adverse 

impacts that would be associated with the closure of oil and gas development on a seasonal basis, including 

the potential loss of federal reserves and royalties. It also appears the BLM failed to consider the significant

detrimental impact seasonal prohibition on oil and gas operations could have upon the local economy. By 

precluding production during several months of the year, the BLM would force operators to significantly 

reduce their workforces on an annual basis. The BLM’s current socioeconomic analysis does not account 

for this cycle. The BLM must eliminate this proposed management action under Alternative C.

Summary: Alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments restrict or prohibit mineral development activities 

during regional winter habitat, regional nesting habitat, and regional summer habitat. The scientific

rationale supporting these seasonal periods and the accompanying restrictions applicable to each period is 

absent from the Draft EIS. In some instances, BLM apparently used the movements of only a very few 

collared sage-grouse to determine landscape level habitat designations. All-encompassing regulations 

should not be based upon the movement of a limited number of collared sage-grouse that may not be 

representative. While Preferred Alternative E restricts activities for winter concentration areas, Alternative 

E properly acknowledges that exceptions and modifications can be made on a case-by-case basis for 

"activities in unsuitable habitat." However, "unsuitable habitat" is never defined. Such a concept should not 

just include existing anthropogenic structures but should also account for the type of habitat present and 

any effects from wildfire or invasive species. Topographic features and current activities should be 

considered as natural buffers that may reduce the need for overly burdensome restrictions. Specific seasonal 

and timing restrictions that may need to be modified or removed include: • Action 131: The BLM should 

not extend timing restrictions from March 15 to March 1. This is in direct contradiction to Wyoming 

Executive Order 2011-005. The timing restriction is also inconsistent with BLM Instruction Memorandum 

WY- 2012-019. The Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy developed by the State of Wyoming 

was specifically endorsed by the USFWS as adequate to protect Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM should 

not modify or alter the timing restrictions set forth in that policy. Also, the BLM has not defined what 

constitutes exploratory drilling. What criterion has the BLM utilized to determine whether or not the 

proposed well is exploratory or not? • Actions 132 and 133: The BLM should not impose seasonal 

restrictions on all exploratory development and other activities within priority habitat during the lekking, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-683

nesting, and early brood rearing seasons as under Alternative C. As the BLM is aware, current seasonal 

stipulations in most RMPs prohibit construction and drilling activities in specific crucial winter ranges, but 

do not prohibit routine production operations necessary to safely maintain facilities or other routine 

operations. It would be inappropriate for the BLM to preclude all production operations in crucial winter 

range areas. Seasonal closures would also propose significant safety concerns to existing facilities. To the

extent the BLM applies the limitation on routine maintenance; it is very possible minor issues necessitating 

repairs will not be corrected in a timely manner, which could contribute to significant or even catastrophic 

spills and other hazards. The Draft LUP Amendments do not indicate whether or if it intends to impose 

timing limitations on these routine activities in apparent violation of the BLM's regulations. Further, the 

BLM has not indicated whether it intends to impose timing limitations on other routine subsequent 

operations, including those that require prior approval. Closures will also prevent year-round production 

operations. Even the very threat of such a radical and unjustified restriction on production operations would 

seriously hamper future oil and gas development in the planning area because oil and gas operators would 

be unwilling to invest the millions of dollars necessary to drill an oil and gas well if they would be unable 

to produce the wells throughout the year. The BLM would effectively eliminate all oil and gas development 

in areas where production would be limited. Further, the BLM has not analyzed or considered the damage 

that could be done to oil and gas wells if they are shut-in on an annual basis. The BLM has also not analyzed 

the very real threat that federal minerals would be effectively drained by offsetting wells on State of 

Wyoming and private lands if federal wells are annually shut-in. The BLM must prepare this analysis in 

order to disclose the significant adverse impacts that would be associated with the closure of oil and gas

development on a seasonal basis, including the potential loss of federal reserves and royalties. It also

appears the BLM failed to consider the significant detrimental impact that a seasonal prohibition on oil and 

gas operations could have upon the local economy. By precluding production during several months of the 

year, the BLM would force operators to significantly reduce their workforces on an annual basis. The 

management action would create a seasonal boom and bust cycle with routine maintenance workers and 

pumpers being laid off annually. The inconsistent nature of the work would almost certainly reduce the 

number of local employees operators are able to hire, which would restrict or eliminate the long-term 

beneficial impacts of the oil and gas development to the local economy. The BLM's current socio-economic 

analysis does not account for this cycle. • Action 134: Alternative A action for the Newcastle Field Office 

states "Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided in sage-grouse winter habitat from 

November 15 through March 14." If winter habitat restrictions and nesting habitat restrictions were 

implemented, this would only allow mining activities to take place from July 2nd to November 13th, thus 

reducing mining activities to a 4.5 month season on BLM land. • Action 134: As the first part of this 

provision currently reads, it would prohibit activity throughout core areas that contain winter habitat for 7 

months out of the year (March 15-June 30; December 1- March 14). This is unreasonable and needs to be 

changed to reflect that activities in winter concentration areas (not throughout core) are prohibited from 

December 1-March 14. Further, “disruptive activities” needs to be defined as not including routine 

maintenance and operator site visits. With regard to the part of this provision that reads, “Protection of 

additional areas of winter concentration that are not located within the current core area boundaries would 

be implemented where winter concentration areas are identified as supporting populations of sage-grouse 

that attend leks within core habitat.” Additional clarification needs to be added, like that contained in the

EO which states additional winter concentration areas located outside core are “necessary for supporting 

biologically significant numbers of sage-grouse nesting in core population areas.” Also include language 

requiring that winter concentration areas be verified with scientifically-based field assessments on a sitespecific basis. Lastly, with regard to the language “Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat 

protections measures,” clarification needs to be added outlining what appropriate seasonal timing 

restrictions are and who will consider, evaluate, and determine the timing restrictions and habitat protection 

measures. These comments also apply to actions 127 and 128 of Appendix D and Action 130 of Appendix 

E.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-684 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater

Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1)

require that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. Action 131: The issue of allowing 

waivers, exceptions, and modification was analyzed in the Draft EIS under a reasonable range of 

alternatives. Exploration is defined in the Glossary. Actions 132 and 133: Surface disturbing activities and 

disruptive activities are defined in the Glossary. Drainage of federal minerals needs to be addressed in the 

EIS. Add to each alternative in 4.8: "Drainage of federal minerals on areas closed to leasing or on leases 

that are shut in on an annual basis due to TLS may occur due to development on adjacent private or state 

lands." Economic impacts associated with seasonal restrictions are addressed qualitatively in Section 4.11.5 

of the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. Action 134: The issue of allowing waivers, exceptions, and 

modification was analyzed in the Draft EIS under a reasonable range of alternatives. Under Alternative B 

and C, waivers, exceptions, and modifications would not be considered in sage-grouse habitat. Under the 

other alternatives, waivers, exceptions and modifications would be considered in order to provide flexibility 

when managing mineral development. Sage-grouse would be a primary consideration when determining 

and approving acceptable waivers, exceptions, and modifications. The final decision for this action will be 

included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public involvement process.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Opposition to leasable mineral development

Comment ID: 218

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: I OPPOSE ALLOWING ANY DRILLING ON NATIONAL LANDS BY PROFITEERS.

Comment ID: 2771

Organization:

Name: Delia MCBRIDE

Comment: The AMERICANS that truly own this land want the cattle, oil and gas companies OFF our land. 

Keep the oil and gas companies OFF MY LAND.

Comment ID: 2777

Organization:

Name: Irene Fortune

Comment: Writing as someone who lives in the thick of oil/gas development in Colorado, I am asking for 

more stringent criteria before even more development is allowed. There is already a glut of gas and yet

development proceeds at a breakneck pace - just to keep prices below green energy development. Each 

energy mode should pay for all its costs, including habitat replacement and restoration and air and water 

quality impacts.

Summary: Keep oil and gas operations off public lands or require more stringent measures to prevent 

ecological damage. Energy and minerals operations should pay for all their own costs, including habitat

replacement and restoration.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-685

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater

Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1)

require that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize 

adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

PACs should not be required

Comment ID: 1921

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page 2-176, Summary of impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from Oil and Gas Development “The 

action alternatives include the following conservation measures identified in the COT Report specific to

Energy Development: 1. Avoid energy development in PACs (Doherty et al. 2010)...2. If avoidance is not 

possible within PACs due to pre-existing valid rights, adjacent development or split estate issues,

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

that is sufficient to preclude impacts to sage-grouse habitat from noise and other human activities.” PACs 

are not defined in this document. The COT Report defines PACs as Priority Areas for Conservation. BLM 

needs to clarify the justification and authorization of PACs within the BLM management protocols, as well 

as how the identification of these PACs comport with BLM and Wyoming’s core area strategy that has 

already been adopted. We again remind BLM that with regard to valid existing rights, BLM is limited to 

negotiating the lease terms with existing owners if BLM wishes to impose newly developed restrictions. 

Further, operators can’t always choose where development will occur (i.e. non-habitat areas) as 

development location is dependent upon geologic conditions.

Summary: Page 2-176, Summary of Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from Oil and Gas Development: PACs 

are not defined in this document. The COT report defines PACs as Priority Areas for Conservation. BLM

needs to clarify the justification and authorization of PACs within the BLM management protocols, as well 

as how the identification of these PACs comport with BLM and Wyoming’s core area strategy that has 

already been adopted.

Response: The Final EIS clarifies that the core areas are geographically identical to the USFWS's PACs 

identified in the COT report.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Prohibit unitization if impacts will exceed cap

Comment ID: 2032

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Name: Joy Bannon

Comment: The preferred alternative (Alternative E) is close to meeting WWF’s needs in this appendix. 

However, the following changes need to occur: Action #122 and 123 says, the "BLM may require the lessee 

or operator to enter into a unit agreement or drilling easement to facilitate the equitable development of this 

and surrounding leases." WWF believes requiring a unit will allow for development when the lease may 

not have been developed without the unit. This requirement could also allow disturbance in a 640 acre area 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-686 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

that already has 5% disturbance. We don’t want the BLM to allow for additional disturbance. Provide the 

BLM and the FS with discretion to not sell a fluid mineral lease if the 5% disturbance has been met and if 

other mineral leases (fluid or solid) exist in the 640 acre area.

Summary: Requiring unitization will allow for development when the lease may not have been developed

without the unit. This requirement could also allow disturbance in a 640-acre area that already has 5% 

disturbance. BLM should not allow for this additional disturbance. The plan should provide the BLM and 

Forest Service with the discretion to not sell a fluid mineral lease if the 5% disturbance has been met and if 

other mineral leases (fluid or solid) exist in the 640-acre area.

Response: Under the Proposed LUP Amendments, activities on BLM- and Forest Service-managed lands 

within core habitat would be required to comport with the 5% disturbance cap regardless of unitization.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Rawlins lease stipulations/restrictions not in harmony with EO

Comment ID: 1158

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: As an initial matter, the BLM must utilize the ongoing land use planning exercise for the SageGrouse DLUPA to modify the existing Rawlins Resource Management Plan with respect to sage-grouse

management. Despite the BLM’s clear indication it would comply with the Wyoming Core Area Strategy 

as set forth in Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-012, WY-2010-013, Washington Office IM No. 2012-

043 and Instruction Memorandum 2012-019, the Rawlins Field Office has consistently failed to comply 

with the terms and conditions of the Executive Order. Rather, the Rawlins Field Office has taken the 

position that it can apply timing restrictions anywhere sage brush plants are located under the terms of the 

Rawlins Resource Management Plan. The BLM should utilize this opportunity to ensure that the Rawlins 

Resource Management Plan is modified to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the Wyoming 

Executive Order.

Comment ID: 599

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: As an initial matter, the BLM must utilize the ongoing land use planning exercise for the SageGrouse DLUPA to modify the existing Rawlins Resource Management Plan with respect to sage-grouse

management. Despite the BLM's clear indication it would comply with the Wyoming Core Area Strategy 

as set forth in Instruction Memorandum WY-2010-012, WY-2010-013, Washington Office IM No. 2012-

043 and Instruction Memorandum 2012-019, the Rawlins Field Office has consistently failed to comply 

with the terms and conditions of the Executive Order. Rather, the Rawlins Field Office has taken the

position that it can apply timing restrictions anywhere it determines sage-grouse brood rearing and nesting 

habitat are located under the terms of the Rawlins Resource Management Plan. The BLM should utilize 

this opportunity to ensure that the Rawlins Resource Management Plan is modified to strictly comply with 

the terms and conditions of the Wyoming Executive Order.

Summary: Rawlins Field Office has consistently failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the 

Executive Order. The Rawlins Field Office has taken the position that it can apply timing restrictions 

anywhere sagebrush plants are located under the terms of the Rawlins Resource Management Plan. The 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-687

BLM should utilize this plan amendment to ensure that the Rawlins Resource Management Plan is modified 

to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the Wyoming Executive Order.

Response: One of the purposes of the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments is to incorporate

appropriate sage-grouse conservation measures into the nine plans in Wyoming not already undergoing 

plan revisions (Section 1.3 of the Draft EIS). This includes the Rawlins RMP and Proposed LUP 

Amendments that is derived from the Wyoming Core Area Strategy.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Reclamation bond language needs to be more specific

Comment ID: 2028

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Name: Joy Bannon

Comment: Fluid Minerals Leased Estate – Chapter 2, page 2-77, action # 69: WWF does not agree with

Alternative E as it is much too vague and on the topic of reclamation bonds, more descriptive language 

such as in alternative A is recommended. WWF believes more description will provide certainty to all 

stakeholders including the proponents and will reduce inadequate bond amounts.

Summary: Alternative E is much too vague and on the topic of reclamation bonds, more descriptive 

language such as in alternative A is recommended. More description will provide certainty to all 

stakeholders, including the proponents, and will reduce inadequate bond amounts.

Response: Appendix C, Section C.2.4, states "Reclamation plans should incorporate the standards set forth 

in Wyoming BLM Reclamation Policy as described in IM WY-2009-022 and in the corresponding Forest

Service Manual/Handbook. In the future, this will be supported with more detailed guidance such as new 

reclamation bond standards, a statewide monitoring and reporting strategy, and sample templates for both 

reclamation and non-native and invasive species management plans. Specific reclamation information and

other technical guidance will be forthcoming and posted on the Wyoming Reclamation web site 

(http://www.blm.gov/wy.st/en/programs/reclamation.html)."

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Restrictions should not be greater than under EO 2011-5

Comment ID: 402

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: several of the management decisions and stipulations provided under EO 2011-5 are less 

restrictive than those proposed under Alternatives B, C and E. Consequently, GSG habitat management

decisions and stipulations that reach beyond what is required under EO 2011-5 violate BLMs “least

restrictive stipulation” policy. As such, stipulations under Alternative B, C and E that are more restrictive 

than EO 2011-5 should not be considered in the Final LUPA and EIS/ROD. Upon development of the 

Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS and ROD, Yates urges BLM to adhere to its own policy and use the 

least restrictive stipulation possible to accomplish resource objectives and uses in the project area; EO 2011-

5 may not always be the least restrictive option but it is a good standard to adhere to.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-688 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 412

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: By adhering to the permitting process provided for in EO 2011-5 (i.e. the DDCT process), it is 

possible to allow fluid mineral leasing and subsequent approval of oil and gas operations in areas currently

precluded from leasing under Alternatives D and E (e.g. within 4- miles of a GSG lek, Winter Concentration 

Areas, an area < 640 contiguous acres) and under Alternatives B and C (i.e. GSG priority and general 

habitat areas). Ongoing oil and gas operations within CHA boundaries in Wyoming (subject to GSG 

permitting process and stipulations provided for in EO 2011-5) illustrate that making these areas 

administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing is not necessary and overly restrictive. Yates suggests 

BLM take a more refined approach to restricting oil and gas leasing within GSG Core Areas and adopt the 

project/permit approval approach provided under EO 2011-5 rather than making such large areas 

administratively unavailable to leasing without considering actual suitability of GSG habitat and other site 

specific circumstances. Additionally, this proposed stipulation unnecessarily restricts BLMs flexibility for 

lease approval and possible future development of lease sizes <640 contiguous acres.

Comment ID: 1606

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG supports Alternative E if it is modified to comply with Executive Order 2011-005. As 

currently drafted the BLM‘s preferred management proposal would unreasonably restrict access and impose

unnecessary and burdensome operational restrictions on oil and gas development. The BLM should find a 

more reasonable and balanced approach that promotes oil and gas development, respects valid existing 

lease rights, provides adequate flexibility for future site-specific planning decisions, and recognizes the 

limitations of the agency‘s authority and expertise.

Comment ID: 413

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral estate within GSG core habitat

areas is inconsistent with EO 2011-5 and has not been justified by BLM. EO 2011-5 and Alternative E both 

limit surface disturbance to 1/640 acres. However, this does not require that all lease sizes be > 640 acres. 

The 5% surface disturbance cap and well density stipulations provided under EO 2011-5 and Alternative E 

were developed and can be applied to broad areas comprised of multiple leaseholds. Additionally, 

establishing the proposed minimum lease size may prohibit BLM from leasing desirable acreage with oil 

and gas development potential (e.g. when a small portion of the surrounding area is determined unleasable 

due to various resource protections). As such, Yates urges BLM to eliminate the 640 acre minimum lease 

size as currently proposed under Alternative E.

Comment ID: 600

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM should recognize provisions of Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005 that excludes 

existing land uses, including oil and gas development within existing federal exploratory units. See 

Executive Order 2011-005, pg. 2, paragraph 2. A significant component of Wyoming Executive Order 

2011-005 is a continuation of existing operations. Samson believes it is inappropriate for the BLM to depart 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-689

so significantly from the strategy set forth in the Executive Order. Samson encourages the BLM to reinstate 

this provision in the final land use plan.

Comment ID: 1475

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to the BLM‘s decision not to recognize provisions of Executive Order 2011-

005 that excludes existing land uses, including oil and gas development within existing federal exploratory

units. See Executive Order 2011-005, pg. 2, paragraph 2. A significant component of Executive Order 2011-

005 is a continuation of existing operations. EOG believes it is inappropriate for the BLM to depart so 

significantly from the strategy set forth in the Executive Order. EOG encourages the BLM to reinstate this 

provision in the final land use plan.

Comment ID: 1751

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s decision not to recognize provisions of Executive Order 

2011- 005 that exclude existing land uses, including oil and gas development within existing federal

exploratory units. See Executive Order 2011-005, pg. 2, paragraph 2. A significant component of Executive 

Order 2011-005 is a continuation of existing operations. ConocoPhillips believes it is inappropriate for the 

BLM to depart so significantly from the strategy set forth in the Executive Order. ConocoPhillips 

encourages the BLM to reinstate this provision in the final land use plan.

Comment ID: 411

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: fluid mineral leasing restrictions proposed under Alternatives D and E that utilize leasing 

stipulations are inconsistent with EO 2011-5. Additionally, closing priority and general GSG habitat as 

proposed under Alternatives B and C is inconsistent with the approach taken in EO 2011-5. These fluid 

mineral leasing management decisions are overly restrictive and are not necessary to protect GSG habitat

from potential adverse impacts associated with oil and gas operations.

Comment ID: 415

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Prohibiting all new surface occupancy on federal leases within GSG priority habitats, including 

winter concentration areas, is excessive and inconsistent with EO 2011-5. EO 2011-5 applies a NSO

stipulation within GSG core habitat areas, but this stipulation is limited to within 0.6 miles of the perimeter 

of occupied GSG leks; other activities may be authorized. Additionally, the EO specifically allows for 

seasonal activity outside the 0.6-mile lek buffer in priority GSG habitat and winter concentration areas, or 

year-round in unsuitable habitat. As such, Yates requests BLM modify this stipulation under Alternatives 

B and C to establish consistency with EO 2011-5.

Comment ID: 2190

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-690 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Encana is opposed to the BLM’s decision not to recognize provisions of Executive Order 2011-

005 that excludes existing land uses, including oil and gas development within existing federal exploratory

units. A significant component of Executive Order 2011-005 is a continuation of existing operations.

Encana believes it is inappropriate for the BLM to depart so significantly from the strategy set forth in the 

Executive Order. Encana encourages the BLM to reinstate this provision in the final land use plan.

Comment ID: 3001

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association

Name: Marion Loomis

Comment: Inconsistencies exist between Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 and Alternative E (Preferred

Alternative in DE IS). As an example, the Wyoming Executive Order seasonal restrictions are March 15 

through June 30 and Alternative E season restrictions are March 1 through June 30. Other inconsistencies 

exist in noise stipulations and other portions of the LUPA, as pointed out in comments from WMA member 

companies. Guidance from the National Technical Team (NTT) is not consistent with the guidelines 

provided in the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

and general SOP's for land conservation and habitat enhancement in the west. WMA does not support the 

wholesale incorporation of management from the NTT. The NTT narrowly describes and endorses onesize-fits-all conservation measures for sage-grouse which in some cases can be blatantly deleterious to other 

species as well as being less effective than appropriate site-specific mitigation measures. Moreover, 

inconsistencies between BLM and Forest Service strategies may lead to confusion and lessthan- successful 

results. Many of these inconsistencies can be seen in the comparisons in Appendix K, and are further 

enumerated in comments from WMA member companies. WMA requests that BLM and Forest Service 

review the management strategies and coordinate and standardize between Federal and State Agencies.

Comment ID: 2973

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: The Plan should remain consistent with the Wyoming Sage Grouse Executive Order, 

recognizing that it serves as an adequate regulatory mechanism that ensures the conservation of greater 

sage-grouse in Wyoming. We ask that BLM and USFS (collectively, the Agencies) ensure full consistency 

with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection Executive Order (EO). The EO has been 

recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a "sound framework for a policy by which to conserve 

greater sagegrouse in Wyoming." Further, the EO was developed in partnership with key stakeholders, 

including the Agencies, and represents an agreement made by all parties to implement and abide by the 

core area strategy, including any subsequent EO supplements. Actions that require core area protections

outside of core areas, or actions that add additional protective stipulations inside of core areas are

inconsistent with the EO and are therefore contrary to the fundamental agreements included in the EO that 

the stakeholders, again, including the Agencies, reached.

Comment ID: 2592

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: QEP generally supports the Wyoming Governor's Executive Order 2011-05 (EO), but has some

concerns with the preferred Alternative E in the DLUPA/EIS. While the majority of the preferred

Alternative E is consistent with the EO, QEP is discouraged that there are some unworkable inconsistencies. 

The preferred Alternative E goes beyond the EO by implementing required design features (RDFs), 

requiring minimum lease sizes, site-specific surface reclamation plans, and increased monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Our company understands the importance of addressing GRSG protection, and we 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-691

are aware that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must make a listing decision for the GRSG by 

September 2015. Like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), QEP seeks to ensure the GRSG is not listed 

as threatened or endangered at that time. QEP is aware that the USFWS has advised the BLM and U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) to implement amendments to current Resource Management Plans (RMP) and Land 

Use Plans (LUP) to enhance regulatory mechanisms for GRSG protection. However, several alternatives in 

this DLUPA/ElS are unnecessarily restrictive and not backed by sound scientific justifications. QEP 

strongly objects to Alternatives B and C and has comments regarding several requirements in Alternatives 

D and E that are inconsistent with the EO.

Summary: Several of the management decisions and stipulations provided under EO 2011-5 are less 

restrictive than those proposed under Alternatives B, C, and E. Consequently, sage-grouse habitat 

management decisions and stipulations that reach beyond what is required under EO 2011-5 violate BLMs 

“least restrictive stipulation” policy. Such stipulations should not be considered in the Proposed LUP

Amendments. Inconsistencies exist between Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 and Alternative E

(Preferred Alternative) in the Draft EIS. For example, the Wyoming Executive Order seasonal restrictions 

are March 15 through June 30 and Alternative E season restrictions are March 1 through June 30. Other 

inconsistencies exist in noise stipulations and other portions of the Draft EIS. BLM should recognize 

provisions of Executive Order 2011-005 such that existing land uses are not excluded, including oil and gas 

development within existing federal exploratory units. See Executive Order 2011-005, pg. 2, paragraph 2. 

A significant component of Executive Order 2011-005 is a continuation of existing operations. We believe 

it is inappropriate for the BLM to depart so significantly from the strategy set forth in the Executive Order. 

BLM should reinstate this provision in the final land use plan. The Proposed LUP Amendments should 

remain consistent with the Wyoming Sage Grouse Executive Order, recognizing that it serves as an 

adequate regulatory mechanism that ensures the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming. The 

BLM and Forest Service should ensure full consistency with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area 

Protection Executive Order (EO). The EO has been recognized by the USFWS as a "sound framework for 

a policy by which to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming." Further, the EO was developed in 

partnership with key stakeholders, including the agencies, and represents an agreement made by all parties 

to implement and abide by the core area strategy, including any subsequent EO supplements. Actions that 

require core area protections outside of core areas, or actions that add additional protective stipulations 

inside of core areas are inconsistent with the EO and are therefore contrary to the fundamental agreements 

included in the EO that the stakeholders, and the agencies reached. While the majority of the Preferred 

Alternative E is consistent with the EO, there are some unworkable inconsistencies. The Preferred 

Alternative E goes beyond the EO by implementing required design features (RDFs), requiring minimum 

lease sizes, site-specific surface reclamation plans, and increased monitoring and reporting requirements. 

As currently drafted the BLM‘s preferred management proposal would unreasonably restrict access and 

impose unnecessary and burdensome operational restrictions on oil and gas development. The BLM should 

find a more reasonable and balanced approach that promotes oil and gas development, respects valid 

existing lease rights, provides adequate flexibility for future site-specific planning decisions, and recognizes

the limitations of the agency‘s authority and expertise. Prohibiting all new surface occupancy on federal 

leases within priority habitat under Alternatives B and C, including winter concentration areas, is excessive 

and inconsistent with EO 2011-5. The EO applies a NSO stipulation within core habitat areas, but this 

stipulation is limited to within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied leks. Additionally, the EO specifically 

allows for seasonal activity outside the 0.6-mile lek buffer in priority habitat and winter concentration areas, 

or year-round in unsuitable habitat. BLM should modify this stipulation under Alternatives B and C to 

establish consistency with EO 2011-5. A minimum lease size of 640 contiguous acres of federal mineral 

estate within core habitat areas is inconsistent with EO 2011-5 and has not been justified by BLM. EO 

2011-5 and Alternative E both limit surface disturbance to 1 per 640 acres. However, this does not require 

that all lease sizes be greater than 640 acres. The 5% surface disturbance cap and well density stipulations

provided under EO 2011-5 and Alternative E were developed and can be applied to broad areas comprised 

of multiple leaseholds. Additionally, establishing the proposed minimum lease size may prohibit BLM from 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-692 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

leasing desirable acreage with oil and gas development potential (e.g. when a small portion of the 

surrounding area is determined unleasable due to various resource protections). BLM should eliminate the 

640 acre minimum lease size as currently proposed under Alternative E. By adhering to the permitting 

process provided for in EO 2011-5 (i.e. the DDCT process), it is possible to allow fluid mineral leasing and 

subsequent approval of oil and gas operations in areas currently precluded from leasing under Alternatives 

D and E (e.g. within 4 miles of a lek, winter concentration areas, and area less than 640 contiguous acres) 

and under Alternatives B and C (i.e. priority and general habitat areas). Making these areas administratively 

unavailable to oil and gas leasing is not necessary and overly restrictive. Guidance from the National 

Technical Team (NTT) is not consistent with the guidelines provided in the Wyoming Executive Order 

2011-05, WGFD, and general SOP's for land conservation and habitat enhancement in the west. The NTT 

narrowly describes and endorses one-size-fits-all conservation measures for sage-grouse which in some 

cases can be blatantly deleterious to other species as well as being less effective than appropriate sitespecific mitigation measures. Moreover, inconsistencies between BLM and Forest Service strategies may 

lead to confusion and less-than-successful results. Many of these inconsistencies can be seen in the 

comparisons in Appendix K. BLM and the Forest Service should review the management strategies and 

coordinate and standardize between federal and state agencies

Response: The BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive Order 

(WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, BLM WY IM 2012-019, BLM WO IM 

2012-044, the National Technical Team report, best available science, and input from the USFWS, State of

Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to both protect sagegrouse and allow for multiple use of public lands. The BLM and Forest Service have developed a reasonable 

range of alternatives for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The BLM and Forest Service complied 

with NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1500 in the development of alternatives for 

this Draft EIS, including seeking public input and analyzing reasonable alternatives. The 4-mile buffer for 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protection is supported by science and was derived from research performed 

by several noted sage-grouse scientists including Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Tack 2009, Johnson 

et al. 2011. For example, from the NTT report:, “Impacts as measured by the number of males attending 

leks are most severe near the lek, remain discernible out to >4 miles (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, 

Tack 2009, Johnson et al. 2011), and often result in lek extirpations (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007). 

Negative effects of well surface occupancy were apparent out to 3.1 miles, the largest radius investigated, 

in 2 of 7 study areas in Wyoming (Harju et al. 2010). Curvilinear relationships show that lek counts 

decreased with distance to the nearest active drilling rig, producing well, or main haul road and that 

development within 3 to 4 miles of leks decrease counts of displaying males (Holloran 2005). All well‐

supported models in Walker et al. (2007) indicate a strong negative effect, estimated as proportion of 

development within either 0.5 miles or 2 miles, on lek persistence. A model with development at 4 miles 

had less support, but the regression coefficient indicated that negative impacts within 4 miles were still 

apparent. Two additional studies reported negative impacts apparent out to 8 miles on large lek occurrence 

(>25 males; Tack 2009) and out to 11.7 miles on lek trends (Johnson et al. 2011), the largest scales 

evaluated.” BLM and Forest Service are required to analyze a range of alternatives, and while not all of the 

management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the 

best available science. Inconsistencies between BLM and Forest Service strategies are being reviewed by 

the management for standardization between agencies.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Revisions/opposition to alternatives

Comment ID: 1534

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-693

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposal to prohibit or limit new surface occupancy 

even on existing leases under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-138 – 2-141,

Action Nos. 129, 134. The BLM does not have the authority to deny all development rights once it has 

issued a federal oil and gas lease. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO 

stipulations and, in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM 

cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. Further, the BLM cannot deprive EOG of its valid 

and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly. The BLM must reconsider this management action.

Comment ID: 1530

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: As discussed above, EOG remains opposed to the three percent surface disturbance cap required

under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-133 – 2-134, Action No. 126. The BLM has failed to

justify this restrictive surface disturbance cap or explain how the cap will be applied in conjunction with 

other LUP restrictions. The three percent cap also creates flawed incentives that may undermine 

collaborative efforts to promote healthy sage grouse populations. Given the variable topography of the 

Planning Area, there is substantial acreage within the mapped GRSG habitat that is not GRSG habitat. The 

three percent cap within GRSG habitat ignores the unique local topography. Furthermore, the cap actually 

encourages operators to monopolize existing cap space rather than working to identify the best development 

plan. EOG is very concerned and opposed to the BLM‘s proposal to limit surface disturbance to three 

percent under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2- 21. EOG also questions the scientific support for 

the three percent surface disturbance caps. EOG incorporates herein the comments developed by the 

American Petroleum Institute (―API‖) and Dr. Rob Ramey and his criticism regarding the BLM‘s NTT 

Report. EOG is also extremely concerned about the BLM‘s ability to implement the disturbance cap 

proposal under Alternative B. The BLM should provide far more detailed information regarding how the 

BLM will determine the amount of surface disturbance within a particular portion of land and how the BLM 

will create a tracking system that will remain current and accurate given recent constraints and limitations 

of the BLM‘s budget. It seems to be unlikely the BLM will be able to appropriately manage any type of a 

surface disturbance cap across the numerous lands within the Planning Area. The BLM should describe in 

detail how existing personnel in many different offices will be able to develop and utilize such a complex

tracking system. EOG also believes that the BLM needs to provide far more detail regarding how it will 

manage competing uses of the public lands if and when the potential surface use caps are near the 

thresholds. The BLM will need to develop a comprehensive matrix or another set of criteria it can utilize 

to determine which uses of the public lands will be allowed to proceed and the uses that will be denied once 

the cap is reached. Without clear, comprehensive and standardized criteria the BLM could be accused of 

making arbitrary and capricious decisions regarding which uses will be allowed to proceed. In order to 

proceed fairly, the BLM must develop clear and understandable methods for evaluating uses of the federal 

lands.

Comment ID: 1529

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to the limitations on upgrading existing roads within GRSG core areas or habitat

under all of the alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-99, Action No. 89. Such restrictions are

inconsistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012-019.

Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading or reconstruction, EOG urges the BLM to utilize 

the DDCT policy as authorized under Executive Order 2011-005 and Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-694 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2012-019. Given variable topography and habitat conditions, it is more appropriate to allow the upgrading 

of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.

Comment ID: 1528

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to the proposed restriction on road construction within four miles of an active 

GRSG lek under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-96, Action No. 88. The BLM has not 

sufficiently justified this onerous restriction nor analyzed in detail the impact it would have upon oil and 

gas development across the Planning Area. Not allowing new road construction within four miles of an

active lek will significantly hamper oil and gas development. The BLM must be willing to work with oil 

and gas lessees and operators to design access routes for proposed oil and gas development projects.

Comment ID: 1182

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the proposed restriction on road construction within four miles of an 

active sage-grouse lek under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-96, Action No. 88. The BLM has 

not sufficiently justified this onerous restriction nor analyzed in detail the impact it would have upon oil

and gas development across the Planning Area. Not allowing new road construction within four miles of 

an active lek will significantly hamper oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 1535

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG also strongly opposes BLM‘s proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within 

four miles of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-139, Action No. 

129. Given the variable topography of the Planning Area and ongoing land uses, there is substantial acreage 

within four miles of leks that is not GRSG habitat. The four mile buffer also does not address the variations 

in habitat quality or habitat use. The BLM should eliminate this proposed restriction or, at the very least, 

develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and that provides certainty to operators 

that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 1183

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the limitations on upgrading existing roads within sage-grouse core areas 

or habitat under all of the alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-99, Action No. 89. Such restrictions are 

inconsistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012- 019. 

Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading or reconstruction, Anschutz urges the BLM to 

utilize the DDCT policy as authorized under Executive Order 2011-005 and Wyoming Instruction 

Memorandum 2012-019. Given variable topography and habitat conditions, it is more appropriate to allow 

the upgrading of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.

Comment ID: 1152

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-695

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s proposed management action limiting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails in sage-grouse priority core under all of the action alternatives. Anschutz always

attempts to minimize potential impacts to the environment during these activities, but limiting an oil and 

gas operator’s ability to utilize off-highway vehicles during site selection and staking activities will have 

significant impacts on oil and gas development. Or allow well siting, surveying, and seismic exploration to 

occur through the use of Categorical Exclusions. Doing so will allow Anschutz and other oil and gas 

operators to continue responsible development of oil and gas resources within the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 1522

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is significantly opposed to the proposal to require full reclamation bond for all oil and gas

operations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Given the release of Instruction Memorandum 2013-151 

in July of 2013, the BLM absolutely must eliminate this proposal from the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 1520

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s management objective that would require unitization

under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-76 – 2-77, Action No. 67.

Comment ID: 1519

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is concerned about BLM‘s proposal to require Master Development Plans ("MDP") on all 

but wildcat exploring wells under Alternatives B and C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 66. 

First, the BLM has not defined a wildcat well or exploratory well. How will operators know when it will

apply? Second, the BLM should allow infill development within existing fields without a MDP. Often only 

one or two wells are needed within existing fields to continue production levels, a full MDP would not be 

an appropriate use of the BLM or operator‘s resources. EOG believes the BLM should only encourage the 

use of MDPs as set forth under Alternative E. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 66.

Comment ID: 1188

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s proposal to prohibit or limit new surface occupancy even on

existing leases under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-138 – 2-141, Action

Nos. 129, 134. Further, the BLM cannot deprive Anschutz of its valid and existing lease rights either

directly or indirectly. When it enacted FLPMA, Congress made it clear that nothing therein, or in the land 

use plans developed thereunder, was intended to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing property 

rights. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701. The BLM must reconsider this management action.

Comment ID: 1510

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-696 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: EOG strongly opposes BLM‘s proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within four 

miles of active leks under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 65.

Given the variable topography of the planning area and ongoing land uses, there is substantial acreage 

within four miles of active leks that is not GRSG habitat. The four mile buffer also does not address the 

variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the BLM‘s blanket application of the four mile 

buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report 

published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ―Addressing energy development and any subsequent 

successful restoration activities in sagebrush ecosystems will require consideration of local ecological 

conditions, which cannot be prescribed on a range-wide level.‖ Greater Sage‐ Grouse Conservation 

Objectives Final Report, February 2013, pg. 50. The BLM should eliminate this proposed timing restriction 

or, at the very least, develop a mechanism that recognizes unique sitespecific conditions and that provides 

certainty to operators that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 1525

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to BLM‘s proposal that would explore options to amend, cancel, or buy-out 

leases, or include as COAs the relinquishment of leases within the Planning Area under Alternative C. 

Sage- Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-80, Action No. 73. The BLM simply does not have the authority to require

operators to relinquish leases or to cancel existing leases. As the BLM is aware, an oil and gas lease is a 

contract between the federal government and a lessee, and the lessee has certain rights thereunder. Should 

the BLM deny or unreasonably delay EOG‘s ability to develop its leases or otherwise cancel leases, the 

BLM‘s proposal may constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Comment ID: 1473

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG believes BLM has not sufficiently analyzed the significant extent these limitations on 

future rights-of-way ("ROW") will have upon oil and gas operations. In particular, EOG is concerned about

the management of the priority and even general habitat under Alternative B or Alternative C as ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-18 – 2-20, Action Nos. 30 and 31. The BLM 

has not justified this substantial increase in the number of acres subject to ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas. EOG is particularly concerned that the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas will be utilized to 

significantly hamper or decrease oil and gas operations. The BLM must be willing to work with oil and gas 

lessees and operators to design access routes for proposed oil and gas development projects. Future 

limitations on road construction could impact EOG‘s valid and existing lease rights or its rights as the 

operator of a federal exploratory unit within the Planning Area. While the issuance of an oil and gas lease 

does not guarantee access to the leasehold, a federal lessee is entitled to use such part of the surface as may 

be necessary to produce the leased substance. EOG encourages the BLM to reduce the area subject to ROW 

avoidance or exclusion limitations as they may adversely impact oil and gas development in the area.

Comment ID: 1165

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on surface disturbing operations, fluid

minerals under Alternatives B, and C, and to a lesser extent, E. Under these alternatives, the BLM proposes 

to limit surface disturbing operations to a significant extent in order to add the new limitations set forth in 

Appendix E as COAs. The BLM does not have the authority to impose new limits and COAs on existing 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-697

leases under existing IBLA case law. The BLM must ensure that it is not limiting oil and gas development 

on existing leases.

Comment ID: 633

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson does not support the BLM's proposal to protect additional areas of winter concentration 

that are not located within current core area boundaries. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-162 - 2-163, Action

No. 134. BLM has not justified this new restriction or demonstrated why it is necessary.

Comment ID: 1567

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is concerned about the BLM‘s decision to significantly increase the number of acres 

subject to NSO restrictions under Alternative E. The BLM indicates there would be a 400% increase in 

areas subject to NSO but has not clearly identified or explained its rationale for this decision. Sage-Grouse

DLUPA, pg. 4-111. The BLM should provide far more information regarding the significant increase in

areas subject to NSO restrictions.

Comment ID: 1167

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz strongly opposes BLM’s proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within 

four miles of active leks under Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM should eliminate this proposed

timing restriction or, at the very least, develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions 

and that provides certainty to operators that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 1217

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is concerned about the BLM’s decision to significantly increase the number of acres 

subject to NSO restrictions under Alternative E. The BLM indicates there would be a 400% increase in 

areas subject to NSO but has not clearly identified or explained its rationale for this decision. Sage-Grouse

DLUPA, pg. 4-111. The BLM should provide far more information regarding the significant increase in

areas subject to NSO restrictions.

Comment ID: 1178

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to BLM’s proposal that would explore options to amend, cancel, or buyout leases, or include as COAs the relinquishment of leases within the Planning Area under Alternative C.

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-80, Action No. 73. The BLM simply does not have the authority to require

operators to relinquish leases or to cancel existing leases.

Comment ID: 1186

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-698 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz remains opposed to the three percent surface disturbance cap required under 

Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-133 – 2-134, Action No. 126. The BLM has failed to justify 

this restrictive surface disturbance cap or explain how the cap will be applied in conjunction with other

LUP restrictions. The three percent cap within sage-grouse habitat ignores the unique local topography. 

Furthermore, the cap actually encourages operators to monopolize existing cap space rather than working 

to identify the best development plan. Anschutz is very concerned and opposed to the BLM’s proposal to 

limit surface disturbance to three percent under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-21. Anschutz 

also questions the scientific support for the three percent surface disturbance caps. Anschutz incorporates 

herein the comments developed by the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) and Dr. Rob Ramey and his 

criticism regarding the BLM’s NTT Report. Anschutz is also extremely concerned about the BLM’s ability 

to implement the disturbance cap proposal under Alternative B. The BLM should provide far more detailed 

information regarding how the BLM will determine the amount of surface disturbance within a particular 

portion of land and how the BLM will create a tracking system that will remain current and accurate given 

recent constraints and limitations of the BLM’s budget. It seems to be unlikely the BLM will be able to

appropriately manage any type of a surface disturbance cap across the numerous lands within the Planning 

Area. The BLM should describe in detail how existing personnel in many different offices will be able to 

develop and utilize such a complex tracking system.

Comment ID: 1468

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is opposed to the BLM‘s proposed management action limiting motorized travel to existing

roads and trails in GRSG priority core under all of the action alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2- 17, 

Action No. 18. EOG and other oil and gas operators routinely are required to travel off existing roads and 

trails when evaluating and selecting potential new locations for oil and gas development. EOG therefore 

requests the BLM develop a specific exception to this management action for the limited purpose of oil and 

gas exploration, site location, and staking and permitting activities. Doing so will allow EOG and other oil 

and gas operators to continue responsible development of oil and gas resources within the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 595

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is opposed to the BLM's proposed management action limiting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails in sage-grouse priority core under all of the action alternatives. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pg. 2-17, Action No. 18. Samson and other oil and gas operators routinely are required to travel 

off existing roads and trails when evaluating and selecting potential new locations for oil and gas

development. In the past, this type of use has been considered casual use and has not required BLM approval 

or been subject to timing limitations. Samson always attempts to minimize potential impacts to the 

environment during these activities, but limiting an oil and gas operator's ability to utilize off-highway 

vehicles during site selection and staking activities will have significant impacts on oil and gas 

development. Samson therefore requests the BLM develop a specific exception to this management action 

for the limited purpose of oil and gas exploration, site location, and staking and permitting activities. Doing 

so will allow Samson and other oil and gas operators to continue responsible development of oil and gas 

resources within the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 1474

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-699

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG objects to the BLM‘s decision to require operators and other users to remove, bury, or 

modify existing power lines within priority GRSG habitat under Alternative B and Alternative C. SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 2-30, Action No. 35. Requiring operators to modify existing power lines could require

significant additional surface disturbance within GRSG priority habitat which may cause adverse impacts 

to the species. Further, to the extent BLM does not have continuing jurisdiction over said power lines it 

does not have the authority to require modifications or burying these lines. Finally, BLM should consider 

the adverse air quality impacts potentially associated with this management action.

Comment ID: 664

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM's decision to significantly increase the number of acres subject to NSO restrictions 

under Alternative E should be justified. The BLM indicates there would be a 400% increase in areas subject

to NSO but has not clearly identified or explained its rationale for this decision. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

4-111.

Comment ID: 1171

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is concerned about BLM’s proposal to require Master Development Plans (“MDP”) 

on all but wildcat exploring wells under Alternatives B and C. First, the BLM has not defined a wildcat 

well or exploratory well. How will operators know when it will apply? Second, the BLM should allow infill

development within existing fields without a MDP. Often only one or two wells are needed within existing 

fields to continue production levels, in which case a full MDP would not be an appropriate use of the BLM 

or operator’s resources. Anschutz believes the BLM should only encourage the use of MDPs as set forth 

under Alternative E.

Comment ID: 1173

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s management objective that would require unitization under

Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-76 – 2-77, Action No. 67. First, as set forth 

above, the BLM cannot impose new requirements on Anschutz’s existing leases. Requiring operators to 

join federal units is a radical mitigation measure because it requires those lessees not designated as the unit 

operator of the federal exploratory unit to surrender control over all development operations to another 

party. Second, requiring unitization for the protection of resources other than oil and gas is not appropriate 

or practical. Finally, requiring unitization is simply not practical given the presence of private and State of 

Wyoming leases within the Planning Area. Large portions of the Planning Area with significant potential 

for oil and gas resources contain significant private lands and minerals. See Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 3-

100 – 3-143. The BLM does not have the authority to require non-federal lease owners to enter federal unit 

agreements. For all of the foregoing reasons, the BLM should modify Action No. 67 in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA.

Comment ID: 598

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-700 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Samson objects to the BLM's decision to require operators and other users to remove, bury, or

modify existing power lines within priority sage-grouse habitat under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-30, Action No. 35. Requiring operators to modify existing power lines could 

require significant additional surface disturbance within sage-grouse priority habitat which may cause 

adverse impacts to the species. Further, to the extent BLM does not have continuing jurisdiction over said 

power lines it does not have the authority to require modifications or burying these lines. Finally, BLM 

should consider the adverse air quality impacts potentially associated with this management action. In many 

cases, oil and gas operators install power lines in order to reduce potential air emissions from compressors 

and other facilities. Requiring these lines to be buried may make it uneconomic to use electrical power 

which could lead to more air quality impacts from compressors.

Comment ID: 1161

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the BLM’s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C to close the 

vast majority of sage-grouse habitat to all fluid mineral leasing and development. The BLM has not justified 

such closures of the federal estate nor has it complied with the withdrawal requirements of FLPMA. 

Anschutz also believes the BLM has failed to adequately analyze the potential impact such a closure would 

have on existing operations. This closure will have impacts on future oil and gas operations, particularly 

where operators are not able to secure a sufficient acreage block to develop the area. The BLM must 

recognize, study, and report the economic impact of its decision to close such a significant portion of the 

Planning Area to oil and gas leasing.

Comment ID: 611

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM's proposal to require Master Development Plans ("MDP") on all but wildcat exploring 

wells under Alternatives B and C is of concern. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 66. First, the 

BLM has not defined a wildcat well or exploratory well. How will operators know when it will apply?

Second, the BLM should allow infill development within existing fields without a MDP. Often only one or 

two wells are needed within existing fields to continue production levels, a full MDP would not be an 

appropriate use of the BLM or operator's resources. Samson believes the BLM should only encourage the 

use of MDPs as set forth under Alternative E. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 66.

Comment ID: 763

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is strenuously opposed to the BLM's management objective that would require

unitization under Alternative B and Alternative C. Second, requiring unitization for the protection of 

resources other than oil and gas is not appropriate or practical. Requiring unitization for other resource 

protection is not consistent with the purposes of federal unitization. Finally, requiring unitization is simply 

not practical given the presence of private and State of Wyoming leases within the Planning Area. Large 

portions of the Planning Area with significant potential for oil and gas resources contain significant private 

lands and minerals.

Comment ID: 769

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-701

Comment: Devon is very concerned and opposed to the BLM's proposal to limit surface disturbance to 

three percent under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-21. Devon also questions the scientific

support for the three percent surface disturbance caps. The BLM should provide far more detailed

Information regarding how the BLM will determine the amount of surface disturbance within a particular 

portion of land and how the BLM will create a tracking system that will remain current and accurate given 

recent constraints and limitations of the BLM's budget. It seems to be unlikely the BLM will be able to 

appropriately manage any type of a surface disturbance cap across the numerous lands within the Planning 

Area. The BLM should describe in detail how existing personnel In many different offices will be able to 

develop and utilize such a complex tracking system.

Comment ID: 765

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is opposed to BLM's proposal that would explore options to amend, cancel, or buy-out 

leases, or include as COAs the relinquishment of leases within the Planning Area under Alternative C.

Should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay Devon's ability to develop its leases or otherwise cancel leases, 

the BLM's proposal may constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Comment ID: 1763

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to BLM’s proposal that would explore options to amend, cancel, or 

buyout leases, or include as COAs the relinquishment of leases within the Planning Area under Alternative 

C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-80, Action No. 73. The BLM simply does not have the authority to require 

operators to relinquish leases or to cancel existing leases. To the extent ConocoPhillips’ leases are already 

producing, they cannot be administratively cancelled by the BLM, and can only be cancelled through a 

judicial proceeding.

Comment ID: 768

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon remains opposed to the three percent surface disturbance cap required under Alternative 

B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-133 – 2-134, Action No. 126. The BLM has failed to

justify this restrictive surface disturbance cap or explain how the cap will be applied in conjunction with 

other restrictions. Devon also does not believe the BLM has adequately justified the use of the three percent 

cap based on existing scientific literature. 22 [Review of Data quality Issues in A report on National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures Produced by the BLM Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT) 

Dated December 21, 2011. Dr. Rob Ramey, III, wildlife International Inc. (Attachment B). Given the lack 

of scientific support for the three percent cap, it would be arbitrary and capricious for the BLM to select 

this alternative.

Comment ID: 745

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is opposed to the BLM's proposed management action limiting motorized travel to

existing roads and trails in sage-grouse priority core under all of the action alternatives. Devon therefore 

requests the BLM develop a specific exception to this management action for the limited purpose of oil and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-702 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

gas exploration, site location, and staking and permitting activities. Doing so will allow Devon and other 

oil and gas operators to continue responsible development of oil and gas resources within the Planning

Area. Devon believes BLM has not sufficiently analyzed the significant extent these limitations on future

rights-of-way ("ROW") will have upon oil and gas operations. In particular, Devon is concerned about the 

management of the priority and even general habitat under Alternative B or Alternative C as ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas. The BLM has not justified this substantial increase in the number of acres 

subject to ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Devon is particularly concerned that the ROW exclusion 

and avoidance areas will be utilized to significantly hamper or decrease oil and gas operations. Devon 

encourages the BLM to reduce the area subject to ROW avoidance or exclusion limitations as they may 

adversely impact oil and gas development in the area. Devon objects to the BLM's decision to require 

operators and other users to remove, bury, or modify existing power lines within priority sage-grouse habitat 

under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage- Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-30, Action No. 35. Requiring operators 

to modify existing power lines could require significant additional surface disturbance within sage-grouse 

priority habitat which may cause adverse impacts to the species. Further, to the extent BLM does not have 

continuing jurisdiction over said power lines it does not have the authority to require modifications or 

burying these lines. Finally, BLM should consider the adverse air quality impacts potentially associated

with this management action. In many cases, oil and gas operators install power lines in order to reduce 

potential air emissions from compressors and other facilities. Requiring these lines to be buried may make 

it uneconomic to use electrical power which could lead to more air quality impacts from compressors.

Comment ID: 1757

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on surface disturbing operations, 

fluid minerals under Alternatives B, and C, and to a lesser extent, E. Under these alternatives, the BLM

proposes to limit surface disturbing operations to a significant extent in order to add the new limitations set 

forth in Appendix E as COAs. Sage-Grouse, DLUPA, pgs. 2-72 – 2-75, Action No. 63. As already 

discussed, the BLM cannot impose such limitations on ConocoPhillips’ existing oil and gas lease rights.

Comment ID: 1869

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Action Number 66, Page 2-76: “Master Development Plans would be considered and 

encouraged for projects involving multiple proposed disturbances within core habitat area.” Such a 

provision is poorly reasoned and is particularly inappropriate for use in these areas. While master 

development plans (MDP) may be acceptable and beneficial in areas where development drilling takes 

place for longer periods of time, there are cases where periodic drilling or drilling within existing Federal 

Units occur on a well-by-well basis and not continuously. Currently, the operator of a federal unit is required 

to submit a Plan of Development and a Review of Operations on a yearly basis. With the variability in the 

pace in which drilling can occur, Master Development Plans need to be very carefully considered before 

being encouraged.

Comment ID: 1758

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips strongly opposes BLM’s proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance 

within four miles of active leks under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, 

Action No. 65. Given the variable topography of the planning area and ongoing land uses, there is
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-703

substantial acreage within four miles of active leks that is not sage-grouse habitat. The four mile buffer also 

does not address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the BLM’s blanket application 

of the four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team 

Report published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The BLM should eliminate this proposed timing 

restriction or, at the very least, develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and 

that provides certainty to operators that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 1749

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips believes BLM has not sufficiently analyzed the significant impacts these 

limitations on future rights-of-way (“ROW”) will have upon oil and gas operations. In particular, 

ConocoPhillips is concerned about the management of the priority and even general habitat under 

Alternative B or Alternative C as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-18 –

2-20, Action Nos. 30 and 31. The BLM has not justified this substantial increase in the number of acres 

subject to ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. ConocoPhillips encourages the BLM to reduce the area 

subject to ROW avoidance or exclusion limitations as they may adversely impact oil and gas development 

in the area.

Comment ID: 1760

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is concerned about BLM’s proposal to require Master Development Plans 

(“MDP”) on all but wildcat exploring wells under Alternatives B and C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, 

Action No. 66. First, the BLM has not defined a wildcat well or exploratory well. How will operators know 

when it will apply? Second, the BLM should allow infill development within existing fields without a MDP.

Often only one or two wells are needed within existing fields to continue production levels, in which case 

a full MDP would not be an appropriate use of the BLM or operator’s resources. ConocoPhillips believes 

the BLM should only encourage the use of MDPs as set forth under Alternative E. Sage- Grouse DLUPA, 

pg. 2-76, Action No. 66.

Comment ID: 1761

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s management objective that would require unitization 

under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-76 – 2-77, Action No. 67. First, as set

forth above, the BLM cannot impose new requirements on ConocoPhillips’ existing leases. Second,

requiring unitization for the protection of resources other than oil and gas is not appropriate or practical. 

Finally, requiring unitization is simply not practical given the presence of private and State of Wyoming 

leases within the Planning Area. For all of the foregoing reasons, the BLM should modify Action No. 67 

in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 756

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is strenuously opposed to the BLM's proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C to 

close the vast majority of sage-grouse habitat to all fluid mineral leasing and development. SageGrouse
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-704 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

DLUPA, pg. 2-63, Action No. 60. The BLM has not justified such significant closures of the federal estate 

nor has it complied with the withdrawal requirements of FLPMA. Devon also believes the BLM has failed 

to adequately analyze the potential impact such a closure would have on existing operations. This closure 

will have significant impacts on future oil and gas operations, particularly where operators are not able to 

secure a sufficient acreage block to develop the area.

Comment ID: 613

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is strenuously opposed to the BLM's management objective that would require 

unitization under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-76 – 2-77, Action No. 67. 

First, as set forth above, the BLM cannot impose new requirements on Samson's existing leases. Requiring

operators to join federal units is a radical mitigation measure because it requires those lessees not designated 

as the unit operator of the federal exploratory unit to surrender control over all development operations to 

another party. The BLM should not impose such a significant mitigation measure on existing or new leases. 

Second, requiring unitization for the protection of resources other than oil and gas is not appropriate or 

practical. The BLM Draft Handbook on Unitization recognizes that a central reason for unitization is the 

promotion of exploration in unproven areas. Requiring unitization for other resource protection is not 

consistent with the purposes of federal unitization. Finally, requiring unitization is simply not practical 

given the presence of private and State of Wyoming leases within the Planning Area. Large portions of the 

Planning Area with significant potential for oil and gas resources contain significant private lands and 

minerals. The BLM does not have the authority to require non-federal lease owners to enter federal unit 

agreements. For all of the foregoing reasons, the BLM should modify Action No. 67 in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA.

Comment ID: 764

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is significantly opposed to the proposal to require full reclamation bond for all oil and 

gas operations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Additionally, the proposed management objective is 

not consistent with the BLM's recently released Instruction Memorandum regarding bonds. Instruction 

Memorandum 2013-151 (Jul. 3, 2013).

Comment ID: 1762

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is significantly opposed to the proposal to require full reclamation bonds for all 

oil and gas operations under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-77, Action No. 

69. First, such a requirement is not consistent with the BLM regulations regarding the amount of bonds.

Additionally, the proposed management objective is not consistent with the BLM’s recently released

Instruction Memorandum regarding bonds. Given the release of Instruction Memorandum 2013-151 in July 

of 2013, the BLM absolutely must eliminate this proposal from the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 417

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-705

Comment: Table 2-1, Action #88, pg. 96: This transportation stipulation proposed under Alternative C is

excessive, overly protective and inconsistent with EO 2011-5. Research has shown that a 4-mile buffer is 

not necessary to mitigate impacts of new roads on GSG. With strategic planning and design, new roads can 

be located and constructed in a manner that significantly minimizes their impact on GSG habitat and 

behavior. As such, Yates requests BLM modify the 4-mile protective buffer placed around GSG leks for 

new road construction such that it is consistent with EO 2011-5 (i.e. Alternative E.). Yates also requests 

BLM eliminate the prohibition on new road construction in GSG priority and general habitat to establish 

consistency with EO 2011-5.

Comment ID: 771

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is strenuously opposed to the BLM's proposal to prohibit or limit new surface occupancy

even on existing leases under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-138 – 2- 141, 

Action Nos. 129, 134. The BLM does not have the authority to deny all development rights once it has 

issued a federal oil and gas lease.

Comment ID: 607

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is strenuously opposed to the BLM's proposed limitation on surface disturbing 

operations, fluid minerals under Alternatives B, and C, and, to a lesser extent, E. Under these alternatives, 

the BLM proposes to limit surface disturbing operations to a significant extent in order to add the new

limitations set forth in Appendix E as COAs. Sage-Grouse, DLUPA, pgs. 2-72 - 2-75, Action No. 63. As

already discussed, the BLM cannot impose such limitations on Samson's existing oil and gas lease rights. 

Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO stipulations and, in the absence of a 

nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development 

on the leasehold.

Comment ID: 614

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The proposal to require full reclamation bond for all oil and gas operations under Alternative B 

and Alternative C is not consistent with BLM policy and should be removed. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-

77, Action No. 69. First, such a requirement is not consistent with the BLM regulations regarding the

amount of bonds. Under the BLM's existing regulations, the agency is only to increase bond amounts when 

an operator has a history of previous violations, a notice from the Office of Natural Resources Revenue that 

there are uncollected royalties due, or where there is a significant reason to believe the operator will default. 

43 C.F.R. § 3104.5(b). Additionally, the proposed management objective is not consistent with the BLM's 

recently released Instruction Memorandum regarding bonds. Instruction Memorandum 2013-151 (JuI. 3, 

2013). The new Instruction Memorandum not only states that it is inappropriate to automatically raise bonds 

without conducting specific reviews, it also acknowledges that if an operator conducts all operations in a 

prudent and timely manner and has a history of compliance, there is no reason to increase their bonds. 

Instruction Memorandum 2013-151, pg. 2. The BLM should not attempt to override national policies and 

regulations through a regional RMP. Given the release of Instruction Memorandum 2013-151 in July of 

2013, the BLM absolutely must eliminate this proposal from the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 773
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-706 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is opposed to the BLM's seasonal restrictions on exploratory drilling under Alternative 

B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131 . First, the BLM has not defined 

what constitutes exploratory drilling. Further, the proposed timing limitations are likely inconsistent with

existing lease rights.

Comment ID: 1781

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is concerned about the BLM’s decision to significantly increase the number of 

acres subject to NSO restrictions under Alternative E. The BLM indicates there would be a 400% increase 

in areas subject to NSO but has not clearly identified or explained its rationale for this decision. SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 4-111. The BLM should provide far more information regarding the significant

increase in areas subject to NSO restrictions.

Comment ID: 1748

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s proposed management action limiting motorized travel 

to existing roads and trails in sage-grouse priority core under all of the action alternatives. Sage-Grouse

DLUPA, pg. 2-17, Action No. 18. ConocoPhillips and other oil and gas operators routinely are required to 

travel off existing roads and trails when evaluating and selecting potential new locations for oil and gas 

development. In the past, this type of use has been considered casual use and has not required BLM approval 

or been subject to timing limitations. ConocoPhillips therefore requests the BLM develop a specific 

exception to this management action for the limited purpose of oil and gas exploration, site location, and 

staking and permitting activities. Doing so will allow ConocoPhillips and other oil and gas operators to 

continue responsible development of oil and gas resources within the Planning Area.

Comment ID: 608

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson strongly opposes BLM's proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within 

four miles of active leks under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action 

No. 65. Given the variable topography of the planning area and ongoing land uses, there is often substantial 

acreage within four miles of active leks that is not Sage-Grouse habitat. The four mile buffer also does not 

address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the BLM's blanket application of the 

four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report 

published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Addressing energy development and any subsequent 

successful restoration activities in sagebrush ecosystems will require consideration of local ecological 

conditions, which cannot be prescribed on a range-wide level." Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Objectives Final Report, February 2013, pg. 50. The BLM should eliminate this proposed timing restriction 

or, at the very least, develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and that provides 

certainty to operators that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 1768

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-707

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the BLM’s proposal to prohibit or limit new surface occupancy 

even on existing leases under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-138 – 2-141, 

Action Nos. 129, 134. The BLM does not have the authority to deny all development rights once it has 

issued a federal oil and gas lease. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO

stipulations then, in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM 

cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. ConocoPhillips appreciates the BLM is trying to 

authorize some level of development on leases if they are fully encompassed by priority habitat but such 

minimum protections are wholly insufficient and do not appropriately honor ConocoPhillips’ existing lease 

rights under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 139, Action No. 129. Finally, 

should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay ConocoPhillips’ ability to develop its leases, the BLM’s 

proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C may constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment 

to the U.S. Constitution.

Comment ID: 1767

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips remains opposed to the three percent surface disturbance cap required under

Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-133 – 2-134, Action No. 126. The BLM has failed to justify

this restrictive surface disturbance cap or explain how the cap will be applied in conjunction with other 

LUP restrictions. The three percent cap also creates flawed incentives that may undermine collaborative 

efforts to promote healthy sage grouse populations. Given the variable topography of the Planning Area, 

there is substantial acreage within the mapped sage-grouse habitat that is not sage-grouse habitat. 

ConocoPhillips is very concerned and opposed to the BLM’s proposal to limit surface disturbance to three 

percent under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-21. ConocoPhillips also questions the scientific 

support for the three percent surface disturbance caps. ConocoPhillips incorporates herein the comments 

developed by the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) and Dr. Rob Ramey and his criticism regarding the 

BLM’s NTT Report. ConocoPhillips is also extremely concerned about the BLM’s ability to implement the 

disturbance cap proposal under Alternative B. The BLM should provide far more detailed information 

regarding how the BLM will determine the amount of surface disturbance within a particular portion of 

land and how the BLM will create a tracking system that will remain current and accurate given recent 

constraints and limitations of the BLM’s budget. It seems to be unlikely the BLM will be able to 

appropriately manage any type of a surface disturbance cap across the numerous lands within the Planning 

Area. The BLM should describe in detail how existing personnel in many different offices will be able to 

develop and utilize such a complex tracking system.

Comment ID: 1766

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the limitations on upgrading existing roads within sage-grouse 

core areas or habitat under all of the alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-99, Action No. 89. Such

restrictions are inconsistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 

2012-019. Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading or reconstruction, ConocoPhillips 

urges the BLM to utilize the DDCT policy as authorized under Executive Order 2011-005 and Wyoming 

Instruction Memorandum 2012-019. Given variable topography and habitat conditions, it is more 

appropriate to allow the upgrading of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.

Comment ID: 1765
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-708 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the proposed restriction on road construction within four miles of 

an active sage-grouse lek under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-96, Action No. 88. The BLM 

has not sufficiently justified this onerous restriction nor analyzed in detail the impact it would have upon

oil and gas development across the Planning Area. Not allowing new road construction within four miles 

of an active lek will significantly hamper oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 725

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM must ensure that oil and gas development is not unreasonable limited in the revision 

to the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The FLPMA requires the BLM to foster and develop mineral activities, not 

stifle and prohibit such development.

Comment ID: 1863

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Action Number 10, Page 2-15: We remind BLM that COAs that go beyond the terms of the 

lease must be negotiated with the lessee because the agencies have no authority to require measures that

exceed existing lease terms. Further, please see our comments below with regard to Appendix B, Required 

Design Features for Fluid Minerals.

Comment ID: 819

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is very concerned regarding the proposed stipulation associated with Management Action

No.122 under Alternative E. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, E-2 and throughout Appendix E. The draft stipulation 

suggests that not only that a lessee may be denied use of its entire leased premises if certain conditions are 

met, but also that the BLM may have the right to impose drilling easements on oil and gas operations. The 

BLM must modify this condition and propose stipulation to avoid a potential violation of the Mineral 

Leasing Act. Finally, Devon believes it is disingenuous for the BLM to identify the stipulation associated 

with Management Action No. 122, and throughout Appendix E, as a controlled surface use stipulation when 

the BLM expressly notes that it may deny all surface use under the terms and conditions of the proposed 

stipulation. The BLM should more accurately identify this lease stipulation as a NSO restriction and clearly

identify the designation on all maps included within the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 628

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM’s seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling under Alternative B and Alternative C 

is of concern. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-145, Action No. 131. First, the BLM has not defined what

constitutes exploratory drilling. What criterion the BLM utilized to determine whether or not the proposed 

well is exploratory or not? The BLM must provide more information regarding this proposed management 

action in order for Samson to understand how it may impact its operations. Further, the proposed timing 

limitations are likely inconsistent with existing lease rights. As discussed above, the BLM cannot use the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-709

development of a land use plan to impose COAs or other limitations that are inconsistent with existing lease 

rights.

Comment ID: 615

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM's proposal to explore options to amend, cancel, or buy-out leases, or include as COAs 

the relinquishment of leases within the Planning Area under Alternative C, is simply not feasible. 

SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 2-80, Action No. 73. The BLM simply does not have the authority to require

operators to relinquish leases or to cancel existing leases. As the BLM is aware, an oil and gas lease is a 

contract between the federal government and a lessee, and the lessee has certain rights thereunder.

Comment ID: 1750

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips objects to the BLM’s decision to require operators and other users to remove, 

bury, or modify existing power lines within priority sage-grouse habitat under Alternative B and Alternative

C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-30, Action No. 35. Requiring operators to modify existing power lines could 

require significant additional surface disturbance within sage-grouse priority habitat which may cause 

adverse impacts to the species. Further, to the extent BLM does not have continuing jurisdiction over said 

power lines it does not have the authority to require modifications or burying these lines. Finally, BLM 

should consider the adverse air quality impacts potentially associated with this management action. In many 

cases, oil and gas operators install power lines in order to reduce potential air emissions from compressors 

and other facilities. Requiring these lines to be buried may make it uneconomic to use electrical power 

which could lead to more air quality impacts from compressors.

Comment ID: 626

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson also strongly opposes BLM's proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance 

within four miles of a lek under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-139, Action 

No. 129. Given the variable topography of the Planning Area and ongoing land uses, there is substantial

acreage within four miles of leks that is not GRSG habitat. Additionally, the methodology (i.e. lek centric) 

under which the priority and connectivity habitat areas were developed, virtually assures that non-habitat 

areas are present. The four mile buffer also does not address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. 

Furthermore, the BLM's blanket application of the four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

"Addressing energy development and any subsequent successful restoration activities in sagebrush 

ecosystems will require consideration of local ecological conditions, which cannot be prescribed on a rangewide level." Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Final Report, February 2013, pg. 50. The overly 

broad application of the four (4) mile buffer restrictions will effectively eliminate year-round development 

and its associated benefits, which include reduced truck traffic, fewer emissions, and condensed 

development activity. The BLM should eliminate this proposed restriction or, at the very least, develop a 

mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and that provides certainty to operators that yearround development can occur.

Comment ID: 762

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-710 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is concerned about BLM's proposal to require Master Development Plans ("MDP") on 

all but wildcat exploring wells under Alternatives B and C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 66.

First, the BLM has not defined a wildcat well or exploratory well. How will operators know when it will 

apply? Second, the BLM should allow infill development within existing fields without a MOP. Often only 

one or two wells are needed within existing fields to continue production levels, a full MOP would not be 

an appropriate use of the BLM or operator's resources. Devon believes the BLM should only encourage the 

use of MDPs as set forth under Alternative E. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2- 76, Action No. 66.

Comment ID: 759

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM does not have the authority to impose new limits and COAs on existing leases under

existing IBLA case law. The BLM often cites a relatively recent decision from the IBLA for the proposition 

that the agency can impose COAs on existing leases. Yates Petroleum Corp.,176 IBLA 144 (2008). The 

Yates decision does not stand for the proposition that BLM can Impose COAs whenever it deems necessary 

or in broad programmatic documents such as the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Rather, in Yates, the IBLA merely 

affirmed the imposition of an additional COA based on site-specific information including recent and 

directly applicable scientific research. Yates, 176 IBLA at 157; William P. Maycock, 177 IBLA 1, 16-17 

(2009). The Yates decision does not authorize the BLM to Ignore relevant lease terms or the BLM 

regulations at 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2.

Comment ID: 1920

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Table 2-5, Threats to Greater Sage-Grouse and Associated Management Actions Page 2-173,

Alternative E We support BLM’s recognition of valid existing lease rights and that the agency cannot

deprive operators of their rights to develop pre-existing leases in accordance with the terms under which 

they are issued. We object to a requirement that operators must share well pads. Each operator has differing 

environmental health and safety requirements. Additionally, more than one operator on a well pad would 

result in needless duplication of facilities (tanks, on site compression, etc.) as well as added space to 

maintain sufficient and safe distances between them, which would actually significantly increase the 

amount of disturbance.

Comment ID: 760

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon strongly opposes BLM's proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within 

four miles of active leks under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action

No.65. Given the variable topography of the planning area and ongoing land uses, there Is substantial 

acreage within four miles of active leks that is not sage-grouse habitat. The four mile buffer also does not 

address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the BLM's blanket application of the 

four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage- Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report 

published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Addressing energy development and any subsequent 

successful restoration activities in sagebrush ecosystems will require consideration of local ecological 

conditions, which cannot be prescribed on a range-wide level." Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Objectives Final Report, February 2013, pg. 50. The BLM should eliminate this proposed timing restriction 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-711

or, at the very least, develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and that provides 

certainty to operators that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 623

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM's proposal to prohibit or limit new surface occupancy even on existing leases under

Alternative B and Alternative C is not justified or reasonable. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-138 - 2-141,

Action Nos. 129, 134. The BLM does not have the authority to deny all development rights once it has 

issued a federal oil and gas lease. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO 

stipulations and, in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM 

cannot completely deny development on the leasehold.

Comment ID: 620

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson remains opposed to the three percent surface disturbance cap required under Alternative 

B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-133 - 2-134, Action No. 126. The BLM has failed to justify this restrictive

surface disturbance cap or explain how the cap will be applied in conjunction with other LUP restrictions. 

The three percent cap also creates flawed incentives that may undermine collaborative efforts to promote 

healthy Sage-Grouse populations. Given the variable topography of the Planning Area, there is substantial 

acreage within the mapped sage-grouse habitat that is not sage-grouse habitat. Additionally, the 

methodology (i.e. lek centric) under which the priority habitats were developed, virtually assures that nonhabitat areas are present. As such, the three percent cap within sage-grouse habitat ignores the unique local 

topography. Furthermore, the cap actually encourages operators to monopolize existing cap space rather 

than working to identify the best development plan. Samson is significantly concerned about the 

implementation of a disturbance cap.

Comment ID: 621

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is very concerned and opposed to the BLM's proposal to limit surface disturbance to 

three percent under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-21. Samson also questions the scientific

support for the three percent surface disturbance caps. Samson incorporates herein the comments developed 

by the American Petroleum Institute ("API") and Dr. Rob Ramey and his criticism regarding the BLM's 

NTT Report. The analysis of the NTT Report by Dr. Ramey questions the BLM's scientific basis for the 

surface disturbance cap. Samson is also extremely concerned about the BLM's ability to implement the 

disturbance cap proposal under Alternative B. The BLM should provide far more detailed information 

regarding how the BLM will determine the amount of surface disturbance within a particular portion of 

land and how the BLM will create a tracking system that will remain current and accurate given recent 

constraints and limitations of the BLM's budget. It seems to be unlikely the BLM will be able to 

appropriately manage any type of a surface disturbance cap across the numerous lands within the Planning 

Area. The BLM should describe in detail how existing personnel in many different offices will be able to 

develop and utilize such a complex tracking system. The BLM will need to develop a comprehensive matrix 

or another set of criterion it can utilize to determine which uses of the public lands will be allowed to 

proceed and the uses that will be denied once the cap is reached. Without clear, comprehensive and 

standardized criterion the BLM could be accused of making arbitrary and capricious decisions regarding 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-712 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

which uses will be allowed to proceed. In order to proceed fairly, the BLM must develop clear and 

understandable methods for evaluating uses of the federal lands.

Comment ID: 627

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Under all alternatives, the BLM proposed to limit surface disturbing operations to either three

percent or five percent within a particular area. Sage-Grouse, DLUPA, pg. 2-138 -2-139, Action No. As

already discussed, the BLM cannot impose such limitations on Samson's existing oil and gas lease rights. 

Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without NSO stipulations, and in the absence of a 

nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development 

on the leasehold.

Comment ID: 617

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The proposed restriction on road construction within four miles of an active sage-grouse lek 

under Alternative C is not justified. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-96, Action No. 88. The BLM has not

sufficiently justified this onerous restriction nor analyzed in detail the impact it would have upon oil and 

gas development across the Planning Area. Not allowing new road construction within four miles of an 

active lek will significantly hamper oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 2219

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana strongly opposes BLM’s proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within 

four miles of active leks under Alternative B and Alternative C. The four mile buffer also does not address

the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. Furthermore, the BLM’s blanket application of the four mile 

buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report 

published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The BLM should eliminate this proposed timing restriction 

or, at the very least, develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and that provides 

certainty to operators that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 3095

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2‐ 5 2‐ 194 Livestock grazing It appears that BLM is pitting O&G and Livestock 

operators against each other through exclusion of resource extraction for additional forage resources.

Comment ID: 3090

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2‐ 5 2‐ 174 Limited Lease size Sharing of well pads may not always be managable 

between operators and would be more of a once in a while occurrence due to different operations, safety

critical distances for equipment, etc.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-713

Comment ID: 2240

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the limitations on upgrading existing roads within sage-grouse core areas 

or habitat under all of the alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-99, Action No. 89. Such restrictions are 

inconsistent with Executive Order 2011-005 and BLM Wyoming Instruction Memorandum 2012- 019. 

Rather than imposing strict prohibitions on road upgrading or reconstruction, Encana urges the BLM to 

utilize the DDCT policy as authorized under Executive Order 2011-005 and Wyoming Instruction 

Memorandum 2012-019. Given variable topography and habitat conditions, it is more appropriate to allow 

the upgrading of existing roads on a case-by-case basis.

Comment ID: 2226

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is strenuously opposed to the BLM’s management objective that would require 

unitization under Alternative B and Alternative C. First, as set forth above, the BLM cannot impose new

requirements on Encana’s existing leases. Requiring operators to join federal units is a radical mitigation 

measure because it requires those lessees not designated as the unit operator of the federal exploratory unit 

to surrender control over all development operations to another party. The BLM should not impose such a 

significant mitigation measure on existing or new leases. Second, requiring unitization for the protection of 

resources other than oil and gas is not appropriate or practical.

Comment ID: 2252

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is strenuously opposed to the BLM’s proposal to prohibit or limit new surface occupancy

even on existing leases under Alternative B and Alternative C. Encana also strongly opposes BLM’s

proposal to prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within four miles of a lek under Alternative B and 

Alternative C. The four mile buffer also does not address the variations in habitat quality or habitat use. 

Furthermore, the BLM’s blanket application of the four mile buffer contradicts the direction of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives Team Report published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.The 

overly broad application of the four (4) mile buffer restrictions will effectively eliminate year-round 

development and its associated benefits, which include reduced truck traffic, fewer emissions, and 

condensed development activity. The BLM should eliminate this proposed restriction or, at the very least, 

develop a mechanism that recognizes unique site-specific conditions and that provides certainty to operators 

that year-round development can occur.

Comment ID: 2222

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is concerned about BLM’s proposal to require Master Development Plans (MDP) on all 

but wildcat exploring wells under Alternatives B and C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-76, Action No. 66. 

First, the BLM has not defined a wildcat well or exploratory well. How will operators know when it will

apply? Second, the BLM should allow infill development within existing fields without a MDP. Often only 

one or two wells are needed within existing fields to continue production levels, a full MDP would not be 

an appropriate use of the BLM or operator’s resources. Encana believes the BLM should only encourage 

the use of MDPs as set forth under Alternative E. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2- 76, Action No. 66.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-714 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2710

Organization: Solvay Chemicals, Inc.

Name: Tim Brown

Comment: Based upon conservation measures developed by the NTT (National Technical Team), this 

alternative imposes a surface disturbance cap of 3% per 640 acres within sage-grouse priority habitat (core

area). If this 3% cap has already been met, reclamation or removal of surface disturbance features must be 

addressed before a project can be permitted. Solvay Chemicals believes this is overly restrictive and is in 

conflict with the multiple use mandate.

Comment ID: 2256

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is strenuously opposed to the BLM’s proposed limitation on surface disturbing 

operations, fluid minerals under Alternative B and Alternative C. As already discussed, the BLM cannot

impose such limitations on Encana’s existing oil and gas lease rights. The BLM does not have the authority 

to impose such strict surface disturbing restrictions on existing leases under existing IBLA case law. Encana 

appreciates the BLM is trying to authorize some level of development on leases if they are fully 

encompassed by priority habitat but such minimum protections are wholly insufficient and do not 

appropriately honor Encana’s existing lease rights under Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM must 

not adopt an alternative that unconstitutionally takes Encana’s property and contract rights.

Comment ID: 2241

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: For the same reason, Encana remains opposed to the three percent surface disturbance cap 

required under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-133 – 2-134, Action No. 126. The BLM has 

failed to justify this restrictive surface disturbance cap or explain how the cap will be applied in conjunction

with other LUP restrictions. The three percent cap also creates flawed incentives that may undermine 

collaborative efforts to promote healthy sage grouse populations. Given the variable topography of the 

Planning Area, there is substantial acreage within the mapped sage-grouse habitat that is not sage-grouse 

habitat. The three percent cap within sagegrouse habitat ignores the unique local topography. Furthermore, 

the cap actually encourages operators to monopolize existing cap space rather than working to identify the 

best development plan. Encana is very concerned and opposed to the BLM’s proposal to limit surface 

disturbance to three percent under Alternative B. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-21. Encana also questions 

the scientific support for the three percent surface disturbance caps.Encana is also extremely concerned 

about the BLM’s ability to implement the disturbance cap proposal under Alternative B. The BLM should 

provide far more detailed information regarding how the BLM will determine the amount of surface 

disturbance within a particular portion of land and how the BLM will create a tracking system that will 

remain current and accurate given recent constraints and limitations of the BLM’s budget. The BLM should 

describe in detail how existing personnel in many different offices will be able to develop and utilize such 

a complex tracking system. Encana also believes that the BLM needs to provide far more detail regarding 

how it will manage competing uses of the public lands if and when the potential surface use caps are near 

the thresholds. The BLM will need to develop a comprehensive matrix or another set of criterion it can 

utilize to determine which uses of the public lands will be allowed to proceed and the uses that will be 

denied once the cap is reached. Without clear, comprehensive and standardized criterion the BLM could be 

accused of making arbitrary and capricious decisions regarding which uses will be allowed to proceed. In 

order to proceed fairly, the BLM must develop clear and understandable methods for evaluating uses of the 

federal lands.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-715

Comment ID: 2239

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the proposed restriction on road construction within four miles of an active

sage-grouse lek under Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-96, Action No. 88. The BLM has not

sufficiently justified this onerous restriction nor analyzed in detail the impact it would have upon oil and 

gas development across the Planning Area. Not allowing new road construction within four miles of an 

active lek will significantly hamper oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 2290

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is concerned about the BLM’s decision to significantly increase the number of acres 

subject to NSO restrictions under Alternative E. The BLM indicates there would be a 400% increase in 

areas subject to NSO but has not clearly identified or explained its rationale for this decision. Sage-Grouse

DLUPA, pg. 4-111. The BLM should provide far more information regarding the significant increase in

areas subject to NSO restrictions.

Comment ID: 2189

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana objects to the BLM’s decision to require operators and other users to remove, bury, or

modify existing power lines within priority sage-grouse habitat under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Requiring operators to modify existing power lines could require significant additional surface disturbance 

within sage-grouse priority habitat which may cause adverse impacts to the species. Further, to the extent 

BLM does not have continuing jurisdiction over said power lines it does not have the authority to require 

modifications or burying these lines. Finally, BLM should consider the adverse air quality impacts 

potentially associated with this management action. In many cases, oil and gas operators install power lines 

in order to reduce potential air emissions from compressors and other facilities. Requiring these lines to be 

buried may make it uneconomic to use electrical power which could lead to more air quality impacts from 

compressors.

Comment ID: 2188

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana believes BLM has not sufficiently analyzed the significant extent these limitations on 

future rights-of-way (ROW) will have upon oil and gas operations. In particular, Encana is concerned about

the management of the priority and even general habitat under Alternative B or Alternative C as ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 2-18 2-20, Action Nos. 30 and 31. The BLM 

has not justified this substantial increase in the number of acres subject to ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas. Encana is particularly concerned that the ROW exclusion and avoidance areas will be utilized to 

significantly hamper or decrease oil and gas operations. Encana encourages the BLM to reduce the area 

subject to ROW avoidance or exclusion limitations as they may adversely impact oil and gas development 

in the area.

Comment ID: 2187

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-716 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the BLM’s proposed management action limiting motorized travel to 

existing roads and trails in sage-grouse priority core under all of the action alternatives. Encana therefore

requests the BLM develop a specific exception to this management action for the limited purpose of oil and 

gas exploration, site location, and staking and permitting activities. Doing so will allow Encana and other 

oil and gas operators to continue responsible development of oil and gas resources within the Planning 

Area.

Comment ID: 2318

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: In addition, it is unclear whether the proposal to limit disturbance within core habitat to three

disturbances per 640 acres is supported by science or is arbitrary. BLM must provide a citation in support 

of this restriction, or it must be removed from consideration.

Comment ID: 2237

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to BLM’s proposal that would explore options to amend, cancel, or buy-out

leases, or include as COAs the relinquishment of leases within the Planning Area under Alternative C. The 

BLM simply does not have the authority to require operators to relinquish leases or to cancel existing leases. 

Should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay Encana’s ability to develop its leases or otherwise cancel 

leases, the BLM’s proposal may constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that unconstitutionally takes Encana’s property and 

contract rights. To the extent Encana’s leases are already producing, they cannot be administratively 

cancelled by the BLM, and can only be cancelled through a judicial proceeding.

Summary: Throughout section 2.3.3 the BLM refers to BLM's Regional Mitigation Manual, section 1794. 

To date, the BLM has not released BLM Manual 1794 in a final format. Instead, the BLM has merely

released a preliminary draft section of the manual for public review and comment. It is wholly inappropriate 

for the BLM to rely upon this draft manual in the Draft LUP Amendments until it has been finally 

promulgated. MS 1794 significantly impacts private property interests. BLM must, therefore, comply with 

FLPMA by undertaking rulemaking before attempting to implement regional mitigation. MS 1794 goes 

well beyond merely restating duties already contained in existing BLM regulations and cannot be

considered an “interpretive rule.” It is instead, a “legislative rule” and must undergo notice and comment 

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Rulemaking also ensures that the regulatory costs are 

addressed by a cost-benefit analysis, Ex. Order 12,12,866, 3 C.F.R. Parts 638, 639, The Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995, and Paperwork Reduction Act as well as disparate impacts on small businesses, Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and impacts on minority communities. BLM evades these 

important regulatory checks by implementing new authority without rulemaking. In effect, the BLM grants 

to itself a sweeping right to impose upon landowners significant obligations to comply with mitigation 

measures for projects with which landowners have absolutely no relation and apparently, without just 

compensation. This is a regulatory taking that violates the U.S. and Wyoming Constitutions. There is no 

question that expanding mitigation to a regional scale will increase regulatory costs and burdens on small 

businesses. BLM fails to address any of these adverse impacts. When conditioning approval of a permit 

upon mitigating impacts of a proposed development, the BLM must comply with the unconstitutional 

conditions doctrine. First, the BLM cannot rely on attenuated relationships and gimmickry to claim a nexus 

between a proposed project and the environmental effects to be mitigated. Secondly, the BLM must make 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-717

“individualized determinations” that the on-the-ground efforts are related in “both nature and extent to the 

impact of the proposed development.” Combined, these two steps ensure that the BLM will not overstep its

power over public land projects. MS 1794 misstates the law. MS 1794 only requires BLM to claim a 

“reasonable relationship” between a project and the benefit to be produced by mitigation, rather than only 

applying regional mitigation when there is an essential nexus between the project and its impacts plus a 

separate determination that the nature and extent of the mitigation required are roughly proportionate to the

impacts. A “reasonable relationship,” is an ubiquitous legal term that the US Supreme Court explicitly

rejected because it would be easily confused with rational basis. Instead the court held that any condition 

must be roughly proportionate to the nature and extent of development impacts.

Response: The Regional Mitigation Framework was developed to follow the BLM’s Regional Mitigation 

Manual MS-1794, Forest Service Handbook FSH 1909.15, and CEQ 40 CFR 1508.20. Per IM 2013-142 

the interim policy is effective and is to be implemented. A final policy is being developed, and that Draft 

Manual and its implementing IM (IM 2013-142) specifically provides that it is to be followed pending 

finalization. BLM manuals and handbooks can be developed and implemented without a rule-making. The 

Regional Mitigation manual is not a legislative rule requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking under the 

APA and is within BLM's broad authority to regulate the public lands. Action 10: There are no site specific 

decisions being made in the EIS. COAs are an implementation action. As specific actions come under 

consideration, the BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include sitespecific project and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental 

descriptions will be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 

1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to 

participate in the NEPA process for any site- specific actions. Consistent with Washington Office 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-110 Change 1, Fluid Mineral Leasing and Related Planning and 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Processes and Best Management Practices, more extensive/ 

expansive/ restrictive mitigation, including adaptive management, could be developed during the sitespecific NEPA analysis that would be required to address any specific exploration or development actions 

that are proposed. Action 18: Management Action #18 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

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

travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed within sage-grouse 

priority/core habitats. Because all existing routes would be available for travel, this action would not prevent 

the use of existing, historic routes (i.e., any existing route would be available for travel for oil and gas 

operators or any other public land user). Off-road travel is currently only allowed in designated OHV 

"Open" areas. Management Action #87 under Alternative E represents current management; therefore, 

Alternative E is continuing management that is currently in place and is not proposing a change to current 

management. Actions 30 and 31: The BLM and Forest Service acknowledge that impacts on development 

activities would occur as a result of designating and managing ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. The 

BLM and Forest Service have determined that managing specific areas as ROW exclusion and avoidance 

areas is necessary to effectively conserve sage-grouse habitat. Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS analyzes the impacts on all resource values and uses from managing areas as ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas. The BLM and Forest Service also analyzed a reasonable range of 

alternatives specifically concerning ROW exclusion and avoidance areas. The BLM and Forest Service will 

review the analysis and consider comments from the public and other agencies on this issue in order to 

make a final decision in the Record of Decision. Action 35: The BLM and Forest Service realize that it 

may not be possible to co-locate some power lines within existing ROWs, which is why some alternatives 

use the language “where technically feasible.” Given the use of this language, the BLM and Forest Service 

think specific text changes within the management actions are not necessary. Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS analyzes the impacts on all resource values and uses from collocating power lines. 

Action 60: As noted in the response above, the BLM and Forest Service have analyzed a reasonable range 

of alternatives. While there are many possible alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater 

Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and the Forest Service fully considered the planning issues and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-718 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

criteria developed during the scoping process to determine a reasonable range of alternatives. Action 63:

As noted in the response above, the BLM and Forest Service have analyzed a reasonable range of 

alternatives. BLM agrees that it cannot impose an NSO on an existing lease. Action 65: As noted in the 

response above, the BLM and Forest Service have analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. Additionally, 

the 4-mile buffer for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat protection is supported and was derived from research 

performed by several noted sage-grouse scientists including Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 2007, Tack 2009, 

Johnson et al. 2011. For example, from the NTT report: “Impacts as measured by the number of males 

attending leks are most severe near the lek, remain discernible out to >4 miles (Holloran 2005, Walker et 

al. 2007, Tack 2009, Johnson et al. 2011), and often result in lek extirpations (Holloran 2005, Walker et al. 

2007). Negative effects of well surface occupancy were apparent out to 3.1 miles, the largest radius 

investigated, in 2 of 7 study areas in Wyoming (Harju et al. 2010). Curvilinear relationships show that lek 

counts decreased with distance to the nearest active drilling rig, producing well, or main haul road and that 

development within 3 to 4 miles of leks decrease counts of displaying males (Holloran 2005). All well‐

supported models in Walker et al. (2007) indicate a strong negative effect, estimated as proportion of 

development within either 0.5 miles or 2 miles, on lek persistence. A model with development at 4 miles 

had less support, but the regression coefficient indicated that negative impacts within 4 miles were still 

apparent. Two additional studies reported negative impacts apparent out to 8 miles on large lek occurrence 

(>25 males; Tack 2009) and out to 11.7 miles on lek trends (Johnson et al. 2011), the 1 largest scales 

evaluated.” Action 66: Exploration and wildcat well are defined in the Glossary. The alternatives propose 

varying applications of Master Development Plans. BLM is required to analyze a range of alternatives, and 

while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with NEPA, FLPMA, 

and is based on the best available science. Action 67: When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a 

valid existing right; the BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease. Action 67 

states; “Within sage-grouse priority habitat, unitization would be required when deemed necessary for 

proper development and operation of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring) to minimize adverse 

impacts to sage-grouse according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11, Sections 4 and 6.” “Would be 

required when deemed necessary" means that some future determination must be made to actually 

implement the unitization, and that determination would require an additional NEPA process to analyze the 

impacts of the requirement and allow for public involvement and comment. Until that future analysis and 

decision, it is impossible to know what impact this requirement will have. Also, since this requirement 

would be “for proper development and operation of an area," it will not diminish or abrogate any valid 

existing rights of current or future lessees. Unitization is a management tool. This requirement does not 

impose it in a specific context, but merely identifies it as an appropriate tool that may in particular 

circumstances be deemed the appropriate tool to efficiently manage oil and gas development as well as 

provide protections for the Greater Sage-Grouse. A determination of whether its use in specific parts of the 

planning area is practical cannot be made at this time as that would require a specific proposal to analyze. 

However, two of the major threats to the Greater Sage- Grouse are habitat fragmentation and loss, and nonrenewable energy development. COT report, p. 9-10. As unitization can help to limit the footprint of 

development and limit disturbance during the Greater Sage-Grouse’s breeding season, unitization may be 

an appropriate management tool to help protect the Greater Sage-Grouse from the deleterious impacts of 

habitat loss and fragmentation and non-renewable energy development within the planning area. The 

alternatives propose varying requirements for unitization. BLM is required to analyze a range of 

alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with 

NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. Also see Appendix E, MAs 122 & 123. Action 

69: Appendix C, Section C.2.4, states “Reclamation plans should incorporate the standards set forth in 

Wyoming BLM Reclamation Policy as described in IM WY-2009-022 and in the corresponding Forest 

Service Manual/Handbook In the future, this will be supported with more detailed guidance such as new 

reclamation bond standards, a statewide monitoring and reporting strategy, and sample templates for both 

reclamation and non-native and invasive species management plans. Specific reclamation information and 

other technical guidance will be forthcoming and posted on the Wyoming Reclamation web site 

(http://www.blm.gov/wy.st/en/programs/reclamation.html).” The alternatives propose varying 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-719

requirements for bonding. BLM is required to analyze a range of alternatives, and while not all of the 

management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the 

best available science. Action 73: Alternative C proposes that Agencies would explore options to amend, 

cancel, or buy out leases in ACECs and sage-grouse priority and general habitat. BLM is required to analyze 

a range of alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative 

complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. Action 88: The alternatives 

propose varying avoidance distances for new road construction. The rights of valid leaseholders in 

discussed in section 4.8.2 (page 4-103).BLM is required to analyze a range of alternatives, and while not 

all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is 

based on the best available science. Action 89: The alternatives propose varying dates for seasonal 

restrictions. Alternative C does not put any restrictions on road upgrades. BLM is required to analyze a 

range of alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative 

complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. Action 122 and throughout 

Appendix E: The terms Controlled Surface Use and No Surface Occupancy are defined in the Glossary. 

All activities on BLM- and Forest Service-managed lands would be required to comport with the 5% 

disturbance cap regardless of unitization. Valid existing rights are discussed in sections 1.7.1, Issues 

Addressed, and in several locations throughout Chapter 4. As stated in Section 4.8.2, Assumptions, 

“Leaseholders have the right to explore, develop, and produce mineral resources from any valid, existing 

lease, even if the area containing the lease were proposed to be closed to future leasing.” In the Detailed 

Comparison of Alternatives (Section 2.6), the BLM further clarifies this by stating that “Many sage-grouse 

seasonal habitats within and outside of core habitat areas are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as 

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

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

When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; the BLM cannot unilaterally change 

the terms and conditions of the lease. Existing leases would not be affected by new closures and/or areas 

administratively unavailable for lease, and restrictions could not be added to existing leases. Surface use 

and timing restrictions resulting from this RMPA cannot be applied to existing leases. Action 126: As 

noted in the response above, the BLM and Forest Service have analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. 

While there are many possible alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in 

the planning area, the BLM and the Forest Service fully considered the planning issues and criteria 

developed during the scoping process to determine a reasonable range of alternatives. In determining the 

disturbance cap level for each alternative, the BLM utilized the recommendations and input specific to each 

alternative. While the caps would set a particular level of disturbance, the implementation of the disturbance 

caps would occur after the LUP Amendments is approved in the Record of Decision. The BLM inventoried 

the habitat with the best available info at the time of the Draft EIS, but would also do additional in-depth 

analysis and inventory within management zones at the implementation stage. Actions 129 and 134: As 

noted in the response above, the BLM and Forest Service have analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. 

See also the response above for Action 65. Action 131: The alternatives propose varying dates for seasonal 

restrictions. Alternative D follows the date in Wyoming Executive Order. BLM is required to analyze a 

range of alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative 

complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. Action 134: The alternatives 

propose varying degrees of protection of sage-grouse winter habitat. BLM is required to analyze a range of 

alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each alternative complies with 

NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. Table 2‐5, Page 2‐174: When an oil and gas 

lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; the BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and 

conditions of the lease. The table on 2-173 states: “By leasing a minimum of 640 acres, the BLM and 

Forest Service could commit to only one surface disturbance per square mile rather than multiple 

disturbances. This may require sharing of well pads to meet valid existing rights." This action applies to 

Unleased Fluid Minerals. "May require" means that some future determination must be made to actually 

implement the unitization, and that determination would require an additional NEPA process to analyze the 

impacts of the requirement and allow for public involvement and comment. Until that future analysis and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-720 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

decision, it is impossible to know what impact this requirement will have. Also, since this requirement 

would be "to meet valid existing rights," it will not diminish or abrogate any valid existing rights of current 

or future lessees. Sharing of well pads is a management tool. This requirement does not impose it in a 

specific context, but merely identifies it as an appropriate tool that may in particular circumstances be 

deemed the appropriate tool to efficiently manage oil and gas development as well as provide protections 

for the Greater Sage-Grouse. A determination of whether its use in specific parts of the planning area is 

practical cannot be made at this time as that would require a specific proposal to analyze. Table 2‐5, Page 

2‐194: As noted in the response above, the BLM and Forest Service have analyzed a reasonable range of 

alternatives designed to protect Greater Sage-Grouse. The Wyoming LUP Amendments is a targeted 

amendment specifically addressing goals, objectives, and conservation measures to conserve Greater SageGrouse and to respond to the potential of its being listed (see Section 1.3, Purpose and Need). Both the 

Forest Service’s and BLM’s planning processes allow for analysis and consideration of a range of 

alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms to conserve, enhance, and restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and to eliminate, 

reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to ensure that a balanced management approach was 

recommended. The plan includes alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in 

various use programs.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

RFD is not a prescriptive limit on development and is outdated and too low

Comment ID: 636

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The unconstrained RFD Scenario for oil and gas development within the Casper Field Office is

outdated and too low. This is particularly important due to the possibility the planning amendment may 

result in significant changes to the availability of lands for oil and gas leasing. Samson is aware of a proposal 

by several oil and gas operators to develop up to 5,000 wells within the Converse County portion of the 

Casper Field Office. This one project alone exceeds the current RFD Scenario. Absent an updated RFD 

scenario, BLM cannot provide an accurate analysis regarding the impacts that would result by removing 

previously available lands from oil and gas leasing. As noted earlier, however, the RFD Scenario is not a 

limit and should not be a constraint on future oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 1279

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: As part of its planning criteria, the BLM also acknowledges that it will utilize the reasonably

foreseeable development scenarios ("RFD Scenario") developed for each of the relevant LUPs within the 

Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 1-19. When discussing the RFD Scenario, the BLM must be 

aware, and carefully describe to the public, that the RFD Scenario is not a limit or threshold on future 

development. The BLM‘s description of the RFD Scenario in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA will only exacerbate 

this confusion and may lead to additional litigation. The BLM must carefully explain to the public that the 

RFD Scenario is not a cap or limitation on future development in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. In order to 

prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language in the ROD and the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA describing the purpose of the RFD Scenario and the fact that the RFD Scenario is not a planning 

decision or limitation on future oil and gas development. Instruction Memorandum 2004-089, Policy for 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for Oil and Gas (Jan. 16, 2004). It is particularly 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-721

important for the BLM to accurately describe that the RFD Scenario is not a limit on future oil and gas 

development within the Planning Area because it appears the RFD Scenario for the Planning Area is much 

too low. The BLM currently anticipates that as many as 12,355 wells could be drilled in the Planning Area 

during the next 20 years. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-190. EOG believes the BLM has significantly 

underestimated the oil and gas potential within the Planning Area, particularly given the number of wells 

proposed in existing EISs such as the Moxa Arch Infill EIS, Hiawatha EIS, NPL EIS, LaBarge Platform 

EIS, Continental Divide Creston EIS, and the new EIS for development in Converse County.

Comment ID: 581

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: As part of its planning criteria, the BLM also acknowledges that it will utilize the reasonably

foreseeable development scenarios ("RFD Scenario") developed for each of the relevant LUPs within the 

Planning Area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 1-19. When discussing the RFD Scenario, the BLM must be 

aware, and carefully describe to the public, that the RFD Scenario is not a limit or threshold on future 

development. Rather, the RFD Scenario is a tool utilized by the BLM to estimate the potential impacts of 

oil and gas development. In order to prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language 

in the ROD and the Sage-Grouse DLUPA describing the purpose of the RFD Scenario and the fact that the 

RFD Scenario is not a planning decision or limitation on future oil and gas development. It is particularly 

important for the BLM to accurately describe that the RFD Scenario is not a limit on future oil and gas 

development within the Planning Area because it appears the RFD Scenario for the Planning Area is much 

too low. The BLM currently anticipates that as many as 12,355 wells could be drilled in the Planning Area 

during the next 20 years. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2- 190. Samson believes the BLM has significantly 

underestimated the oil and gas potential within the Planning Area, particularly given the number of wells 

proposed in existing EISs such as the Moxa Arch infill EIS, Hiawatha EIS, NPL EIS, LaBarge Platform 

EIS, Continental Divide Creston EIS, Moneta Divide EIS and the new EIS for development in Converse 

County.

Comment ID: 2165

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: When discussing the RFD Scenario, the BLM must be aware, and carefully describe to the 

public, that the RFD Scenario is not a limit or threshold on future development. Rather, the RFD Scenario 

is a tool utilized by the BLM to estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas development. The BLM’s

description of the RFD Scenario in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA will only exacerbate this confusion and may 

lead to additional litigation. The BLM must carefully explain to the public that the RFD Scenario is not a 

cap or limitation on future development in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. In the most recent published decision 

from the IBLA regarding the RFD Scenario, the IBLA unequivocally determined that the RFD Scenario is 

not, and cannot be used as, a limitation on future oil and gas development. In order to prevent future 

litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language in the ROD and the Sage-Grouse DLUPA describing 

the purpose of the RFD Scenario and the fact that the RFD Scenario is not a planning decision or limitation 

on future oil and gas development. It is particularly important for the BLM to accurately describe that the 

RFD Scenario is not a limit on future oil and gas development within the Planning Area because it appears 

the RFD Scenario for the Planning Area is much too low. The BLM currently anticipates that as many as 

12,355 wells could be drilled in the Planning Area during the next 20 years. Sage- Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-

190. Encana believes the BLM hassignificantly underestimated the oil and gas potential within the Planning 

Area, particularly given the number of wells proposed in existing EISs such as the Moxa Arch Infill EIS, 

Hiawatha EIS, NPL EIS, LaBarge Platform EIS, Continental Divide Creston EIS, and the new EIS for 

development in Converse County.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-722 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: When discussing the RFD Scenario, the BLM must be aware, and carefully describe to the 

public, that the RFD Scenario is not a limit or threshold on future development. Rather, the RFD Scenario 

is a tool utilized by the BLM to estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas development. In order to 

prevent future litigation and appeals, the BLM must include language describing the purpose of the RFD

Scenario and the fact that the RFD Scenario is not a planning decision or limitation on future oil and gas 

development. It is particularly important for the BLM to accurately describe that the RFD Scenario is not a 

limit on future oil and gas development within the Planning Area because it appears the RFD Scenario for 

the Planning Area is much too low. The BLM currently anticipates that as many as 12,355 wells could be 

drilled in the planning area during the next 20 years. BLM has significantly underestimated the oil and gas 

potential within the planning area, particularly given the number of wells proposed in existing EISs such as 

the Moxa Arch infill EIS, Hiawatha EIS, NPL EIS, LaBarge Platform EIS, Continental Divide Creston EIS, 

Moneta Divide EIS and a development in Converse County to develop up to 5,000 wells within the Casper 

Field Office. This one project alone exceeds the current RFD Scenario. Absent an updated RFD scenario, 

BLM cannot provide an accurate analysis regarding the impacts that would result by removing previously 

available lands from oil and gas leasing.

Response: The RFD was based on best available information and professional judgment. Many variable

circumstances could increase or decrease the level of drilling activity and associated surface disturbance 

acreage throughout the expected life of the LUP. If the projections in the RFD prove to be inaccurate, then 

BLM will evaluate the LUP when the well numbers or surface disturbances in the RFD are approached to 

determine if a plan amendment or revision is warranted.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Solid mineral leasing NSO options

Comment ID: 2030

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Name: Joy Bannon

Comment: Solid Leasable Minerals - Chapter 2, page 2-80 and 81, action #75 and 76: The preferred 

alternative (alt. E) subscribes to alternative D, which is alternative A with some additional language. WWF

recommends two additions to this action. These additions are imperative because if the land managers want 

to control disturbance they must control leasing. o Provide the BLM and the FS with discretion to sell a 

solid mineral lease under a no surface occupancy stipulation. o Provide the BLM and the FS with discretion 

to not sell a solid mineral lease if the 5% disturbance has been met and if other mineral leases (fluid or 

solid) exist in the 640 acre area. A condition of every federal lease through the BLM is to fulfill the monetary 

interest reasonably expected by the lessor. Thus, for a coal lease, the lessee is required to abide by "diligent

development" expectations. Therefore, if other leases exist (either solid or liquid) in a 640 acres and/or 5% 

of the acreage is disturbed or nearing disturbance, no additional leasing should be allowed.

Summary: Actions 75 and 76: The preferred alternative subscribes to Alternative D, which is Alternative 

A with some additional language. Two additions should be added to these actions to control disturbance

and leasing. • Provide the BLM and the Forest Service with discretion to sell a solid mineral lease under a 

NSO stipulation. • Provide the BLM and the Forest Service with discretion to not sell a solid mineral lease 

if the 5% disturbance has been met and if other mineral leases (fluid or solid) exist in the 640 acre area. A 

condition of every federal lease through the BLM is to fulfill the monetary interest reasonably expected by 

the lessor. Thus, for a coal lease, the lessee is required to abide by "diligent development" expectations. 

Therefore, if other leases exist (either solid or liquid) in a 640-acres or 5% of the acreage is disturbed or 

nearing disturbance, no additional leasing should be allowed.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-723

Response: The determination to offer solid minerals for lease is always at the discretion of the BLM 

Authorized Officer (AO). Forest Service officials consent to allowing leasing to occur on lands under their

jurisdiction, but do not lease minerals. The BLM considers the potential impacts associated with leasing 

and eventual mining through its NEPA analysis. For a surface mining operation, the NEPA analysis would 

e required to disclose when potential sage-grouse habitat would be removed by surface mining operations 

and discuss the impacts of this action. These impacts would drive the AO's decision whether or not to lease, 

but it would not be practicable to lease solid mineral resources for surface mining with an NSO requirement. 

When considering coal lease applications, it would not be practicable to include a requirement for no surface 

occupancy to a surface mining operation, that is why the application of unsuitability criteria # 15 becomes 

important. It is assumed that the majority of surface coal mining operations will extract resources from the 

entire area. It is not reasonable to assume you can conduct surface mining operations when the authorizing 

lease contains an NSO stipulation. NEPA requires agencies to consider a range of "reasonable" alternatives 

when conducting analyses. If the area for which a lease is applied is for is located in high priority sagegrouse

habitat and after consultation with the state it is determine mining would have a deleterious impact to sagegrouse, it may be decided, prior to the investing of monetary resources involved with offering and selling 

a federal coal lease, that it is in the public interest not to lease to operators proposing to mine by surface 

methods.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Support for Alternative B

Comment ID: 378

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: We support the provision to close Core Areas to fluid minerals development to future oil and 

gas leasing as under Alternative B. It is manifestly obvious that the threat of development (and habitat and 

population impacts for sage grouse) is much higher where the fluid mineral potential is moderate or higher, 

which occurs in areas already heavily leased, which makes Conditions of Approval on existing leases 

essential. The Preferred Alternative applies inadequate 0.6-mile NSO stipulations to existing leases, leaving 

already leased sage grouse habitats – the areas at most immediate risk for oil and gas development – exposed 

to the threats posed by energy production. The “mitigation hierarchy” strategy in the Preferred Alternative 

(DEIS at 2-135) is so infused with agency discretion and lack of measurable standards that its certainty of 

application and sciencebased effectiveness can never be demonstrated. The idea of “net unmitigated loss” 

relies on the idea that known loss of habitat effectiveness can somehow be compensated somewhere else, 

through mitigation efforts.

Summary: Alternative B should be implemented because of the provision to close core areas to future oil 

and gas leasing. The threat of development (and habitat and population impacts for sage-grouse) is much

higher where the fluid mineral potential is moderate or high. This occurs in areas already heavily leased, 

which makes COAs on existing leases essential. The Preferred Alternative applies inadequate 0.6-mile NSO 

stipulations to existing leases, leaving already leased sage-grouse habitats – the areas at most immediate 

risk for oil and gas development – exposed to the threats posed by energy production. The “mitigation 

hierarchy” strategy in the Preferred Alternative is so infused with agency discretion and lack of measurable 

standards that its certainty of application and science-based effectiveness can never be demonstrated. The 

idea of “net unmitigated loss” relies on the idea that known loss of habitat effectiveness can somehow be 

compensated somewhere else through mitigation efforts.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-724 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: Your support of Alternative B has been noted. The BLM and the Forest Service considered a

reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with 

NEPA. While there are many possible alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater SageGrouse in the planning area, the BLM and the Forest Service fully considered the planning issues and 

criteria developed during the scoping process to determine a reasonable range of alternatives. As a result, 

five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS that best addressed the 

issues and concerns identified by the affected public. The BLM and Forest Service will consider the entire 

range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision when the land use planning process 

is completed.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Support for Alternative E

Comment ID: 757

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E with respect to fluid mineral leasing.

Comment ID: 816

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: With the modifications discussed herein and those incorporated by reference, Devon supports

Alternative E because it most closely honors Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and a 

more balanced approach to sage-grouse protection and multiple use of the public land. Devon is particularly 

concerned about the onerous restrictions imposed on oil and gas development under Alternative B and 

Alternative C and strongly urges the BLM not to adopt either alternative.

Comment ID: 1132

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: With some modifications, Anschutz supports Alternative E because it most closely honors 

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and a more balanced approach to sage-grouse 

protection and multiple use of the public land. Anschutz is particularly concerned about the onerous 

restrictions imposed on oil and gas development under Alternative B and Alternative C and strongly urges 

the BLM not to adopt either alternative.

Comment ID: 721

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: With modifications, Devon supports Alternative E because it most closely honors Wyoming

Executive Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and takes a more balanced approach to sage-grouse protection 

and multiple use of public lands. Devon opposes Alternative B and Alternative C because they place far 

too many onerous and unreasonable restrictions on future oil and gas development.

Comment ID: 1785
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-725

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E with modifications. Such an 

alternative represents a more reasonable and balanced approach that promotes oil and gas development,

respects existing lease rights, provides adequate flexibility for future site-specific planning decisions, and 

recognizes the limitations of the agency’s authority and expertise.

Comment ID: 1734

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: With some modifications, ConocoPhillips supports Alternative E because it most closely honors

Wyoming Executive Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and a more balanced approach to sage-grouse

protection and multiple use of the public land.

Comment ID: 1485

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG supports the BLM‘s decision to allow oil and gas leasing under Alternative E. EOG 

believes oil and gas leasing and development can take place while still protecting GRSG habitat and 

populations. EOG encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E with respect to fluid mineral leasing.

Comment ID: 1755

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips supports the BLM’s decision to allow oil and gas leasing under Alternative E.

ConocoPhillips believes oil and gas leasing and development can take place while still protecting 

sagegrouse habitat and populations. ConocoPhillips encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E with

respect to fluid mineral leasing.

Comment ID: 545

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: With some modifications, Samson supports Alternative E because it honors Wyoming Executive

Order 2011-005 (June 2, 2011) and a more balanced approach to sage-grouse protection and multiple usc 

of the public land. Samson is particularly concerned about the onerous restrictions imposed on oil and gas 

development under Alternative B and Alternative C and strongly urges the BLM not to adopt either 

alternative. As the BLM is aware, portions of the Planning Area have significant potential for oil and gas

development. Sage-Grouse DLUPA. § 3.8.1. The BLM should not unreasonably restrict access to this

important source of domestic energy. Samson opposes Alternative B and Alternative C because they place 

far too many onerous and unreasonable restrictions on future oil and gas development. Alternative B closes 

6,809,508 acres to oil and gas leasing, and Alternative C closes a staggering 16,878,220 acres to oil and gas 

leasing. Sage-Grouse DLUPA. pg. 2-195. Additionally, the BLM proposes far too many onerous 

restrictions on future oil and gas development under Alternative B and Alternative C in particular.

Comment ID: 1832

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-726 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: We generally support Alternative E, with our recommended changes, as it most closely mirrors 

the EO which provides a more balanced approach to sage-grouse protection and multiple use of the public 

land.

Comment ID: 1163

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz supports the BLM’s decision to allow oil and gas leasing under Alternative E. 

Anschutz believes oil and gas leasing and development can take place while still protecting sage-grouse 

habitat and populations. Anschutz encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E with respect to fluid mineral

leasing.

Comment ID: 2195

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana supports the BLM’s decision to allow oil and gas leasing under Alternative E. Encana 

believes oil and gas leasing and development can take place while still protecting sagegrouse habitat and

populations. Encana encourages the BLM to adopt Alternative E with respect to fluid mineral leasing.

Comment ID: 2172

Organization: The Nature Conservancy

Name: Graham McGaffin

Comment: The Conservancy is supportive of BLM and USFS developing mitigation plans that are 

compatible with the Wyoming Executive Order. As a result, the Conservancy supports mitigating 

disturbance in excess of 5% within sage-grouse core habitat, as proposed under the preferred alternative for 

existing roads, realignments and potential new construction solely where disturbance cannot be capped due

to unavoidable impacts such as preexisting rights.

Summary: The BLM should adopt Alternative E with respect to fluid mineral leasing. Fluid mineral leasing 

and development can take place while still protecting sage-grouse habitat and populations. Alternative E

represents a more reasonable and balanced approach that promotes oil and gas development, respects 

existing lease rights, provides adequate flexibility for future site-specific planning decisions, and recognizes 

the limitations of the agency’s authority and expertise. The BLM is right to develop mitigation plans that 

are compatible with the Wyoming Executive Order, mitigating disturbance in excess of 5% within sagegrouse core habitat, as proposed under the Preferred Alternative for existing roads, realignments and 

potential new construction solely where disturbance cannot be capped due to unavoidable impacts such as 

preexisting rights.

Response: Your support of Alternative E has been noted. The BLM and the Forest Service considered a

reasonable range of alternatives during the Greater Sage-Grouse planning process in full compliance with 

NEPA. While there are many possible alternatives or actions to manage public lands and Greater SageGrouse in the planning area, the BLM and the Forest Service fully considered the planning issues and 

criteria developed during the scoping process to determine a reasonable range of alternatives. As a result, 

five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft LUP Amendment/Draft EIS that best addressed the 

issues and concerns identified by the affected public. The BLM and Forest Service will consider the entire 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-727

range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision when the land use planning process 

is completed.

Leasable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Unhappy with checkerboard leasing alternatives

Comment ID: 1482

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is very concerned about the BLM‘s proposed management for oil and gas leasing within 

the checkerboard portion of Wyoming under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

2- 63, Action No. 60. As the BLM is aware, the vast majority of the so-called checkerboard lands within

Wyoming have high potential for oil and gas development. Allowing these areas only to be leased after a 

plan amendment unreasonably restricts the BLM‘s management options within these areas. Further, the 

delays associated with securing a plan amendment prior to leasing will make it virtually impossible for the 

BLM to lease these lands in a timely manner. Given the checkerboard ownership, there is a significant risk 

federal lands could be drained by development on off-setting private acres. The BLM should reconsider the 

leasing limitations under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Comment ID: 1162

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is concerned about the BLM’s proposed management for oil and gas leasing within 

the checkerboard portion of Wyoming under Alternative B and Alternative C. Further, the delays associated 

with securing a plan amendment prior to leasing will make it virtually impossible for the BLM to lease 

these lands in a timely manner. Given the checkerboard ownership, there is a significant risk federal lands 

could be drained by development on off-setting private acres. The BLM should reconsider the leasing 

limitations under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Comment ID: 1754

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is concerned about the BLM’s proposed management for oil and gas leasing 

within the checkerboard portion of Wyoming under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA,

pg. 2-63, Action No. 60. As the BLM is aware, the vast majority of the so-called checkerboard lands within 

Wyoming have high potential for oil and gas development. Allowing these areas only to be leased after a 

plan amendment unreasonably restricts the BLM’s management options within these areas. Further, the 

delays associated with securing a plan amendment prior to leasing will make it virtually impossible for the 

BLM to lease these lands in a timely manner. Given the checkerboard ownership, there is a significant risk 

federal lands could be drained by development on off-setting private acres. The BLM should reconsider the 

leasing limitations under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Comment ID: 604

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-728 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Samson is very concerned about the BLM's proposed management for oil and gas leasing within 

the checkerboard portion of Wyoming under Alternative B and Alternative C. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

2- 63, Action No. 60. As the BLM is aware, the vast majority of the so-called checkerboard lands within

Wyoming have high potential for oil and gas development. Allowing these areas only to be leased after a 

plan amendment unreasonably restricts the BLM's management options within these areas. Further, the 

delays associated with securing a plan amendment prior to leasing will make it virtually impossible for the 

BLM to lease these lands in a timely manner. Given the checkerboard ownership, there is a significant risk 

federal lands could be drained by development on off-setting private acres. The BLM should reconsider the 

leasing limitations under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Comment ID: 2891

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: On page 2-96, Action 88 ... And on page 2-99, Action 89: These proposed management actions 

do not consider the checkerboard land pattern and the difficulties and hardships this may place on

landowners traversing mixed private/public land ownership. In the checkerboard, crossing public lands is 

almost always required to access private lands. By restricting road development and maintenance on public 

lands in core habitat, BLM is restricting road development and maintenance on private lands. This appears 

to be an unreasonable restriction on private property rights. BLM needs to provide for flexibility to address 

the unique issues that arise with the checkerboard land ownership pattern.

Comment ID: 2193

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is very concerned about the BLM’s proposed management for oil and gas leasing within 

the checkerboard portion of Wyoming under Alternative B and Alternative C. Allowing these areas only to 

be leased after a plan amendment unreasonably restricts the BLM’s management options within these areas. 

Further, the delays associated with securing a plan amendment prior to leasing will make it virtually 

impossible for the BLM to lease these lands in a timely manner. Given the checkerboard ownership, there 

is a significant risk federal lands could be drained by development on off-setting private acres. The BLM 

should reconsider the leasing limitations under Alternative B and Alternative C.

Summary: BLM’s proposed management for oil and gas leasing within the checkerboard portion of 

Wyoming under Alternatives B and C is cause for concern. Allowing these areas only to be leased after a 

plan amendment unreasonably restricts the BLM’s management options within these areas. Further, the

delays associated with securing a plan amendment prior to leasing will make it virtually impossible for the 

BLM to lease these lands in a timely manner. Given the checkerboard ownership, there is a significant risk 

federal lands could be drained by development on off-setting private acres. The BLM should reconsider the 

leasing limitations under Alternatives B and C. Actions 88 and 89: These proposed management actions do 

not consider the checkerboard land pattern and the difficulties and hardships this may place on landowners 

traversing mixed private/public land ownership. In the checkerboard, crossing public lands is almost always 

required to access private lands. By restricting road development and maintenance on public lands in core

habitat, BLM is restricting road development and maintenance on private lands. This appears to be an 

unreasonable restriction on private property rights. BLM needs to provide for flexibility to address the 

unique issues that arise with the checkerboard land ownership pattern.

Response: Impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse from all resource activities were adequately considered in 

Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS discusses the linkage of public and private lands and the potential 

for increased disturbance on private lands, particularly in "checkerboard" areas. The alternatives propose 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-729

varying avoidance distances for new road construction and allowances for road upgrades. BLM is required 

to analyze a range of alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, each 

alternative complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science. BLM and Forest 

Service will consider the entire range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision 

when the land use planning process is completed.

Leasable Minerals

Reclamation

Lessees not responsible to reclaim roads not part of their project

Comment ID: 2729

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: B-2 Text: Where existing leases or right-of-ways (ROWs) have had some level of development 

(road, fence, well, etc.) and are no longer in use, reclaim the site by removing these features and restoring

the habitat. Comment: It appears that BLM would suggest new lessees are responsible for reclaiming roads, 

fences, or wells that were not part of their project. BLM must state that reclaiming these features should be 

taken only on a voluntary basis by project proponents. Moreover, On split estate lands where the surface is 

owned by private landowners, BLM must defer decisions with regard to such things as what remains on the 

land (e.g. size of ponds) to those private landowners.

Summary: Page B-2: BLM is suggesting new lessees are responsible for reclaiming roads, fences, or wells 

that were not part of their project. BLM must state that reclaiming these features should be taken only on a 

voluntary basis by project proponents. Moreover, on split estate lands where the surface is owned by private 

landowners, BLM must defer decisions with regard to such things as what remains on the land (e.g. size of 

ponds) to those private landowners.

Response: The agencies are not implying that new lessees will be responsible for reclamation not part of 

the new lease. The agencies do not have the authority to require reclamation outside of the new lease area. 

Additionally, reclamation on land where the agencies do not control the surface is between the surface 

owner and the mineral lessee.

Leasable Minerals

Reclamation

Reclamation of mined-out areas should be considered

Comment ID: 2435

Organization: Bridger Coal Company

Name: Norman E. Hargis

Comment: The role of reclamation of lands within or adjacent to core or significant habitat must be 

considered as coal mining operations add new reserves to replace mined-out areas in order to maintain

operation of existing infrastructure and long-standing supply agreements with the customers of the coal. 

Where a history of high quality reclamation of sagebrush habitat has been well established and documented, 

this must be considered in decisions relative to new coal leases and lease modifications.

Summary: The role of reclamation of lands within or adjacent to core habitat must be considered as coal 

mining operations add new reserves to replace mined-out areas in order to maintain operation of existing
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-730 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

infrastructure and long-standing supply agreements with the customers of the coal. Where a history of high 

quality reclamation of sagebrush habitat has been well established and documented, this must be considered 

in decisions relative to new coal leases and lease modifications.

Response: The applicable authority governing reclamation of coal mining activities is the Office of Surface

Mining. Individual States can assume primacy (with OSM oversight) over the regulation of surface coal 

mining and reclamation activities. In 1987 the State of Wyoming established this jurisdictional role by 

entering into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to regulate coal mining operations, 

including ensuring the lands are properly reclaimed. Mining and reclamation requirements were established 

in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1201). SMCRA requires 

identification of pre-mining land uses, collection of a wide range of detailed baseline studies, 

implementation of extensive reclamation and/or mitigation and monitoring during and after mining. In most 

cases, the permittee is required to return the lands to pre-mine uses. It is reasonable to assume the State of 

Wyoming in its permitting role will require high quality reclamation of sagebrush habitat consistent to premining levels.

Leasable Minerals

Reclamation

Reclamation plan needs to incorporate agency coordination

Comment ID: 1409

Organization: Cloud Peak Energy Resources

Name: Bob Green

Comment: Need for Interagency Collaboration on Reclamation Requirements The discussions in Appendix 

C, Section C.2.6., are highly prescriptive as to reclamation requirements and criteria, but the document does 

not address the need for interagency collaboration where applicable leasing processes precede applicable 

Federal-State permitting processes. These discussions need to outline that for those leases requiring 

subsequent permitting that the final reclamation requirements will be determined based on BLM/USFS 

collaboration with the permitting agencies to avoid the potential for any lease stipulation conflicts with 

permit requirements.

Comment ID: 1436

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-1. The appendix states, "Reclamation plans will be 

developed on a project specific basis," and "Reclamation plans should provide objectives and approved

procedures to facilitate monitoring and compliance evaluations." We recommend that the BLM also accept 

the use of other agency approved reclamation plans that serve the same purpose. For example, the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division already requires approved reclamation plans 

and those plans should be adequate in lieu of separate plans.

Summary: The discussions in Appendix C, Section C.2.6., are highly prescriptive as to reclamation 

requirements and criteria, but the document does not address the need for interagency collaboration where

applicable leasing processes precede applicable federal-state permitting processes. These discussions need 

to outline that for those leases requiring subsequent permitting that the final reclamation requirements will 

be determined based on BLM/Forest Service collaboration with the permitting agencies to avoid the 

potential for any lease stipulation conflicts with permit requirements. Also, BLM should use other agency 

approved reclamation plans that serve the same purpose. For example, the Wyoming Department of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-731

Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division already requires approved reclamation plans and those plans 

should be adequate.

Response: Section C.2.5, Reclamation Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Habitat, states "The 

land management agencies will encourage cooperative agreements between the agencies, proponent project 

proponents, and interested proponents so as to ensure the success of habitat reclamation." Section C.2.4, 

Reclamation Plan Requirements/Minimum Standards, states "Reclamation plans should incorporate the 

standards set forth in Wyoming BLM Reclamation Policy as described in IM WY-2009-022..." BLM's 

Wyoming Reclamation Policy (most recently re-released under WY IM 2012- 032) acknowledges the 

existence of other statutes and laws regulating reclamation from development activities (e.g. Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977) and states "where these Reclamation Requirements differ 

from other applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations, those requirements supersede this policy. State 

and/or local statutes or regulations may also apply."

Leasable Minerals

Reclamation

Reclamation should be conducted with operator cooperation

Comment ID: 2437

Organization: Bridger Coal Company

Name: Norman E. Hargis

Comment: Specific practices to implement federal and state standards for reclamation of mined lands to

suitable sage grouse habitat should also be worked out between the mining operation and local BLM staff 

and State Regulatory Authority staff. In this way, mine plans and reclamation practices will be tailored to 

the local sage grouse population and habitat needs. Surface and underground coal mines, such as Bridger 

Coal Company, regulated under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and the 

Wyoming State Regulatory Authority, granted primacy under the federal act, have long been required 

through their mine permits to meet reclamation standards that would return mined lands back to habitat that 

is suitable for sage grouse when that is part of the land use. Annual monitoring of the sage grouse population 

has also been required via lek attendance counts.

Summary: Specific practices to implement federal and state standards for reclamation of mined lands to

suitable sage-grouse habitat should also be worked out between the mining operation and local BLM staff 

and State Regulatory Authority staff. In this way, mine plans and reclamation practices will be tailored to 

the local sage-grouse population and habitat needs. Surface and underground coal mines regulated under 

the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and the Wyoming State Regulatory Authority, 

granted primacy under the federal act, have long been required through their mine permits to meet 

reclamation standards that would return mined lands back to habitat that is suitable for sage-grouse when 

that is part of the land use. Annual monitoring of the sage-grouse population has also been required via lek 

attendance counts.

Response: We agree, reclamation of coal mining activities is the responsibility of the State of Wyoming, 

with input from the BLM where we are surface landowners. BLM does not have any regulatory authority

to approve reclamation plans involving federally leased coal, but we agree with your assessment that the 

State of Wyoming will require mining activities to be reclaimed to habitats suitable for sagegrouse where 

that was the original use.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-732 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Leasable Minerals

Reclamation

Reclamation standards should only apply to core habitat

Comment ID: 3007

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association

Name: Marion Loomis

Comment: Appendix C, Section C.2.4 (Reclamation Plan Requirements/Minimum Standards) incorporates 

by reference IM WY-2009-022 and the corresponding Forest Service Manual/Handbook and indicates "In 

the future, this will be supported with more detailed guidance such as new reclamation bond standards, a 

statewide monitoring and reporting strategy, and sample templates for both reclamation and non-native and 

invasive species management plans." This discussion should include a statement that this future guidance 

will be applicable only to core area reclamation, similar to the scope of the current Appendix C, and will 

be subject to public review and comment processes separate from the actions addressed by this DEIS. In 

addition, it is strongly recommended that if these new strategies are considered, they should be coordinated 

and integrated into existing programs within the state. For example, there is currently an effective 

reclamation bonding program, and a very extensive and well-practiced monitoring and reporting system for 

all mining interests through the Land Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality. 

Duplication of this effort is not needed.

Summary: Appendix C, Section C.2.4, incorporates by reference IM WY-2009-022 and the corresponding 

Forest Service Manual/Handbook and indicates "In the future, this will be supported with more detailed

guidance such as new reclamation bond standards, a statewide monitoring and reporting strategy, and 

sample templates for both reclamation and non-native and invasive species management plans." This 

discussion should include a statement that this future guidance will be applicable only to core area 

reclamation, similar to the scope of the current Appendix C, and will be subject to public review and 

comment processes separate from the actions addressed by this Draft EIS. In addition, it is strongly 

recommended that if these new strategies are considered, they should be coordinated and integrated into 

existing programs within the state. For example, there is currently an effective reclamation bonding 

program, and a very extensive and well-practiced monitoring and reporting system for all mining interests 

through the Land Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality. Duplication of this effort 

is not needed.

Response: The agencies require reclamation for all minerals activities, regardless of the location. 

Reclamation is not limited to core or connectivity habitat, however, as stated in Management Action 99,

"reclamation in core and connectivity areas will be consistent with the Wyoming reclamation Policy and 

Appendix C." If more detailed guidance for reclamation is added to the agency Manuals and Handbooks 

(FSH), the agencies will follow appropriate procedures to involve and/or inform the public of these changes.

Leasable Minerals

Required Design Features

Opposition or changes to RDFs

Comment ID: 444

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-733

Comment: Taking the approach that the application of RDFs will be evaluated on a “site-specific basis” 

and will only apply when “reasonable” makes sense and is appropriate. In addition to eliminating or

modifying RDFs to establish consistency with EO 2011-5, Yates requests BLM adopt limitations to the

application of RDFs similar to the Lander Proposed RMP/EIS to establish consistency across BLM Field

Offices.

Comment ID: 593

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: In Table 2.1 the BLM explains that certain site-specific mitigation measures may be imposed 

under all alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-15, Action No. 10. Samson is opposed to the imposition 

of the RDFs contained in Appendix B in a planning level document. The BLM must clarify the extent to

which the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize that 

oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. Any attempts to modify existing rights could 

violate the terms of Samson's contracts with the BLM and the BLM's own policies.

Comment ID: 744

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM must revise the mandatory language in Table 2.1 to be consistent with the statements

in Appendix 6 recognizing that RDFs are not mandatory and may not be appropriate in all circumstances. 

Moreover, the BLM must clarify the extent to which the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on 

existing leases. The RDFs must also be consistent with existing lease terms.

Comment ID: 1221

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is opposed to the RDFs affecting fluid minerals in Appendix B. It would be impossible 

for an oil and gas operator to technologically or economically utilize all of the proposed RDFs prescribed 

in this section. The BLM should make these suggested, not required, design features or, at a minimum,

provide for exceptions. Anschutz is also very concerned that the RDFs will be imposed on both existing 

and new oil and gas development projects and leases within the Planning Area. The BLM needs to 

specifically modify Appendix B to indicate that it does not and cannot impact existing leases.The BLM has 

not adequately explained how the proposed RDFs contained in Appendix B will be applied to existing 

leases. Anschutz does appreciate, however, the BLM’s recognition that all RDFs may not be appropriate 

for every circumstance.

Comment ID: 724

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon is very concerned the BLM’s development of Required Design Features ("RDF") will be

imposed on all future projects under most of the action alternatives. Imposing site-specific COAs in a land 

use plan is fundamentally in contrast to federal court precedent and BLM policies. Devon appreciates that 

BLM has recognized that not all RDFs are appropriate in every circumstance, as discussed in more detail 

later. The BLM should reconsider identifying RDFs in a land use plan.

Comment ID: 1151
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-734 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: In Table 2.1 the BLM explains that certain site-specific mitigation measures may be imposed 

under all alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-15, Action No. 10. Anschutz is opposed to the imposition 

of the RDFs contained in Appendix B in a planning level document. The BLM must clarify the extent to

which the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize that 

oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. The RDFs must also be consistent with 

existing lease terms.

Comment ID: 683

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Appendix B - Required Design Features It would be impossible for an oil and gas operator to 

technologically or economically utilize all of the proposed RDFs prescribed in this section. The BLM 

should make these suggested, not required, design features or, at a minimum, provide for exceptions. 

Samson is also very concerned that the RDFs will be imposed on both existing and new oil and gas 

development projects and leases within the Planning Area. The BLM needs to specifically modify Appendix 

B to indicate that it does not and cannot impact existing leases. The BLM has not adequately explained how 

the proposed RDFs contained in Appendix B will be applied to existing leases. Samson does appreciate, 

however, the BLM's recognition that all RDFs may not be appropriate for every circumstance. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, Appd. B, pg. B-1. The BLM should not unreasonably constrain future development actions 

through the use of RDFs. As already noted in these comments, LUPs are not ordinarily used to make site 

specific decisions or impose specific COAs.

Comment ID: 445

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: The Lander Proposed RMP/EIS, Appendix H, includes a number of RDFs under the category 

“Mineral Development” that contain language such as “if feasible”, “where feasible”, and “unless 

technically unfeasible”, which acknowledges consideration that not all measures will have blanket 

applicability in all cases and that feasibility is a valid concern. The Draft LUPA and EIS does not include 

such language, but mandates measures with no consideration of whether the practice is feasible based on

project-specific factors. Yates requests BLM include feasibility as a factor in applying RDFs

Comment ID: 1138

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Nonetheless, in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA, the BLM proposes several site-specific COAs 

contained in Appendix B that will be applied to all site-specific projects. The BLM should recognize the

contradiction in its decision making and remove any attempts to make site-specific decisions in the SageGrouse DLUPA. This error should be corrected.

Comment ID: 1574

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-735

Comment: EOG is opposed to the RDFs affecting fluid minerals in Appendix B. It would be impossible for 

an oil and gas operator to technologically or economically utilize all of the proposed RDFs prescribed in 

this section. The BLM should make these suggested, not required, design features or, at a minimum, provide 

for exceptions. EOG is also very concerned that the RDFs will be imposed on both existing and new oil

and gas development projects and leases within the Planning Area. The BLM needs to specifically modify 

Appendix B to indicate that it does not and cannot impact existing leases. The BLM has not adequately 

explained how the proposed RDFs contained in Appendix B will be applied to existing leases. The BLM 

must expressly recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified.EOG does 

appreciate, however, the BLM‘s recognition that all RDFs may not be appropriate for every circumstance. 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, Appd. B, pg. B-1. EOG believes it is very important for the BLM to maintain as 

much flexibility as possible with regard to future permitting actions. The BLM should not unreasonably 

constrain future development actions through the use of RDFs

Comment ID: 443

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Appendix B establishes several requirements (i.e. RDFs) for protection of GSG habitat that will 

apply to all oil and gas operations throughout the Plan Area and/or within priority GSG habitats to “ensure

regulatory certainty and the conservation of GSG.” Most of these RDFs are inconsistent with EO 2011- 5 

and are in addition to the GSG stipulations discussed above. Some RDFs are more problematic than others. 

RDFs that apply outside of GSG Core Population Areas are particularly concerning and unwarranted as 

incentives to enable development should be established in these areas rather that proposing additional 

restrictions. This includes mandatory BMPs that apply within “general GSG habitat” proposed on pg’s B8-

B9. As previously discussed, the GSG management strategy in EO 2011- 5 is a sound strategy to conserve 

GSG that has been endorsed by the USFWS and applied by BLM Wyoming. As such, application of the 

RDFs proposed in Appendix B that are inconsistent with EO 2011-5 is unwarranted and has not been 

justified by BLM. Yates requests BLM eliminate and/or modify RDFs proposed in Appendix B to establish 

consistency with EO 2011-5.

Comment ID: 1784

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is opposed to the RDFs affecting fluid minerals in Appendix B. It would be 

impossible for an oil and gas operator to technologically or economically utilize all of the proposed RDFs

prescribed in this section. The BLM should make these suggested, not required, design features or, at a 

minimum, provide for exceptions. ConocoPhillips is also very concerned that the RDFs will be imposed on 

both existing and new oil and gas development projects and leases within the Planning Area. The BLM 

needs to specifically modify Appendix B to indicate that it does not and cannot impact existing leases. The 

BLM has not adequately explained how the proposed RDFs contained in Appendix B will be applied to 

existing leases. The BLM must expressly recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be 

modified. ConocoPhillips does appreciate, however, the BLM’s recognition that all RDFs may not be 

appropriate for every circumstance. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, Appd. B, pg. B-1. ConocoPhillips believes it is 

very important for the BLM to maintain as much flexibility as possible with regard to future permitting 

actions. The BLM should not unreasonably constrain future development actions through the use of RDFs. 

As already noted in these comments, LUPs are not ordinarily used to make site specific decisions or impose 

specific COAs.

Comment ID: 1459

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-736 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: In Table 2.1 the BLM explains that certain site-specific mitigation measures may be imposed 

under all alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-15, Action No. 10. EOG is opposed to the imposition of 

the RDFs contained in Appendix B in a planning level document. The BLM must clarify the extent to which

the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on existing leases. The BLM must recognize that oil and 

gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. The RDFs must also be consistent with existing lease 

terms. As a federal lessee, EOG has a legal right to occupy the surface to explore for, produce, and develop 

oil and gas resources on its leases.

Comment ID: 576

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: many of the RDF and Best Management Practices ("BMP") recommended by the NTT fail to 

recognize valid existing rights and/or fail to reflect the complexity of oil and gas exploration and 

development as evidenced by its attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all management approach that disregards

topography, local conditions, and practicality. We recommend that the agencies revisit its design features 

and mitigation, which are based in the NTT report, to ensure they are technically feasible and appropriate 

and that they maintain the level of flexibility required when their use may be properly considered on a sitespecific basis. Moreover, in accordance with current law and regulation, it is inappropriate for the DLUPA 

to establish these overly site-specific requirements at a programmatic level as proposed regardless of their 

source

Comment ID: 442

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: The mandatory application of RDFs as currently proposed under the Draft LUPA and EIS does 

not provide BLM or operators with this flexibility. For some proposed projects it will not be necessary

and/or feasible to apply some of the RDFs. As such, the RDFs currently proposed under Alternative B will 

create unjustified operational burdens and restrictions. Yates urges BLM modify Appendix B such that all 

management practices retained are treated and applied as optional BMPs that an operator may choose to 

apply on a case-by-case basis as deemed warranted and feasible.

Comment ID: 1747

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: In Table 2.1 the BLM explains that certain site-specific mitigation measures may be imposed 

under all alternatives. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-15, Action No. 10. ConocoPhillips is opposed to the

imposition of the RDFs contained in Appendix B in a planning level document. The BLM must clarify the 

extent to which the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on existing leases. The BLM must

recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. The RDFs must also be

consistent with existing lease terms. As a federal lessee, ConocoPhillips has a legal right to occupy the

surface to explore for, produce, and develop oil and gas resources on its leases.

Comment ID: 441

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-737

Comment: In addition to Yates’ comments on Appendix B, Required Design Features, that follow, Yates 

supports and endorses the Petroleum Association of Wyoming’s (PAW) comments on Appendix B and 

specific comments on each RDF. The overarching concept of RDFs as well as the application of several of 

the specific RDFs are unreasonable as proposed and should be eliminated or modified as suggested (see

PAW comments on Appendix B).

Comment ID: 2594

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: The use of RDFs in core habitat and non-core habitat areas is needlessly restrictive, scientifically

unfounded, and inconsistent with the EO. Furthermore, requiring RDFs as mandatory Conditions of

Approval (COAs) on already existing leases could potentially violate the terms of these leases and would 

require negotiations with current leaseholders. More importantly, there is no documentation available to 

show that any of the RDFs have been proven effective over time. Through the NEP A process, operators 

are already required to implement site-specific best management practices (BMPs). While some RDFs may 

be proven effective in certain instances, the blanket requirement fails to recognize valid existing rights and 

may require RDFs in situations that are not technically feasible, economic, or appropriate given the 

topography, local conditions, and practicality. The use of RDFs in non-core habitat is especially 

troublesome. The EO's intent is to encourage oil and gas development in non-core habitat and the EO 

repeatedly stresses the importance of respecting and recognizing existing land uses. QEP suggests that the 

BLM make the RDFs "preferred" or "suggested" management practices in core habitat areas rather than 

required and continue to encourage BMPs in non-core habitat areas.

Comment ID: 2296

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the RDFs affecting fluid minerals in Appendix B. It would be impossible 

for an oil and gas operator to technologically or economically utilize all of the proposed RDFs prescribed 

in this section. The BLM should make these suggested, not required, design features or, at a minimum,

provide for exceptions. Encana is also very concerned that the RDFs will be imposed on both existing and 

new oil and gas development projects and leases within the Planning Area. The BLM needs to specifically 

modify Appendix B to indicate that it does not and cannot impact existing leases. The BLM has not 

adequately explained how the proposed RDFs contained in Appendix B will be applied to existing leases. 

The BLM must expressly recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. The 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA also cannot defeat or materially restrain Encana’s valid and existing rights to develop 

its leases through COAs, or other means. Encana believes it is very important for the BLM to maintain as 

much flexibility as possible with regard to future permitting actions. The BLM should not unreasonably 

constrain future development actions through the use of RDFs. As already noted in these comments, LUPs 

are not ordinarily used to make site specific decisions or impose specific COAs.

Comment ID: 2186

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is opposed to the imposition of the RDFs contained in Appendix B in a planning level

document. The BLM must clarify the extent to which the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on 

existing leases. The BLM must recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. 

The RDFs must also be consistent with existing lease terms. As a federal lessee, Encana has a legal right to 

occupy the surface to explore for, produce, and develop oil and gas resources on its leases. The Sage-Grouse 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-738 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

DLUPA also cannot defeat or materially restrain Encana’s valid and existing rights to develop its leases 

through COAs, or other means.

Summary: The RDFs proposed in Appendix B should not be considered in a planning level document. It 

would be impossible for an oil and gas operator to technologically or economically utilize all of the 

proposed RDFs. The BLM should make RDFs suggested, not required, design features or, at a minimum, 

provide for exceptions. Most of the RDFs are inconsistent with EO 2011-5. BLM should eliminate or 

modify RDFs to establish consistency with EO 2011-5 and adopt limitations to the application of RDFs 

similar to the Lander Proposed RMP/EIS to establish consistency across BLM Field Offices. The BLM 

must clarify the extent to which the so-called RDFs will be applied to operations on existing leases. Use

language such as “if feasible,” “where feasible,” and “unless technically unfeasible,” which acknowledges 

consideration that not all measures will have blanket applicability in all cases and that feasibility is a valid 

concern. The BLM must recognize that oil and gas leases are existing rights that cannot be modified. The 

RDFs must also be consistent with existing lease terms. BLM should take the approach that the application 

of RDFs will be evaluated on a “site-specific basis” and will only apply when “reasonable.” The BLM 

needs to specifically modify Appendix B to indicate that it does not and cannot impact existing leases.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service complied with NEPA by including a discussion of measures 

that may mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft

EIS. See 40 CFR 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h). The BLM and the Forest Service must include mitigation 

measures in an EIS pursuant to NEPA; yet the BLM and the Forest Service have full discretion in selecting 

which mitigation measures are most appropriate, including which forms of mitigation are inappropriate. 

Additionally, site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions will be addressed when 

project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28). In addition, 

as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the NEPA process for any 

site-specific actions. RDFs included in the Draft EIS are based on best management practices included in 

the NTT report and are based on the best available science at the time of publication. RDFs are BMPs;

BLM describes BMPs as “state-of-the- art mitigation measures”. The aim of BMPs is to protect wildlife, 

air quality, landscapes, and other natural resources. BMPs tend to be general principles for resource 

protection and are not in themselves regulatory in nature. BLM’s policy is that all “Field Offices consider 

BMPs in NEPA documents to mitigate anticipated impacts to surface and subsurface resources. BMPs are 

not “one size fits all.” In accordance with Appendix B, the actual practices and mitigation measures best 

for a particular site are evaluated through the NEPA process and vary to accommodate unique, site-specific 

conditions and local resource conditions.

Leasable Minerals

Valid Existing Rights

Alternatives infringe on valid existing rights

Comment ID: 1511

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay EOG‘s ability to develop its leases, the 

BLM‘s proposal under Alternatives B and C in particular, but also Alternative E, may constitute a taking 

in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that 

unconstitutionally takes EOG‘s property and contract rights.

Comment ID: 414

Organization: Yates Petroleum
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-739

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Retroactively applying GSG stipulations to existing leases as permit COAs would be an 

unauthorized and illegal violation of the lessee’s valid existing rights if/when such COAs limit the lessee’s 

ability to fully exercise existing lease rights (e.g. oil and gas production). As such, Yates requests BLM 

refrain from using permit COAs to retroactively enforce GSG stipulations on existing leases that are

inconsistent with existing lease stipulations. It is necessary that BLM fully support valid existing lease

rights.

Comment ID: 1508

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposed limitation on surface disturbing operations, 

fluid minerals under Alternatives B, and C, and to a lesser extent, E. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil

and gas lease without NSO stipulations and, in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition 

against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. Further, the BLM 

cannot deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly or indirectly. When it enacted 

FLPMA, Congress made it clear that nothing therein, or in the LUPs developed thereunder, was intended 

to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing property rights.

Comment ID: 582

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson is concerned the BLM failed to include recognition of valid existing rights among the 

planning criteria to be addressed. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 1-15 - 1-16. As explained earlier in these

comments, BLM cannot modify or limit valid existing rights through the land use planning process. The 

BLM should have specifically included the protection of valid existing rights among the planning criteria 

identified in section 1.8.

Comment ID: 1759

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay ConocoPhillips’ ability to develop its 

leases, the BLM’s proposal under Alternatives B and C in particular, but also Alternative E, may constitute 

a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Court of Claims has

recognized that a temporary taking occurs when the BLM prohibits oil and gas development on a lease for 

a substantial period of time.

Comment ID: 738

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM's description of the RFD Scenario in the SageGrouse DLUPA will only exacerbate 

this confusion and may lead to additional litigation. The BLM must carefully explain to the public that the 

RFD Scenario is not a cap or limitation on future development in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. It is particularly 

important for the BLM to accurately describe that the RFD Scenario is not a limit on future oil and gas 

development within the Planning Area because it appears the RFD Scenario for the Planning Area is much 

too low. The BLM currently anticipates that as many as 12,355 wells could be drilled in the Planning Area 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-740 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

during the next 20 years. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 2-190. Devon believes the BLM has significantly 

underestimated the oil and gas potential within the Planning Area, particularly given the number of welts 

proposed in existing EISs such as the Moxa Arch lnfill EIS, Hiawatha EIS, NPL EIS, LaBarge Platform 

EIS, Continental Divide Creston EIS, and the new EIS for development in Converse County. Devon is 

extremely concerned the BLM failed to include recognition of valid existing rights among the planning 

criteria to be addressed. Sage- Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 1-15 • 1-16. As explained earlier in these comments, 

BLM cannot modify or limit valid existing rights through the land use planning process. The BLM should 

have specifically included the protection of valid existing rights among the planning criteria identified in 

section 1.8.

Comment ID: 1780

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips applauds the BLM’s recognition that oil and gas leaseholders have the right to

explore, develop and produce mineral resources from any valid existing lease. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 

4-103. ConocoPhillips also supports the BLM’s statement that valid existing mineral leases cannot be 

amended by the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-103. ConocoPhillips also appreciates 

BLM’s acknowledgement that surface use restrictions, timing limitations, and controlled surface use 

stipulations cannot be retroactively applied to valid existing leases or valid existing use authorizations. 

Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-103. ConocoPhillips believes the BLM has significantly underestimated the 

potential impact the restrictions proposed under Alternative B and Alternative C would have on future oil 

and gas development. The BLM seems to suggest the many RDFs and other limitations on surface 

disturbing activities would only delay mineral development. In fact, the imposition of RDFs coupled with 

additional timing restrictions, surface occupancy restrictions and other mitigation measures would make it 

uneconomic for most oil and gas operators to develop oil and gas resources within sage-grouse habitat. It 

is inappropriate for the BLM to simply suggest that development may be delayed.

Comment ID: 401

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Yates urges the BLM to clearly state in the Final EIS and ROD that restrictions proposed in the

Preferred Alternative will not apply to lands already under oil and gas lease and will not infringe upon valid 

existing lease rights. Moreover, it must be made clear that the BLM has no authority to impose restrictions 

through Conditions of Approval (COA) on applications for permit to drill (APD) if they would abrogate 

the valid existing lease rights. Once a lease has been issued, stipulations may not be legally modified absent 

voluntary agreement by the lessee. Therefore, in accordance with 43 CFR 3101 and federal case law, we 

recommend that BLM clearly disclose its limited authority to add conditions of approval to a drilling permit 

(i.e. conditions must remain consistent with the terms of the issued lease).

Comment ID: 1742

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips is extremely concerned that the BLM failed to include recognition of valid 

existing rights among the planning criteria to be addressed. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 1-15 – 1-16. As

explained earlier in these comments, BLM cannot modify or limit valid existing rights through the land use 

planning process. The BLM should have specifically included the protection of valid existing rights among 

the planning criteria identified in section 1.8.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-741

Comment ID: 743

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon understands and supports the BLM's decision to find greater protection for the Greater 

Sage- Grouse through the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Devon believes, however, that the BLM should have

included the protection of valid existing rights as one of its management objectives common to all

alternatives.

Comment ID: 1452

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG understands and supports the BLM‘s decision to find greater protection for the GRSG 

through the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. EOG believes, however, that the BLM should have included the 

protection of valid existing rights as one of its management objectives common to all alternatives. As set 

forth in detail earlier in these comments, the authority conferred by FLMPA is made expressly subject to 

valid existing rights. The BLM has a duty and responsibility to recognize these rights whenever it

undertakes a new planning process. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA cannot defeat or materially restrain EOG‘s 

valid and existing rights to develop its leases through COAs, or other means. The BLM recently recognized 

the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the Pinedale RMP issued by the BLM in November of 2008. 

"Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights will be honored. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it 

constitutes a valid existing right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease . . . 

. Surface use and timing restrictions from this RMP cannot be applied to existing leases." Pinedale RMP, 

pg. 2- 19.Similar language exists in the December 2008 Rawlins RMP. Rawlins RMP, pg. 20. EOG 

encourages the BLM to include similar language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 568

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Samson recognizes that the BLM is attempting to develop appropriate and long-term mitigation

measures in order to prevent a potential listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse. Although Samson fully supports 

the BLM's purpose, the BLM should include within its overall purpose the need to protect valid and existing 

rights including lease rights.

Comment ID: 761

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay Devon's ability to develop its leases, the

BLM's proposal under Alternatives B and C in particular, but also Alternative E, may constitute a taking in 

Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, any alternative that would 

substantially modify Devon's lease rights could subject the BLM to rescission and restitution claims.

Comment ID: 1830

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: We support BLM’s recognition of valid existing lease rights. According to the FLPMA, the 

Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and BLM's Planning 1600 Handbook, BLM does not have the authority to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-742 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impose new stipulations on leases after they have been issued. Nor does BLM have authority to impose

mitigation measures, such as Conditions of Approval (COA), that exceed the terms and conditions of

previously issued leases. It must be made clear that BLM has no authority to impose these new restrictions 

through COAs on applications for permit to drill (APD) if they would abrogate the valid existing lease 

rights.

Comment ID: 561

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: BLM should state clearly that an oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government 

and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. Although the BLM may revise the existing 

LUPs for the Planning Area, the BLM-and the public-should be reminded that the BLM cannot unilaterally 

alter or modify the terms of existing leases.

Comment ID: 560

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. The BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook specifically recognizes that existing rights must be 

honored. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, III.A.3, pg. 19 (Rel. 1-1693 3/11/05). The BLM 

must comply with its planning handbook and recognize existing rights. Any attempts to modify existing

rights could violate the terms of Samson's contracts with the BLM and the BLM's own policies.

Comment ID: 1464

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The Sage-Grouse DLUPA also cannot defeat or materially restrain EOG‘s valid and existing 

rights to develop its leases through COAs, or other means. Further, the Secretary of the Interior and the

federal courts have interpreted the phrase "valid existing rights" to mean that BLM cannot impose

stipulations or COAs that make development on existing leases either uneconomic or unprofitable.

Comment ID: 400

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: As the lease is issued “granting the exclusive right to drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose”

these minerals, preventing offset drainage and protection of correlative rights is a fundamental right

established in the lease. Infringement upon this valid existing lease right raises concerns with offset

drainage and protection of correlative rights if offsetting acreage is in a better position to drain the subject 

lease due to lease restrictions. This is a strong possibility if the stipulations described above are 

implemented. The BLM must not adopt lease restrictions that infringe upon this right.

Comment ID: 1147

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz believes, however, that the BLM should have included the protection of valid existing 

rights as one of its management objectives common to all alternatives.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-743

Comment ID: 1248

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. Further, the BLM cannot deprive EOG of its valid and existing lease rights either directly or 

indirectly. When it enacted FLPMA, Congress made it clear that nothing therein, or in the LUPs developed

thereunder, was intended to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing property rights. Similarly, the 

BLM cannot impose COAs or other restrictions to interfere with EOG‘s existing lease rights. In the 

amended Sage-Grouse DLUPA , the BLM should also state clearly that an oil and gas lease is a contract 

between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. The BLM 

recently recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the Pinedale, Wyoming RMP issued 

by the BLM in November 2008. ―Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights will be honored. When 

an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms 

and conditions of the lease . . . Surface use and timing restrictions from this RMP cannot be applied to 

existing leases.‖ Pinedale RMP, pg. 2‐ 19. Similar language exists in the December 2008 Rawlins, 

Wyoming RMP. Rawlins RMP, pg. 20. EOG encourages the BLM to include similar language in the 

amended Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 1746

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips understands and supports the BLM’s decision to find greater protection for the

Greater Sage-Grouse through the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. ConocoPhillips believes, however, that the BLM 

should have included the protection of valid existing rights as one of its management objectives common 

to all alternatives. As set forth in detail earlier in these comments, the authority conferred by FLMPA is 

made expressly subject to valid existing rights. The BLM has a duty and responsibility to recognize these 

rights whenever it undertakes a new planning process.

Comment ID: 2540

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor

Comment: For most of the Alternatives addressed in Section 4.8 (Minerals and Energy) there are specific

discussions recognizing valid existing rights. That is not the case for the discussions in Subsection 4.8.7 

(Alternative E). While the assumptions listed in Subsection 4.1.3 imply that implementation actions would 

comply with valid existing rights, Subsection 4.8.7 needs to specifically state that all valid existing rights 

will be recognized and respected, relative to potential implementation of any new restrictions or stipulations 

related to the Nine-Plan Amendments.

Comment ID: 1134

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. Further, the BLM cannot deprive Anschutz of its valid and existing lease rights, either directly or

indirectly. The BLM must acknowledge that when it revises the Sage-Grouse DLUPA it is not working

from a blank slate. Rather, many of the decisions made by the BLM in its existing RMP will, necessarily, 

impact and limit its options in the current RMP amendment. The BLM must carefully review and 

understand the limited nature of some of its options during this revision process. Similarly, the BLM cannot 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-744 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impose COAs or other restrictions to interfere with Anschutz’s existing lease rights. In the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA and accompanying environmental impact statement (“EIS”), the BLM should state clearly that an 

oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain 

rights thereunder. The BLM recently recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the 

Pinedale, Wyoming RMP issued by the BLM in November 2008. “Existing oil and gas or other mineral 

lease rights will be honored. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; BLM 

cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease . . . Surface use and timing restrictions from 

this RMP cannot be applied to existing leases.” Pinedale RMP, pg. 2-19. Similar language exists in the 

December 2008 Rawlins, Wyoming RMP. Rawlins RMP, pg. 20. Anschutz encourages the BLM to include 

similar language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 1135

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Although Anschutz fully supports the BLM’s purpose, the BLM should include within its overall

purpose the need to protect valid and existing rights including lease rights.

Comment ID: 1537

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is strenuously opposed to the BLM‘s proposed limitation on surface disturbing operations, 

fluid minerals under Alternative B and Alternative C. The BLM does not have the authority to impose such

strict surface disturbing restrictions on existing leases under existing IBLA case law. EOG appreciates the 

BLM is trying to authorize some level of development on leases if they are fully encompassed by priority 

habitat but such minimum protections are wholly insufficient and do not appropriately honor EOG‘s 

existing lease rights under Alternative B and Alternative C. Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably 

delay EOG‘s ability to develop its leases, the BLM‘s proposal under Alternative B and Alternative C may 

constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The BLM must not adopt 

an alternative that unconstitutionally takes EOG‘s property and contract rights.

Comment ID: 610

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay Samson's ability to develop its leases, the 

BLM's proposal under Alternatives B and C in particular, but also Alternative E, may constitute a taking in

violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that 

unconstitutionally takes Samson's property and contract rights.

Comment ID: 1864

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Action Number 17, Page 2-17: While we appreciate that the agencies will work with proponents

holding valid existing leases, we remind BLM/FS that where valid existing lease rights exist, changes must 

be voluntary and COAs that go beyond the terms of the lease must be negotiated with the lessee because 

the agencies have no authority to require measures that exceed existing lease terms.

Comment ID: 728
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-745

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. Further, the BLM cannot deprive Devon of its valid and existing tease rights either directly or

indirectly. As explained throughout these comments, the BLM cannot limit, restrain, or unreasonably

interfere with existing tights. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA, when revised, cannot defeat or materially restrain 

Devon's valid and existing rights to develop its leases through COAs or other means. Similarly, the BLM 

cannot impose COAs or other restrictions to interfere with Devon's existing lease rights. In the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA and accompanying environmental impact statement ("EIS"), the BLM should state clearly that an 

oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain 

rights thereunder. The BLM recently recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the 

Pinedale, Wyoming RMP issued by the BLM in November 2008. Devon encourages the BLM to include 

similar language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 592

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Section 2.5.4 - Management Objectives Common to All Action Alternatives Samson believes, 

however, that the BLM should have included the protection of valid existing rights as one of its management 

objectives common to all alternatives. The BLM recently recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease 

rights in the Pinedale RMP issued by the BLM in November of 2008. "Existing oil and gas or other mineral 

lease rights will be honored. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; BLM 

cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease . . .. Surface use and timing restrictions 

from this RMP cannot be applied to existing leases." Pinedale RMP, pg. 2-19. Similar language exists in 

the December 2008 Rawlins RMP. Rawlins RMP, pg. 20. Samson encourages the BLM to include similar 

language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 1281

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG is extremely concerned the BLM failed to include recognition of valid existing rights 

among the planning criteria to be addressed. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 1-15 – 1-16. As explained earlier 

in these comments, BLM cannot modify or limit valid existing rights through the land use planning process.

The BLM should have specifically included the protection of valid existing rights among the planning

criteria identified in section 1.8.

Comment ID: 1139

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz is extremely concerned the BLM failed to include recognition of valid existing rights 

among the planning criteria to be addressed. The BLM should have specifically included the protection of

valid existing rights among the planning criteria identified in section 1.8.

Comment ID: 1738

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-746 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Although ConocoPhillips fully supports the BLM’s purpose, the BLM should include within its 

overall purpose the need to protect valid and existing rights including lease rights.

Comment ID: 1737

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook specifically recognizes that existing rights must be 

honored. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, III.A.3, pg. 19 (Rel. 1-1693 3/11/05). The BLM 

must comply with its planning handbook and recognize existing rights. The BLM must acknowledge that

when it revises the Sage-Grouse DLUPA it is not working from a blank slate. Rather, many of the decisions 

made by the BLM in its existing RMP will, necessarily, impact and limit its options in the current RMP 

amendment. The BLM must carefully review and understand the limited nature of some of its options during 

this revision process. As explained throughout these comments, the BLM cannot limit, restrain, or 

unreasonably interfere with existing rights. Similarly, the BLM cannot impose COAs or other restrictions 

to interfere with ConocoPhillips’ existing lease rights. In the Sage-Grouse DLUPA and accompanying 

environmental impact statement (“EIS”), the BLM should state clearly that an oil and gas lease is a contract 

between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. The BLM 

recently recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the Pinedale, Wyoming RMP issued 

by the BLM in November 2008. “Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights will be honored. When 

an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms 

and conditions of the lease . . . Surface use and timing restrictions from this RMP cannot be applied to 

existing leases.” Pinedale RMP, pg. 2-19. Similar language exists in the December 2008 Rawlins, Wyoming 

RMP. Rawlins RMP, pg. 20. ConocoPhillips encourages the BLM to include similar language in the SageGrouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 1267

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG recognizes that the BLM is attempting to develop appropriate and long-term mitigation

measures in order to prevent a potential listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse. Although EOG fully supports 

the BLM‘s purpose, the BLM should include within its overall purpose the need to protect valid and existing 

rights including lease rights. As described in detail throughout these comments, the BLM cannot limit, 

modify, or alter EOG‘s existing lease rights.

Comment ID: 2002

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: 4.14 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES, Page 4-242 We support BLM’s recognition of valid existing 

lease rights. According to FLPMA, the MLA and BLM's Planning 1600 Handbook, BLM does not have 

the authority to impose new stipulations on leases after they have been issued. Nor does BLM have authority 

to impose mitigation measures, such as COAs, that exceed the terms and conditions of previously issued 

leases. It must be made clear that BLM has no authority to impose these new restrictions through COAs on 

APDs if they would abrogate the valid existing lease rights.

Comment ID: 594

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-747

Comment: The RDFs must also be consistent with existing lease terms. As a federal lessee, Samson has a 

legal right to occupy the surface to explore for, produce, and develop oil and gas resources on its leases.

See Pennaco Energy v. United States Dept. of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1160 (1Oth Cir. 2004); 43 C.F.R. 

§ 3101.1-2. Courts have recognized that once the BLM has issued an oil and gas lease conveying the right 

to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later impose unreasonable mitigation measures that 

take away those rights. The BLM should also recall that oil and gas lessees have not just the right, but the 

obligation, to develop their lease. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA also cannot defeat or materially restrain 

Samson's valid and existing rights to develop its leases through COAs, or other means. The BLM often 

cites a relatively recent decision from the IBLA for the proposition that the agency can impose COAs on 

existing leases. Yates Petroleum Corp., 176 IBLA 144 (2008). The Yates decision does not stand for the 

proposition that BLM can impose COAs whenever it deems necessary or in broad programmatic documents 

such as the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Rather, in Yates, the IBLA merely affirmed the imposition of an 

additional COA based on site-specific information including recent and directly applicable scientific 

research.

Comment ID: 731

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Although Devon fully supports the BLM's purpose, the BLM should include within its overall 

purpose the need to protect valid and existing rights including lease rights.

Comment ID: 1170

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay Anschutz’s ability to develop its leases, 

the BLM’s proposal under Alternatives B and C in particular, but also Alternative E, may constitute a taking 

in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that 

unconstitutionally takes Anschutz’s property and contract rights.

Comment ID: 399

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: US DOI BLM oil and gas leases generally grant the exclusive right to extract all of the oil and 

gas in the lands described. Under GSG habitat management decisions and stipulations proposed under

Alternatives B, C and E, this is impossible. Such restrictions and stipulations in the Draft LUPA and EIS

are not contemplated in the lease and are thus inconsistent with lease rights granted. These stipulations are 

an illegal infringement upon Yates, and other operators, valid existing lease rights in the Plan Area.

Comment ID: 2142

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA. The BLM must acknowledge that when it revises the Sage-Grouse DLUPA it is not working from 

a blank slate. Rather, many of the decisions made by the BLM in its existing DLUPA will, necessarily,

impact and limit its options in the current RMP amendment. The BLM must carefully review and

understand the limited nature of some of its options during this revision process. As explained throughout 

these comments, the BLM cannot limit, restrain, or unreasonably interfere with existing rights. The Sage-
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-748 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Grouse DLUPA, when revised, cannot defeat or materially restrain Encana’s valid and existing rights to 

develop its leases through COAs or other means. The BLM often cites a relatively recent decision from the 

IBLA for the proposition that the agency can impose COAs on existing leases. The Yates decision does not 

stand for the proposition that BLM can impose COAs whenever it deems necessary or in broad 

programmatic documents such as the Buffalo RMP. Rather, in Yates, the IBLA merely affirmed the 

imposition of an additional COA based on site-specific information including recent and directly applicable 

scientific research. In the Sage-Grouse DLUPA and accompanying environmental impact statement (EIS), 

the BLM should state clearly that an oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government and the 

lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. The BLM recently recognized the nature of existing 

oil and gas lease rights in the Pinedale, Wyoming RMP issued by the BLM in November 2008. Encana 

encourages the BLM to include similar language in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA.

Comment ID: 2155

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Although Encana fully supports the BLM’s purpose, the BLM should include within its overall 

purpose the need to protect valid and existing rights including lease rights.

Comment ID: 2185

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana understands and supports the BLM’s decision to find greater protection for the Greater 

Sage- Grouse through the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. Encana believes, however, that the BLM should have

included the protection of valid existing rights as one of its management objectives common to all

alternatives. The Sage-Grouse DLUPA cannot defeat or materially restrain Encana’s valid and existing

rights to develop its leases through COAs, or other means.

Comment ID: 2166

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana is extremely concerned the BLM failed to include recognition of valid existing rights 

among the planning criteria to be addressed. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 1-15 – 1-16. As explained earlier 

in these comments, BLM cannot modify or limit valid existing rights through the land use planning process. 

The BLM should have specifically included the protection of valid existing rights among the planning 

criteria identified in section 1.8.

Comment ID: 2221

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Finally, should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay Encana’s ability to develop its leases, the 

BLM’s proposal under Alternatives B and C in particular, but also Alternative E, may constitute a taking 

in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that 

unconstitutionally takes Encana’s property and contract rights.

Comment ID: 2631

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-749

Comment: Pg 4-103 Text: A valid, existing mineral lease is a legally issued lease secured by a leaseholder 

before the effective date of the record of decision (ROD) for the RMPs/LRMPs being amended by this plan.

Comment: This language should be amended to read: A valid, existing mineral lease is a legally issued 

lease secured by a leaseholder pursuant to the terms and obligations of the RMP under which the lease was 

issued. DELETE "before the effective date of the record of decision (ROD) for the RMPs/LRMPs being 

amended by this plan." This assumption does not take into account the valid existing rights that were created 

after the ROD was signed but before the amendment to the plan. Leases issued under the RMP are valid 

existing rights and cannot be altered pursuant to this action without constituting a taking under both state

and federal law.

Comment ID: 2598

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 1-15, Planning Criteria: QEP asks the BLM to reiterate that existing project-specific

authorizations (e.g., PAPA ROD) would not be modified in order to conform with any new LUP

requirements mandated in new decisions required by this LUP planning process.

Comment ID: 3025

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Section 1.8, page 1-15, numbered list: An additional criterion is desired that indicates existing 

projectspecific authorizations (e.g., PAPA ROD) would not be modified to conform to any new LUP

requirements mandated in new decisions required by this LUP planning process.

Summary: The BLM does not adequately or sufficiently protect valid existing rights in the Sage-Grouse 

Draft LUP Amendments. When it enacted FLPMA, Congress made it clear that nothing therein, or in the 

LUPs developed thereunder, was intended to terminate, modify, or alter any valid or existing property

rights. The BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook specifically recognizes that existing rights must be

honored. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, III.A.3, pg. 19. The BLM must comply with its

planning handbook and recognize existing rights. BLM should state clearly that an oil and gas lease is a 

contract between the federal government and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder. 

BLM should have included the protection of valid existing rights as one of its management objectives 

common to all alternatives. Although the BLM may revise the existing LUPs for the planning area, the 

BLM and the public should be reminded that the BLM cannot unilaterally alter or modify the terms of 

existing leases. Where valid existing lease rights exist, changes must be voluntary and COAs that go beyond 

the terms of the lease must be negotiated with the lessee because the agencies have no authority to require 

measures that exceed existing lease terms. The BLM does not have the authority to require operators to 

relinquish leases or to cancel existing leases. Should the BLM deny or unreasonably delay the ability to 

develop leases, this would constitute a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The BLM recently recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the Pinedale RMP issued by 

the BLM in November of 2008. "Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights will be honored. When 

an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid existing right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms 

and conditions of the lease . . .. Surface use and timing restrictions from this RMP cannot be applied to 

existing leases." Similar language exists in the December 2008 Rawlins RMP and should be included in the 

Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments. Federal lessees have a legal right to occupy the surface to explore 

for, produce, and develop oil and gas resources on their leases. See Pennaco Energy v. United States Dept. 

of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147, 1160; 43 C.F.R. § 3101.1-2. Courts have recognized that once the BLM has 

issued an oil and gas lease conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM cannot later 

impose unreasonable mitigation measures that take away those rights. The BLM should also recall that oil
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-750 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and gas lessees have not just the right, but the obligation, to develop their lease. The BLM often cites a 

relatively recent decision from the IBLA for the proposition that the agency can impose COAs on existing 

leases. Yates Petroleum Corp., 176 IBLA 144. The Yates decision does not stand for the proposition that 

BLM can impose COAs whenever it deems necessary or in broad programmatic documents such as the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUP Amendments. Rather, in Yates, the IBLA merely affirmed the imposition 

of an additional COA based on site-specific information including recent and directly applicable scientific 

research. Specific changes to the document regarding this issue include: Page 2-17, Action 17: Where valid 

existing lease rights exist, changes must be voluntary and COAs that go beyond the terms of the lease must 

be negotiated with the lessee because the agencies have no authority to require measures that exceed 

existing lease terms. In Chapter 1, BLM needs to reiterate that existing project-specific authorizations 

would not be modified in order to conform with any new LUP requirements. Page 4-103: “A valid, existing 

mineral lease is a legally issued lease secured by a leaseholder before the effective date of the record of 

decision (ROD) for the RMPs/LRMPs being amended by this plan.” This language should be amended to 

read “A valid, existing mineral lease is a legally issued lease secured by a leaseholder pursuant to the terms 

and obligations of the RMP under which the lease was issued.” DELETE "before the effective date of the 

record of decision (ROD) for the RMPs/LRMPs being amended by this plan." This assumption does not 

take into account the valid existing rights that were created after the ROD was signed but before the 

amendment to the plan. Leases issued under the RMP are valid existing rights and cannot be altered pursuant 

to this action without constituting a taking under both state and federal law. Section 4.8: There are specific 

discussions recognizing valid existing rights in all of the subsections of 4.8 except subsection 4.8.7 

(Alternative E). While the assumptions listed in Subsection 4.1.3 imply that implementation actions would 

comply with valid existing rights, Subsection 4.8.7 needs to specifically state that all valid existing rights 

will be recognized and respected, relative to potential implementation of any new restrictions or stipulations 

related to the LUP Amendments.

Response: Valid existing rights are discussed in sections 1.7.1, Issues Addressed, and in several locations

throughout Chapter 4. As stated in Section 4.8.2, Assumptions, “Leaseholders have the right to explore, 

develop, and produce mineral resources from any valid, existing lease, even if the area containing the lease 

were proposed to be closed to future leasing.” In the Detailed Comparison of Alternatives (Section 2.6), the 

BLM further clarifies this by stating that “Many sage-grouse seasonal habitats within and outside of core 

habitat areas are encumbered by valid existing rights, such as mineral leases or existing rights-of-way. Fluid 

mineral leases often will include less stringent lease stipulations than the timing, distance, and density 

requirements identified for consideration in this plan.” When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a 

valid existing right; the BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease. Existing 

leases would not be affected by new closures and/or areas administratively unavailable for lease, and 

restrictions could not be added to existing leases. Surface use and timing restrictions resulting from this 

RMPA cannot be applied to existing leases. Surface disturbance that is the result of the exercise of valid 

existing rights will not be precluded because of the cap or density restriction, but will be counted by the 

BLM toward the cap and the density restriction when BLM is considering whether to authorize new 

discretionary surface development. Other aspects of the plan, such as RDFs and buffer distances, will be 

applied to existing rights to the extent they do not interfere with those rights. The BLM will also seek to 

engage with authorized users of the public lands so that the exercise of valid existing rights occurs while

providing for the maximum conservation of the species. Existing leases would not be terminated until the 

lease expires. However, based on site- or project-specific environmental analysis, conditions of approval 

(COA) could be applied at the APD and Sundry Notice stage and at subsequent development stages to 

mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas operations within existing lease areas, providing the 

leaseholder’s right to develop the lease remains intact. Appendix B of the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS contains required design features (RDFs) that could be applied as COA 

at the APD and Sundry Notice stages for existing leases. The RDFs are designed to protect Greater SageGrouse habitat. The use and application of specific RDFs would be made during the environmental analysis 

process for individual proposals on a case-by-case basis.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-751

Livestock Grazing

Add terms to the Glossary

Comment ID: 1494

Organization: Larson Livestock, Inc.

Name: Carl Larson

Comment: Terminology used in your SGLUPA & EIS documents – The Governor of the state of Wyoming 

issued Executive Order 2011-5, which replaced executive order 2010-4, and will be effective until August 

18, 2015. This Executive Order is titled, “GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CORE AREA PROTECTION” and 

is the driving force for the amendments to the Forest Service and BLM Land Use Plans plus the EIS being

developed. We have seen where the BLM has used terminology from the Executive Order which may be 

construed in different ways to adversely affect legitimate uses of the federal lands from that which was 

intended. Some examples of these are as follows: • “Surface disturbance” • “Surface occupancy” • 

“Disruptive activities” In the Carter Lease Allotment Permit Renewal EA, the above terms were used and 

created a lot of confusion. It was apparent that these terms could be construed to mean something other 

than what was intended. For example, “Surface Occupancy” could be construed to apply to livestock 

grazing on the lands in the allotment, as they were occupying the surface. We talked about defining these

terms but later decided to leave these terms out of the EA and refer to specifics such as not placing a sheep 

camp on or near a Sage-Grouse lek site during the breeding season or in heavy sage brush sites, depicted 

on a map, during the winter. If these terms are to be used in the SGLUPA & EIS documents, they need to 

be very specifically defined. (The definitions for surface disturbance and surface occupancy in the Glossary 

are probably satisfactory but could use the qualifier such as, “this term does not apply to livestock grazing”). 

The definition for “Disruptive Activity” in the Glossary is not satisfactory. Some of our “Interested Publics” 

could make a case that this would prevent any livestock grazing within a certain area. The Executive Order 

specifically exempts livestock grazing and activities that were in existence prior to August 1, 2008, as 

explained below. On page 4-397, you state, “Managing the density of disturbance on the landscape inside 

sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat would increase impacts to livestock grazing within the planning 

area long-term, compared to Alternative B. A limit of one disruptive activity locations per 640 acres within

the project impact analysis area could occur...”. What does this say? These terms appear in the Executive 

Order in relationship to the oil & gas and mining industries, for the most part. In addition, according to the 

Executive Order in item number 1, on page 2, it states, “Existing land uses within Core Population Areas 

should be recognized and respected by state agencies. It is assumed that activities existing in Core 

Population Areas prior to August 1, 2008 will not be managed under Core Population Area stipulations. 

Examples of existing activities include oil and gas, mining, agriculture, processing facilities, housing and 

other uses that were in place prior to the development of the Core Population Areas (prior to August 1, 

2008).” Under Item Number 9 is stated, “Existing rights should be recognized and respected.” We also 

direct you attention to Attachment C of the Executive Order – “Exempt (“de minimus”) Activities”. 

“Existing Land Uses and Landowner Activities in Greater Sage-Grouse Core Population Areas That Do 

Not Require State Agency Review for Consistency with Executive Order No. 2011-02” For example, 

Attachment C of the Executive Order lists several items, items 1 through 13 that are exempt activities. Some 

of these are: 1. Existing animal husbandry practices (including branding, docking, herding, trailing, etc.)

2. Existing farming practices (excluding conversion of sagebrush/grassland to agricultural lands) 3.

Existing grazing operations that utilize recognized rangeland management practices (allotment

management plans, NRCS grazing plans, prescribed grazing plans, etc.) 4. Construction of agricultural 

reservoirs and habitat improvements... Accordingly, we request a disclaimer be required in the SGLUPA 

& EIS documents that these terms do not apply to on-going multiple use activities such as livestock grazing, 

that the Governor’s Executive Order exempts from the restrictions in the Executive Order or activities 

existing prior to August 1, 2008. What is apparent in the Draft Land Use Plan Amendments and EIS, is that 

the BLM and the FS are greatly expanding the land use restrictions from those envisioned in the “Greater 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-752 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection” concept of Wyoming Governor Matthew H. Mead’s Executive Order 

No. 2011-5 We oppose this effort of expanding the land use restrictions, as proposed by the BLM and the 

FS.

Summary: The BLM has used terminology from the Executive Order which may be construed in different 

ways to adversely affect legitimate uses of the federal lands from that which was intended. Some examples 

of these terms are: surface disturbance, surface occupancy, disruptive activities. If these terms are to be 

used in the Draft EIS, they need to be very specifically defined. The definitions for surface disturbance and 

surface occupancy in the Glossary are probably satisfactory but could use the qualifier such as, “this term 

does not apply to livestock grazing”. The definition for “disruptive activity” in the Glossary is not 

satisfactory. Some of our “interested publics” could make a case that this would prevent any livestock 

grazing within a certain area. Accordingly, we request a disclaimer be required in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS documents that these terms do not apply to on-going multiple use activities such as 

livestock grazing, that the Governor’s Executive Order exempts from the restrictions in the Executive Order 

or activities existing prior to August 1, 2008.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service spent considerable time and effort developing these definitions. 

Even if certain activities are exempted from state scrutiny by the Executive Order, the federal agencies still

have a responsibility to reveal and analyze impacts to sage-grouse. The definitions are lengthy and detailed, 

and are sufficient for the purpose of the LUP Amendments.

Livestock Grazing

Correct inaccurate statements in the Draft EIS

Comment ID: 1976

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. G-115, - With respect to the narrative under “causal factors” for the Rock Springs Allotment, 

we comment that “land ownership” is NOT a causal factor for not meeting a BLM “health” Standard. We

comment that this item be removed from this document.

Comment ID: 992

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Throughout the Draft LUP Amendment and DEIS livestock grazing is listed as a threat to 

sagebrush habitat (i.e., p. 1-14). Proper livestock grazing is not a threat to GSG or its habitats. I request the 

BLM and USFS remove any reference or insinuation that livestock grazing is a threat and replace it with a

proper notation that improper grazing management may pose a threat. I am concerned that some of the 

information presented in the Draft LUP Amendment and DEIS about individual grazing leases is incorrect. 

Because of the sensitivity of this information and the impact it can have on public land ranchers I request 

that the BLM and USFS review its list of allotments failing to meet standards and guidelines for accuracy 

and make appropriate corrections. In addition, where appropriate, Wyoming's strategy should include 

reference to EO 2013-3.

Comment ID: 1950

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-753

Comment: Pg. 2-49, under Alternative A – the narrative conveys some language as representing no change 

to the current situation. The narrative under Alternative A, the no-action/current situation, conveys that 

water developments and other range improvements are considered for approval by the BLM ONLY, ( my

emphasis ), if wildlife habitat and resource conditions are maintained or improved and no significant or 

irreversible effects would occur in sensitive areas, ( we presume this means grouse sensitive areas ? ). We 

have reviewed the latest Rawlins, Rock Springs, Pinedale and Kemmerer LUP’s and we can not find in 

these LUP’s the same restrictions on range improvements conveyed in this draft under Alternative A, pg. 

2-49. Please convey in the Final the actual language that represents the “no change” to the current 

management found in these current BLM LUP’s on this subject. The language under Alternative A with 

respect to range improvements may technically be an appropriate proposal for Alternative E, the Preferred 

Alternative. But we do not feel it represents the “no-action” situation in current LUP’s.

Comment ID: 1949

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Under Alternative E, pg. 2-44, we have a comment on the narrative at the bottom of column E. 

It says, “ Plans should establish policy for addressing ongoing drought and post-drought recovery. Our

comment is: ( Land Use ) Plans don’t set policy – Policy determines what is in a LUP. The narrative is just 

backwards.

Comment ID: 2889

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Section 3.7 on Livestock Grazing contains a number of statements supporting the beneficial 

aspects of livestock grazing over the plan area. These statements however seem to get lost in other sections

of the document which lead to a confusing mix of statements. We support and believe livestock grazing is 

an important and beneficial use of the areas addressed in the document.

Comment ID: 2820

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page x of the Executive Summary: the document discusses livestock grazing as a threat to 

sagegrouse, yet the Governor's Executive Order specifically addresses livestock grazing as a de minimis

activity on sage-grouse. Given the role the EO has played and the close coordination between the State and 

USFWS on this item, it would appear that the Agencies are ignoring the recognition by FWS of grazing 

impacts to sage-grouse. We recommend that this section of the draft LUPA and EIS be amended to 

accurately reflect current actions.

Summary: Issue #1: The Executive Summary discusses livestock grazing as a threat to sage-grouse; yet 

the Governor's Executive Order specifically addresses livestock grazing as a de minimis activity on 

sagegrouse. Given the role the EO has played and the close coordination between the state and USFWS on 

this item, it would appear that the agencies are ignoring the recognition by the USFWS of grazing impacts 

to sage-grouse. We recommend that this section of the Draft EIS be amended to accurately reflect current 

actions. Issue #2: Pg. G-115: With respect to the narrative under “causal factors” for the Rock Springs

Allotment, we comment that “land ownership” is not a causal factor for not meeting a BLM land health 

standards, and should be removed from this document. Issue #3: Pg. 2-44, Alternative E: It states “Plans 

should establish policy for addressing ongoing drought and post-drought recovery. Comment: Plans don’t 

set policy. Policy determines what is in a Land Use Plan. The narrative is incorrectly stated. Issue #4: 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-754 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Throughout the Draft EIS, livestock grazing is listed as a threat to sagebrush habitat (i.e., Pg. 1-14). Proper 

livestock grazing is not a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse or its habitats. The BLM and Forest Service should 

remove any reference or insinuation that livestock grazing is a threat and replace it with a proper notation 

that improper grazing management may pose a threat. Issue #5: Pg. 2-49: Alternative A conveys that water 

developments and other range improvements are considered for approval by the BLM, only if wildlife 

habitat and resource conditions are maintained or improved and no significant or irreversible effects would 

occur in sensitive areas. We have reviewed the latest Rawlins, Rock Springs, Pinedale and Kemmerer RMPs 

and cannot find the same restrictions on range improvements conveyed in this draft under Alternative A. 

Please convey in the Final EIS the actual language that represents the “no change” to the current 

management found in these current BLM RMPs on this subject.

Response: Issue #1: Livestock grazing activities were identified by the USFWS as a threat to Greater SageGrouse in the March 2010 listing decision. This is reflected in the Purpose and Need statement included in 

Section 1.3 of the Draft EIS where it states “These plan amendments will focus on areas affected by threats 

to sage-grouse habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision.” The statements 

included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS regarding the threats to sage-grouse are accurate. Issue 

#2: Land ownership patterns within the allotment allow for land use activities that result in the allotment 

not meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health. The data and information presented in Appendix G is 

accurate. Issue #3: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been modified for accuracy. Issue #4: 

Livestock grazing activities were identified by the USFWS as a threat to Greater Sage- Grouse in the March 

2010 listing decision. This is reflected in the Purpose and Need statement included in Section 1.3 of the 

Draft EIS where it states “These plan amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to sage-grouse 

habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision.” The statements included in the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS regarding the threats to sage-grouse are accurate. Issue #5: The specific action 

cited in the comment pertains to the Rock Springs Field Office and is included in the Green River RMP. 

The statement included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS is accurate.

Livestock Grazing

Questions of clarification

Comment ID: 970

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: Another concern exist in the “Split-Estate” lands. Although the BLM has verbally stated to us 

that they will not manage “livestock grazing” on the deeded surface lands, the BLM continually discusses 

total management of the “federal mineral estate” throughout this large document. I do not believe that we 

can trust the Federal Agencies verbal statements. When push comes to shove, we ranchers who graze our 

livestock on BLM permits or Forest Service allotments, will have our AUMʼs severely reduced for the

benefit of the Greater Sage-grouse. The BLM will claim management of the surface estate that lies above 

the federal mineral estate in favor of the sage-grouse. Written clarity of this issue is needed in the EIS.

Comment ID: 1948

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 2-44, item 52 – Where are the narratives for BLM Districts other than Casper with respect 

to “trailing/crossing” ?

Comment ID: 1478

Organization:
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-755

Name: Denise Langley

Comment: Will the Forest Service (FS) follow the Wyoming Land Health Standards and bring up all their 

poor condition land caused by prairie dog encroachment to at least a fair rating?

Comment ID: 1951

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 2-55, item 54 – The narratives under item 54 speak only to Casper and Pinedale BLM offices.

Where are the narratives that propose trailing/crossing proposals/alternatives for Rawlins, Rock Springs, 

and Kemmerer BLM offices ? We support the narrative under Alternative E for item 55, pg. 2-55.

Comment ID: 1993

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences: the section on livestock grazing includes an 

“assumption” that livestock grazing is not a surface disturbing activity. This section proceeds to discuss 

“disruptive activity” restrictions on oil and gas development. It still leaves unanswered our question posed

above regarding whether livestock grazing could be determined to be a disruptive activity.

Comment ID: 1956

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 4-99, 4.7.7 – In the last sentence of paragraph 3 under Alternative E heading, please direct 

us to the “Post drought management impacts” this sentence says is in Alternative A. We’ve looked at

Alternative A and we can find no references to “post drought” management.

Comment ID: 1958

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 4-353 – In the first paragraph, the narrative conveys an intent to distribute livestock to “areas

more resistant” to grazing ?? Please convey what types of areas does this narrative consider to be “more 

resistant to grazing” and provide published literature from the range science community to support this 

opinion if it can be produced. In the second paragraph this page 4-353, please convey what do you mean 

with respect to “more stipulations” being added on water developments in Alternative E. We comment that 

LUP narratives should not attempt to convey a non-specific “general authority” to their employees.

Comment ID: 960

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: To further our argument on the possibility that “livestock grazing” may be considered a “surface 

disturbing activity”, let us go to pg 2 -191, in table 2 -7. Comparative Summary of Impacts, Cultural 

Resources, Alternative E “As with Alternative A, surface disturbance from oil and gas development, 

livestock grazing, recreational and travel management could potentially damage undiscovered or 

undocumented cultural sites” In this case, “Cultural Resources”, “livestock grazing” is considered a 

“Surface Disturbing Activity”. We know from experience that in the development of the the current 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-756 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Newcastle Resource Management Plan that the Newcastle Field Office was intent on having “livestock 

grazing” listed as a “surface disturbing activity” on both the federal surface and the “split-estate” surface 

within the vicinity of nesting Raptors. It was only through the efforts of the ranchers in Niobrara and Weston 

County that “livestock grazing” was removed as a surface disturbance from the RMP. The same efforts are

now being attempted in this document, these efforts are being cleverly disguised within the language of this 

document. Vegetation conditions, soil impacts, rangeland health are all ploys to have “livestock grazing” 

removed from within a two mile radius of active sage-grouse leks. If this were to happen here on the 4W 

Ranch, the adverse economic impact would be devastating, the historic 4W Ranch would go bankrupt. 

[Emphasis Added]

Comment ID: 1292

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Nowhere does the DRMPA/DEIS discuss changing the seasonality of grazing on BLM lands 

within the planning area, which prevents the reader from understanding how spring or spring-fall grazing

regimes could affect sage-grouse. In general, the DLUPA/DEIS has not taken a hard look at the details that 

hide the devil of declining sage-grouse populations in the project area.

Comment ID: 958

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: pg 2 - 209 Wildlife and Fisheries, Alternative E “Overall, impacts to wildlife and fish habitat 

from Alternative E would be very similar to Alternative A.” [From Alternative A “Continued livestock 

grazing practices could reach Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent.”] 

Back to Alternative E “Management for livestock grazing could allow for achievement of Wyoming 

Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide improved habitat for wildlife 

and fisheries.” As the 4W Ranch interprets this language, it becomes very clear that if an agency would

declare that the Rangeland Health does not meet Wyoming BLM or Forest Service standards in a particular 

allotment, then livestock grazing in that allotment must be reduced or ceased until health standards are 

achieved, especially if the allotment is in a sage-grouse core area.

Comment ID: 1357

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 49 is hard to understand as AOIs have nothing to do with evaluating progress towards

achieving the land health standards.

Comment ID: 1731

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-97 – Livestock Grazing – last paragraph, last sentence – No new structural range

improvements would occur under this alternative, which would decrease surface disturbing activities in the 

short-term, but could impact long-term livestock and resource management goals as operators would be 

prohibited from making future range improvements. Comment: Where did this sentence come from or relate 

to, as there is no similar action described in Chapter 2 under this alternative (D).

Comment ID: 1007
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-757

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Management Action 49 (p. 2-39 - 2-42) requires clarification. It states, " ... Annual Operating

Instructions would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards in sagegrouse core 

habitat areas ... "This statement should be removed because Annual Operating Instructions are not used to 

evaluate land health standards. They are used to help direct agreed upon management of the grazing 

operation for that year. In addition, similar to my comment above, if grazing is identified as the reason for 

not meeting GSG conservation objectives, then EO-20 13-3 will be implemented.

Comment ID: 1732

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-97 – Livestock Grazing – seventh paragraph – Treated areas would not be rested from 

grazing under this Alternative, thus short-term limitations in livestock management options would need to

be implemented as necessary. Temporary reductions of livestock grazing would not be realized compared 

to Alternative A. However, vegetation community and production recovery in treated areas may not be 

enhanced, thus potentially decreasing the post-treatment grazing capacity of treated lands in the long-term.

Comment: Where did this sentence come from, since it was not described in management actions in Chapter 

2 under this alternative, nor does it comply with current Wyoming policy regarding vegetation treatments.

Comment ID: 2849

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 53 in Table 2-1 addresses range development practices. In Alternative A in the Newcastle 

RMP the proposed action for Alternative A and E would be to remove fences that are documented to impact 

all wildlife. However, we question how that would help sage-grouse since some of these fences would be 

used to manage both wildlife and livestock which could benefit sage-grouse habitat, yet would be removed 

if it impacted antelope. We do not feel that is an appropriate action and should not be included in the the 

two alternatives.

Comment ID: 2472

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-335: Black Tailed Prairie Dog The last sentence of the first paragraph needs to be 

rewritten as it appears the USFS is suggesting that overgrazing by livestock is occurring on the TBNG, and 

that livestock can be heavily concentrated in areas prime for prairie dog expansion. We question why the

statement comparing livestock grazing to rangeland disruption is in the paragraph at all.

Comment ID: 2847

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 49 in Table 2-1 leaves the reader somewhat confused as to what the document wants to

address. Under Alternative A the various BLM RMPs talk of changes in types of livestock, changes in

season of use, and amounts of use depending upon which BLM district you read. We believe that some 

clarification is needed for the reader to adequately understand what the Agencies wish public comment 

upon. We recommend the Agencies adopt the process outlined in the Rawlins RMP under Alternative A as 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-758 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

a process for making changes for the adopted alternative. Item 50 in Table 2-1 appears to discuss the 

relinquishment or retirement of grazing permits. The two terms have different meanings and the developers 

of the two alternatives apparently tries to use them interchangeably. Page 181 of Chapter 4 discusses the 

challenges associated with both concepts and points out that relinquishment then allows the Agencies to 

offer those permits to other livestock producers. This seems to have not been recognized by the developers 

of these alternatives. Item 51 in Table 2-1 discusses under Alternatives B and C permanent retirement of 

grazing allotments. We strongly object to this action. The process can be "rigged" in favor of anti-grazing

advocates merely through the current process of appealing actions and driving up costs for the livestock 

permittee or leasee.

Comment ID: 2498

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-353 4.16.7 Alternative E: In the first paragraph " .. .500 feet to.6 miles of water sources 

... " does not make sense. And if we distribute livestock over a larger area how is the area more resistant to 

grazing? Please explain the term "resistant grazing". Can you please share the science that indicates trailing 

livestock in "sensitive areas" or during a specific "time period" is needed in a "trailing plan"?

Comment ID: 2465

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-94 Rangeland Management Categories- Suitable Rangeland Acres: Is there a reason why 

the history of planning documents is listed here? The first sentence is questionable when read with the

second sentence. It would appear that only the last sentence is needed.

Comment ID: 2913

Organization: Frank Ranches, Inc.

Name: Gary Frank

Comment: Why would the BLM consider cutting AUM's on livestock grazing when there aren't any studies 

that livestock grazing is detrimental to sage grouse? Livestock create biodiversity by providing an

opportunity for more insects (which the sage grouse feed on) and they keep grasses from getting old and 

unpalatable while supplying the opportunity for sought after new shoots along with available forbs. A 

herbaceous height analysis by the University of Nevada, Reno, says that data correlates nesting success 

more with forb presence than with grass height once there is a certain amount of cover and height of sage 

brush. I agree with that because the sage grouse need this for cover from ravens and other predators. 

Protection for hens and chicks are paramount and will secure survival of the grouse. The BLM is attempting 

to turn Connelly's recommendations for herbaceous height into minimum requirements for sage grouse 

which is dead wrong!

Comment ID: 2449

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-101 Vegetation Management: Actions 93 Alternative C- How can "no similar action" be 

used here? The alternative proposes to prohibit any livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat.

Comment ID: 2447

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-759

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-45 Range Development Projects, Action 53 does not make sense in Alternative C as the

previous actions (action 44) prohibited (emphasis added) livestock grazing thereby eliminating any range 

development projects. Page 2-54 Livestock Trailing: Same consideration as above.

Comment ID: 2491

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-228 4.12.7 Alternative E: In the first sentence what is meant by the term "Balancing 

grazing"? Are we discussing all types of grazing or livestock grazing?

Comment ID: 2826

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Page 13 of Chapter 1 discusses continuation and elimination of livestock grazing practices. 

There does not appear to be any identification of what those practices are that the Agencies may seek to

eliminate. Since many of the grazing practices are adopted over time as a practice dictated by economics, 

elimination of one, some or many may result in a significant impact to the operation. At the very least, those 

practices should be identified so agricultural producers would be able to comment on their possible 

elimination.

Comment ID: 3147

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 4.11.5 4‐ 196 1st, 3rd, 7th bullet, Who will pay for reclaiming travel routes, fencing, and water

developments? The BLM? Please provide explanation within document.

Comment ID: 2822

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Chapter 1 page 9 of the document contains a table (Table 1-2) which is identified as coming 

from the USFWS. In that table it identifies grazing as a threat to sage-grouse in the Powder River Basin,

Wyoming Basin, Laramie and North Park in Colorado. However, as we've mentioned previously

Wyoming's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) of which USFWS, BLM and USFS is a participant

helped develop an amendment to the Governor's EO (2013-3) which again determined that grazing has a 

de minimis impact on sage-grouse. With the apparent conflict between these two documents the reader is 

left questioning who is correct.

Comment ID: 2505

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-438 4.21.5 Alternative C: The all or nothing mentality of the fourth paragraph assuming 

the loss of five million to six million acres of grazing land, and assuming it all to benefit wildlife for the

rest of time may be deceiving.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-760 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2842

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Also under this item it discusses the need to utilize permanent conservation easements to as a

preservation measure in Alternatives B and E. We question how conservation easements on federal lands 

will work and since the document clearly states that it does not apply to private lands we conclude that the 

statement only applies to the federal surface. Conversely, is the document suggesting that the Agencies will 

be purchasing conservation easements on private lands which appears to be the case under Item 41? We 

look forward to the explanation of how these easements will be utilized because the explanation is not 

available in Table 2-1. Item 41 in Table 2-1 indicates that in the Casper RMP conservation easements be 

identified under all alternatives. Again we question how those easements will be implemented. Item 42 in 

Table 2-1 under Livestock Grazing Management discusses grazing practices in regard to sage-grouse. We 

strongly reject the proposed action under Alternative B which would automatically reduce grazing to 20-

30% forage allocation for livestock in allotments not meeting standards. This could in many instances cause 

significant economic harm to the operation and in some cases bankrupt the operation. Furthermore, we 

question the science behind the flat assumption which is the basis for the action in Alternative B.

Comment ID: 2845

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 47 in Table 2-1 is somewhat ambiguous as to what it is wanting to address. The only 

possible explanation occurs under Alternative C. We feel the document should be made clearer as to what 

the items seek to address. Item 48 in Table 2-1 addresses permit renewals. Again Alternative A is the 

governing alternative and additions are added to Alternatives D and E. We strongly reject the action 

envisioned under Alternative B and C.

Summary: Issue #1: Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences: The section on livestock grazing includes 

an “assumption” that livestock grazing is not a surface disturbing activity. This section proceeds to discuss 

“disruptive activity” restrictions on oil and gas development. It still leaves unanswered our question posed 

above regarding whether livestock grazing could be determined to be a disruptive activity. Issue #2:

Although the BLM has verbally stated to us that they will not manage “livestock grazing” on the deeded 

surface lands, the BLM continually discusses total management of the “federal mineral estate” throughout 

this large document. I do not believe that we can trust the federal agencies verbal statements. When push 

comes to shove, we ranchers who graze our livestock on BLM permits or Forest Service allotments will 

have our AUMs severely reduced for the benefit of the Greater Sage- Grouse. The BLM will claim 

management of the surface estate that lies above the federal mineral estate in favor of the sage-grouse. 

Written clarity of this issue is needed in the EIS. Issue #3: Management Action 49 requires clarification. It 

states, " ... Annual Operating Instructions would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health 

standards in sage-grouse core habitat areas ... " This statement should be removed because Annual 

Operating Instructions are not used to evaluate land health standards. They are used to help direct agreed 

upon management of the grazing operation for that year. In addition, similar to my comment above, if 

grazing is identified as the reason for not meeting sage-grouse conservation objectives, then EO-20 13-3 

will be implemented. Issue #4: Nowhere does the Draft EIS discuss changing the seasonality of grazing on 

BLM lands within the planning area, which prevents the reader from understanding how spring or springfall grazing regimes could affect sage-grouse. In general, the Draft EIS has not taken a hard look at the

details of declining sage-grouse populations in the project area. Issue #5: Pg. 2-44, Action 52 – Where are 

the narratives for BLM Districts other than Casper with respect to trailing/crossing? Issue #6: Pg. 2-55, 

Action 54 – The narratives under item 54 speak only to Casper and Pinedale BLM offices. Where are the 

narratives that propose trailing/crossing proposals/alternatives for Rawlins, Rock Springs, and Kemmerer 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-761

BLM offices? Issue #7: Pg. 2-209 Wildlife and Fisheries, Alternative E – “Overall, impacts to wildlife and 

fish habitat from Alternative E would be very similar to Alternative A.” [From Alternative A “Continued 

livestock grazing practices could reach Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service

equivalent.”] Back to Alternative E “Management for livestock grazing could allow for achievement of 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide improved habitat 

for wildlife and fisheries.” It becomes very clear that if an agency would declare that the rangeland health 

does not meet Wyoming BLM or Forest Service standards in a particular allotment, then livestock grazing 

in that allotment must be reduced or ceased until health standards are achieved, especially if the allotment 

is in a sage-grouse core area. Issue #8: Pg. 4-99, 4.7.7 – In the last sentence of paragraph 3 under Alternative 

E heading, please direct us to the “Post-drought management impacts” this sentence says is in Alternative 

A. We’ve looked at Alternative A and we can find no references to “post-drought” management. Issue #9: 

Why would the BLM consider cutting AUM's on livestock grazing when there aren't any studies showing 

livestock grazing is detrimental to sage-grouse? Livestock create biodiversity by providing an opportunity 

for more insects (which the sage-grouse feed on) and they keep grasses from getting old and unpalatable 

while supplying the opportunity for sought after new shoots along with available forbs. A herbaceous height 

analysis by the University of Nevada, Reno, says that data correlates nesting success more with forb 

presence than with grass height once there is a certain amount of cover and height of sage brush. I agree 

with that because the sage-grouse need this for cover from ravens and other predators. Protection for hens 

and chicks are paramount and will secure survival of the grouse. The BLM is attempting to turn Connelly's 

recommendations for herbaceous height into minimum requirements for sage-grouse, which is incorrect.

Issue #10: Page 2-45 Range Development Projects, Action 53 does not make sense in Alternative C as the 

previous actions (action 44) prohibited (emphasis added) livestock grazing thereby eliminating any range 

development projects. Page 2-54 “Livestock Trailing” has the same issue. Issue #11: Page 2-101 

Vegetation Management, Action 93 Alternative C: How can "no similar action" be used here? The 

alternative proposes to prohibit any livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat. Issue #12: The Draft 

EIS discusses the need to utilize permanent conservation easements to as a preservation measure in 

Alternatives B and E. We question how conservation easements on federal lands will work and since the 

document clearly states that it does not apply to private lands, we conclude that the statement only applies 

to the federal surface. Conversely, is the document suggesting that the agencies will be purchasing 

conservation easements on private lands, which appears to be the case under Item 41? We look forward to 

the explanation of how these easements will be utilized because the explanation is not available in Table 2-

1. Action 41 in Table 2-1 indicates that in the Casper RMP conservation easements will be identified under 

all alternatives. Again we question how those easements will be implemented. Issue #13: Action 42 in 

Table 2-1 under Livestock Grazing Management discusses grazing practices in regard to sage-grouse. We 

strongly reject the proposed action under Alternative B that would automatically reduce grazing to 20-30% 

forage allocation for livestock in allotments not meeting standards. This could in many instances cause 

significant economic harm to the operation and in some cases bankrupt the operation. Furthermore, we 

question the science behind the flat assumption which is the basis for the action in Alternative B. Issue #14: 

Action 47 in Table 2-1 is somewhat ambiguous as to what is being addressed. The only possible explanation 

occurs under Alternative C. We feel the document should be made more clear as to what the items seek to 

address. Issue #15: Action 49 in Table 2-1 leaves the reader somewhat confused as to what is being

addressed. Under Alternative A the various BLM RMPs talk of changes in types of livestock, changes in 

season of use, and amounts of use depending upon which BLM district you read. We believe that some 

clarification is needed for the reader to adequately understand what the agencies wish public comment 

upon. We recommend the agencies adopt the process outlined in the Rawlins RMP under Alternative A as 

a process for making changes for the adopted alternative. Issue #16: Action 50 in Table 2-1 appears to 

discuss the relinquishment or retirement of grazing permits. The two terms have different meanings and the 

developers of the two alternatives apparently try to use them interchangeably. Page 181 of Chapter 4 

discusses the challenges associated with both concepts and points out that relinquishment then allows the 

agencies to offer those permits to other livestock producers. This seems to have not been recognized by the

developers of these alternatives. Issue #17: Action 51 in Table 2-1 under Alternatives B and C discusses 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-762 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

permanent retirement of grazing allotments. We strongly object to this action. The process can be "rigged" 

in favor of antigrazing advocates merely through the current process of appealing actions and driving up 

costs for the livestock permittee or leasee. Issue #18: Action 53 in Table 2-1 addresses range development 

practices. In Alternative A in the Newcastle RMP, the proposed action for Alternative A and E would be to 

remove fences that are documented to impact all wildlife. However, we question how that would help sagegrouse since some of these fences would be used to manage both wildlife and livestock which could benefit 

sagegrouse habitat, yet would be removed if it impacted antelope. We do not feel that is an appropriate

action and should not be included in the two alternatives. Issue #19: Page 1-9 of the Draft EIS contains a 

table (Table 1-2) which is identified as coming from the USFWS. In that table it identifies grazing as a 

threat to sage-grouse in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming Basin, Laramie and North Park in Colorado. 

However, as we've mentioned previously, Wyoming's Sage-Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) of which 

USFWS, BLM and Forest Service are participants, helped develop an amendment to the Governor's EO 

(2013-3) which again determined that grazing has a de minimis impact on sage-grouse. With the apparent 

conflict between these two documents the reader is left questioning who is correct. Issue #20: Page 1-13 

of the Draft EIS discusses continuation and elimination of livestock grazing practices. There does not 

appear to be any identification of what those practices are that the agencies may seek to eliminate. Since 

many of the grazing practices are adopted over time as a practice dictated by economics, elimination of 

one, some, or many may result in a significant impact to the operation. At the very least, those practices 

should be identified so agricultural producers would be able to comment on their possible elimination. Issue 

#21: Action 49 in Table 2-1 is difficult to understand, as AOIs have nothing to do with evaluating progress 

towards achieving the land health standards. Issue #22: To further our argument on the possibility that 

“livestock grazing” may be considered a “surface disturbing activity”, refer to Pg. 2 -191, in Table 2 -7 

Comparative Summary of Impacts, Cultural Resources, Alternative E. “As with Alternative A, surface 

disturbance from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreational and travel management could 

potentially damage undiscovered or undocumented cultural sites” In this case, “livestock grazing” is 

considered a “surface disturbing activity”. Please clarify this inconsistency. Issue #23: Page 3-94 

Rangeland Management Categories- Suitable Rangeland Acres: Is there a reason why the history of 

planning documents is listed here? The first sentence is questionable when read with the second sentence. 

It would appear that only the last sentence is needed. Issue #24: Page 4-97, seventh paragraph: Treated 

areas would not be rested from grazing under this Alternative, thus short-term limitations in livestock 

management options would need to be implemented as necessary. Temporary reductions of livestock 

grazing would not be realized compared to Alternative A. However, vegetation community and production 

recovery in treated areas may not be enhanced, thus potentially decreasing the post-treatment grazing 

capacity of treated lands in the long-term. Comment: Where did this sentence come from, since it was not

described in management actions in Chapter 2 under this alternative, nor does it comply with current

Wyoming policy regarding vegetation treatments? Issue #25: Page 4-97, last paragraph, last sentence: No 

new structural range improvements would occur under this alternative, which would decrease surface 

disturbing activities in the short-term, but could impact long-term livestock and resource management goals 

as operators would be prohibited from making future range improvements. Comment: Where did this 

sentence come from or relate to, as there is no similar action described in Chapter 2 under Alternative D.

Issue #26: Pg. 4-353, first paragraph: The narrative conveys an intent to distribute livestock to “areas more 

resistant” to grazing. Please convey what types of areas does this narrative consider to be “more resistant 

to grazing” and provide published literature from the range science community to support this opinion if it 

can be produced. Issue #27: Pg. 4-353, last paragraph: Please convey what do the agencies mean with 

respect to “more stipulations” being added on water developments under Alternative E. We comment that 

LUP narratives should not attempt to convey a non-specific “general authority” to their employees.

Response: Issue #1: It is human presence that constitutes disruptive activities, not the physical presence of

livestock. Allowing livestock grazing in an allotment is not a disruptive activity. Human activities such as 

herding or trailing of livestock could be considered disruptive, depending on the season and the area where 

they are conducted. Issue #2: It is not necessary to restate existing law and case law in the LUP 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-763

Amendments. The BLM and Forest Service discuss management of the federal mineral estate on some 

private lands where the mineral estate is legally federally owned. There is no similar case of private lands 

where grazing privileges are not privately controlled. Split estate applies only to mineral and surface 

ownership, not to grazing privileges or any other private land use. Neither the BLM nor the Forest Service 

has the authority to control livestock grazing practices on private lands that overlie federal mineral estate.

Issue #3: It is correct that AOIs do not evaluate desired conditions of land health standards. However, AOIs 

provide annual use information and are used in conjunction with Forest Service and BLM monitoring 

policies and protocols to determine if rangelands are meeting desired conditions or land health standards 

based on current livestock use. The text for Management Action #49 for the BLM has been revised in the 

Final EIS. The new BLM text is: "The BLM monitoring policies would be used to evaluate progress toward 

achieving land health standards within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas and, where not 

achieved, to determine if existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands 

are significant factors in failing to meet, maintain or make progress towards achieving the standards and 

conform with the guidelines, which through this process will identify appropriate actions to address nonachievement and non-conformance. Allotments within SFAs, followed by those within PHMAs, and 

focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to 

help ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks could include 

monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision. The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing 

permits/leases, in particular to determine if modification is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the 

processing of grazing permits/leases in SFAs followed by PHMAs outside of the SFAs. In setting workload 

priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land Health 

Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows. The BLM may use other 

criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations.”

The new Forest Service text is "GRSG-LG-GL-001-Guideline - Grazing guidelines in Table 2-6 should be

applied in each of the seasonal habitats as displayed. If values in Table 2-6 cannot be achieved based upon 

a site-specific analysis using Ecological Site Descriptions, long-term ecological site capability analysis, or 

other similar analysis, adjust grazing management to move towards desired habitat conditions in Table 2-5 

consistent with the ecological site capability. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust 

values. Grazing guidelines in Table 2-6 would not apply to isolated parcels of National Forest System lands 

that have less than 200 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat. Table 2-6 guidelines include a requirement to 

manage for upland perennial grass height of 7 inches in areas managed for breeding and nesting habitat 

within 5.3 miles of occupied leks when grazing occurs between March 15 to June 30. A perennial grass 

height of 4 inches will be managed for when grazing occurs between July 1 and November 30 in areas 

managed for brood rearing and summer." Issue #4: It’s not feasible to contemplate specific seasons of use 

for each of the more than 1,500 allotments managed by BLM and the Forest Service in the planning area. 

The impacts of varying seasons of use will be considered on a site-specific basis . Issue #5: Management 

Action 52 under Alternative A in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS does not include actions for the 

BLM field offices, other than the Casper Field Office, because similar actions are not included in the 

existing RMPs for the other five BLM field offices. Issue #6: Management Action 54 under Alternative A 

in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS only includes actions for the Casper, Kemmerer, and Pinedale 

Field Offices because similar actions are not included in the existing RMPs for the other three BLM field 

offices. Issue #7: If a particular allotment does not meet rangeland health standards due in part to livestock

grazing, depending on the alternative, a number of measures could be implemented. Reduced grazing is 

only one such measure. The decision of which measures should be implemented would be determined by 

the agency authorized officer on a case by case basis in coordination with cooperating agencies, grazing 

permittees, and interested publics. Issue #8: Post-drought management is not specifically mentioned in 

Alternative A in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Rather, Alternative A includes actions 

to address ongoing drought conditions. Therefore, the sentence on Page 4-99 specified in the comment was 

revised in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS to reflect this. Issue #9: Livestock grazing activities 

were identified as a threat to Greater Sage-Grouse by the USFWS. Therefore, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS includes measures to manage livestock grazing in a manner that reduces the threat 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-764 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

to sage-grouse habitat. Issue #10: The text for Action 53 has been changed in the Final EIS to clarify that 

range improvement projects would be avoided in sage-grouse general habitat. Action 44 prohibits livestock 

grazing in priority habitats but not in general habitats. A similar clarification has been made in action 54.

Issue #11: The inclusion of “no similar action” in management action #93 under Alternative C means that 

vegetation resources would not be managed to achieve a specific vegetative condition. Issue #12: Action 

41 is indicating that, when selling or trading Federal lands, the agencies would identify those lands being 

sold or traded off that would be benefitted by having a conservation easement established. Issue #13: 

Reducing grazing levels has been determined to be an effective management tool in reducing the impacts 

of livestock grazing activities on sage-grouse habitat. Therefore, this was included as a management action 

under Alternative B to create a reasonable range of alternatives, as required by NEPA. All of the alternatives 

and management actions therein are only proposed actions at this stage in the planning process. The final 

decision on which actions will be included in the Approved LUP Amendments will be made in the record 

of decision after the completion of the land use planning process. Issue #14: Management action #47 

includes proposed management only under Alternative C. The other four alternatives would not require any 

similar type of management. For example, “no similar action” under Alternative E means the action 

included under Alternative C would not be implemented if Alternative E is selected, and no other similar 

action would be implemented. Issue #15: Management action #49 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS addresses how the BLM and Forest Service would adjust grazing practices based 

on whether allotments meet land health standards or desired conditions. Currently, this is handled 

differently among the six BLM field offices and three Forest Service planning units. Alternatives B, D and 

E propose a more consistent approach to this issue across the planning area. Action 49 Alternative E has 

been revised to clarify the relationship between Alternatives A and E. Issue #16: The Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS has been updated to reflect these changes. Issue #17: It is reasonable to consider 

an alternative that contemplates this action. The final decision on the LUP Amendments will be made in 

the Record of Decision. Issue #18: Management action #53 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS under Alternative A as it applies to the Newcastle Field Office addresses removing 

or modifying fences that cause wildlife conflicts. This does not apply only to sage-grouse but to all wildlife. 

Management action #53 under Alternative E does not specifically propose to remove existing fences. Issue 

#19: Grazing was identified as a threat to sage-grouse by the USFWS in the 2010 finding. Because of that, 

BLM and the Forest Service must consider the impacts of livestock grazing on sagegrouse and their habitats.

Issue #20: The discussion on Page 1-13 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS specified in the comment 

addresses the planning issues that were identified through the land use planning process. Chapter 2 contains 

all the details regarding proposed management actions and which activities are allowed, restricted, or 

prohibited. The elimination of all grazing activities in sage-grouse priority habitat is proposed under 

Alternative C of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Issue #21: Management Action #49 has been 

revised in the Final EIS to remove the reference to Annual Operating Instructions. The new BLM text is: 

"The BLM monitoring policies would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards 

within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas and, where not achieved, to determine if existing 

grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant factors in failing to 

meet, maintain, or make progress towards achieving the standards and conform with the guidelines, which 

through this process will identify appropriate actions to address non-achievement and non-conformance.

Allotments within SFAs, followed by those within PHMAs, and focusing on those containing riparian areas, 

including wet meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use 

supervision. The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if

modification is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in SFAs

followed by PHMAs outside of the SFAs. In setting workload priorities, precedence will be given to

existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing 

riparian areas, including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to 

urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations.” The new Forest Service text is "GRSGLG-GL-001-Guideline - Grazing guidelines in Table 2-6 should be applied in each of the seasonal habitats 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-765

as displayed. If values in Table 2-6 cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific analysis using Ecological 

Site Descriptions, long-term ecological site capability analysis, or other similar analysis, adjust grazing 

management to move towards desired habitat conditions in Table 2-5 consistent with the ecological site 

capability. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust values. Grazing guidelines in Table 

2-6 would not apply to isolated parcels of National Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres of 

greater sage-grouse habitat." Issue #22: While the act of livestock grazing on rangelands is not considered 

a surface disturbing activity, other activities related to livestock grazing management involve surface 

disturbing activities, such as the construction of range improvements. Issue #23: The paragraph specified 

in the comment is accurate and appropriate, as stated in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. All 

sentences are included in the paragraph to provide the public with the history of grazing management and 

associated acres within the TBNG. Issue #24: The management action regarding resting treated areas from 

livestock grazing is included as management action #97 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. Under Alternative D, this management action states the following: “Treated areas would not be rested 

from grazing.” Issue #25: Structural range improvements would not be prohibited under Alternative D. 

Therefore, the Chapter 4 paragraph specified in the comment was revised in the Proposed LUP

Amendments/Final EIS to reflect the management action in Chapter 2. Issue #26: The analysis conveys 

that riparian areas are more sensitive, and therefore less resistant, to livestock grazing than some upland 

areas. Therefore, increasing the distance from riparian areas that salt and mineral supplements can be placed 

would help to move livestock away from these sensitive areas and into areas that are more resistant to 

livestock grazing. Issue #27: The text “more stipulations” included on Page 4-353 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS refers to the additional restrictions and requirements placed on water developments 

under Alternative E. These restrictions and requirements are included in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 of the Draft

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS.

Livestock Grazing

Best available information-baseline data

Baseline data for livestock grazing is inadequate to meet NEPA requirements.

Comment ID: 328

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: We are unable to locate any baseline information regarding the mileage of riparian corridors

(critical to sage grouse brood-rearing) that are in Properly Functioning Condition. Federal agencies must 

manage livestock grazing at ecologically sustainable levels, and when this does not occur, it is indicative 

of a need for strong remedial action. Rangeland health standards must be met across all sage grouse habitats, 

and the most immediate method of achieving his is through the reduction of stocking levels for livestock. 

There appear to be deficiencies in BLM’s riparian and wetland surveys across the planning area, and the 

DEIS does not present summary statistics for acreage of sage grouse habitat that is not meeting Properly 

Functioning Condition criteria. Please address this deficiency in baseline information, as riparian areas are 

crucial to sage grouse as brood-rearing habitats, and present this information in full in the FEIS.

Comment ID: 325

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Assessments (or rangeland health projects) conducted since 2004 are not mentioned in the EIS, 

a NEPA ‘hard look’ issue. In the Kemmerer Field Office, 50% of allotments have been documented as 

meeting rangeland health standards, with the majority of nonattainment attributable to livestock grazing. 

DEIS at 3-78. Data regarding nonattainment of rangeland health standards in the Pinedale, Rawlins and 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-766 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Newcastle Field Offices is not possible to derive from the DEIS, since only nonattainment from livestock 

grazing is listed. DEIS at 3-79, 3-80, 3-81. This is a NEPA baseline information and ‘hard look’ deficiency. 

For the Rock Springs Field Office, no data at all are provided (DEIS at 3-83), which is a failure to even

attempt to comply with NEPA baseline information and ‘hard look’ requirements. There is no attempt at 

this analysis for Forest Service units in the EIS either. DEIS at 3-84 through 96.

Comment ID: 463

Organization:

Name:

Comment: In summary, the final EIS must include the following: 1. Complete data on livestock 

grazing within the entire planning area, including a listing of all BLM/FS allotments, acreage, Active 

(permitted) AUMs, and actual AUM use for the past 5 years. 2. Clear charts and maps that disclose 

acreage and AUM allocations for livestock grazing in all three categories of sage grouse habitat.

Summary: Assessments (or rangeland health projects) conducted since 2004 are not mentioned in the EIS, 

a NEPA ‘hard look’ issue. In the Kemmerer Field Office, 50% of allotments have been documented as

meeting rangeland health standards, with the majority of nonattainment attributable to livestock grazing. 

Data regarding nonattainment of rangeland health standards in the Pinedale, Rawlins and Newcastle Field 

Offices is not possible to derive from the Draft EIS, since only nonattainment from livestock grazing is 

listed. This is a NEPA baseline information and ‘hard look’ deficiency. For the Rock Springs Field Office, 

no data at all are provided, which is a failure to even attempt to comply with NEPA baseline information 

and ‘hard look’ requirements. There is no attempt at this analysis for Forest Service units in the EIS either.

There appear to be deficiencies in BLM’s riparian and wetland surveys across the planning area, and the 

Draft EIS does not present summary statistics for acreage of sage-grouse habitat that is not meeting Properly 

Functioning Condition criteria. Please address this deficiency in baseline information, as riparian areas are 

crucial to sage-grouse as brood-rearing habitats, and present this information in full in the FEIS. The Final 

EIS must include the following: 1. Complete data on livestock grazing within the entire planning 

area, including a listing of all BLM/Forest Service allotments, acreage, Active (permitted) AUMs, and 

actual AUM use for the past 5 years. 2. Clear charts and maps that disclose acreage and AUM allocations 

for livestock grazing in all three categories of sage-grouse habitat.

Response: Appendix G in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS lists the livestock grazing allotments for 

the BLM and Forest Service and the conditions of each allotment. For BLM, the allotments were evaluated

using Land Health Standards in Manual 4180; for Forest Service, the allotments were evaluated using

vegetation trends. Appendix G reflects evaluations and determinations that were made over the past decade, 

including those made as late as 2012. The data included in this appendix is consistent with NEPA 

requirements and is sufficient in that it presents the baseline data and information necessary to make 

informed decisions regarding sage-grouse management. PFC is an assessment of physical stability, not 

habitat quality, and would not add to our understanding of the adequacy of the riparian habitats for sagegrouse use.

Livestock Grazing

Best available information-baseline data

BLM has a duty to critically evaluate the FWS findings on a site-specific level

Comment ID: 2096

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-767

Comment: BLM fails to take a hard look at Alternative A and make a rational connection between the 

existing environmental baseline and its conclusion that modifying or adding regulatory mechanisms to the

existing LUPs/RMPs are necessary to conserve sage-grouse and avoid a listing. It appears that BLM

arbitrarily rejected the no action alternative with respect to livestock grazing merely because it would not 

result in sage-grouse specific standards and guidelines and, as a result, unlawfully chose to not take a hard 

look at whether existing standards and guidelines are adequate to protect sagegrouse from a listing. 

Furthermore, what little analysis BLM conducted of the effectiveness of current rangeland health standards 

and guidelines in evaluating Alternative A suggests that the current framework adequately conserves sagegrouse habitat and populations. Neither BLM, nor the FWS, has undertaken the requisite analyses and, as 

a result, BLM has arbitrarily developed alternatives, and preordained an outcome, that would 

institutionalize a single-species focus to range management at the expense of other species and forage 

production for livestock. BLM has not established a factual foundation that such regulatory changes and 

additions are necessary to avoid an ESA listing.

Comment ID: 2085

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew

Comment: BLM does not provide a rational basis for imposing grazing restrictions. In the 9-Plan EIS, BLM

describes the purpose and need as follows: “Changes in management of sage-grouse habitats are necessary 

to avoid the continued decline of populations that are anticipated across the species’ range. These plan 

amendments will focus on areas affected by threats to sage-grouse habitat identified by the USFWS in the 

March 2010 listing decision.” 9-Plan EIS at 1-3. Put most simply in the federal register notice of intent, the 

core purpose of the LUPAs and RMPAs is to “avoid a potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.” 

76 FR 77009. The FWS listing decision contains broad, generalized statements and findings pertaining to 

the entire range of the sage-grouse. For the purposes of developing more localized, State-based 

LUPAs/RMPAs, BLM has a duty to critically evaluate the FWS findings on a site-specific level to 

determine whether particular regulatory mechanisms actually need to be amended and/or added to BLM’s 

existing LUPAs/RMPs on a case-bycase basis. Unfortunately, it does not appear that BLM undertook the 

necessary evaluations in developing the purpose and need statement and developing alternatives.

Summary: The BLM does not provide a rational basis for imposing grazing restrictions. The USFWS listing

decision contains broad, generalized statements and findings pertaining to the entire range of the sagegrouse. For the purposes of developing more localized, state-based LUP Amendments, BLM has a duty to 

critically evaluate the USFWS findings on a site-specific level to determine whether particular regulatory 

mechanisms actually need to be amended and/or added to BLM’s existing LUPs on a case-by-case basis. 

Unfortunately, it does not appear that BLM undertook the necessary evaluations in developing the purpose 

and need statement and developing alternatives. BLM fails to take a hard look at Alternative A and make a 

rational connection between the existing environmental baseline and its conclusion that modifying or 

adding regulatory mechanisms to the existing LUPs/RMPs are necessary to conserve sage-grouse and avoid 

a listing. It appears that BLM arbitrarily rejected the no action alternative with respect to livestock grazing 

merely because it would not result in sage-grouse specific standards and guidelines and, as a result, 

unlawfully chose to not take a hard look at whether existing standards and guidelines are adequate to protect 

sagegrouse from a listing. Neither BLM, nor the USFWS, has undertaken the requisite analyses and, as a

result, BLM has arbitrarily developed alternatives, and preordained an outcome that would institutionalize 

a single-species focus to range management at the expense of other species and forage production for 

livestock. BLM has not established a factual foundation that such regulatory changes and additions are 

necessary to avoid an ESA listing.

Response: Because the USFWS 2010 listing decision identified livestock grazing as a threat to sage-grouse, 

the BLM and Forest Service analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives for livestock grazing management 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-768 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The alternatives include a range of management decisions and 

restrictions. Within the range of alternatives are management actions that address the need to consider sitespecific differences among livestock grazing allotments. Based on the analysis and public comments, the 

BLM and Forest Service will make a final determination on all management decisions in the Record of 

Decision.

Livestock Grazing

Best available information-baseline data

Ch. 3 baseline data should be updated

Comment ID: 1369

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Page 3-213 states that "livestock water development projects could result in surface disturbance, 

but could also alleviate pressure from grazing in riparian areas" but the document fails to provide any

scientific support for this myth that upland water developments reduce impacts in riparian areas.

Comment ID: 1975

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. G-1, Grazing Allotment Data – The WSGB is most disappointed with the quantity and 

quality of the “data” provided in this Appendix. It is our comment that the information in this Appendix 

can hardly be called “data”. For instance, under the “Causal Factors” column, the narratives are minimal,

often redundant, and convey very little useful information with respect to the Standards assessments for 

these allotments. We realize space is limiting, but we comment that this part of the Draft can and should be 

made to be more informative than at present. We comment that it is curious that only three allotments across 

all of the BLM Field Offices in this document are shown to have failed Standards due to “excess horses”. 

We comment that this Table G- 1 should be revised to show the actual number of allotments that now 

contain excess horses which by BLM definition, would create resource conflicts and concerns.

Comment ID: 1820

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: The Draft LUPA / EIS omits vital information on the grazing allotments: • How many acres 

each allotment encompasses, • How many permitted animal unit months (AUMs) each allotment has, • How 

many AUMs are in active use, and • How many AUMs have been reported via Form 4130-5 (actual use).

Please include these essential data so that an informed review can result. The actual-use-reported data 

should be for each of the last five-years in order to show trends.

Comment ID: 928

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 3-418, 2nd Paragraph: Livestock grazing does not require surface disturbance. Please 

reword.

Comment ID: 1388
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-769

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Page 3-74-83 Text: Ciscussion in Section 3.7.1 Comment: With respect to an EIS, NEPA 

regulations require that the document describe the area(s) to be affected in such a way as to understand the

effects of the alternatives. 40 C.F.R. §1502.15. To do so, BLM must set forth the baseline conditions of the 

project area. Half Moon Bay Fishermans' Marketing Ass'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir.1988). 

“Without establishing the baseline conditions, there is no way to determine what effect the proposed action 

will have on the environment and, consequently, no way to comply with NEPA. W. Watersheds Project v. 

Bureau of Land Mgmt., 552 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1126-27 (D. Nev. 2008). In Section 3.7.1. BLM does not 

quantify the number of acres of core GRSG habitat in the grazing allotments. Nor does BLM qualitatively 

describe the grazing allotments with regards to core GRSG habitat. Thus, it is impossible for cooperators, 

stakeholders, and the public to know how the proposed action will impact grazing inside core habitat and 

the full spectrum of effects (environmental, social, economic) that each alternative may yield. The analysis 

provided by U.S. Forest Service in Section 3.7.2 more adequately describes the baseline conditions of 

grazing allotments within GRSG habitat (general, core, connectivity, and winter) that should be provided 

for BLM lands.

Comment ID: 510

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: DEIS 3-82 “However, in recent years, actual use has been less than 200,000 AUMs.” The time 

period cited in the DEIS refers to a nine-year drought when permittees like RSGA took voluntary nonuse. 

The DEIS should refer to this severe drought rather than imply livestock use is on the decline or that there 

is no demand for grazing permits.

Comment ID: 2876

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: We suggest that the Draft LUPA/EIS be revised to include much more detail and background 

on the stringent standards and regulatory mechanisms that BLM already applies to ensure the long-term

health and productivity of lands under grazing leases, thereby contributing to sagebrush habitat health and 

conservation. Some information is available on the BLM website at

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html. Otherwise, a reading of the current Draft LUPA/EIS 

leaves the inaccurate impression that most grazing activities on public lands go largely unregulated, which 

is not the case. Ranchers and grazers work with BLM range management specialists to ensure that BLM 

lands are well-managed under a federal framework that provides for corrective actions should range health 

standards not be met.

Comment ID: 2466

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-94 Rangeland Management Categories - Capable Rangeland Acres: The acreages do not 

seem to correlate (e.g. 552,490 and 572,520 as well as the dates).

Comment ID: 2392

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-770 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The final document must include all data on livestock grazing within the entire planning area,

including a listing of all BLM/FS allotments, acreage, Active (permitted) AUMs, and actual AUM use for 

the past 5 years.

Comment ID: 2464

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-94 Grazing Distribution - The fourth paragraph details the information already contained 

in Table 3-28. The statement "only found on ... (402,890 acres) making the TBNG one of the higher

densities of sage-grouse habitat ..... " seems to be superfluous. The statement could be written better?

Comment ID: 2377

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The DEIS fails to quantify the relative impacts of wild horses vs. livestock in GRSG habitat 

areas The EIS in Chapter 4.5 states that, under most alternatives, reduction in wild horse Allowable

Management Levels (AMLS) could occur if GRSG objectives are not achieved. Alternative F includes a

mandatory 25% reduction in wild horse AMLs in GRSG habitat areas. However, the data presented in the 

document do not support the contention that wild horses are a threat to sage grouse in this planning region. 

In fact, wild horses have not been identified as a major threat to sage grouse in any of the assessments done 

by the BLM or other agencies. From the above, we see that the DEIS is completely inadequate in describing 

the Affected Environment in terms of impacts to sage grouse. In sections on livestock grazing by field 

office, sometimes total acreage for allotments is disclosed; sometimes it is not. Without the missing data, it 

is impossible to compare the footprint of livestock use with the footprint of wild horse use in the planning 

area. Further, without analysis of these activities within GRSG habitat areas, it is impossible to estimate 

approximate numbers of wild horses vs. livestock in GRSG habitat and therefore assess the relative impacts.

What we can determine from the scant data provided is that the BLM allocates 47 times more forage to 

privately-owned livestock vs. federally-protected wild horses in the planning area. Based on this staggering 

disparity in resource allocation, the BLM cannot possibly suggest that wild horse grazing is a threat to sage 

grouse in this planning area. Thus the alternatives that will set wild horses up for prioritized removals and/or 

lowering of Allowable Management Levels (AMLs) are completely unjustified, particularly as compared 

to alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative, that maintain the status quo, while making voluntary 

any adjustments to livestock grazing levels for the purpose of sage grouse conservation. Therefore, the final 

DEIS should include the above chart—filled in with complete data – to clearly delineates the acreage and 

AUMs for livestock grazing vs. the acreage and AUMs for wild horses (based on percent of HMA in GRSG 

habitat and the AMLs in those HMAs. [See Original Email Attachment for Chart]

Comment ID: 2982

Organization:

Name: Margaret

Comment: I Demand an analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process. Many have no data available 

which evaluate the condition of the land. You must protect the sage grouse by restricting land disruption be

at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek (display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in 

any critical core Sage Grouse habitats. Please institute the right and fair plan - charge appropriately - restrict 

gazing access and protect our environment.

Comment ID: 2375

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-771

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The DEIS does not clearly disclose the number of acres of grazing allotments in Greater Sage 

Grouse (GRSG) habitat (Core/Priority, General, Connectivity habitat zones.) In other BLM EIS documents 

for sage grouse plans in other starts, clear charts were included disclosing the acreage and forage allocations 

(Animal Unit Months, or “AUMs) of livestock grazing allotments in each category of sage grouse habitat. 

No such information is provided here. Instead, buried in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences is 

information indicating that: • 574 grazing allotments are located entirely within sage grouse priority habitat

• 1,125 allotments lie partially within sage grouse habitat. • 186 out of 574 allotments within core habitat 

not meeting the standards due to livestock grazing. (This information is buried in Chapter 4, section 7.)

This information is inadequate. The Final EIS should include the following: • Complete description of Total 

Acres and AUM allocations for all grazing allotments in the planning area. • A chart that clearly delineates 

the number of grazing allotments in each category of GRSG habitat, the acreage that lies within GRSG 

habitat for each allotment, the percent of each allotment that lies within each category of GRSG habitat and 

the AUM allocations for each allotment that impacts GRSG habitat. • A complete description of the number 

of allotments that lie within or partially within sage grouse habitat that are not meeting current rangeland 

health standards.

Comment ID: 2892

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Table G-5, Rawlins Field Office Allotments, must be revised to incorporate the best available

information and data. As mentioned above, in February 20] 4, BLM RFO sent a letter to TOTCO,

recognizing us for environmental stewardship and range management initiatives. Citing TOTCO's

significant investments in range and water improvements on the Overland Trail Ranch, the BLM RFO said 

the Pine Grove/Bolten, Sage Creek and Sixmile Hill allottments meet all six Rangeland Health Standards, 

based on a 2013 field assessment. The Ranch also was recognized for "extensive cooperation" with BLM 

and other agencies over the years. The Lone Tree and Sixmile Hill allotments are correctly listed in 

Appendix G as meeting land health standards. However, on page G-96, the Pine Grove/Bolten allotment is 

incorrectly listed as not meeting land health standards, and on page G-98, the Sage Creek allotment also is 

incorrectly listed as not meeting land health standards. This chart must be revised accordingly, and any 

analysis based on this faulty data must be corrected in the Final LUPA/EIS. Appendix G also would be 

more useful if a summary table were provided for the entire Planning Area and for each field office to 

disclose the number of allotments in each field office, and the percentage of allotments that do or do not 

meet the land health standards within that office. For example, in the Rawlins Field Office, it appears by 

our count that of the 661 total allotments, 65% or 427 of the allotments do indeed meet the land health 

standards, and meeting land health standards inherently means meeting wildlife and habitat standards. Thus, 

if approximately two-thirds of the allotments in the RFO already meet the BLM's Range Health Standards, 

further restricting range improvements or closing grazing on public lands does not seem to be a meaningful 

or adequate regulatory mechanism for sage-grouse habitat. A more appropriate management action might 

instead be for BLM to set a goal for its range specialists to work with allotment users to achieve a rate of 

95% of allotments meeting Range Health Standards.

Summary: Issue #1: The Draft EIS does not clearly disclose the number of acres of grazing allotments in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The Final EIS should include the following information: (1) Complete

description of total acres and AUM allocations for all grazing allotments in the planning area; (2) A chart 

that clearly delineates the number of grazing allotments in each category of sage-grouse habitat, the acreage 

that lies within sage-grouse habitat for each allotment, the percent of each allotment that lies within each 

category of sage-grouse habitat, and the AUM allocations for each allotment that impacts sage-grouse 

habitat; (3) A complete description of the number of allotments that lie within or partially within sage-
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-772 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

grouse habitat that are not meeting current rangeland health standards. Issue #2: Page 3-94, Rangeland 

Management Categories - Capable Rangeland Acres: The acreages do not seem to correlate (e.g., 552,490 

and 572,520 as well as the dates). Issue #3: On page G-96, the Pine Grove/Bolten allotment is incorrectly 

listed as not meeting land health standards, and on page G-98, the Sage Creek allotment also is incorrectly 

listed as not meeting land health standards. This chart must be revised accordingly, and any analysis based 

on this faulty data must be corrected in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. Issue #4: Page 3-418, 

2nd Paragraph: Livestock grazing does not require surface disturbance. Please reword.

Response: Issue #1: Livestock grazing allotments overlap most of the sage-grouse habitat within the 

planning area. Chapter 3 (Section 3.7) of the Draft EIS discloses the number of grazing allotments, and the

corresponding number of total acres and AUMs, for each BLM field office and Forest Service planning

unit within the planning area. Chapter 3 also includes detailed information about the grazing allotments 

within the planning area, including management categories and rangeland condition. Maps 3-2 through 3-

10 in the Draft EIS show the location of all grazing allotments within the planning area. Appendix G 

contains an exhaustive list of all grazing allotments within the planning area and shows whether each 

allotment has been assessed, whether each assessed allotment is meeting the Standards for Rangeland 

Health, and the causal factor for not meeting the standards. These baseline data provide an appropriate 

description of the affected environment that is needed to analyze impacts on livestock grazing and other 

resources (including sage-grouse habitat) and make informed decisions regarding management of all 

resources within the planning area. Issue #2: As stated on Page 3-95, the total acres of the TBNG were 

reduced from 572,520 to 552,490 acres as a result of a series of small land exchanges since 1985. Issue #3: 

It was determined on 9/30/2004 that the Pine Grove/Bolten and Sage Creek allotments did not meet the 

Standards for Rangeland Health due to water quality issues that are unrelated to livestock grazing. The 

information presented in Appendix G is correct, pending future land health assessments. Issue #4: The 

statement on Page 3-418 is accurate. Because livestock range improvements (e.g., water developments, 

fences, etc.) needed for livestock grazing can result in surface disturbance.

Livestock Grazing

Best available information-baseline data

Draft EIS must disclose existing grazing management decisions and baseline data

Comment ID: 1291

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Nowhere does the DLUPA/DEIS provide a thorough disclosure of existing management of 

livestock grazing operations, as required by NEPA, and nowhere are the current conditions or even the most

current monitoring event on the allotments discussed.

Summary: The Draft EIS must provide a thorough disclosure of existing management of livestock grazing

operations, as required by NEPA. The Draft EIS should also provide current conditions and current

monitoring results on an allotment basis.

Response: Chapter 3 (Section 3.7) of the Draft EIS discloses the number of grazing allotments, and the

corresponding number of total acres and AUMs, for each BLM field office and Forest Service planning

unit within the planning area. Chapter 3 also includes detailed information about the grazing allotments 

within the planning area, including management categories and rangeland condition. Maps 3-2 through 3-

10 in the Draft EIS show the location of all grazing allotments within the planning area. Appendix G 

contains an exhaustive list of all grazing allotments within the planning area and shows whether each 

allotment has been assessed, whether each assessed allotment is meeting the Standards for Rangeland 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-773

Health, and the causal factor for not meeting the standards. These baseline data provide an appropriate 

description of the affected environment that is needed to analyze impacts on livestock grazing and other 

resources (including sage-grouse habitat) and make informed decisions regarding management of all 

resources within the planning area.

Livestock Grazing

Best available information-baseline data

ESDs should be used in place of PFC assessments

Comment ID: 1333

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Relying so heavily on PFC assessments is problematic because they are subject to bias and

inconsistency, and can vary from person to person. Also, PFC is a low bar for functionality. Using

Ecological Site Descriptions and other data such as that from Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007 

would provide measureable benchmarks for riparian habitat conservation based on science. This would 

allow the public to understand what the objectives are, how they will be measured, and if they’re being met. 

Using qualitative indicators does not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms by which to ensure the 

protection of this species.

Comment ID: 1332

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Relying so heavily on PFC assessments is problematic because they are subject to bias and

inconsistency, and can vary from person to person. Also, PFC is a low bar for functionality. Using

Ecological Site Descriptions and other data such as that from Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007 

would provide measureable benchmarks for riparian habitat conservation based on science. This would 

allow the public to understand what the objectives are, how they will be measured, and if they’re being met. 

Using qualitative indicators does not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms by which to ensure the 

protection of this species.

Summary: Relying so heavily on PFC assessments is problematic because they are subject to bias and

inconsistency, and can vary from person to person. Also, PFC is a low bar for functionality. Using

Ecological Site Descriptions and other data such as that from Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007 

would provide measureable benchmarks for riparian habitat conservation based on science. This would 

allow the public to understand what the objectives are, how they will be measured, and whether they’re 

being met. Using qualitative indicators does not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms by which to 

ensure the protection of this species.

Response: The use of PFC assessments has been an effective tool by which the BLM is able to assess

stream/riparian functionality. Although some level of professional judgment by BLM resource specialists 

is used during PFC assessments, the process follows a standardized methodology so that it is consistently 

applied. In addition, PFC is the minimum requirement for stream/riparian function. The overall goal is to 

manage areas to exceed PFC, with PFC representing the minimum level of functioning condition.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-774 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Livestock Grazing

Best available information-baseline data

Rangeland health assessments are subjective

Comment ID: 956

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: Implied throughout this Draft EIS, on the subject of “Livestock Grazing,” that if necessary there 

could be reductions of AUMʼs in grazing allotments to satisfy the “vegetation requirements” for the Greater 

Sage Grouse. Quote from Alternative E, pg 2 - 192; “Grazing management would be adjusted on all 

allotments not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on BLM-administered lands, and 

to those not meeting LRMP standards and guidelines on Forest Service-administered lands, for reasons 

attributable to grazing. These management restrictions could reduce AUM utilization and increase the cost 

of livestock operations.” The catch phase is “not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands.” 

Rangeland Health or Healthy Rangelands are in the eyes of the beholder and can be construed to fit the

objective of an individual or group who wants a specific use of the range.

Summary: Assessing whether specific allotments meet the Standards for Rangeland Health is a subjective

process that can be construed to fit the objective of an individual or group who wants a specific use of the 

range. Therefore, use of these standards to determine whether changes to livestock grazing practices are 

needed is not appropriate.

Response: A BLM interdisciplinary team conducts the assessments and makes determinations based on the

results of the assessments. Although the assessments follow a standardized process, there is some level of

professional judgment that is exercised by the interdisciplinary team, which is a necessary component of 

the process. However, this team is trained to conduct such assessments in an objective manner.

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Disclose impacts from livestock grazing in the Draft EIS

Comment ID: 821

Organization:

Name: Laurinda Reinhart

Comment: I'm not against sustainably managed livestock grazing, but to exclude their impacts from the 

draft LUP makes the draft useless.

Comment ID: 865

Organization:

Name: Elizabeth Solmson

Comment: Actual studies need to be undertaken to determine the effects that livestock grazing has on the

grouse population.

Comment ID: 2887

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-775

Comment: Another concern is the difference between the draft LUPA and EIS's consideration of impacts 

of grazing on sage-grouse versus the Governor's Executive Order 2013-3. There seems to be a disconnect 

between the Agencies members on the Wyoming SGIT which helped develop and refine the EO and the 

document authors. If the Agencies are not going to rely upon information from the EO and SGIT, then they 

need to convey that information to the Governor and the rest of the SGIT. Statements about grazing on page 

489 and page 491 of the document directly contradict the actions of Wyoming to conserve sage-grouse, 

leading one to wonder why the State has spent as much time and effort on this process.

Comment ID: 2376

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The DEIS fails to adequately disclose and analyze the impacts to GRSG caused by livestock 

grazing. The DEIS states in this section (Chapter 4, Section 14): The primary threats to this portion of the

population are energy development and transfer, including both renewable and non-renewable resources, 

long-term drought, and brush eradication programs. Residential development has also been identified as a 

threat. The DEIS does not disclose or analyze the threats to sage grouse caused by widespread and extensive

livestock grazing in the area: • There are over 1,500 allotments for the region with over 1.2 million animal 

unit months (AUMs) of livestock forage distributed throughout the six field offices. (Chapter 3, Section 7) 

This statement does not specify whether the 1.2 million AUMs are the actual forage allocations, or reported 

use by ranchers, and if the latter, what time period. • There are 574 grazing allotments are located entirely 

within GRSG priority habitat, and 1,125 allotments that lie partially within GRSG habitat. ((Chapter 4, 

Section 7). No AUM allocations are given for allotments within sage grouse habitat, so no conclusions can 

be drawn, or analysis made, regarding extent of livestock impacts within GRSG habitat. • 186 out of 574 

allotments within core habitat not meeting the standards due to livestock grazing. • The DEIS wrongly 

excludes livestock grazing from classification as a surface disturbance, despite the vast landscape in 

Wyoming impacted by livestock grazing activities. The DEIS provides no justification or documentation 

for this exclusion. • The DEIS is silent on the extensive and well-documented impacts of livestock grazing 

on GRSG, focusing instead on other activities, such as oil and gas and residential development that impact 

the species. In the words of The Wildlife News, this is “analogous to noting that people are dying from lung 

cancer (proximate cause of death), but neglecting to make the connection between smoking cigarettes 

(ultimate cause) and these deaths.” Indeed, in the words of our colleagues at the Western Watersheds 

Project, the BLM continues to “turn a blind eye to the widespread degradation cows and sheep are causing 

in sage-grouse habitat.” • The final EIS must include an accurate assessment of the widespread degradation 

of GRSG habitat caused by livestock grazing and the negative impacts of the activity on the animals 

themselves. As one example, we include the recent scientific study (Attachment 1) documenting that the 

presence of cattle increases corticosteroid levels in GRSG, which is an indicator of stress.

Comment ID: 459

Organization:

Name:

Comment: Nor does it properly disclose or analyze the impacts that widespread livestock grazing in the 

planning area is having on the sage grouse. In fact, the BLM Wyoming wrongly excludes livestock grazing 

from classification as a surface disturbing activity, despite the vast landscape decimation caused by this

unsustainable practice.

Summary: The Draft EIS fails to adequately disclose and analyze the impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse 

caused by livestock grazing. The Draft EIS does not disclose or analyze the threats to sage-grouse caused 

by widespread and extensive livestock grazing. Actual studies need to be undertaken to determine the 

effects that livestock grazing has on the sagegrouse population. The Draft EIS wrongly excludes livestock 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-776 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

grazing from classification as a surface disturbance, despite the vast landscape in Wyoming impacted by 

livestock grazing activities. The Draft EIS provides no justification or documentation for this exclusion.

Response: The Draft EIS provides a detailed analysis of impacts on sage-grouse populations and habitat 

from implementing the livestock grazing decisions included in Chapter 2. This analysis is included in

Section 4.14 of Chapter 4 of the EIS. The analysis uses the best available data and information pertaining 

to impacts from livestock grazing on sage-grouse populations and habitat.

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Draft EIS fails to implement Forest Service viability requirements

Comment ID: 1317

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The proposed alternative fails to implement Forest Service specific requirements such as 

viability and those found in the various regulations, manuals and handbooks for the management of listed 

and Sensitive Species as well as livestock grazing in relation to these.

Summary: The Preferred Alternative fails to implement Forest Service specific requirements such as 

viability and those found in the various regulations, manuals and handbooks for the management of listed

and sensitive species, as well as livestock grazing in relation to these species.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives during the greater

sage-grouse planning process in full compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.1) require 

that the BLM and the Forest Service consider reasonable alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment. While there are many possible alternatives or 

actions to manage public lands and Greater Sage-Grouse in the planning area, the BLM and the Forest 

Service fully considered the planning issues and criteria developed during the scoping process to determine 

a reasonable range of alternatives. As a result, five alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS that best addressed the issues and concerns identified by the affected public. The 

plan includes alternatives that provide a greater and lesser degree of restrictions in various use programs, 

but would not eliminate or invalidate any valid existing development rights. As part of the analysis process, 

the Forest Service developed a viability strategy that is aimed at ensuring that habitats on National Forest 

lands provide for viable (persistent) populations of sagegrouse for those life history periods when they 

utilize those habitats. A biological evaluation is prepared for all proposed actions, including Forest Plans 

(consistent with FSM 2672) that assesses each alternative, including management actions, and provides a 

synthesis of effects on the species by management actions. The selected alternative must ensure that actions 

do not result in a loss of viability or trend the species towards federal listing. Further, conservation actions 

in the Forest Plan Amendments are tiered to guidance in in other sage-grouse conservation planning 

documents. For example, the Conservation Objectives Team report identifies Priority Areas for 

Conservation (PACs) that are considered important for sage-grouse populations, and offers initial guidance 

to protect these areas.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-777

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Draft EIS incorrectly treats impacts to sage-grouse from livestock grazing the same as those from 

wild horses

Comment ID: 471

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The DEIS also treats livestock grazing impacts as the same as wild horse impacts in direct

contradiction to USFWS conclusions. Infra at 3-4. DEIS 2-183 (“Greater Sage-Grouse habitat

considerations within livestock grazing allotments and wild horse management areas would be similar 

across all action alternatives.”). Research and USFWS recommendations contradict these assumptions.

Comment ID: 465

Organization:

Name:

Comment: In summary, the final EIS must include the following: 3.Accurate and detailed analysis on the 

impacts of livestock grazing on sage grouse. 4. Clear delineation of wild horses from livestock both 

legally and biologically/environmentally.

Summary: The Draft EIS treats livestock grazing impacts the same as wild horse impacts in direct 

contradiction to USFWS conclusions. Infra at 3-4. Draft EIS 2-183 (“Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

considerations within livestock grazing allotments and wild horse management areas would be similar 

across all action alternatives.”). Research and USFWS recommendations contradict these assumptions. The 

Final EIS must include the following: Accurate and detailed analysis on the impacts of livestock grazing 

on sage-grouse. Clear delineation of wild horses from livestock both legally and 

biologically/environmentally.

Response: The Draft EIS analyzes livestock grazing impacts separately from wild horse impacts (see 

Sections 4.7 and 4.19 in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS), and includes impacts from implementing management

actions associated with livestock grazing in various sections of Chapter 4. The statement on Page 2- 183 

addresses the fact that sage-grouse habitat needs will be considered in grazing allotments and wild horse 

herd management areas across all action alternatives. This should not be misconstrued to indicate that 

livestock grazing impacts and wild horse impacts are the same. The Draft EIS includes a detailed analysis 

of the impacts of livestock grazing on sage-grouse (see Section 4.7 in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS).

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Draft EIS should consider the effects of allowing for full permitted use

Comment ID: 1297

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS admits that the permitted livestock grazing use in the planning area is not an

accurate reflection of the actual grazing use but the preferred alternative does not address the fact that were 

livestock use to increase to the fully permitted levels, conditions for sage-grouse would certainly be worse. 

Rather than provide conservation measures for sage-grouse, the DLUPA/DEIS would effectively indemnify 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-778 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the higher numbers until some unknown future time in which sitespecific planning is conducted (though 

WWP notes how rarely site-specific processes adjust grazing use to lower permitted numbers even when 

actual use is a tiny fraction of the authorization). Surely, the agencies could have taken a hard look at the 

actual use statements, average billed use or annual authorizations and made meaningful recommendations 

pertaining to why livestock use at the higher levels is not viable, not appropriate, not realistic, etc. Lacking 

this discussion, the DLUPA/DEIS lacks a hard look at the baseline conditions or the preferred alternative.

Summary: The Draft EIS admits that the permitted livestock grazing use in the planning area is not an 

accurate reflection of the actual grazing use but the Preferred Alternative does not address the fact that were

livestock use to increase to the fully permitted levels, conditions for sage-grouse would certainly be worse. 

The agencies should take a hard look at the actual use statements, average billed use or annual authorizations 

and make meaningful recommendations pertaining to why livestock use at the higher levels is not viable, 

not appropriate, not realistic, etc. Lacking this discussion, the Draft EIS lacks a hard look at the baseline 

conditions or the Preferred Alternative.

Response: Specific analysis of each grazing permit and the recent use made of that permit or lease is beyond

the scope of this EIS. It is impossible to say what conditions might be if actual grazing use had been different 

in any year or any span of years. The grazing permit or lease conveys the ability to use up to the permitted 

amount of AUMs annually, unless documented conditions on the allotment indicate otherwise.

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Impacts analysis language should be revised

Comment ID: 1727

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-95 – Livestock Grazing – fourth paragraph – Grazing and trailing restrictions within 

lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during times of the year when these habitats are utilized

by sage-grouse would be placed on the livestock operators under this alternative. This would make it more 

difficult for livestock operators to move their cattle, which could also affect the number of AUMs they are 

able to utilize. These restrictions would not be realized under any of the other alternatives. Comment: This 

paragraph is poorly worded and difficult to understand. The end of the first sentence “would be placed on 

the livestock operators under this alternative” does not make any sense at all. Since livestock grazing within 

sage-grouse priority habitat is eliminated in this alternative, it would appear that this action is for occupied 

(non-priority) sage-grouse habitat, although that is not stated, which would affect perhaps another one-third 

of the analysis area. Since lekking, nesting, and broodrearing happen consecutively and in a lot of sagebrush 

country this may be in contiguous habitats to each other, it could lead to the elimination of livestock grazing 

over a much larger portion of the State of Wyoming, which is a rather clever way to disguise this impact in 

such a poorly worded manner without actually stating it.

Comment ID: 1295

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS present an insufficient analysis of the impacts of livestock on soils and soil

processes, which the DLUPA/DEIS does admit determine to a large extent the structure and function of 

ecosystems. It doesn’t overlay grazing allotments with sensitive soil maps, and it doesn’t assess whether 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-779

the regional S&Gs are sufficient to capture the soil impacts of livestock that precludes sagebrush 

recruitment. This is woefully inadequate and defies the requirements of NEPA.

Comment ID: 1296

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Similarly, the DLUPA/DEIS does not analyze the contributions of livestock grazing to the air 

quality in the planning area. There is no analysis of how livestock grazing contributes to airborne dust and 

the impacts of increased particulate matter on snowpack, etc. There is no analysis by county of public lands 

livestock grazing potential contributions to air quality, something that is an important effect of the land uses 

authorized by the current DLUPA/DEIS.

Comment ID: 1247

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The economic and social value of public lands livestock grazing often receives disproportionate

weight in LUP/RMPs. The importance of public lands grazing to the economy is often grossly

overestimated. In the Final LUPA, the comparison of social and economic values of the proposed

alternatives should demonstrate a clear understanding and consideration of the conflicts between continued 

grazing and other uses of the public lands.

Comment ID: 1728

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-95 – Livestock Grazing – fifth paragraph – Prohibiting new water developments under 

this alternative would decrease surface disturbing activities associated with development, thus maintaining 

current available forage for livestock in the short-term. However, enhancements to riparian vegetation and 

water quality, which would provide forage and water sources for livestock, would not be realized over the 

long-term. Water developments are used and needed for livestock, so limiting their development and 

resulting surface disturbance would help to improve the ecological health of the landscape and thereby 

improve vegetative/forage conditions. However, this would also limit the ability to provide water for 

livestock and wildlife and distribute livestock across allotments. Comment: Again, poorly written and 

misleading statements. The first sentence describes how prohibiting new water developments would 

decrease surface disturbance (true) and therefore maintain current available forage for livestock. The 

amount of forage lost through disturbance in water developments is probably one-tenth of one percent, it is 

miniscule, and not even worthy of mention here as an impact. The second sentence, which states that 

“enhancements to riparian vegetation and water quality”...”would not be realized over the long-term”, 

which sounds like Rangeland Health Standards #2 (Riparian/wetland health) and #5 (Water Quality) would 

not be met over the long-term. This is not acceptable nor is it legal with BLM policy.

Comment ID: 1729

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-96, Livestock Grazing – last paragraph – Impacts resulting from fire and fuels 

management would be similar to Alternative B, except realized over more acres and with a greater emphasis 

on ensuring long-term persistence of sagebrush. Lands would be managed to be in similarity to potential 

natural community, enabling a long-term balance of herbaceous and woody vegetation, thereby providing 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-780 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

a stable forage source for livestock. Post fire recovery efforts would exclude livestock grazing until burned 

areas are fully recovered. This would displace livestock grazing in the short-term, but provide enhanced 

forage availability for livestock grazing in the long-term. Comment: This paragraph is mostly not true, with 

the only true statement being that more acres would be burned. This is because with no cattle grazing, fine 

fuels will build up, resulting in higher frequency, size and intensity of wildfires, which will not be as easy 

to control because fire breaks caused by removal of forage due to grazing won’t exist, and wildlife 

populations will not remove as much forage as livestock. So comparing this analysis to Alternative B, where 

in some cases forage allocation to livestock was reduced 20-30 percent, isn’t even close to accurate. This 

will create more of a fire effected community rather than a potential natural community, and a long-term 

balance of herbaceous and woody vegetation will be more difficult if not impossible to maintain with higher 

fuel loads and increased fire impacts. Excluding livestock grazing until burned areas are fully recovered

was not listed as a management action in Chapter 2, and therefore is not valid for discussion here.

Comment ID: 1730

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-97 – Livestock Grazing – next to last paragraph – Impacts from livestock grazing 

management would be the same as those described under Alternative A, except additional requirements 

(e.g., authorizing retirement of up to 15% within the individual planning unit for grazing allotments,

incorporating sage-grouse habitat objectives and management objectives in core habitats) may be placed 

on livestock operators when renewing grazing permits compared to Alternative A. Postdrought

management impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Comment: Adding the requirement about 

retirement of grazing would be new and different from Alternative A, however, incorporating sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and management objectives for any occupied habitat may currently occur under 

Alternative A, so is not different here in Alternative D.

Comment ID: 2725

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-499 Text: The short-term uses that would result in the greatest impact on long-term

productivity include mineral and energy development, dispersed recreation, livestock grazing, and

infrastructure development. Comment: This statement is entirely unsupported since livestock grazing is a 

de minimus activity. Improper livestock grazing may have a substantial impact and the BLM must qualify 

this assertion.

Comment ID: 945

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-366, Paragraph 2. This is an assumption not a management action. Suggest changing to

"Livestock grazing and range improvements may involve localized surface disturbance .... and riparian

areas could lead to short term soil compaction ... "

Comment ID: 1733

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-99 – Livestock Grazing – fourth paragraph – Impacts from livestock grazing 

management would be the same as those described under Alternative A, however, additional 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-781

requirements........ Comment: Same as above in 4-97 – next to last paragraph – made for Alternative D and 

now in Alternative E. Adding management objectives for sage-grouse to permit renewals and/or

management plans may be done (and already is being done) under Alternative A, so is not different in this 

alternative.

Comment ID: 1249

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the BLM must prevent injury to public lands. The Act’s goal of

stabilizing the livestock industry is “secondary” to the goals of safeguarding the rangeland and providing 

for its orderly use. A thorough economic calculation must consider the value lost from negative 

environmental impacts to: water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat quality and quantity, and native 

vegetation. The costs of further exotic species and weed expansions, diminished recreational opportunities, 

potential species loss, intrinsic land value, and beauty must also be calculated.

Comment ID: 957

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: pg 2 - 201 Special Status Species and Sage-grouse: Alternative E “Overall, impacts to special 

status species habitat from Alternative E would be similar to Alternative A although there would be greater 

protection for sage-grouse core habitat.” “Management for livestock grazing could allow achievement of 

Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide improved habitat 

for special status species, especially those that inhabit riparian and wetland areas.” What is the meaning of 

“livestock grazing could allow achievement of Wyoming Standards?” “Lek buffers larger than Alternative 

A and other restrictions would protect lands, especially sagebrush habitat, from surface disturbing activities, 

habitat loss and fragmentation.” Although this wording does not come out and directly say that livestock 

grazing is or may be a “surface disturbing” event, the implication is there. The above wording must be 

considered hostile to livestock grazing in sage-grouse habitat. [Emphasis Added]

Comment ID: 1316

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: When analyzing the cumulative impacts of other agency actions on GRSG habitat in context of

livestock grazing, the analysis fails to consider that there is enormous flexibility in how any of the protective 

provisions will be implemented, if at all. Thus, the cumulative effects analysis must consider a situation in 

which none of the discretionary/waivable measures would be applied, causing the impacts of grazing and 

grazing development to occur in a high-disturbance environment.

Comment ID: 1368

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Page 4-211 provides a number of erroneous assumptions such as that "on undisturbed rangelands

natural erosion rates are minimal". The BLM's own research clearly refutes this assumption. We had

mentioned previously the famous study by Lusby published by the BLM which clearly shows the livestock 

grazing significantly increases runoff and erosion compared to ungrazed areas. This, of course, undercuts 

the BLM's false assumption that livestock grazing is not a factor in surface disturbance. An additional 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-782 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

assumption that "water erosion is the primary mechanism for loss of soil productivity" is also unsupported 

by the literature. Wind erosion is a significant mechanism of soil loss.

Comment ID: 1726

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-94 – Livestock Grazing – last paragraph – Under Alternative C, livestock grazing would 

be entirely prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. A total of 574 grazing allotments are located

entirely within sag-grouse priority habitat, and 1,125 allotments are located partially within sagegrouse

priority habitat. These allotments/partial allotments represent 560,180 permitted AUMs (approximately 

30% of the total permitted AUMs), which would become unavailable for use by livestock as a result of the 

closure to livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat. Comment: This paragraph is so poorly 

written and lacking in depth it is ridiculous, but here are a number of items to correct or address. The 

560,180 AUMs located in allotments/partial allotments within sage-grouse priority habitat probably 

includes all AUMs from the partial allotments within sage-grouse priority habitat, so this is not an accurate 

number, and with the size and scale of this document the public deserves better accuracy than this. Taking 

out of livestock use whatever the accurate number of AUMs is would still be a large number, and would 

result in higher demand and greater grazing pressure on adjacent (non-priority) grazing lands, reduce 

flexibility of grazing operations to deal with drought, high numbers of wildlife or wild horses, insect 

infestations, and other factors that can annually influence livestock management. In the Rawlins area this 

would indirectly affect over 3.8 million acres of intermingled private land, which would likely be more

heavily grazed to compensate for the loss of public land grazing, or be sold to other land uses, either way 

most likely result in a loss of the partners on the land currently that cooperate with state and federal agencies 

to improve management of all wildlife, not just sage-grouse. There would likely be a great increase in 

fencing private lands, and in fencing off allotments that are partially within sagegrouse priority habitat to 

graze public lands outside of this habitat. The only statement in this document about increased fencing 

occurred in the 

Summary: of Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse, 2- 183, where it stated that “Under Alternative C, the 

potential for increased fencing in order to prevent trespass exists”. This is such an understatement, given 

the amount of private and state lands affected in just the Rawlins area, let alone the whole State of 

Wyoming, that it is another example of the poor effect given to this document by the BLM.

Comment ID: 1725

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-92 – Livestock Grazing – next to last paragraph – Under this alternative, additional water

development would only be authorized when priority sage-grouse habitat would be conserved, enhanced, 

or restored to sage-grouse, thus fewer impacts to livestock grazing could be realized, if there are fewer 

range improvements permitted. Water developments are used and needed for livestock, so limiting their 

development would help to improve the ecological health of the landscape and thereby improve 

vegetative/forage conditions, but would also limit the ability to provide water for livestock and distribute 

livestock across allotments. Comment: Both of the sentences in the paragraph above have portions that do 

not make sense. In the first sentence, the portion “thus fewer impacts to livestock grazing could be realized” 

is poorly worded and should be re-written to more clearly state the impact. In the second sentence, the

portion “so limiting their development would help to improve the ecological health of the landscape and 

thereby improve vegetative/forage conditions” is totally false and should be re-written. First of all, in many 

cases new water sources are constructed to reduce use and impacts around existing water sources, which 

are also often riparian habitat, which would not be improved by not creating additional water sources. This 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-783

would result in not improving the ecological health of the landscape, nor would it improve vegetative/forage 

conditions. As stated above, there are many examples of these practices and their benefits demonstrated 

across Wyoming over the last 20 years. Second, development of new upland water sources in areas without 

water currently will not improve the vegetative/forage condition in these areas, in most cases it is already 

in good condition. If water is developed without any type of management plan, the habitat around these 

new developments may be degraded. However, management of livestock should provide for some level of 

growing season deferment from grazing to maintain plant vigor and species composition, so that habitat is 

not degraded around new water sources. In addition, livestock grazing may balance out wildlife browsing

on shrubs in crucial winter ranges to help maintain healthy, diverse habitat conditions, and in dry years 

livestock developed water sources may provide water for wildlife and wild horses that would not otherwise 

be available and reduce concentrations of these animals and reduce overuse and other negative effects on 

the landscape and vegetative/forage condition.

Comment ID: 1722

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: For alternative C, which would eliminate livestock grazing within SG core, it states under 

livestock trailing that there may be restrictions in all four seasonal habitats when they are being used, but

under impacts it doesn't say much. Although it doesn't say in "occupied - non core" habitat, since there is 

no grazing in core, we think it means for areas outside core and could be used to severely reduce or eliminate 

grazing in occupied habitat outside of core, even though it never says so. This seems very deceitful to say

the least.

Comment ID: 1172

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The BLM must consider the impacts of proposed livestock grazing throughout the planning area 

on the important cultural and historic resources found on these public lands. Trampling, displacement,

desecration, and degradation are all possible impacts of livestock grazing; the LUPA/EIS must provide

specific tolerance parameters, monitoring, and other requirements to ensure for the protection and

preservation of these areas.

Comment ID: 1312

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The DRMPA/DEIS does not adequately address the significant cumulative stress of climate 

change and incorporate recent science suggesting that a reduction in ungulate grazing would improve

ecological resilience in the face of temperature and precipitation changes. See Beschta et al 2012. The 

DLUPA/DEIS does not discuss the impacts of livestock grazing on the climate resilience or the

contributions of GHGs in the planning area. The impacts of climate change on a healthy resilient system 

are far less than on a system where resource extraction, such as livestock grazing is the predominant use. 

The levels of livestock grazing utilization that takes place on BLM lands places an unnatural stress upon 

the vegetative communities which did not even evolve with this non-native invasive species, cattle. There 

is much research regarding the impacts of drought under various levels of herbivory, the majority of which 

shows significant impacts to vegetation from the level of utilization generally authorized or allowed by the 

BLM. The impacts of drought are quite similar to that predicted from global warming and thus the research 

regarding herbivory effects and drought are quite analogous and useful for the analysis of the impacts of 

climate change.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-784 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1223

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: First and foremost, BLM’s DLUPA/DEIS has failed to recognize the serious and detrimental 

impact of livestock grazing on Greater sage-grouse habitat in the planning area. A good example of the 

level of recognition that is necessary can be found in the BLM’s HiLine DRMP, released in Montana in 

June 2013. This document recognizes the impact of livestock grazing on naturalness, stating: Livestock 

grazing has the potential to impact naturalness, the undeveloped character, and to create conflict with 

recreation users. Manipulation of vegetation, alteration of soils, and the presence of fecal matter would 

create unnatural conditions and would impact opportunities for solitude, particularly in areas where 

livestock congregate. Range facilities, such as fences, water troughs, and tanks have the potential to degrade 

wilderness characteristics by creating new developments, disturbing visual resources, and influencing 

wildlife migration, reproduction, and mortality (e.g., sagegrouse/ fence collisions).23 The DLUPA/DEIS 

fails to recognize the basic realities that livestock grazing is ecologically deleterious, economically 

inefficient, and socially unnecessary. Instead, the preferred alternative maintains the status quo grazing 

management throughout the project area without a “hard look” at the reality of grazing impacts, including 

impacts to vegetation communities, soil resources, and wildlife habitats. Because livestock grazing occurs 

throughout all GRSG habitat in the planning area, management of this land use is critical to managing sagegrouse habitats and populations

Comment ID: 2882

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: The cultural resources analysis along with other analyses in the document appear to have widely

strayed from the EIS's mission to "address management of sage-grouse habitat" and to incorporate

"adequate regulatory mechanisms." The purpose of the EIS is not to evaluate and disclose how grazing 

might impact cultural resources. However, see this example from page 4-58 to 4-59: Management actions 

associated with livestock grazing would have both direct and indirect impacts on cultural resources. 

Implementing healthy rangeland standards and achieving proper functioning condition (PFC) and rangeland 

health objectives would contribute to improved range conditions, and soil and vegetation stability, thereby 

protecting cultural resources. However, range improvements that disturb the ground surface could result in 

impacts on cultural resources. Subsurface prehistoric discoveries that are a result of reservoir, water well, 

or fence construction would occasionally occur in culturally sensitive sediments. Data recovery excavations 

could mitigate the impacts of these discoveries. Livestock grazing could directly impact cultural artifacts 

and features on or just below the surface by breaking or scattering these artifacts. Alternatively, cattle trails 

and other heavily trampled and exposed areas could unearth otherwise undetected cultural resources and 

allow them to be identified and recorded. What does any of this have to do with sage-grouse habitat or sagegrouse? It appears that BLM is seeking to use a rationale of sage-grouse protection to try to inhibit grazing 

to "protect cultural resources" instead. This is out of scope of the Wyoming Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS 

and should be rewritten or eliminated, as should all other similar types of analysis within the document.

Comment ID: 2113

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew

Comment: To their credit, BLM recognized that “improvements in range condition generally are anticipated 

to continue based on vegetation treatment and range improvement projects.” 9-Plan EIS at 3-75. However, 

BLM fails to recognize that habitat loss and disruption may also occur, albeit less rapidly, under Alternative 

E, to the extent the proposed standards and guidelines, and limitations on range treatments and water and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-785

structural developments, incrementally reduce available forage and ranching viability. Because FWS found 

habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and disruption to be among the largest factors negatively impacting sagegrouse, it is imperative that BLM consider the potential negative consequences of amending standards and 

guidelines applicable to livestock grazing and range management in a manner that would reduce grazing 

levels and/or forage production and availability.

Comment ID: 2880

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: In addition, BLM may not make broad statements asserting disturbance related to ranching and

agricultural operations and range improvements without including best available information and data to 

support those assertions. The Draft LUPA/EIS references imposing "Restrictions on the construction of 

range improvements for the protection of sage-grouse habitats" (p. 4-87); however, there is no description 

or explanation of why banning or restricting fences and wells would protect sage-grouse habitats, nor any 

scientific proof listed that these improvements cause material levels of impacts to sage-grouse habitat. If 

the Draft LUPA/EIS is to assert that range improvements which are necessary for successful grazing 

operations directly or indirectly cause material levels of disturbance in sage-grouse habitat, then scientific 

justification should be provided. Rotational grazing, reseeding, and other land and vegetation management 

activities are commonly used by ranchers to minimize impacts of grazing and range improvements already.

Comment ID: 2617

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-87 Text: Livestock grazing is not considered a surface-disturbing activity. Comment: This

language should be amended to read: “Livestock grazing, herding, trailing, docking, branding, and other 

husbandry practices, are de minimus activities under EO 2011-5 and are is not considered a surfacedisturbing activities.” The Coalition agrees that livestock grazing is not a surface-disturbing activity. See 

WY IB-2007-029. The BLM, however, must clarify that only when an activity physically removes suitable 

habitat for immediate GRSG use, will that activity be considered a surface-disturbing activity. As drafted, 

the BLM attempts to define certain activities as de facto surface-disturbing activities when the activity,

standing alone, is not the important element of the definition. Instead, it is the physical removal of suitable 

habitat. Thus, operating heavy machinery for example, for whatever purpose, is not a surface-disturbing 

activity unless it removes suitable habitat. Furthermore, the Coalition reminds the BLM that livestock 

grazing, herding, trailing, and other husbandry practices have a de minimus impact on GRSG habitat 

according to Wyoming EO 2011-5.

Comment ID: 2934

Organization: Protect Mustangs

Name: Anne Novak

Comment: The impact of widespread livestock grazing is not disclosed with regards to the impact on sage

grouse. Livestock grazing is a surface disturbing activity and the current methods are unsustainable. This 

must be classified as a surface disturbance activity. We request the EIS include: 1. Complete data on 

livestock grazing within the entire planning area, including a listing of all BLM/FS allotments, acreage, 

Active (permitted) AUMs, and actual AUM use for the past 5 years as well as photos and video 

documenting the use. 2. Clear charts and maps that disclose acreage and AUM allocations for livestock 

grazing in all three categories of sage grouse habitat. 3. Accurate and detailed analysis on the impacts of 

livestock grazing on sage grouse. 8. Complete analysis of the effects of livestock grazing, as proposed in 

the DEIS, on global warming.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-786 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2797

Organization:

Name: marla bosworth

Comment: 3. Demand an analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process. Many have no data available 

which evaluate the condition of the land. Many others that have had an assessment conclude that the land

is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing.

Comment ID: 3144

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 4.7.6 4‐ 98 Paragraph 2 first sentence Many parts of the East Anticline are under voluntary lease

suspension, which is a five‐ year term.

Comment ID: 2894

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: We do not agree with this assumption under 4.14.2, page 242, as it relates to sage-grouse: The 

more acreage of habitat protected, the greater the benefit to the targeted species. Working in partnership 

with PCW, our years of sage-grouse data collection show that sage-grouse need and use a wide variety of 

vegetation and habitat types to support their various life activities including agricultural fields, riparian 

areas, ditches and roadsides. They do not depend solely on sagebrush for their entire lifecycles, and sagegrouse have been co-existing and thriving alongside with grazing practices and range improvements for 

decades. Ranchers contribute to the conservation of sage grouse by wisely managing a variety of landscapes 

and vegetation, including sagebrush ecosystems. There is no need to "protect" habitat - i.e. prevent any 

activities from happening on it - in order to benefit the targeted species, in this case, the greater sage-grouse.

Summary: Issue #1: The Draft EIS must provide a comprehensive analysis of the impacts on livestock 

grazing on vegetation, soil resources, sage-grouse and other wildlife habitat, air quality, and global 

warming. Issue #2: Page 2-201 Special status species and sage-grouse, Alternative E: What is the meaning 

of “livestock grazing could allow achievement of Wyoming Standards?" Issue #3: The comparison of 

social and economic values of the proposed alternatives should demonstrate a clear understanding and 

consideration of the conflicts between continued grazing and other uses of the public lands. Issue #4: The 

BLM must consider the potential negative consequences of amending standards and guidelines applicable 

to livestock grazing and range management in a manner that would reduce grazing levels and/or forage 

production and availability. Issue #5: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS includes restrictions on the 

construction of range improvements. However, the document does not include a description or explanation 

of why restricting fences and wells would protect sage-grouse habitats, nor any scientific proof that these

improvements cause adverse impacts to sage-grouse habitat. Scientific justification should be provided.

Issue #6: The following assumption (from Section 4.14.2, page 242) is not accurate: "The more acreage of 

habitat protected, the greater the benefit to the targeted species." Sage-grouse need and use a variety of 

habitats, not only sagebrush habitat. Issue #7: Page 4-87: The following assumption “Livestock grazing is 

not considered a surfacedisturbing activity” should be amended to read: Comment: “Livestock grazing, 

herding, trailing, docking, branding, and other husbandry practices, are de minimis activities under EO 

2011-5 and are not considered surface-disturbing activities.” The BLM must clarify that only when an 

activity physically removes suitable habitat for immediate sage-grouse use, will that activity be considered 

a surface-disturbing activity. As drafted, the BLM attempts to define certain activities as de facto surface 

disturbing activities when the activity, standing alone, is not the important element of the definition. Issue 

#8: The BLM must consider the impacts of proposed livestock grazing activities on important cultural and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-787

historic resources, and the Draft EIS must provide specific tolerance parameters, monitoring, and other 

requirements to ensure the protection of cultural and historic resources. Issue #9: Page 4-211 includes the 

two following erroneous assumptions: (1) “On undisturbed rangelands, natural erosion rates are minimal” 

and (2) “Water erosion is the primary mechanism for loss of soil productivity.” The study by Lusby 

published by the BLM shows that livestock grazing significantly increases runoff and erosion compared to 

ungrazed areas, which conflicts with BLM’s false assumption that livestock grazing is not a factor is surface 

disturbance. The second assumption listed above is not supported by literature. Wind erosion is a significant 

mechanism of soil loss. Issue #10: The economic analysis in the Draft EIS must consider the value lost 

from negative environmental impacts to water resources, wildlife habitat, and native vegetation. The costs 

of invasive plant proliferation, diminished recreational opportunities, potential species loss, and intrinsic 

land value must also be calculated. Issue #11: Page 4-95, fourth paragraph: The first sentence does not 

make sense. Because livestock grazing is prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat under this 

alternative, it appears this action applies to general habitat, which could lead to the elimination of livestock 

grazing over a larger portion of the planning area. Issue #12: Page 4-92, next to last paragraph: The first 

sentence should be re-written to more clearly describe the impact. The second sentence is not accurate and 

should be re-written. Issue #13: Page 4-95, fifth paragraph: The amount of forage lost from the construction 

of water developments is miniscule and is not worthy of mentioning in the analysis. The second sentence 

is not acceptable and is not consistent with BLM policy. Issue #14: Page 4-96, last paragraph: Most of this 

paragraph is not accurate. Because livestock grazing would be prohibited, fine fuel loads would increase 

and result in increased wildland fire frequency, size, and intensity. Comparing this to Alternative B is not 

accurate as the impacts would be substantially different. Excluding livestock grazing until burned areas are 

fully recovered was not included in Chapter 2 and therefore is not valid for discussion on this page. Issue 

#15: Page 4-94, last paragraph: The figure of 560,180 AUMs referenced in this paragraph likely includes 

all the AUMs from the allotments that partially intersect sage-grouse priority habitat, and therefore the 

figure is not accurate. Issue #16: Page 4-97, next to last paragraph: Adding the requirement about retirement 

of grazing would be new and different from Alternative A; however, incorporating sage-grouse habitat

objectives for occupied habitat may currently occur under Alternative A; therefore, it’s not different here 

in Alternative D. Issue #17: Page 4-499: The following statement is not supported by literature and conflicts 

with the assumption that livestock grazing is a de minimis activity: “The short-term uses that would result 

in the greatest impact on long-term productivity include mineral and energy development, dispersed

recreation, livestock grazing, and infrastructure development. Issue #18: When analyzing the cumulative 

impacts of other agency actions on sage-grouse habitat in the context of livestock grazing, the analysis fails 

to consider that there is enormous flexibility in how any of the protective provisions will be implemented. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis must consider a situation in which none of the 

discretionary/waivable measures would be applied, causing the impacts of grazing and grazing development 

to occur in a high-disturbance environment. Issue #19: The Draft EIS does not adequately address the 

significant cumulative stress of climate change and incorporate recent science that suggests a reduction in 

ungulate grazing would improve ecological resilience in the face of climate changes. The impacts of climate 

change on a healthy ecosystem are far less than on an ecosystem where livestock grazing is the predominate 

use. Issue #20: 4.7.6 4‐ 98 Paragraph 2 first sentence: Many parts of the East Anticline are under voluntary 

lease suspension, which is a five‐ year term. Issue #21: The cultural resources analysis appears to have 

widely strayed from the EIS's mission to "address management of sage-grouse habitat" and to incorporate 

"adequate regulatory mechanisms." The purpose of the EIS is not to evaluate and disclose how grazing 

might impact cultural resources. It appears that BLM is seeking to use a rationale of sage-grouse protection 

to try to inhibit grazing to "protect cultural resources" instead. This is out of scope of the Wyoming SageGrouse Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS and should be rewritten or eliminated, as should all other similar 

types of analysis within the document. Issue #22: Page 4-366, Paragraph 2. This is an assumption not a 

management action. Suggest changing to “Livestock grazing and range improvements may involve 

localized surface disturbance .... And riparian areas could lead to short term soil compaction ...”
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-788 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: Issue #1: The Draft EIS provides a comprehensive analysis of the impacts on all resource values 

and uses within the planning area, including livestock grazing, vegetation, soil resources, sage-grouse and

other wildlife, and air quality. This analysis is included in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. The discussion of the impacts on climate/global warming was expanded in the Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS. Issue #2: The statement from the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS specified in 

the comment is part of a sentence that states “Management for livestock grazing could allow for 

achievement of Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health or the Forest Service equivalent, and provide 

improved habitat for special status species, especially those that inhabit riparian and wetland areas.” Please

note this sentence was included in Table 2-7, Comparative Summary of Impacts, which provides a very 

brief, summarized description of the impacts. The sentence explains that implementation of the

management actions for livestock grazing would help to achieve rangeland health standards by managing 

livestock grazing activities in an appropriate and sustainable manner. Issue #3: The analysis of 

socioeconomic impacts provides a comprehensive analysis of the economic and social impacts that could 

occur as a result of implementing the management actions in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. This analysis does not necessarily highlight the conflicts that occur among resource uses. However, 

those conflicts can be gleaned from the analysis by reviewing the analysis across the entire range of 

alternatives. Issue #4: The management actions included in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS do not amend the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing. 

Some management actions result in reduced grazing levels, which are analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 of the

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Issue #5: The restrictions on the construction of range improvements 

that are included in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS are based on BLM/Forest Service 

professional judgment and consultation with other agencies. The potential impacts on sage-grouse habitat 

resulting from livestock grazing activities are included in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS. Issue #6: The assumption specified in the comment is accurate and appropriate. Although sagegrouse

use a variety of habitats, increased protections of that habitat will indeed benefit sage-grouse populations.

Issue #7: The assumption is accurate and is more appropriate than the language suggested in the comment, 

as it is more broadly written. The definition of “surface disturbing activities” is included in the glossary of 

the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS which provides full clarification of this term. Issue #8: The Draft 

EIS provides a comprehensive analysis of the impacts on cultural resources from implementing the 

management actions included in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, including actions 

associated with livestock grazing activities. This analysis is included in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3) of the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Management actions and requirements necessary to ensure the protection of 

cultural resources are included in the existing RMPs and LRMPs that are part of the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments planning effort. Issue #9: The assumption is accurate and is more 

appropriate than the language suggested in the comment, as it is more broadly written. The definition of 

“surface disturbing activities” is included in the glossary of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS which 

provides full clarification of this term. Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS assumptions specified in the 

comment are accurate and appropriate. Although livestock grazing activities can increase the rate of soil 

erosion, the assumption that undisturbed rangelands experience minimal soil erosion is accurate. Although 

wind causes soil erosion, the primary mechanism for loss of soil productivity is water erosion. These

assumptions are based on professional judgment and consultation with other agencies. (Issue 9 is a duplicate 

of Issue 7 and should use a duplicate response.) Issue #10: The types of economic impacts specified in the 

comment are very difficult to estimate with any significant level of accuracy, and are not necessary to 

disclose in a land use plan-level analysis. The economic impacts associated with changes to recreational 

opportunities are included in Chapter 4 (Section 4.11) of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Issue #11: 

The first sentence of paragraph 4 on Page 4-95 is accurate and appropriate. The conclusion reached in the 

comment is correct because livestock grazing is prohibited in priority habitat under Alternative C, the 

management actions included in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS would apply to areas 

outside of sage-grouse priority habitat. The BLM agrees that such actions would affect livestock grazing 

and could result in reductions in the availability of forage for livestock use. Issue #12: The paragraph has 

been revised for clarity in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. Issue #13: Although the amount of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-789

forage that is removed or degraded as a result of water developments is relatively small, it’s important to 

mention it in order to convey the differences among the alternatives. Other portions of the paragraph 

identified in the comment were revised in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS to more clearly 

describe the impacts. Issue #14: The type of impact specified in the comment is not captured in the analysis 

of impacts on livestock grazing, but rather in the analysis of impacts on fire and fuels management, which 

is in Section 4.20 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Regarding the issue of excluding livestock

grazing in burned areas, the management action under Alternative C states “Within sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat, livestock grazing should be excluded from burned areas until woody and herbaceous 

plants achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives.” Therefore, the analysis, as stated, is accurate and 

appropriate. Issue #15: The figure of 560,180 AUMs specified in the comment does not include all of the 

AUMs from the allotments that only partially intersect sage-grouse priority habitat. The AUM figure

includes all of the AUMs from the allotments that are entirely within sage-grouse priority habitat, and only 

a partial number of AUMs from the allotments that partially intersect priority habitat. The partial number 

of AUMs from these allotments is commensurate with the percentage of the allotment that intersects priority 

habitat. Issue #16: The management action regarding incorporating sage-grouse habitat objectives under

Alternative D is different than the current management under Alternative A. Although incorporating these 

objectives could occur under Alternative A, the BLM and Forest Service would not be required to consider 

them as they would be under Alternative D. Issue #17: Even if certain activities are exempted from state 

scrutiny by the Executive Order, the federal agencies still have a responsibility to reveal and analyze 

impacts to sage-grouse. The uses listed are the most common that occur on the public land, and can be 

assumed most likely to cause short term impacts. Issue #18: Analyzing the cumulative effects in the manner 

suggested in the comment would be speculative and involve hypothetical management scenarios, and 

therefore is not appropriate to include in the LUP Amendments/EIS. Additional NEPA documentation will 

be prepared at the projectlevel, which will address the implementation of the sage-grouse conservation 

measures. Issue #19: The type and level of analysis suggested in the comment is not appropriate for a 

planninglevel NEPA analysis. The analysis was revised in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS to 

expand the discussion of how the activities and projects considered in the cumulative impacts analysis 

would affect climate change/global warming. However, an analysis of how climate change would affect the

resources within the planning area is not within the scope of this EIS analysis. Issue #20: The voluntary oil 

and gas lease suspension in the East Anticline area commenced with the signing of the Anticline ROD in 

2009 and is nearing its end. Issue #21: The analysis of environmental consequences included in Chapter 4 

of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS analyzes all the management actions presented in Chapter 2. An 

analysis of how livestock grazing could potentially affect cultural resources is included in the Draft EIS 

because several livestock grazing management actions are included in Chapter 2. Livestock grazing 

activities has the potential to adversely affect sage-grouse habitat, and therefore management actions

addressing the threat of livestock grazing are included in the Chapter 2 alternatives. Issue #22: The 

paragraph specified in the comment is accurate and appropriate. Allowing for livestock grazing and the 

development of range improvements at various levels and with a range of restrictions is imbedded into the 

management actions across a reasonable range of alternatives. Therefore, the analysis acknowledges this 

and provides an assessment of the potential impacts that could result from implementing the management 

actions.

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

It's unclear whether livestock grazing is considered a surface disturbing activity

Comment ID: 2884

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-790 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: On page 342 of Chapter 4 under Section 4.16.3 the document again states that livestock grazing 

is a surface-disturbing action. When we compare this to the statement made on page 87 of the same chapter 

we get contradictory signals. On page 349 of Chapter 4 under Section 4.16.5 Alternative C the document 

discusses the restrictions on livestock management based on the sage-grouse uses. The uses outlined appear 

to pretty much ensure a year around prohibition. The document should list the time frames where 

restrictions would be in place, or conversely, when no restrictions would be in place for more accurate 

analysis of the actions. On page 366 in Chapter 4 livestock grazing is again identified as a surfacedisturbance.

Comment ID: 2863

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Beginning on page 190 of Chapter 2 section 2.7; Table 2-7. Comparative Summary of Impacts 

under the section dealing with cultural resources states in all of the alternatives that, "Surface disturbance

from oil and gas development, livestock grazing, recreation and travel management . . ." (emphasis added) 

supports the concern that the Agencies consider livestock grazing a surface-disturbing activity in spite of 

the statement in Chapter 4. These statements serve to confuse livestock producers as to where the Agencies 

feel grazing falls. Should grazing indeed be considered a surface-disturbing activity, then most livestock 

producers will find themselves having to mitigate and do other expensive activities which are ill suited to 

grazing. Furthermore we feel the document should be reissued with clear statements as to whether 

statements such as in Table 2-7 are the governing thoughts of the Agencies or statements made in Chapter 

4 to the opposite govern. Table 2-7 on page 200 under Alternative D dealing with special status species also 

identifies grazing as a surface-disturbing activity. Again the contradictions are disturbing and preclude an 

accurate analysis of impacts and alternatives. This same statement is repeated under the wildlife and 

fisheries section of Alternative D on page 209.

Comment ID: 2886

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: One of the biggest concerns the draft LUPA and EIS does not answer, but which must be 

answered deals with whether livestock grazing will be considered a surface-disturbing activity. By placing

grazing into a surface-disturbing category an entirely different management regime emerges,with

considerations for density disturbance calculations and reclamation actions would be required. Since most 

grazing operators have never considered themselves as being in that type of category the management 

changes would be significant. The economic analysis would be entirely wrong for impacts on grazing; 

depending on whether the grazing was treated as a surface-disturbance or not. Having statements on both 

sides adds confusion both for grazing and management. Allowing grazing to be classified as both will lead 

to arbitrary and capricious decisions.

Comment ID: 2877

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 122 of Chapter 4, the document talks about surface disturbing activities and lists 

livestock management as one of those. We seek clarification as to what this really means. Is it referencing 

all management activities, some or just a couple? Again this contributes to the confusion for the livestock 

industry as to whether the Agencies are going to consider them surface-disturbing activities or not. Making 

statements on both sides of the issue can lead to arbitrary and capricious decisions. On page 221 of Chapter 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-791

4 under the discussion of Alternative C, the document discusses surfacedisturbing activities associated with 

livestock grazing; implying that grazing is such an activity.

Summary: In various places in Chapter 4, livestock grazing activities are referred to as surface-disturbing

activities. However, in other areas of the Draft EIS, it is implied that livestock grazing is not considered a 

surface disturbing activity. Please clarify this discrepancy/inconsistency.

Response: The act of livestock grazing on rangelands across the planning area is not considered a surface

disturbing activity. However, the construction of livestock range improvements can result in surface

disturbances, and is analyzed as such in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The statements 

made in Chapter 4 regarding this issue are accurate and do not require revisions.

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Livestock grazing should not be identified as a threat to sage-grouse

Comment ID: 2063

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson

Comment: We are dismayed that livestock grazing is listed as a threat when it is well established that proper

livestock grazing management is not a threat to sage grouse or its habitats. All livestock grazing across the 

state does not need to be indicted if a situation occurs where improperly managed livestock grazing appears 

to have a negative impact. We would suggest that it would be more accurate to indicate that improper 

livestock grazing management may pose a risk and indicate that if such situations develop, they will be 

addressed as they occur. We concur with the WSGA in their comments supporting voluntary cooperative 

grazing management strategies (Action Number 45). We further agree with their concern that too often such 

cooperative grazing management strategies are driven by the federal agency management demands rather 

than as a method for determining economically sustainable strategies for the permittee/lessee.

Comment ID: 2866

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 163 under the section dealing with recreation we note a statement that says that many 

of the activities are benign uses. We feel that the same could be said for livestock grazing, yet do not find 

such a statement anywhere in the description on grazing.

Summary: Livestock grazing should not be listed as a threat to sage-grouse in the Draft EIS when it is well

established that proper livestock grazing management is not a threat to sage-grouse or its habitats. We 

would suggest that it would be more accurate to indicate that improper livestock grazing management may 

pose a risk and indicate that if such situations develop, they will be addressed as they occur.

Response: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS indicates that livestock grazing practices present a threat 

to sage-grouse, which is based on the USFWS 2010 listing decision that clearly states livestock grazing is

considered to be a threat to sage-grouse populations and habitat.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-792 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Livestock Grazing

Impact Analysis

Provide information to support that livestock grazing is not a surface-disturbing activity

Comment ID: 1367

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Page 4-87 states that one of the assumptions in the analyses is that "livestock grazing is not

considered a surface disturbing activity" but no information is provided to support that conclusion.

Summary: Page 4-87 states that one of the assumptions in the analyses is that "livestock grazing is not

considered a surface disturbing activity" but no information is provided to support that conclusion.

Response: As described in the Glossary of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, surface disturbance 

indicates physical removal of habitat or complete removal of vegetation that provides the habitat, such as

through the use of heavy equipment. Livestock grazing does not fit this definition. However, surface

disturbances can result from the construction of range improvements used for livestock grazing.

Livestock Grazing

Monitoring

Agencies should develop monitoring methods in coordination with the operators

Comment ID: 2829

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 6 of Chapter 2 the document discusses standardizing monitoring methods and 

approaches across the two Agencies. Monitoring to measure activities and practices is important, however

utilizing monitoring techniques which are not suited for the landscape in an area can be detrimental and 

lead to the wrong conclusions. We suggest that the Agencies develop these joint monitoring techniques 

closely with livestock producers to ensure proper selection of appropriate techniques. On page 7 of Chapter 

2 the document discusses the use of Adaptive Management. We reiterate our previous comments about 

identification of the model or models which will be utilized. Page 8 discusses the triggers that will be used 

for this process. These triggers should be developed with livestock producers where livestock is a 

consideration so that appropriate information about grazing practices can be identified. Also on that same 

page it discusses the development of an adaptive management working group. We believe that someone 

familiar with livestock be included on that working group. Section 2.3.3 on page 8 talks about mitigation 

and the process the Agencies want to use. While mitigation seems to apply to items like surface disturbance 

we have difficulty in understanding from the document whether Agencies consider grazing as a surface 

disturbing activity. We note numerous places in the document where the Agencies appear to consider 

grazing as such a surface disturbing activity while noting in Chapter 4 page 87 under the Assumption 

Section 4.7.2 that "Livestock grazing is not considered a surface-disturbing activity." Yet earlier in Chapter 

4 on page 61 the document states that, "Removing lands from uses that cause surface disturbance, such as 

retiring livestock allotments. . ."(emphasis added) suggest the opposite. Livestock's response to discussions 

such as mitigation will certainly be colored by whether the Agencies consider grazing a surface disturbance 

which may need mitigation. Without this clarification it is impossible to adequately comment
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-793

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service should work with livestock producers when developing monitoring

methods and adaptive management plans. Livestock producers should also be included in the adaptive 

management working group.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service intend to work with livestock producers when developing 

monitoring methods and adaptive management plans. As stated in the Final EIS, Appendix D, "when 

organizing the adaptive management working group, the BLM and Forest Service will invite participation 

from USFWS, local governments, and applicable state fish and game agencies." At this point, we intend to

limit participation to government agency representatives rather than include individual citizens or resource 

use advocacy groups, such as livestock producers.

Livestock Grazing

Monitoring

Livestock grazing monitoring has been inadequate

Comment ID: 2831

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Beginning on page 12 of Chapter 2 the Agencies discuss management objectives common to all

action alternatives. We have concerns with item number 7 under section 2.5.4 which states that the Agencies 

will do baseline monitoring for sage-grouse habitat. However, based on information provided in Appendix 

G, it appears the Agencies have difficulty doing adequate monitoring on grazing. We note that some 

monitoring was done as far back as 1998 and very few allotments have been monitored twice over a 

significant period of time. We question if the Agencies have the necessary ability to accomplish this item, 

but will instead provide opportunity for law suits against the Agencies. A realistic process should be adopted 

to avoid these pitfalls.

Summary: Beginning on page 12 of Chapter 2 the agencies discuss management objectives common to all

action alternatives. We have concerns with Action 7 under section 2.5.4 which states that the agencies will 

do baseline monitoring for sage-grouse habitat. However, based on information provided in Appendix G, 

it appears the agencies have difficulty doing adequate monitoring on grazing. We note that some monitoring 

was done as far back as 1998 and very few allotments have been monitored twice over a significant period 

of time. We question if the agencies have the necessary ability to accomplish this item, but will instead 

provide opportunity for law suits against the agencies. A realistic process should be adopted to avoid these 

pitfalls.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service assume they will have the ability to accomplish monitoring 

specified in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The following assumption was included in Section 

4.1.3 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS: "Sufficient funding and personnel will be available to 

implement the RMP and LRMP amendments." In addition, significant monitoring and land health 

assessments have been conducted on livestock grazing allotments over the past decade. The resultant data 

is included in Appendix G of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Appendix G provides information on

whether allotments meet the Standards for Rangeland Health or the ecological seral stage and vegetation 

structure condition on NFS administered lands. It is not an exhaustive listing of all monitoring that has 

occurred in all allotments.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-794 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Actions under Alternatives B and C are unreasonable

Comment ID: 1723

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 2-12 - Section 2.5.4 – Management Objectives Common to All Action Alternatives, Part 

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

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

maintain or enhance sage-grouse habitats and habitat connectivity. Comment: Part 1 above should only be 

common to alternatives A, B, D and E, and not to alternative C. By eliminating livestock grazing from 

public lands within sage-grouse core habitat, private landowners will either be put out of business and sell 

out to other types of development, or fence out their private and state lands to be able to graze them, and 

are not likely to want to continue as partners (as they currently are) to work together to improve management 

and habitat for sagegrouse. To emphasize how important this is, in the Rawlins area there is over 7.6 million 

acres of core (priority) habitat, of which 54% is private and state lands, so it is essential to have the support 

of private landowners and state land lessees in pro-actively managing for sage-grouse. Alternative C does 

not accomplish this.

Comment ID: 996

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Ranching and agricultural production have contributed to the stability of the western United 

States for more than 100 years. Selection of Alternatives B or C will alter the custom and culture of

Wyoming and the western United States forever. The BLM and USFS predict Alternative C will create

negative economic impacts to livestock grazing by $147 million and a 43% reduction in jobs per year

through 2020. Unlike other industries, livestock production is not a boom and bust industry. If the BLM 

and USFS select Alternatives B and C, Wyoming's agricultural industry is threatened. As significant as the 

economic impacts may be, the permanent detrimental impact to open space, wildlife habitat and tourism 

should be considered by the BLM and USFS. The practical effect of eliminating public lands grazing will 

be the subdivision of private lands for development, as ranch lands are generally worth more for 

development than livestock production. Western states, including Wyoming, have few mechanisms to 

control private land subdivision. Further, GSG rely upon private land habitat for late brood rearing habitat, 

wintering habitat, and in many parts of the state, nesting and brood rearing habitat. The loss of federal land 

forces inordinate pressure on private lands, and ultimately leads to loss of those lands as habitat altogether.

Comment ID: 201

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company

Name: Doug Cooper

Comment: I am very concerned that the Alternative B is not a workable proposal to reduce grazing by 20-

30%, especially on Section 15 BLM lands. BLM lands outside of grazing districts are very different from

lands within a federal grazing district. Section 15 lands are the remnants left from the original public domain 

after homesteaders selected the most productive land to become private land. Reducing the forage allocation 

on federal land is not practical where intermingled public, private, and state lands exist together. Section 

15 leases are billed based on the theoretical AUMs and not on actual use. For the BLM to reduce the forage 

allocation on small tracts of federal land, it would require the BLM to take over management of the adjacent 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-795

private and state land. In many instances, the actual use by livestock is much less than the amount billed. It 

is quite common for ranchers to respond to current conditions on rangeland very quickly and make 

reductions in grazing well before the BLM mandates cuts in grazing. Reductions in forage allocation would 

have little effect in benefiting the sage grouse because they represent only a small portion of the area grazed. 

Any draconian action by the BLM to reduce the total amount of grazing may result in the private and state 

lands being severed from the BLM land. The reason that allotments may not meet standards may be related 

to drought and wildlife grazing more than livestock use. I was surprised to learn in Appendix G that our 

allotment had failed to meet the standards based on a 2008 inspection. After meeting with Joe Meyer of the

Casper Office of the BLM, it was his stated position that the draft EIS was in fact in error and that no

determination was ever made that our grazing lease had failed to meet standards. Single point in time 

inspections should not be valid for use in determining whether standards are met, especially if it results in 

reduced forage allocations. I also would point out that many conditions are changing faster than the BLM 

has knowledge such as the expansion of the Pine Ridge Elk herd. This elk herd now grazes in significant 

numbers much of the head of Salt Creek and well into the Sand hills. Where there are widely scattered 

federal tracts of land means that even if a real problems exists on one portion of the allotment, the entire 

allotment may have the livestock forage allocation reduced. Punishing ranchers for range conditions that 

may not be caused by livestock is also counterproductive to sage grouse recovery. The rancher who is on 

the range every day should be made a partner to recovery efforts. Driving ranchers out of business will 

result in private land being converted to development or other uses that may not be compatible with sage 

grouse. Reducing the forage allocation would harm the public schools on Section 15 leases because the 

public schools receive one half the income from grazing. Any reduction in the amount of grazing would 

cause a direct reduction in income to the public schools. Alternative C has many of the same potential

problems as Alternative B. Removing livestock from grazing federal lands will not benefit the grouse

significantly. As cattle are removed from public land, this will remove the need for water that was produced 

on adjacent private land for livestock. Thousands of wells and water sources would be affected that are 

essential to wildlife. In many cases, if Alternative C is adopted, the federal land will be fenced off from 

private and state lands. Having miles of new fence constructed will not be very beneficial for sage grouse. 

The BLM will also lose access to federal land where physical access was provided across private land as 

part of the grazing lease. Use of Alternative C would also harm the public schools because one half of the 

grazing fees on Section 15 lands go to the public schools. Without livestock grazing on federal land, there 

would be no income from grazing for the public schools. It would be better if the federal government 

encouraged livestock grazing and provided real incentives for private landowners to conserve sage grouse 

on private land.

Comment ID: 1414

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Alternatives, Livestock Grazing Management, Page 2-34, Item #44. Alternative C states 

“Livestock grazing would be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat.” It is our opinion that 

prohibiting livestock grazing unanimously in sage-grouse priority habitat would be detrimental because 

livestock grazing can be a useful tool for managing good range health. In fact, it is our opinion that winter 

and early spring sheep grazing in southwest Wyoming has been effective in controlling cheatgrass and other 

invasives.

Comment ID: 995

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Under Alternative C, the BLM analyzes the closure of GSG priority (core area) habitat to 

livestock grazing, even where rangeland health standards have been achieved (Management Action 44, p. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-796 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2- 34 - 2-35). This management prescription would apply to approximately 5 million acres of public land

managed by the BLM and the USFS. Alternative B, although not as egregious, layers additional and

unreasonable management constraints on livestock producers. These management actions are not consistent 

with the BLM and USFS's multiple-use and sustained yield mandates and should be dismissed from further 

consideration.

Comment ID: 2830

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Let us begin by stating that we strongly object to the adoption of either B or C. Among other

concerns, we feel that both alternatives focus entirely on one very narrow use out of all the multiple uses 

allowed on federal lands which violates federal statutes. Secondly we feel that Alternative B begins to bring 

out the concerns of impacts that potential determination of grazing as a surface disturbance. We request 

that the clear statement made in Chapter 4 page 87 be adhered to throughout the document. Section 2.4.3 

dealing with Alternative C also clearly demonstrates the developers anti-grazing opinions by suggesting 

that livestock grazing be removed from priority habitat. We do not feel that Alternative C provides a viable 

alternative and should have been eliminated from consideration, because Alternative B would have 

provided essentially the same analysis.

Comment ID: 2893

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: On page 4-94, regarding Alternative C, it says the following: Under Alternative C, livestock 

grazing would be entirely prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. A total of 574 grazing allotments 

are located entirely within sage-grouse priority habitat, and 1,125 allotments are located partially within 

sage-grouse priority habitat. These allotments/partial allotments represent 560,180 permitted AUMs 

(approximately 30% of the total permitted AUMs), which would become unavailable for use by livestock 

as a result of the closure to livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat. As stated previously, we 

reject Alternative C as it is impossible to close grazing in the checkerboard without undue impacts on the 

adjoining private landowners. In addition, how does BLM reasonably justify prohibiting livestock grazing 

in up to 1,699 sage-grouse priority habitat allotments if only 186 allotments - roughly 10% - do not meet 

land health standards? It would be helpful to disclose how many total grazing allotments exist in the 

Planning Area to put the 1,125 number into the proper context as well.

Comment ID: 2495

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-349 4.16.5 Alternative C: In the third paragraph can you please explain what impacts 

would be caused by livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat? The first sentence mixes the term

"restrictive ", and the term "prohibiting" in the same sentence. We again comment that the prohibition on 

livestock grazing in the TBNG in sage-grouse priority areas is wrong; they would not be priority habitat 

without livestock grazing. The avoidance of all sage- grouse use areas by livestock is impossible, and how 

is that to be analyzed? The whole third paragraph could be used in other areas of the document (such as the 

Alternative C Soils section).

Comment ID: 2861

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-797

Comment: In Table 2-5 under sage-grouse threats from agricultural we would be interested in learning how

"agriculture" is a threat to sage-grouse. We would be curious what aspects of agriculture the Agencies feel 

threaten sage-grouse. We do not feel conversion from rangeland to cropping lands is occurring, nor has any 

appreciable amount occurred for several years. Never-the-less Alternatives B and C advocate for a total ban 

on livestock grazing, even though the Wyoming Governor's EO 2013-3 identifies grazing as a de minimis 

activity for impacts on sage-grouse. Alternative B seems to reinforce the perception that the National 

Technical Team was specifically designed to incorporate anti-grazing philosophies in the outcome. 

Alternative C is easily identified as an anti-grazing alternative given the special interests of those who 

apparently developed the alternative. Alternative E maintains an option of retirement of grazing privileges. 

Since Wyoming rangelands evolved with grazing, removing grazing as an option appears to be trying to 

establish an artificial and unnatural condition. We would once again reiterate the historical perspective that 

sage-grouse numbers and higher grazing rates occurred in the past, yet as grazing levels decline apparently 

so did sage-grouse numbers. This correlation should not be ignored. Table 2-5 on page 183 also contains a 

summary of impacts from grazing on sage-grouse. The discussion contains a statement that Alternative C 

which closes sage-grouse priority habitat to grazing would avoid "adverse issues". We believe this 

statement is not accurate and would ask for supporting science. Furthermore, EO 2013-3 clearly states 

grazing is a de minimis impact on sagegrouse which contradicts the statement in that section. We would 

urge the final document remove that statement and other speculative statements.

Comment ID: 2869

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Alternative C fails to recognize the checkerboard land ownership pattern that underlies much of 

what is defined as sage-grouse core and priority habitat. It is impractical and impossible for BLM to close

grazing on public land in priority habitat in the checkerboard without simultaneously impairing the rights 

of the private property grazer, due to the interspersed land pattern. We also object to the measure to avoid 

"all new structural range improvements" in priority and especially general habitats (p. 2-45), without 

providing science-based justification for such a restriction. Alternative C is not a reasonable alternative. It 

is so restrictive that it fails to meet BLM's statutory obligation and purpose and need of this plan amendment 

to manage public lands for multiple use. Alternative C is the no-resource development alternative that 

would, if selected, require BLM to manage for a single resource - sage-grouse. While FLPMA does not 

require BLM to manage for every resource everywhere, it does require BLM to strike a balance in the

management of public lands and does not allow the BLM to manage a significant percentage of its lands 

within the Planning Area to the benefit of a single species. Alternative C should be dropped from further 

consideration.

Comment ID: 2444

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-34 Livestock Grazing Management, Action 44: We disagree with the statement 

"prohibiting livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat". The environmental and socioeconomic effect 

of such a decision would be catastrophic. We suggest "restricting livestock grazing in compliance with law 

and regulation in sage-grouse priority habitat."

Comment ID: 2843

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-798 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: We strongly reject the proposed action under Alternative C which again is clearly an anti-grazing

alternative developed without adequate science. Total removal of livestock within priority habitat would 

have significant economic and environmental impacts and in many cases would result in significant harm 

to sage-grouse. Therefore we feel Alternative C violates the purpose behind the revision of the LUP as well 

as federal statutes.

Comment ID: 2486

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-94 4.7.5 Alternative C: There is no sound reason, even for analysis, to absolutely close

livestock grazing in priority greater sage-grouse habitat in the TBNG. The valid existing rights and

privileges of permittees would be thrown into a legal quagmire, and the forever fallout (irretrievable and 

irreplaceable commitment of natural resources) from a "closure to livestock grazing in priority sage-grouse 

habitat" is not discussed in Alternative C.

Comment ID: 2888

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Alternatives B and C also clearly focus on efforts to remove livestock as a multiple use in the 

plan area which we believe violates several statues, as well as the intent of the multiple use concept of land 

management.

Summary: Alternatives B and C include decisions to reduce livestock grazing within the planning area and

remove livestock completely from specific areas, which is inconsistent with BLM’s multiple use mandate, 

violates federal statutes, and would alter the custom and culture of Wyoming. Total removal of livestock 

within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would have significant economic and environmental impacts and 

could result in harm to sage-grouse, and therefore should be eliminated from further consideration. 

Reducing the forage allocation on federal land is not practical where intermingled public, private, and state 

lands exist together. For the BLM to reduce the forage allocation on small tracts of federal land, it would 

require the BLM to take over management of the adjacent private and state land.

Response: Alternatives B and C are within the reasonable range of alternatives developed by the BLM and

Forest Service for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, and therefore respond to the purpose and need 

for the planning effort. Developing a reasonable range of alternatives is a NEPA requirement. In

determining the alternatives to be considered, the emphasis is on what is "reasonable" rather than on 

whether the proponent or applicant likes or is itself capable of implementing an alternative. Therefore, 

Alternatives B and C must be analyzed in detail and considered in order to comply with NEPA and the 

BLM and Forest Service land use planning process. Eliminating livestock grazing within specific areas to 

protect sage-grouse habitat is not inconsistent with BLM's multiple use mandate and does not violate federal 

statutes. The BLM and Forest Service agree that removal of livestock grazing within specific areas would 

have economic implications, which are clearly disclosed in the Section 4.11 of this EIS.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Allotments in sage-grouse priority habitats must meet Rangeland Health Standards

Comment ID: 932

Organization:
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-799

Name: Sasha Shapiro

Comment: Add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the option to eliminate 

welfare livestock grazing leases. I also ask that you 3. Demand an analysis of all grazing allotments in the 

EIS process. Many have no data available which evaluate the condition of the land. Many others that have 

had an assessment conclude that the land is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing. 

Require in the Preferred Alternative that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek 

(display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 335

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: In addition to these standards, for sage grouse Priority and General Habitats there should be a

decision procedure and actions described below, depending on habitat conditions. 1. Assess which lands 

meet the Connelly el al. (2000) guidelines both in riparian areas and upland areas in Table 3. Include the 

conservation community and grazers in this assessment. 2. For those not meeting these guidelines, 

determine that the allotment does not meet rangeland health standards. To meet these standards, the 

sagebrush community must meet or exceed the height and percent canopy cover percents for sagebrush, 

native grasses, and forbs in Table 3 (Connelly et al. 2000). 3. Change grazing use as necessary so that 

upland and riparian areas have a positive 2 or better Grazing Response: Index (GRI) score for allotments 

not meeting standards. 4. For allotments that meet standards, insure grazing practices produce a "0" or plus 

net GRI score. 5. In sage grouse nesting areas, do not allow grazing until after the 20th of June (Braun

2006). 6. During permit renewal, inventory the amount of forage produced in the allotment, assess the 

allotment ecological conditions, and document past grazing use. As a part of permit renewal, conduct a 

range capacity analysis to assess the stocking rate for the allotment. Stocking levels for allotments that meet 

standards should lead to less than 25% utilization (Braun 2006) and for allotments not meeting standards, 

less than 15% utilization. 7. For allotments not meeting the rangeland health standards, prohibit grazing 

during a severe or worse droughts as defined by the national drought monitor. 8. For allotments that meet 

the standards, reduce grazing use prior to a drought to utilization levels less than 10-15% utilization for 

forage expected during the drought. 9. In sage grouse habitats, produce an annual end-of-season report for 

each allotment. This report should note the planned grazing use for the season, note the grazing use that 

occurred, report the results of any monitoring, document precipitation/drought information, describe any 

projects completed, and note successes or problems encountered. These should include conservation 

community and grazer information and be posted on the web.

Comment ID: 1819

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: Appendix G first identifies the grazing allotments administered by BLM (in alphabetical order) 

and then those administered by FS (in numerical order). BLM and FS use different methods of reporting

range-conditions. BLM indicates whether or not each allotment was or was not meeting standards when 

most-recently evaluated. Causal factors were briefly cited. FS, in contrast, reports the "seral stage structure" 

of the forage at most-recent review. Conspicuous in both were the dates of the most recent evaluations of 

range-health. Most were conducted years ago. In many cases, range-standards were not being met as far 

back as 2002, but evidently no follow-up has been done to determine current conditions. It is impossible to 

complete a valid LUPA / EIS in the absence of current data on rangelandconditions..

Comment ID: 1460

Organization: Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-800 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Siva Sundaresan

Comment: The impact of livestock grazing on sage grouse populations is unclear (Connelly et al 2000). 

However, the grazing practices can have a strong effect on sage grouse habitat by altering grass height and

grass and forb cover. This in turn affects sage grouse nesting (Wakkinen 1990, Gregg 1991, Gregg et al. 

1994, Delong et al. 1995, Sveum et al. 1998, Connelly et al 2000). Research has shown that early spring 

grazing may reduce vegetative cover necessary to conceal nests and broods from avian and mammalian 

predators, contributing to decreased survival (Gregg et al. 1994; DeLong et al. 1995; Sveum et al. 1998), 

and residual herbaceous cover during brooding as an essential component of nest success (Holloran et al. 

2005). Grazing of tall grasses to <18 cm would decrease their value for nest concealment (Holloran et al. 

2005). Thus, indirectly grazing by livestock or wild herbivores that significantly reduces the herbaceous 

understory in breeding habitat may have negative impacts on sage grouse populations. In order to manage 

livestock grazing in ways that are compatible with maintaining or enhancing sage grouse habitat we ask 

that all grazing allotments in sage grouse priority habitat have updated allotment management plans that 

include explicit sage grouse objectives such as reduction in livestock forage utilization to 20% - 30% for 

grazing allotments not meeting standards and maintaining appropriate residual grass and forb vegetation 

for sage grouse nesting cover. Second, we ask that monitoring protocols in allotment grazing management 

plans include explicit data collection to evaluate sage grouse habitat. In some cases, this may require going

beyond what is required in the Range Health Standards, as those do not always capture elements critical to 

sage grouse habitat such as residual grass and forb cover. In addition, when allotments do not meet Range 

Health Standards sage grouse habitat is impacted. It is necessary to identify and restore rangeland and 

ecological condition of allotments not meeting standards. Several field offices have already identified 

grazing allotments that do not meet standards for Healthy Rangelands due to cattle grazing. We recommend 

using this list as a starting point to inform and prioritize restoration and improvements to livestock grazing 

allotments to benefit sage grouse.

Comment ID: 911

Organization:

Name: cindy sheptow

Comment: Demand an analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process. Many have no data available 

which evaluate the condition of the land. Many others that have had an assessment conclude that the land

is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing.

Comment ID: 1299

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: As further evidence of the deferred and indefinite nature of the agency management, the

DLUPA/DEIS lists management actions to be implemented after being incorporated in allotment

management plans or permit renewals and/or Forest Service Annual Operating Instructions. The

DLUPA/DEIS does not include a schedule for each allotment’s evaluation, nor does the DLUPA/DEIS

discuss the frequency with which these assessments do not get done and grazing permits get renewed under 

the various Appropriations Act riders that are provided regularly by Congress. To demonstrate the 

likelihood and timeliness of any proposed actions to protect sage-grouse, the BLM should have included a 

spreadsheet of the permit expirations and allotment management plan revisions scheduled for all allotments 

in the planning area. WWP refers to the BLM’s own Rangeland Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation 

Reports (RIME; available online) that show that in many years, very few allotments get any attention. For 

example, in 2012, the RIME report shows 3,641,054 acres in fair and poor condition (0-49% of potential). 

These areas would at best be converted to low growing grazing tolerant species which do not provide sage 

grouse cover needs. This SVIM data, reported in the RIME reports are available at the SWA and allotment 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-801

levels but the BLM ignored this data. 60% of Wyoming’s BLM allotments are in the I (Improve) Category. 

The majority of allotments didn’t have AMPs or the functional equivalent of AMPs, and only 31 allotments 

statewide were even assessed for compliance with standards in 2012.

Comment ID: 353

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: BLM rangeland health measurements are often lumped into categories that make it impossible 

to determine how many allotments and how many acres are meeting rangeland health standards due at least 

in part to livestock grazing, and how many are not. This makes it impossible for BLM or the reader to 

determine exactly how pervasive livestock grazing problems really are. Please provide separate metrics to 

clarify the acreage of sage grouse Priority and General Habitat by alternative that are meeting or not meeting 

land health standards, splitting acres by where livestock grazing is known to be contributing and where it 

is not.

Comment ID: 333

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: All allotments in Priority Habitats must be managed to meet or exceed Rangeland Health

standards, and following natural fires, livestock should be excluded for at least a 2-year (and preferably a 

3-year) period. According to BLM, “Resting treated areas from livestock grazing for two years or longer 

after prescribed burns would allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and vegetation to mature 

to the point of withstanding livestock grazing pressure.” DEIS at 4-267. Failure to provide this rest interferes 

with seed generation and plant growth. DEIS at 4- 316.

Comment ID: 3036

Organization: Wyoming Outdoor Council

Name: Ilana Williams

Comment: Identifying, prioritizing, and requiring restoration of the rangeland and ecological condition of

allotments not meeting standards in the Record of Decision for the 9-Plan DEIS would have a positive net 

impact on habitat across the range of sage-grouse in Wyoming. The 9-Plan DEIS, Chapter 3.7, "Livestock 

Grazing," identifies each of the BLM field offices included in the plan, with the exception of the Rock 

Springs Field Office, having allotments that do not meet standards from the BLM Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands due to cattle grazing. The report from the Rock Springs FO did not report the status of 

their grazing allotments. We recommend using this list as a starting point to inform and prioritize restoration 

and improvements to livestock grazing allotments to benefit sagegrouse. The primary impacts from 

livestock grazing come from indirect negative affects attributed to sagebrush treatment to improve forage 

for livestock (Beck and Mitchell 2000). However, as discussed above in the Triggers section, alteration in 

grazing management should be considered in pastures or allotments not meeting standards, and should be 

required management actions under the new ROD. The BLM Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands 

requires that grazing be managed such that "[g]razing management practices and range improvements will 

be designed to maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions necessary to sustain native animal

populations and plant communities" (p. 12). Land health assessments will help identify areas where

livestock use has caused degradation to sage-grouse habitat and where restoration, conservation, or

enhancement of habitat will have the most benefit.

Comment ID: 2158

Organization: The Cloud Foundation
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-802 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Ginger Kathrens

Comment: Most of the historic cause of Sage Grouse decline can be attributed directly or indirectly to 

livestock grazing. In this regard, we request that a complete assessment of grazing allotments be completed

and, in areas where that assessment shows that Land Health Standards are not met due to livestock presence, 

we request that the livestock be removed. We note that many allotments in which rangeland health 

assessments have taken place report unhealthy rangeland due to livestock grazing. Once livestock are 

removed, any fencing that exists to contain them should then be removed including the barbed and woven 

wire which causes death to the low flying grouse that currently collide with the fences on a regular basis. 

Eliminating livestock grazing would also allow for the removal of the posts where raptors perch and hunt 

adult and juvenile grouse. Riparian conditions due to historic livestock use would gradually improve, areas 

that are critical to sage grouse during brood rearing. We request that the option to eliminate livestock 

grazing in key Sage Grouse habitats be included of every alternative.

Summary: All allotments in priority habitats must be managed to meet or exceed Rangeland Health 

Standards. BLM rangeland health measurements are often combined into categories that make it impossible 

to determine the number of allotments and acres that are meeting Rangeland Health Standards. The plan 

should provide separate metrics to clarify the acreage of sage-grouse priority and general habitats that are 

meeting Standards for Rangeland Health.

Response: The BLM evaluates livestock grazing allotments using Land Health Standards in Manual 4180; 

and the Forest Service evaluates livestock grazing allotments using vegetation trends. Appendix G in the 

Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS presents the results of these allotment evaluations. All livestock grazing

allotments, regardless of location, are managed to achieve specific standards. If allotments do not meet the 

standards, and the causal factor is at least in part due to livestock grazing, adjustments to grazing practices 

are implemented.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Alternative D does not achieve a balance between resource use and protecting resource values

Comment ID: 2871

Organization: The Overland Trail Cattle Company

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Alternative D is described as being based on scoping comments and participation by 

Cooperating Agencies. BLM claims that this alternative emphasizes balancing resources and resource use 

among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. We are not

convinced, as this alternative does not adequately demonstrate or include evidence that a balance is actually 

achieved. It also fails to recognize the checkerboard land ownership pattern including the private land that 

underlies much of what is defined as sage-grouse core and priority habitat. We also object to the requirement 

that modifications must be made to existing range improvementswithout any corresponding discussion of 

who would bear that cost and under what scientific basisand that new structural range improvements would 

be "prohibited," as outlined on page 4-97: No new structural range improvements would occur under this 

alternative, which would decrease surface disturbing activities in the short-term, but could impact longterm livestock and resource management goals as operators would be prohibited from making future range 

improvements. Prohibiting range improvements for allotment users is wholly inconsistent with any notion 

of balance, and is not supported by scientific literature.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-803

Summary: BLM claims that this alternative emphasizes balancing resources and resource use among 

competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of sage-grouse habitat. We are not convinced 

this alternative achieves this goal. It also fails to recognize the checkerboard land ownership pattern

including the private land that underlies much of what is defined as sage-grouse core and priority habitat.

We also object to the requirement that modifications must be made to existing range improvementswithout

any corresponding discussion of who would bear that cost and under what scientific basis, and that new 

structural range improvements would be prohibited. Prohibiting range improvements for allotment users is 

wholly inconsistent with any notion of balance, and is not supported by scientific literature.

Response: Alternative D provides opportunities to use and develop the planning area while providing 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat based on scoping comments and input from cooperating agencies

involved in the alternatives development process. Alternative D allows for the greatest level of resource use 

of all the alternatives while still providing needed conservation measures for sagegrouse and meeting the 

purpose and need for the planning effort. All alternatives recognize the checkerboard land ownership 

pattern. This is reflected in the management decisions and related maps and acreage values. Regarding 

range improvements, some level of restriction on the construction of range improvements is needed to 

conserve sage-grouse habitat.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Appendix B fails to provide any mandatory terms and conditions specifically related to livestock 

impacts on sagegrouse habitat

Comment ID: 1348

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 10 applies Appendix B. as mandatory terms and conditions but Appendix B. failes to 

provide any mandatory terms and conditions specifically related livestock impacts on sage grouse habitat.

Summary: Action 10 requires the implementation of Appendix B as mandatory terms and conditions, but

Appendix B fails to provide any mandatory terms and conditions specifically related livestock impacts on 

sage-grouse habitat.

Response: Required changes to grazing practices and revisions to Allotment Management Plans are 

specifically addressed in management actions #46, 48, and 49 in Chapter 2 of this EIS. Such actions would 

help to ensure compliance with the Standards for Rangeland Health. Given this, changes to Appendix B are

not necessary.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

BLM does not have authority to retire grazing permits

Comment ID: 1947

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 2-43, under item 50 which first starts at the very bottom of pg. 2-42, we comment that the 

BLM policy on “relinquishment” should be placed in the Appendix. We presume this section is referring 

to BLM IM-2013-184. In Alternative B, pg. 2-43, we comment that there is no legal authority for a 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-804 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

permittee, to retire his/her BLM grazing permit/lease. At present, there is also no legal authority for the 

BLM to retire a grazing permit/lease so long as those lands are classified as “chiefly valuable for Grazing. 

See opinion M-37008 from the Department of Interior Solicitor. In the 3rd paragraph, the narrative does 

not represent the current legal authority of the BLM. It conveys that BLM would retire grazing Preference 

on a case by case basis, which it can not do. It is mis-leading to the public to convey an alternative that 

BLM couldn’t choose even if it wanted to do so. We comment that the Final must convey to the public what 

is or is not a proposal that is currently authorized by federal law. The last paragraph under Alternative B 

pg. 2-43 is also not consistent with the current legal authority of the BLM on the subject of retirement of 

grazing preference. It should be removed. The narrative in the last paragraph under Alternative B conveys 

that the BLM actually has an authority it does not have. Neither the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act, FLPMA, or the BLM Planning Handbook permit the BLM to, a) retire grazing permits and b) allow 

the BLM to include a “retirement” proposal in a draft document even if it had the authority, ( which it does 

not have ). Under Alternative D, pg., 2-43, the use of the word “ Retirement” in the first sentence is not 

correct. We comment that a replacement of the word “Retirement” in the first sentence with the word

“Relinquishment” would then cause this sentence to be consistent with BLM policy at IM-2013-184.

Comment ID: 1957

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 4-352, 4.16.7, Alternative E – In the third paragraph under this title, we comment that the 

BLM has no current legal authority to equate “relinquishment” with “retirement” in a LUP Alternative. We

also comment that the authority for “relinquishment” lies with the owner of the Preference, the permittee, 

not the BLM. The draft narrative conveys that time period for a grazing preference relinquishment, ( we 

presume again an equate to retirement ), would be “no time limit”. BLM has some authority under the 

FLPMA to re-adjust the allocation of forage during the life of a LUP. If we are correct in our interpretation 

that BLM in this Draft is equating “relinquishment” with “retirement”, we comment that BLM has no 

current legal authority to consider that a retirement of livestock AUM’s has any time limit, let alone “no 

time limit”. BLM Regulations at 43 CFR, Part 4100 require that relinquished livestock AUM’s from Section 

3 BLM lands must be made available to other qualified applicants. It is also our understanding that 

Decisions in a LUP last only for the period of the LUP. A “no time limit” proposal is inappropriate for any 

subject in a LUP.

Summary: Pg. 4-352, Alternative E: The BLM has no current legal authority to equate “relinquishment” 

with “retirement” in a LUP Alternative. In addition, the authority for “relinquishment” lies with the owner

of the preference, the permittee, not the BLM. In addition, the BLM has no current legal authority to

consider that a retirement of livestock AUMs has any time limit, let alone “no time limit”. BLM Regulations 

at 43 CFR, Part 4100 require that relinquished livestock AUMs from Section 3 BLM lands must be made 

available to other qualified applicants. Regarding Alternative B on page 2-43, there is no legal authority for 

a permittee, to retire his/her BLM grazing permit/lease. At present, there is also no legal authority for the 

BLM to retire a grazing permit/lease so long as those lands are classified as “chiefly valuable for grazing. 

See opinion M- 37008 from the Department of Interior Solicitor. The current language in the Draft EIS 

conveys the BLM would retire grazing preference on a case by case basis, which it cannot do. It is 

misleading to the public to convey an alternative that BLM couldn’t choose. A replacement of the word

“retirement” in the first sentence with the word “relinquishment” would then cause this sentence to be 

consistent with BLM policy at IM-2013-184.

Response: The authority is provided by BLM's grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4100.0-8, providing for land 

use plans to determine areas available for livestock grazing, establish allowable resource uses, and program 

constraints.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-805

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

BLM must protect grazing preference rights

Comment ID: 965

Organization: 4W Ranch

Name: Robert Harshbarger

Comment: The 4W Ranch does have recognized “Preference Rights” for grazing permits on both the BLM 

and Forest Service managed lands within the ranch boundaries. It is governments Constitutional Duty to 

protect these recognized valid rights. We also have vested and adjudicated rights that shall not be infringed 

upon. [Emphasis Added]

Summary: Livestock operators have recognized “preference rights” for grazing permits on both the BLM 

and Forest Service managed lands within the boundaries of individual ranches. It is the government's

constitutional duty to protect these recognized valid rights.

Response: Per BLM's grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4100.0-5, grazing preference means "a superior or 

priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease". It does not mean that

the holder of the grazing preference is guaranteed a grazing permit in perpetuity. Livestock operators do 

not have "preference rights" for grazing permit on National Forest System lands. As described further in 36 

CFR 222.3(b) "Grazing permits and livestock use permits convey no right, title, or interest held by the 

United States in any lands or resources."

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

BLM should include changes in grazing management at the permit renewal stage for allotments 

that don't meet standards

Comment ID: 2153

Organization: Sierra Club, Wyoming Chapter

Name: Connie Wilbert

Comment: Finally, the draft plan and current management have a serious problem in the way grazing 

allotments are renewed. Many of the allotments that BLM manages in Wyoming include sage grouse 

habitat. BLM has determined many of those allotments do not meet Rangeland Health Standards. Many

more BLM allotments with sage grouse habitat have not been assessed to determine if they meet these 

standards. As shown below, in many Wyoming BLM allotments with sage grouse habitat, BLM renewed 

grazing permits for most allotments without any management changes whatsoever, under the 2000 

Congressional Appropriations Rider. Data regarding the appropriation rider renewals was provided by the 

BLM in response to a FOIA request filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. These 

data reflect conditions through 2012. To provide an adequate baseline for making decisions, BLM needs to 

determine which lands meet agency standards and which do not. By renewing grazing permits unchanged 

and not incorporating required standards and stipulations for sage grouse, BLM has avoided taking any 

action to address sage grouse habitat deterioration resulting from livestock grazing practices on most 

allotments. BLM's own determination shows that many (perhaps most) of these allotments both include

occupied habitat for sage grouse and also fail to meet Rangeland Health Standards. Renewing permits for 

allotments that are known to not meet sage grouse habitat needs is a serious regulatory failure. The final 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-806 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

plan must include a comprehensive solution to the lack of consideration for greater sage grouse in grazing 

management and grazing lease renewal practices.

Summary: Many of the allotments that BLM manages in Wyoming include sage-grouse habitat, and the 

BLM has determined that many of those allotments do not meet Rangeland Health Standards. Many more

BLM allotments with sage-grouse habitat have not been assessed to determine if they meet these standards. 

In many Wyoming BLM allotments with sage-grouse habitat, BLM renewed grazing permits for most 

allotments without any management changes under the 2000 Congressional Appropriations Rider. By 

renewing grazing permits unchanged and not incorporating required standards and stipulations for sagegrouse, BLM has avoided taking any action to address sagegrouse habitat deterioration resulting from 

livestock grazing practices on most allotments. Renewing permits for allotments that are known to not meet 

sage-grouse habitat needs is a serious regulatory failure. The final plan must include a comprehensive 

solution to the lack of consideration for Greater Sage-Grouse in grazing management and grazing lease 

renewal practices.

Response: The permit renewal stage is generally the time when changes to livestock grazing management 

are incorporated into grazing permits. The issue raised in the comment is specifically addressed by 

Management Action #48 under Alternative E. This action states “Within PHMA, as appropriate, site 

specific sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations would be incorporated into all BLM 

and Forest Service grazing allotments...” The agencies will also prioritize review of grazing permits and 

leases within priority habitat.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Conduct proper permit renewals

Comment ID: 1331

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: As with other ecological sites, the practice of renewing permits through the Appropriations Rider

further delays fixing riparian problems. The preferred alternative says that changes to livestock grazing that 

are needed to meet vegetation objectives would be accomplished by altering terms and conditions in the 

permit renewal process but permits have uniformly been renewed via the rider, which bypasses review and 

keeps terms and conditions constant. In order to provide effective protection for sage-grouse and sagegrouse habitats, the LUPA must require BLM to conduct proper permit renewals through the NEPA process 

without further delay or extension or exemption.

Summary: The Preferred Alternative says that changes to livestock grazing that are needed to meet 

vegetation objectives would be accomplished by altering terms and conditions in the permit renewal process

but permits have uniformly been renewed via the Appropriations Rider, which bypasses review and keeps 

terms and conditions constant. In order to provide effective protection for sage-grouse and sage-grouse 

habitats, the LUP Amendments must require BLM to conduct proper permit renewals through the NEPA 

process without further delay or extension or exemption.

Response: Changes to terms and conditions of grazing permits would be accomplished through proper 

NEPA analysis and coordination, as required by BLM grazing regulations and policy. It is not necessary 

for the LUP Amendments to reiterate regulations and policy. For the Forest Service, Part 1 of the Term 

Grazing Permit states, “This permit can also be cancelled, in whole or part, or otherwise modified, at any 

time during the term to conform with needed changes brought about by law, regulation, Executive Order, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-807

allotment management plans, land management planning,.....or lands the lands described otherwise being 

unavailable for grazing.” In addition Part 2(b) of the Term Grazing Permit states that “The number, kind, 

and class of livestock, period of use, and grazing allotment specified in the permit may be modified when 

determined by the Forest Officer in charge to be needed for resource protection.” The environmental 

analysis performed for this plan amendment is intended to be sufficient to add any needed protection to 

livestock grazing permits on National Forest System lands. The agencies will also prioritize review of 

grazing permits and leases within priority habitat.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Develop a grassland restoration program to address the effects of grazing

Comment ID: 112

Organization:

Name: Teresa Seamster

Comment: Overall, the land under BLM management has been so overgrazed that a regional grassland

restoration program should be instituted and funded largely by increased grazing fees.

Summary: Overall, the land under BLM management has been so overgrazed that a regional grassland

restoration program should be instituted and funded largely by increased grazing fees.

Response: The BLM assesses grazing allotments based on the Standards for Rangeland Health. Operators 

of allotments not meeting the standards are required to adjust grazing practices in order to improve

rangeland conditions and comply with the standards. This is a continuous, ongoing, monitoring and

management adjustment system that ensure the stability and health of rangelands within the planning area. 

Given this adaptive management practice, a regional grassland restoration program is not necessary. 

However, the BLM and Forest Service may identify specific areas in which reclamation efforts are needed.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Discourage the concentration of cattle in riparian areas

Comment ID: 341

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Placing salt blocks in upland areas is not an effective means of drawing cattle use away from

riparian areas. Bryant (1982:784) found that salt placement and alternate water sources did not influence 

cattle preference for riparian habitats, and came to the following conclusion: “These cattle used the salt 

when convenient but did not alter behavior patterns to obtain it.” Thus, the BLM should not rely on the 

placement of salt blocks as a means to draw livestock away from riparian habitats.

Comment ID: 339

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: The BLM’s grazing policies and practices should discourage the concentration of cattle in the 

riparian zone to protect sage grouse brood-rearing habitats.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-808 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: The BLM’s grazing policies and practices should discourage the concentration of cattle in the 

riparian zone to protect sage-grouse brood-rearing habitats. Placing salt blocks in upland areas is not an 

effective means of drawing cattle use away from riparian areas. Bryant (1982:784) found that salt placement 

and alternate water sources did not influence cattle preference for riparian habitats.

Response: Various grazing practices are used to distribute livestock across the rangelands within the 

planning area, which include herding of livestock, the placement of salt and mineral supplements,

development of other water sources, exclosures, fences, etc. In addition, stubble-height requirements are 

included in the range of alternatives in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, which would 

require that livestock are effectively distributed across allotment and do not concentrate in riparian areas 

for an unreasonable amount of time.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Eliminate livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitats

Comment ID: 343

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Thus, livestock grazing plays a key role in the spread of cheatgrass, both pre-fire in the sagebrush 

understory, and post-fire leading to conversion to annual grasslands. Yeo (2005) demonstrated that 

cessation of livestock grazing leads to recovery of grass cover in sagebrush ecosystems, and restoration of 

rangeland health, which supports the management actions in Alternative C.

Comment ID: 332

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: We recommend cessation of livestock grazing in sage grouse Priority Habitats as in Alternative

C. Cessation of livestock grazing has been shown to lead to recovery of grass cover in sagebrush

ecosystems, and restoration of rangeland health (Yeo 2005).

Comment ID: 857

Organization:

Name: Barbara Reed

Comment: Add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the option to eliminate 

welfare livestock grazing leases. Provide a legitimate analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process.

Require in the Preferred Alternative that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek

(display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats

Comment ID: 973

Organization:

Name: BEVERLY GRAY

Comment: how many heads of privately owned stock are grazing on the Greater Sage Grouse protected 

land, and shouldn't they be removed first?

Comment ID: 1059
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-809

Organization:

Name: Kat Hankinson

Comment: Please eliminate welfare livestock grazing leases. An analysis of all grazing allotments in the 

EIS process is overdue. Many have no data available which evaluate the condition of the land. In the

Preferred Alternative, please ensure that any land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek 

(display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 909

Organization:

Name: cindy sheptow

Comment: Add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the option to eliminate 

welfare livestock grazing leases. Here is what respected rangeland expert and author George Wuerthner 

had to say in an essay in The Wildlife News. 3Indeed, when considering all the mortality factors and

limitations that are driving sage grouse towards extinction, livestock production is easily the dominant 

factor. . .When you look closely at many different environmental issues in the West, one can generally trace 

it back to livestock production.2 (http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/10/01/sage-grouse-proximate-andultimat e-causes/ )

Comment ID: 2813

Organization:

Name: Sandra Sell-Lee

Comment: In order to protect the Sage Grouse, please carefully watch and monitor the whole system that 

is operating, because a shift in any one part of the system, has consequences (often unintended) for the 

entire rest of the system. Therefore, please do the following: -review the science. -eliminate welfare 

livestock grazing leases. -ensure that the public lands are in good and acceptable conditions. Please ask for 

an analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process. Other such assessments have concluded that the 

land is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing.

Comment ID: 2929

Organization:

Name: Karen Hethcote

Comment: I urge you to add to the DEIS, in each of the proposed alternatives, the option to eliminate private

livestock grazing leases. The DEIS must also include an assessment of grazing allotments. The DEIS must 

include a detailed analysis of the impact of livestock grazing on sage grouse. Though there are significant 

differences in range impact between livestock and wild horses, these are not presently considered in the 

document and should be. I support the designation of Alternative C as the Preferred Alternative. This would 

eliminate livestock grazing in sage grouse habitat.

Comment ID: 2811

Organization:

Name: Ann Evans

Comment: I would strongly support adding to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, 

the option to eliminate welfare livestock grazing leases. I would also like to see an analysis of all grazing

allotments in the EIS process. Many have no data available which evaluate the condition of the land. Many 

others that have had an assessment conclude that the land is not in acceptable condition because of livestock 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-810 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

grazing. I support the Alternative is that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek 

(display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 2773

Organization:

Name: Sasha Shapiro

Comment: Add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the option to eliminate 

welfare livestock grazing leases. Demand an analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process. Many 

have no data available which evaluate the condition of the land. Many others that have had an assessment

conclude that the land is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing. Require in the Preferred 

Alternative that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek (display and mating grounds) 

and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats.

Summary: Livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitats should be eliminated. Cessation of livestock 

grazing has been shown to lead to recovery of grass cover in sagebrush ecosystems, and restoration of

rangeland health (Yeo 2005). Livestock grazing plays a key role in the spread of cheatgrass, leading to

conversion to annual grasslands. Without an assessment of all grazing allotments, it's not possible to

determine past impacts on sensitive resources from livestock grazing.

Response: Reductions in livestock grazing were analyzed under a reasonable range of alternatives. Under

Alternative C, livestock grazing would be prohibited in sage-grouse priority habitat. Under Alternative B, 

a light grazing management strategy would be employed on allotments within sage-grouse priority habitat 

that do not meet Standards for Rangeland Health. The final decision on the management actions and 

alternatives will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public involvement and 

planning processes.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Eliminate livestock grazing on public lands

Comment ID: 1065

Organization:

Name: Julianne Gould

Comment: Keep only the wild animals that belong on this land. Ranchers will just have to graze their 

livestock on their own land.

Comment ID: 217

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: ELMINATE ALL LIVESTOCK GRAZING.

Comment ID: 93

Organization:

Name: Sally Hernandez

Comment: Wild Horses, Burro's and other Wild Animals are not the cause of loss of habitat for the 

endangered sage grouse. It is time and necessary for the elimination of livestock grazing on public lands. It 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-811

is the Wild Horse and Burro roundups that cause the herds to race across the land in an effort to escape the 

helicopters and other BLM employees that chase them into pens. It is time to stop destroying the animals 

that live in harmony on the land and with each other. Say NO to livestock grazing on public lands and leave 

the other animals in peace!

Comment ID: 827

Organization:

Name: Maria Aragon

Comment: Get those damned cows off of our public lands. The sage grouse and our wild horses and every 

other wild thing, plus the land itself would be much better off if the BLM wasn't catering to the cattle/beef

industry.

Comment ID: 2784

Organization:

Name: Barbara Robinson

Comment: It seems to me there should be room for both the horses and the grouse, remove the cattle from

public lands the tax payers support!

Comment ID: 3015

Organization:

Name: Stanley Jones-Umberger

Comment: Remove all cattle from public lands.

Comment ID: 2772

Organization:

Name: Delia MCBRIDE

Comment: Leave the wild to the wild. Let the cattle companies graze there cows and calves on their own 

land.

Comment ID: 2394

Organization:

Name: Michelle McKinnon

Comment: As a United States citizen, I demand that these ranchers' contract to graze in public land (shared 

with the mustangs) be canceled, nil and void until they either learn to share said land or purchase their own 

grazing land for their animals.

Comment ID: 2785

Organization:

Name: ALEANDRO ANDERSON

Comment: Get rid of the private cattle and sheep if you want to protect sage grouse (who have successfully

coexisted with wild horses for centuries).

Comment ID: 2809

Organization:

Name: Elaine Balgemann
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-812 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: ALL LIVESTOCK NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND ALL LEASES "VOIDED".

Comment ID: 2795

Organization:

Name: marla bosworth

Comment: Please: 1. Add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the option to

eliminate welfare livestock grazing leases.

Comment ID: 3016

Organization:

Name: Rick Huyett

Comment: Kick the cows off of our land.

Summary: Livestock grazing on public lands should be eliminated in order to protect sage-grouse habitat 

and other natural resources. Livestock grazing should only occur on private land.

Response: Elimination of livestock grazing on all BLM lands is beyond the scope of this planning effort. 

In Alternative C, the BLM and Forest Service did consider an alternative that would eliminate livestock

grazing in priority habitat.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Implement specific measures to ensure livestock grazing is managed in a manner that conserves 

sage-grouse habitat

Comment ID: 1823

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: How to Save the Sage-Grouse, Protect the Mustangs, and Partner with Permit-Holders • 

Implement Holistic Management • Leave the wild horses on the range at genetically-viable levels • 

Reinstate herd areas (HAs) for wild-horse repopulation These actions will serve all constituencies -- SageGrouse, wild horses (and their advocates) as well as livestock (and the permit-holders). Holistic 

Management has been shown to preserve sagebrush habitat, increase the effectiveness of an area's rainfall, 

and promote spring-and-stream vitality. This superior grazing-regime may even allow for more livestock, 

which will gain more weight due to being grazed alongside wild equids, which will finally be managed at 

genetically-viable levels.

Comment ID: 334

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: We encourage BLM proposal to implement the following measures for grazing; these standards

should be supplemented with measurable benchmarks to ensure strong rangeland health. Incorporate sage 

grouse habitat objectives and management considerations into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs 

or permit renewals. Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning so operations with deeded/State/BLM

and/or USFS allotments can be planned as single units. Prioritize completion of land health assessments 

and processing grazing permits in Priority Habitat. Focus this process on allotments that have the best 

opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring habitat for sage grouse. Utilize ESDs to conduct land
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-813

health assessments to determine if standards of range-land health are being met. Conduct land health 

assessments that include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of structure/condition/composition 

of vegetation specific to achieving sage grouse habitat objectives. If local/state seasonal habitat objectives 

are not available, use sage grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly et al. (2000) and Hagen et al.

(2007). Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage grouse Priority Habitat 

based on BLM ESDs and assessments (including within wetlands and riparian areas). If an effective grazing 

system that meets sage grouse habitat requirements is not already in place, analyze at least one alternative 

that conserves, restores, or enhances sage grouse habitat in the NEPA document prepared for the permit 

renewal. Manage the Greater Sage grouse Core Habitat Areas as ACECs for vegetation composition and 

structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the reference state to achieve sage grouse 

seasonal habitat objectives. During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects of the drought in greater 

sage grouse Core Habitat Areas relative to their needs for food and cover. Since there is a lag in vegetation 

recovery following drought, ensure that post-drought management allows for vegetation recovery that 

meets sage grouse needs. Manage wet meadows to maintain a component of perennial forbs with diverse 

species richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate brood rearing. Also conserve or 

enhance these wet meadow complexes to maintain or increase amount of edge and cover within that edge 

to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood rearing period. Where riparian areas and wet meadows 

meet proper functioning condition strive to attain reference state vegetation relative to the ecological site 

description. Reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to promote recovery or

maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use fencing/herding techniques or seasonal use 

or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow vegetation used by sage 

grouse in the summer. Avoid grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats

during periods of the year when these habitats are used by sage grouse. Analyze springs, seeps, and 

associated water pipelines to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the continuity of the 

predevelopment riparian area. Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts to other water 

uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to sage grouse.

Comment ID: 456

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: RSGA strongly recommends the following changes in the DEIS: (3) Revise the DEIS to call for 

specific revision of AMLs to reduce potential conflicts with sage grouse conservation;

Comment ID: 1821

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: Precisely-planned, time-controlled-grazing needs to be implemented in the Planning Area. By

adopting Holistic Management, livestock-grazers and BLM staff can work in partnership, per a Coordinated 

Resource Management (CRM) process, to design grazing schedules that enable restoration of Sage-Grouse 

habitat. Most importantly for the permit-holders, Holistic Management offers the essential benefit of 

enhancing their economic viability. At the same time and of utmost importance to the tens of thousands of 

mustang-advocates, Holistic Management will empower BLM to fulfill its mandate to protect and conserve 

the genetic viability of, and proper forage-allocations to, America's wild horses. Certainly, this is a winwin-win strategy.

Comment ID: 2812

Organization:

Name: Cheryl Cat
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-814 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Have you ever heard of crop rotation...sure you have. I believe if we apply this basic principle 

to our mustangs, burros and cattle, it would serve the situation well. Move the horses and cattle from area

to area via old school methods ( horse and rider with the assistance of cattle dogs). Yeah, it is slower and 

takes more effort but it is less stress for all involved. AND it is cheaper than current methods used. I am 

sure there are groups out there that would volunteer their services to assist in the process

Comment ID: 3108

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The need to adjust grazing policies is confirmed by the fact that approximately 1/3 of the 

allotments in priority habitat are not meeting standards (186 out of 574 total allotments). DEIS at 4-92.

Livestock grazing provisions should be informed by the recommendation in the COT Report (at 45):

Conservation Objective: Conduct grazing management for all ungulates in a manner consistent with local 

ecological conditions that maintains or restores healthy sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb 

communities and conserves the essential habitat components for sage-grouse (e.g. shrub cover, nesting 

cover). Areas which do not currently meet this standard should be managed to restore these components. 

Adequate monitoring of grazing strategies and their results, with necessary changes in strategies, is essential 

to ensuring that desired ecological conditions and sagegrouse response are achieved. Achieving the above 

objective will require the development of long-term strategies that provide seasonal habitats for sagegrouse. Although grazing management should initially focus on retaining the above habitat conditions 

within PACs, sound grazing management should be applied across all sagebrush habitats. Grazing 

management strategies must consider the local ecological conditions, including soil types, precipitation 

zones, vegetation composition and drought conditions. The conservation objective and options (at 45-46) 

should guide strategies for restoring vegetation and ecosystem health on core area allotments. While the 

preferred alternative adopts permit monitoring stipulations established by regional RMPs that generally rely 

upon rangeland health standards, Alternative B is more appropriately responsive to sage-grouse 

conservation, and includes indicators and measures of vegetative attributes specific to the habitat needs.

Comment ID: 2398

Organization: WildEarth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: The Secretary of the Department of the Interior has interpreted recent appropriations riders to

undermine the effectiveness of any conservation measures proposed in the Wyoming Greater Sage- Grouse 

RMP Amendment Draft EIS. According to the Secretary, the Grazing Rider “mandated” that grazing 

permits be renewed with the same terms and conditions as the expiring permits, and required the “Secretary 

of the Interior to defer compliance with all applicable laws, including FLPMA, at the time of renewal.” 

Accordingly, we are concerned that BLM’s livestock grazing conservation measures in the EIS will have a 

negligible effect on greater sage grouse populations and habitat, and certainly cannot provide the required 

certainty of effectiveness or certainty of implementation required to preclude a listing under the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s PECE policy. To meet the PECE’s policy’s requirements for consideration of BLM’s 

unproven sage grouse conservation measures, BLM must implement the EIS conservation measures on all 

grazing permits within existing sage grouse habitat contemporaneously with BLM's adopting the Final EIS 

and amending all applicable land use plans. BLM cannot wait until the expiration, transfer or renewal of 

the grazing permits before it implements these conservation measures, because, at that time (according to 

the Secretary’s own interpretation of the Grazing Rider), BLM will lack the authority to modify the terms

and conditions of these grazing permits to incorporate any sage grouse conservation measure identified in 

the EIS. Please clarify how BLM’s livestock grazing actions under all alternatives will be applied following 

the adoption of the final Plan Amendment, whether the adoption of the actions into grazing permits will be 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-815

discretionary or mandatory, and when exactly these conservation measures would be implemented vis a vis 

the adoption of the Plan Amendment Record of Decision.

Comment ID: 2399

Organization: WildEarth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: The Final EIS should include measurable standards for both grazing utilization and timing of 

grazing in sage grouse Core Areas (Priority Habitats) and General Habitats.

Summary: We encourage BLM proposal to implement the following measures for grazing; these standards

should be supplemented with measurable benchmarks to ensure strong rangeland health: Incorporate sagegrouse habitat objectives and management considerations into all BLM grazing allotments through AMPs 

or permit renewals. Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning so operations with deeded/state/BLM 

and/or Forest Service allotments can be planned as single units. Prioritize completion of land health

assessments and processing grazing permits in Priority Habitat. Focus this process on allotments that have 

the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring habitat for sage-grouse. Utilize ESDs to 

conduct land health assessments to determine if Standards of Rangeland Health are being met. Conduct 

land health assessments that include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of

structure/condition/composition of vegetation specific to achieving sage-grouse habitat objectives. If

local/state seasonal habitat objectives are not available, use sage-grouse habitat recommendations from 

Connelly et al. (2000) and Hagen et al. (2007). Develop specific objectives to conserve, enhance, or restore 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat based on BLM ESDs and assessments (including within wetlands and 

riparian areas). If an effective grazing system that meets sage-grouse habitat requirements is not already in 

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

document prepared for the permit renewal. Manage the Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas as ACECs 

for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the reference 

state to achieve sagegrouse seasonal habitat objectives. During drought periods, prioritize evaluating effects 

of the drought in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas relative to their needs for food and cover. Since 

there is a lag in vegetation recovery following drought, ensure that post-drought management allows for 

vegetation recovery that meets sage-grouse needs. Manage wet meadows to maintain a component of 

perennial forbs with diverse species richness relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) to facilitate 

brood rearing. Also conserve or enhance these wet meadow complexes to maintain or increase amount of 

edge and cover within that edge to minimize elevated mortality during the late brood rearing period. Where 

riparian areas and wet meadows meet proper functioning condition strive to attain reference state vegetation 

relative to the ecological site description. Reduce hot season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to 

promote recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Use fencing/herding 

techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow 

vegetation used by sage-grouse in the summer. Avoid grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, broodrearing, and winter habitats during periods of the year when these habitats are used by sage-grouse. Analyze 

springs, seeps, and associated water pipelines to determine if modifications are necessary to maintain the 

continuity of the predevelopment riparian area. Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts 

to other water uses when such considerations are neutral or beneficial to sagegrouse.

Response: Sage-grouse habitat needs are routinely considered in allotment management and grazing permit 

renewal. There are many priorities for completion of land health assessments; however, sage-grouse habitat 

needs are considered among the other priorities. For grazing allotments in sage-grouse core habitats, 

consideration of alternatives specifically designed to enhance sage-grouse habitats is required by WY-IM2012-019. ACECs were considered under Alternatives B and C; however, the protection of habitat under 

the action alternatives will provide habitat viability for sage-grouse and other sagebrush species while 

continuing to allow for valid, existing rights of current leaseholders and other compatible uses of public 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-816 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

lands. Appendix H contains the Relevance and Importance Evaluations for the proposed ACECs. The final 

decision for these actions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of the public 

involvement process. Management for drought years and riparian areas is determined on an allotmentspecific basis depending on site conditions. The measures described in this comment are management 

actions included in Alternative B in the Draft EIS. Your support for Alternative B has been noted. The final 

decision for the proposed plan amendment will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of 

the public involvement process. The agencies will also prioritize review of grazing permits and leases 

within priority habitat and incorporate terms and conditions to meet habitat objectives.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Include a provision to retire livestock grazing allotments on a willing-permittee basis

Comment ID: 966

Organization:

Name: Molly Schleicher

Comment: The option to eliminate and/or reduce some livestock grazing leases should be incorporated into 

the alternatives. From Appendix G- Grazing Allotment Data- it appears that in many of the cases in which

land health standards are not met, the causal factors includes livestock grazing. 2. In addition, further 

analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process must be done. Many of the grazing allotments have no 

data available with which the condition of the land can be evaluated. And as stated above, many of the 

allotments which conclude that the land is not meeting land health standards, identify livestock grazing as 

a causal factor.

Comment ID: 337

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Furthermore, we recommend that BLM should include a provision to retire livestock grazing

allotments on a willing-permittee basis when they come up for renewal under all alternatives, as is included 

under all alternatives in the BLM’s South Dakota RMP Draft EIS.

Summary: The BLM should include a provision to retire livestock grazing allotments on a willing-permittee 

basis when they come up for renewal under all alternatives, as is included under all alternatives in the

BLM’s South Dakota RMP Draft EIS.

Response: Retirement of grazing privileges can be an effective management option when the current 

permittee is willing to retire grazing on all or part of an allotment. Forest Service regulations don't use

"retirement." Action #50 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provides a reasonable range 

of alternatives regarding this specific action. The final land use decision will be included in the Record of 

Decision after all public input has been received by the BLM and Forest Service. Retirement or 

relinquishment of grazing privileges is an available option under BLM grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4100 

and is specifically addressed in Management Action 50.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-817

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Include minimum standards for vegetation stubble height in the alternatives

Comment ID: 357

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: No alternative considers the implementation of this scientifically established minimum 7-inch

stubble height requirement; the most protective alternative would apply a 6-inch stubble height standard 

for riparian areas (but not necessarily nesting habitats). DEIS at 4-307. This failure is a NEPA range of 

alternatives violation.

Comment ID: 331

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Other studies are summarized elsewhere in these comments including Gregg et al. (1994),

Connelly et al. (2000a), and Hagen et al. (2007), which recommend a minimum residual stubble height of 

18 cm throughout the nesting and brood-rearing season. The RMP should include at least one alternative 

that targets a residual summer height of at least 18 cm throughout sage grouse nesting habitat during the 

nesting season.

Comment ID: 161

Organization:

Name:

Comment: Livestock grazing should be managed to leave behind sufficient grass at least 7 inches high--to

provide adequate hiding cover in sage grouse nesting areas, and to prevent the degradation of springs and 

watercourse habitats needed by sage grouse to raise their chicks.

Summary: Gregg et al. (1994), Connelly et al. (2000a), and Hagen et al. (2007) recommend a minimum 

residual stubble height of 18 cm throughout the nesting and brood-rearing season. The LUP should include 

at least one alternative that targets a residual summer height of at least 18 cm throughout sage-grouse

nesting habitat during the nesting season. No alternative considers the implementation of the scientifically 

established minimum 7-inch stubble height requirement. The most protective alternative would apply a 6-

inch stubble height standard for riparian areas (but not necessarily nesting habitats). This failure is a NEPA 

range of alternatives violation.

Response: The range of alternatives in the Draft EIS incorporates the stubble height element in Management 

Action 49 under Alternative B and other management actions referencing sage-grouse conservation 

objectives. The science supporting specific height requirement is changing and can be expected to change 

over the life of the plan. In completing assessments of whether allotments meet the Standards for Rangeland 

Health, sage-grouse habitat is considered specifically in relation to Standard #4, which relates to wildlife 

habitats and specifically to habitats for threatened species, endangered species, species of special concern, 

or sensitive species.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-818 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Language in the alternatives needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1986

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: WSGA has strong objection to the language under Alternative E regarding permit renewals. 

(Action Number 48). This language directly conflicts with the provisions of Wyoming Governor’s 

Executive Order 2013-3 which has been accepted by the Wyoming BLM. In addition, specific to the Forest

Service, we object to the use of Annual Operating Instructions as a vehicle for incorporating sagegrouse

habitat objectives and management considerations. This objection arises from the fact that, under newly 

adopted FS regulations, AOIs are no longer appealable by the permittee. WSGA recommends that the 

language in this section for Alternative D be made applicable to Alternative E.

Comment ID: 45

Organization:

Name: Chan Atkins

Comment: THERE'S TOO MANY COWS ON ON OUR LAND!!

Comment ID: 1005

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Management Action 49 (p. 2-39 - 2-42) requires clarification. It states, " ... Annual Operating

Instructions would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards in sagegrouse core 

habitat areas ... "This statement should be removed because Annual Operating Instructions are not used to 

evaluate land health standards. They are used to help direct agreed upon management of the grazing 

operation for that year. In addition, similar to my comment above, if grazing is identified as the reason for 

not meeting GSG conservation objectives, then EO-20 13-3 will be implemented.

Comment ID: 1664

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Ensure new 

or rehabilitated water developments are designed to use best management practices to limit and mitigate 

potential impacts from the West Nile virus.

Comment ID: 1666

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Institute 

25% grazing utilization standard on existing allotments while meeting objectives for sagegrouse habitat 

conditions.

Comment ID: 1258
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-819

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS fails to take a “hard look” at a range of alternatives for livestock grazing. In 

fact, the only alternatives that reduce or eliminate grazing in the planning area are Alt. C and they take an 

“all or nothing” approach. Alt. C would make core area GRSG habitat unavailable to grazing but the

DLUPA/DEIS doesn’t analyze how many AUM this is. But the EIS only provides unsupported and

conclusory states as to effect with no quantified analysis.

Comment ID: 1724

Organization: Little Snake River Conservation District

Name: Larry Hicks

Comment: Page 4-92 – Livestock Grazing – 3rd Paragraph – Allotments managed by the BLM within sagegrouse priority habitat not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health due, in part, to existing

livestock grazing, would require a 20-30% forage allocation reduction for livestock on these allotments 

under this alternative compared to Alternative A. Comment: This management action makes no sense at 

all, since most instances where rangeland health standards are not being met due to livestock grazing relate 

to Standard #2 – Riparian/wetland health, and reducing amount of forage use will not solve this 

management issue. The two most common actions to resolve this management issue are to either fence out 

with off-site water development, which is primarily used for point water sources, or to change the season 

of use to cool season in the spring or fall (which also usually results in a shorter duration of grazing use)

which ends up eliminating all or most livestock use during the growing season for riparian plant species 

and occurs when livestock will use uplands more and not concentrate as much in riparian habitat. These

approaches have been implemented widespread across Wyoming for the past 20 years or more and should 

be the focus of improving management, rather than the one-size fits all approach of reducing livestock use, 

which by itself, will not solve most resource problems.

Comment ID: 1323

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: If monitoring and habitat assessments and changes only occur as part and parcel of site-specific

grazing decisions, the chance to “adapt” to changing conditions will be limited. In light of the agency’s 

own acknowledgment/assumptions about climate change affecting the habitat availability for GRSG, it 

would have been a reasonable alternative to include some across-the-board adaptations (lowered livestock 

authorizations, for example) in this DLUPA/DEIS or to contextualize the grazing alternatives in this frame.

Comment ID: 1661

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat -- Identify 

existing grazing allotments where permanent retirement of the grazing privileges are feasible, and proceed 

with such retirements.

Comment ID: 2065

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-820 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: We are concerned about, and object to, the language regarding permit renewals and the use of

“Annual Operating Instructions” (AOI) and as a tool in assessing or evaluating range land health. AOIs are 

cooperatively agreed to each year as a strategy for an operation’s grazing management and are not used to 

determine whether range land health standards are met. We strongly object to the use of AOIs in this 

capacity. Furthermore, under newly adopted FS regulations, AOIs are no longer appealable by the 

permittee. We urgently request that this language be removed from the document.

Comment ID: 1325

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Subject to the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), public lands are included in grazing 

districts only if they are characterized as chiefly valuable for livestock grazing. Section 7 of the TGA 

authorizes the Secretary to classify lands for any other uses than the production of native grasses and forage

plants. 43 U.S.C. § 315f. Here, where livestock grazing is a marginal activity with limited economic benefit 

and significant ecological risk, the lands of the NDFO are chiefly valuable for sage-grouse conservation. 

The DRMPA/DEIS fails to consider an alternative where these lands would be reclassified.

Comment ID: 1663

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Authorize 

no new water developments for diversion from spring or seep sources.

Comment ID: 1199

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Section 7 of the TGA permits the Secretary to re-examine and reclassify lands within a grazing 

district that are “more valuable or suitable for any other use” than for grazing livestock. Id. at § 315(f). No

discussion of this has been provided in the DEIS.

Comment ID: 3116

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The 9-Plan should also consider and implement the following Lander RMP FEIS provisions: • 

Alternative B would prohibit salt or mineral supplements within 0.5 mile of riparian-wetland habitats to 

prevent livestock congregation at water sources. • Alternative D (BLM’s Preferred) requires watershed 

monitoring including wetlands to verify the effectiveness of watershed protections” FEIS at 84. • 

Alternative D Record #6067 (Alternative D): No new range improvement projects within 1⁄2 mile of water 

and riparian-wetland areas. This proactive management practice will avoid providing perching locations 

for raptors, while hens and their broods are foraging. • Alternative D Record #6073 (Alternative D) prohibits 

placement of salt and mineral supplements, such as low moisture block supplements, in inappropriate areas 

to further conservation objectives. FEIS at 176. Supplements must be placed and handled in a manner 

designed to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage‐ grouse habitat. This will minimize soil and 

vegetative damage caused by congregating livestock, which would negatively impact grouse foraging and 

disrupt nesting. FEIS at 388.

Comment ID: 3117
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-821

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The 9-Plan should adopt Miles City DRMP Alternative B, Action 5: “Surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities would not be allowed in riparian and wetland areas.” Miles City DRMP Action 7 for 

Alternative B states that “new livestock water developments (troughs or tanks) would be located at least 

0.25 miles from riparian and wetland areas, waterbodies, and streams. DEIS 2-24 and 2-25. This should be 

expanded in the 9-Plan to include no new range improvement projects within 1⁄2 mile of water and riparianwetland areas, so as to avoid providing perching locations for raptors, while hens and their broods are 

foraging. We also support the Miles City DRMP Alternative B provision ((4-139) prohibiting permanent 

facilities, roads, and other surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities in riparian areas, except to benefit 

watershed health or desired riparian vegetation.

Comment ID: 2839

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 30 in Table 2-1 breaks out various actions based on the alternative. We would note that 

item 2 under Alternative D is the only place the document addresses inholdings. We are puzzled as to why

inholdings were not addressed in any of the other alternatives including the preferred alternative. We 

believe that this oversight should be remedied and item 2 under Alternative D be included in all of the other 

alternatives.

Comment ID: 2485

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-87 4.7.2 Assumptions: Is there a need to mention USFS guidance? The second bullet 

needs to be modified if the word "close" is going to be used in Alternative C. The other bullets may have 

to be modified due to the use of the word "close". Closing any livestock grazing in the TBNG would be

going against any applicable plan on the TBNG, the Forest Service has permitted every allotment and found 

them all to be meeting plan objectives for vegetative health.

Summary: Issue #1: Action 30 in Table 2-1: The document should address inholdings under all the 

alternatives. Inholding are currently only addressed under Alternative D. Issue #2: Action 48 in Table 2-1, 

Alternative E: This language directly conflicts with the provisions of Wyoming Governor’s Executive 

Order 2013-3, which has been accepted by the Wyoming BLM. In addition, specific to the Forest Service, 

we object to the use of Annual Operating Instructions as a vehicle for incorporating sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and management considerations. This objection arises from the fact that, under newly adopted 

Forest Service regulations, AOIs are no longer appealable by the permittee. We recommend the language 

in Alternative D also apply to Alternative E, for this action. Issue #3: Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

permits the Secretary to re-examine and reclassify lands within a grazing district that are “more valuable or 

suitable for any other use” than for grazing livestock. Id. at § 315(f). No discussion of this has been provided 

in the Draft EIS. Issue #4: The Draft EIS should include the following management prescriptions— In 

sage-grouse general habitat: • Institute 25% grazing utilization standard on existing allotments while 

meeting objectives for sagegrouse habitat conditions. • Ensure new or rehabilitated water developments are 

designed to use best management practices to limit and mitigate potential impacts from the West Nile virus.

• Authorize no new water developments for diversion from spring or seep sources. • Identify existing 

grazing allotments where permanent retirement of the grazing privileges are feasible, and proceed with such 

retirements. Issue #5: Subject to the enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA), public lands are included 

in grazing districts only if they are characterized as chiefly valuable for livestock grazing. Section 7 of the
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-822 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

TGA authorizes the Secretary to classify lands for any other uses than the production of native grasses and 

forage plants. 43 U.S.C. § 315f. The Draft EIS fails to consider an alternative where these lands would be 

reclassified. Issue #6: If monitoring and habitat assessments and changes only occur as part of site-specific

grazing decisions, the chance to “adapt” to changing conditions will be limited. In light of the agency’s 

own acknowledgment/assumptions about climate change affecting the habitat availability for Greater SageGrouse, it would have been a reasonable alternative to include some across-theboard adaptations (e.g., 

lowered livestock authorizations) in the Draft EIS. Issue #7: Page 4-87 4.7.2 Assumptions: Is there a need 

to mention Forest Service guidance? The second bullet needs to be modified if the word "close" is going to 

be used in Alternative C. The other bullets may have to be modified due to the use of the word "close." 

Closing any livestock grazing in the TBNG would be going against any applicable plan on the TBNG, the 

Forest Service has permitted every allotment and found them all to be meeting plan objectives for vegetative 

health. Issue #8: Page 4-92, third paragraph: Allotments managed by the BLM within sage-grouse priority

habitat not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health due, in part, to existing livestock grazing, 

would require a 20-30% forage allocation reduction for livestock on these allotments under this alternative 

compared to Alternative A. - This management action (44) makes no sense at all, since most instances 

where rangeland health standards are not being met due to livestock grazing relate to Standard #2 

(riparian/wetland health), and reducing forage use will not solve this management issue. The two most 

common actions to resolve this management issue are to either fence out with off-site water development, 

which is primarily used for point water sources, or to change the season of use to cool season in the spring 

or fall, which ultimately eliminates all or most livestock use during the growing season for riparian plant

species and occurs when livestock will use uplands more and not concentrate as much in riparian habitat. 

These approaches have been implemented widespread across Wyoming for the past 20 years or more and 

should be the focus of improving management, rather than the one-size fits all approach of reducing 

livestock use. Issue #9: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS fails to take a “hard look” at a range of 

alternatives for livestock grazing. In fact, the only alternatives that reduce or eliminate grazing in the 

planning area are Alt. C and they take an “all or nothing” approach. Alt. C would make core area Greater 

Sage- Grouse habitat unavailable to grazing but the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS doesn’t analyze how

many AUM this is. The EIS only provides unsupported and conclusory statements as to effect with no

quantified analysis. Issue #10: Management Action 49 (p. 2-39 - 2-42) requires clarification. It states, " ... 

Annual Operating Instructions would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards 

in sage-grouse core habitat areas ..." This statement should be removed because Annual Operating

Instructions are not used to evaluate land health standards. They are used to help direct agreed upon

management of the grazing operation for that year. In addition, similar to my comment above, if grazing is 

identified as the reason for not meeting sage-grouse conservation objectives, then EO-20 13-3 will be 

implemented. Issue #11: The 9-Plan should also consider and implement the following Lander RMP Final 

EIS provisions: -Alternative B would prohibit salt or mineral supplements within 0.5 mile of riparianwetland habitats to prevent livestock congregation at water sources. -Alternative D (BLM’s Preferred) 

requires watershed monitoring including wetlands to verify the effectiveness of watershed protections” 

Final EIS at 84. -Alternative D Record #6067 (Alternative D): No new range improvement projects within 

1⁄2 mile of water and riparian-wetland areas. This proactive management practice will avoid providing 

perching locations for raptors, while hens and their broods are foraging. -Alternative D Record #6073 

(Alternative D) prohibits placement of salt and mineral supplements, such as low moisture block 

supplements, in inappropriate areas to further conservation objectives. Final EIS at 176. Supplements must 

be placed and handled in a manner designed to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage‐ grouse habitat. 

This will minimize soil and vegetative damage caused by congregating livestock, which would negatively 

impact grouse foraging and disrupt nesting. Final EIS at 388. The 9-Plan should adopt Miles City Draft 

RMP Alternative B, Action 5: “Surface disturbing and disruptive activities would not be allowed in riparian 

and wetland areas.” -Miles City Draft RMP Action 7 for Alternative B states that “new livestock water 

developments (troughs or tanks) would be located at least 0.25 miles from riparian and wetland areas, 

waterbodies, and streams. Draft EIS 2-24 and 2-25. This should be expanded in the 9-Plan to include no 

new range improvement projects within 1⁄2 mile of water and riparian-wetland areas, so as to avoid providing
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-823

perching locations for raptors, while hens and their broods are foraging. We also support the Miles City 

Draft RMP Alternative B provision ((4-139) prohibiting permanent facilities, roads, and other surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities in riparian areas, except to benefit watershed health or desired riparian 

vegetation.

Response: Issue #1: BLM realty rights of way do not apply to non-federal inholdings. Issue #2: The actions 

included in Action 48, Table 2-1, Alternative E, do not conflict with the Wyoming Governor's Executive 

Order 2013-3. The Executive Order specifically provides for actions related to livestock grazing to achieve 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives. Management Action 48 provides that these actions would be 

taken "as appropriate," providing for compliance with the Executive Order. It is correct that AOIs simply 

implement the NEPA decision/Allotment Management Plan and are not appealable. What is appealable is 

an action (e.g., suspension or cancellation) taken due to a violation of the terms and conditions of the permit.

Issue #3: The BLM did consider making sage-grouse priority habitat unavailable to livestock grazing under 

Alternative C. This would have substantially similar effects to the alternative suggested. Issue #4: The 

management prescriptions listed in the comment are included in the range of alternatives in the Draft EIS 

and were analyzed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. The final decision on these specific management actions 

will be made in the Record of Decision after completion of the land use planning and public involvement 

processes. Issue #5: The comment is beyond the scope of this planning effort. In addition, the action 

proposed is not responsive to the purpose and need for the project. Issue #6: Actions that reduce grazing 

in sage-grouse habitat were considered under Alternatives B and C. Alternative B proposes a light grazing 

strategy for allotments within sage-grouse priority habitat that do not meet Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Alternative C proposes a prohibition on livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat. Issue #7: The 

assumptions included in Section 4.7.2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS are appropriate and 

accurate. Prohibiting livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitats under Alternative C does not affect 

the accuracy of the assumptions. If Alternative C, or components therein, was selected as the Approved 

LUP Amendment, it would amend the Land and Resource Management Plan for the TBNG. Issue #8: It is 

reasonable to consider an alternative that reduces grazing use to 20-30% in allotments that do not meet the 

Standards for Rangeland Health due to livestock grazing. The management action is not intended to apply 

specifically to riparian areas. Drawbacks to this alternative are presented in the impact analysis. Issue #9: 

The Draft EIS analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives for livestock grazing management. Both 

Alternative B and C propose reductions in livestock grazing use. Alternative B proposes a light grazing 

management strategy for allotments within sage-grouse priority habitats that do not meet Standards for 

Rangeland Health. Alternative C proposes a prohibition of livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority 

habitat. The other alternatives propose various levels of restrictions on livestock grazing. All of these 

management actions/alternatives were analyzed in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS. The number of AUMs that 

would be affected by the grazing prohibition included under Alternative C are disclosed in the impacts 

analysis (see Chapter 4, Section 4.7). Issue #10: Management Action #49 has been revised in the Final EIS 

to remove the reference to Annual Operating Instructions. The new BLM text is: "The BLM monitoring 

policies would be used to evaluate progress toward achieving land health standards within sage-grouse core 

and connectivity habitat areas and, where not achieved, to determine if existing grazing management 

practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant factors in failing to meet, maintain, or make

progress towards achieving the standards and conform with the guidelines, which through this process will 

identify appropriate actions to address non-achievement and non-conformance. Allotments within SFAs, 

followed by those within PHMAs, and focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows, 

will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing 

permits. Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, utilization, and use supervision. The BLM 

will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if modification is 

necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in SFAs followed by PHMAs 

outside of the SFAs. In setting workload priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in 

these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, including 

wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-824 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

concerns (e.g., fire) and legal obligations." The new Forest Service text is "GRSG-LG-GL-001-Guideline 

- Grazing guidelines in Table 2-6 should be applied in each of the seasonal habitats as displayed. If values 

in Table 2-6 cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific analysis using Ecological Site Descriptions, 

long-term ecological site capability analysis, or other similar analysis, adjust grazing management to move 

towards desired habitat conditions in Table 2-5 consistent with the ecological site capability. Do not use 

drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust values. Grazing guidelines in Table 2-6 would not apply 

to isolated parcels of National Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres of Greater Sage- Grouse 

habitat." Issue #11: Several measures/restrictions regarding livestock range improvements are included in

management action #53 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. These restrictions combined 

with other actions/restrictions currently included in the existing land use plans will provide appropriate 

protections to riparian areas and sage-grouse habitat, while maintaining management flexibility for 

livestock grazing operations.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Language under Alternative E should be revised

Comment ID: 1002

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: In Chapter 2, under the Livestock Grazing Management actions, Alternative E references 

Alternative A (i.e., Management Action 44). I encourage the BLM and to consider referencing EO 2011-5 

and EO 2013-3 in addition to Alternative A. Alternative A requires the BLM and USFS to determine causal

factors before making changes to grazing management. If it is the intent to adjust grazing management to 

address GSG or its habitat, then EO-20 13-3 should be implemented. It must be clear that making changes 

to achieve standards is part of the existing process; however, if changes are made due to GSG, the process 

outlined in EO 2013-3 is supported (see Management Action 3, p. 2- 15).

Comment ID: 1989

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: Riparian Area Management: The discussion on riparian area management (Action Number 55)

focuses on achieving a balance between grazing of riparian habitats and upland habitats. We support this 

balance. Under alternative D there is recognition that the range of grazing management strategies includes 

livestock, wildlife and wild horses. WSGA requests that this recognition be incorporated into Alternative 

E.

Comment ID: 2487

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-994.7.7 Alternative E: Third paragraph: The paragraph should include some mention of 

a cooperative way to develop the partnerships with permittees in the TBNG " ... site-specific sagegrouse

habitat objectives and management objectives ... evaluating ... core habitat ... " to modify grazing allotments 

when up for renewal.

Comment ID: 2897

Organization: Eagle Ridge Ranch
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-825

Name: Hustace Scott

Comment: I prefer Alternative E, with the following comments. Under Grazing, there are no comments 

about the details of the grazing goal to improve Sage-grouse habitat. In Wyoming, a major limiting factor 

is the survival of the chicks in the first two weeks after hatch. This is the time period when the chicks need 

insects to be a major (80-90%) portion of their food. Increasing forb production is the proven best way to 

increase insect diversity, and thus food for the chicks. If an emphasis on forb production were in the plan, 

then grazing plans could be developed that would address a major limiting factor for Sage-grouse. The best 

way to increase forb production is to rotationally graze. As the 2003 Wyoming Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan states, season long grazing should be avoided. I realize that the BLM has an institutional dislike of 

rotational grazing, but this EIS should address what is good for Sage-grouse.

Comment ID: 2844

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 45 in Table 2-1 discusses how the Agencies will work cooperatively with landowners to 

develop integrated operations where allotments can be planned as single units. We support efforts by the

Agencies to work cooperatively with permittees as long as the landowner is not placed at a disadvantage 

by the Agencies. The difference in size of resources between the two entities is significant and most 

landowners cannot afford to challenge an federal agency should that agency decide to use "bullying" tactics 

under the guise of cooperation. Item 46 in Table 2-1 under Livestock Grazing Permit Monitoring discusses 

actions under the alternatives that will be employed by the Agencies. Alternative A is the directing action 

for all alternatives with B, C and D modifying these actions. Alternative E adopts the actions under

Alternative A. We note that in the Newcastle RMP the BLM will make adjustments in livestock grazing

use as a result of monitoring and consultation with grazing permittees. We request that this process be 

adopted for all of the BLM RMPs in the 9 plan as well as the Forest Service. This process would engender 

a much closer relationship between the grazing operators and the Agencies. As an aside, it is our 

understanding that BLM ground in some areas of the state are administered under Section 15 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act and as such livestock owners are identified as leasees.

Comment ID: 2223

Organization: Thunder Basin Grazing Association (TBGA)

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne

Comment: The Association encourages full incorporation of the grazing adjustment supplement (WY EO 

2013-3) into Appendix E. This supplement was developed in partnership with key stakeholders and affirms

that proper grazing management can maintain or enhance Wyoming rangelands which support viable sagegrouse populations. The final alternative should incorporate the resulting framework for evaluating 

situations where conservation objectives are not being achieved to determine if improper grazing is part of 

the cause. In addition, the final alternative should clarify that not achieving healthy rangelands doesn’t 

necessarily create a threatened condition for sage-grouse.

Comment ID: 2215

Organization: Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association

Name: Frank G., Jr. Eathorne

Comment: The Association encourages full incorporation of the grazing adjustment supplement (WY EO 

2013-3) into Appendix E. This supplement was developed in partnership with key stakeholders and affirms

that proper grazing management can maintain or enhance Wyoming rangelands which support viable sagegrouse populations. The final alternative should incorporate the resulting framework for evaluating 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-826 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

situations where conservation objectives are not being achieved to determine if improper grazing is part of 

the cause. In addition, the final alternative should clarify that not achieving healthy rangelands doesn’t 

necessarily create a threatened condition for sage-grouse.

Summary: Issue #1: In Wyoming, a major limiting factor is the survival of the chicks in the first two weeks 

after hatch. This is the time period when the chicks need insects to be a major (80-90%) portion of their

food. Increasing forb production is the proven best way to increase insect diversity, and thus food for the 

chicks. If an emphasis on forb production were in the plan, then grazing plans could be developed that 

would address a major limiting factor for sage-grouse. The best way to increase forb production is to 

rotationally graze. As the 2003 Wyoming Sage-grouse Conservation Plan states, season long grazing should 

be avoided. I realize that the BLM has an institutional dislike of rotational grazing, but this EIS should 

address what is good for sage-grouse. Issue #2: Action 46 in Table 2-1: Alternative A is the directing action 

for all alternatives with B, C and D modifying these actions. Alternative E adopts the actions under 

Alternative A. We note that in the Newcastle RMP, the BLM will make adjustments in livestock grazing 

use as a result of monitoring and consultation with grazing permittees. We request that this process be 

adopted for all of the BLM RMPs in the 9 plan as well as the Forest Service. This process would engender 

a much closer relationship between the grazing operators and the agencies. Issue #3: We encourage full 

incorporation of the grazing adjustment supplement (WY EO 2013-3) into Appendix E. This supplement 

was developed in partnership with key stakeholders and affirms that proper grazing management can 

maintain or enhance Wyoming rangelands which support viable sage-grouse populations. The final 

alternative should incorporate the resulting framework for evaluating situations where conservation 

objectives are not being achieved to determine if improper grazing is part of the cause. In addition, the final 

alternative should clarify that not achieving healthy rangelands doesn’t necessarily create a threatened 

condition for sage-grouse. Issue #4: Action 44: A reference to EO 2011-5 and EO 2013-3 should be 

included in addition to the reference to Alternative A. Alternative A requires the BLM and Forest Service 

to determine causal factors before making changes to grazing management. If it is the intent to adjust 

grazing management to address sage-grouse or its habitat, then EO-20 13-3 should be implemented. It must

be clear that making changes to achieve standards is part of the existing process; however, if changes are 

made due to sage-grouse, the process outlined in EO 2013-3 is supported. Issue #5: Under Alternative D 

there is recognition that the range of grazing management strategies includes livestock, wildlife and wild 

horses. WSGA requests that this recognition be incorporated into Alternative E.

Response: Issue #1: The range of grazing practices and restrictions on grazing activities analyzed in the 

Draft EIS will serve to help conserve sage-grouse habitat. Specifically, the sage-grouse conservation 

strategy included in Alternative E will conserve sage-grouse habitat and prevent listing of Greater SageGrouse under the Endangered Species Act while allowing for appropriate levels of resource use across the 

planning area. The BLM and Forest Service developed Alternative E based on the Wyoming Executive 

Order (WY EO 2011-5) Core Area Strategy, BLM WY IM 2010-012, BLM WY IM 2012-019, BLM WO 

IM 2012-044, National Technical Team report, and best available science; and based on input from the 

USFWS, State of Wyoming, cooperating agencies, and the public to create a management approach to both 

protect sage-grouse and allow for multiple use of public lands. The combination of surface disturbance 

restrictions, timing limitations, limits on density of development, and other management will meet the 

purpose and need of the planning effort and allow the continued existence of the Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Wyoming. Issue #2: Consultation, coordination, and cooperation with affected livestock grazing 

permittees, the state managing lands or resources in the area, and the interested public is codified in the 

grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4100 and is standard practice in all field offices. Issue #3: Appendix E 

regards fluid mineral stipulations. It is not appropriate to incorporate EO 2013- 3, which discusses livestock 

grazing, into this appendix. Issue #4: EO 2013-3 does not outline any specific process for incorporating 

changes in grazing management to address sage-grouse habitat or the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland 

Health. EO 2013-3 does provide for collaboration between the state and federal agencies, which would be

conducted in accordance with the grazing regulations at 43 CFR 4100. Issue #5: We acknowledge the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-827

suggested change to Alternative E. Based on public comment and the analysis contained in the Draft EIS, 

the BLM and Forest Service will make the final decision on the Approved LUP Amendments in the Record 

of Decision.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Livestock trailing should not be restricted without careful consideration

Comment ID: 2070

Organization: Wyoming Wool Growers Association

Name: Amy W. Hendrickson

Comment: The discussion of livestock trailing is a major concern to the WWGA. The use of livestock trails 

is essential to sheep producers. Many of the livestock trails in use today have been in existence since before 

either the Taylor Grazing Act or the creation of BLM, - in some cases even before the creation of the 

WWGA. Any changes in their use could be economically detrimental to Wyoming’s sheep industry. 

Closure of or limited use of livestock trails should be carefully considered and only implemented in rare 

circumstances, and only following extensive collaboration with the parties that use the trail. The impact 

that a closure would have on users must be given priority consideration. This must be incorporated into the 

plan amendments.

Summary: Many of the livestock trails in use today have been in existence since before either the Taylor 

Grazing Act or the creation of BLM. Any changes in their use could be economically detrimental to

Wyoming’s sheep industry. Closure of or limited use of livestock trails should be carefully considered and 

only implemented in rare circumstances, and only following extensive collaboration with the parties that 

use the trail. The impact that a closure would have on users must be given priority consideration and should 

be incorporated into the Draft EIS.

Response: All proposed decisions included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS were carefully 

considered by the BLM and Forest Service. Similarly, the BLM and Forest Service will carefully consider 

any final decisions included in the Record of Decision and the implementation of those decisions. The BLM

and Forest Service realize there are implications and potential adverse effects associated with all decisions 

included in the LUP Amendments. The goal is to minimize those impacts while providing for sage-grouse 

conservation and the needs of other resource values and uses.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Manage livestock grazing consistent with Executive Order 2013-3

Comment ID: 2975

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: We encourage the full integration of Wyoming Executive Order 2013-3 (Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Area - Grazing Adjustments) into Alternative E. This supplemental to the original EO, which is 

already incorporated into the Plan, affirms that proper grazing management practices "maintain or enhance

Wyoming rangelands" and that such lands are "capable of sustaining viable Greater Sage-Grouse

populations" and those plant species on which sage-grouse rely. In order to sustain this assessment, the EO 

requires the State to work collaboratively with the appropriate federal agencies to ensure an appropriate 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-828 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

framework is in place that will achieve designated greater sage-grouse conservation objectives within the 

framework. Moreover, there must be clarification in the final document that not achieving healthy rangeland

standards and guidelines does not necessarily equate to a threatened condition for greater sagegrouse. While 

such an occurrence may be possible, there are examples- the proliferation of wild horses or air quality 

concerns- that are beyond the control of the permittee/lessee despite evidence of the permittee/lessee 

adopting and practicing such standards. We suggest the determination for any causal factors potentially 

posing a threat to greater sagegrouse related to livestock grazing be left to existing, established protocols 

emerging as a byproduct of the collaborative framework outlined in EO 2013-3.

Summary: We encourage the full integration of Wyoming Executive Order 2013-3 (Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Area - Grazing Adjustments) into Alternative E. This supplemental to the original EO, which is 

already incorporated into the LUP Amendments, affirms that proper grazing management practices

"maintain or enhance Wyoming rangelands" and that such lands are "capable of sustaining viable Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations" and those plant species on which sage-grouse rely. In order to sustain this 

assessment, the EO requires the state to work collaboratively with the appropriate federal agencies to ensure 

an appropriate framework is in place that will achieve designated Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

objectives within the framework. Moreover, there must be clarification in the final document that not 

achieving healthy rangeland standards and guidelines does not necessarily equate to a threatened condition 

for greater sagegrouse. While such an occurrence may be possible, there are examples- the proliferation of 

wild horses or air quality concerns- that are beyond the control of the permittee/lessee despite evidence of 

the permittee/lessee adopting and practicing such standards. We suggest the determination for any causal 

factors potentially posing a threat to Greater Sage- Grouse related to livestock grazing be left to existing, 

established protocols emerging as a by-product of the collaborative framework outlined in EO 2013-3.

Response: Alternative E incorporates the guidance from BLM IM WY-2010-012, the Wyoming Governor’s

Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and additional management based on the NTT recommendations. This 

alternative emphasizes management of sage-grouse seasonal habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity 

to support population objectives set by the 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). The combination of surface disturbance restrictions, timing limitations, 

limits on density of development, and other management included under Alternative E will meet the 

purpose and need of the LUP and allow the continued existence of Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming. 

Appendix G of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS shows all the livestock grazing allotments that are 

not meeting the Standards for Rangeland Health. The appendix also recognizes that in many cases livestock 

grazing is not the causal factor, which is specifically noted in the appendix.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Manage livestock grazing while giving equal consideration to other resource values and uses

Comment ID: 746

Organization:

Name: Peri Newman

Comment: I like horses, grouses, and cows. However, I like and would like to see them all protected equally.

Therefore, it would be awesome if you guys could make decisions to make that happen. Cows are fine 

within limit, and so is everything else on this planet. However, not every animal else has governmental 

protection. May I suggest you read Vonnegut's Galapagos?

Comment ID: 385
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-829

Organization:

Name: Janet Lynch

Comment: Livestock grazing is only one of many uses allowed on the public lands under BLM Wyoming's

jurisdiction, and to comply with the 1976 FLPMA, the agency may not prioritize one use to the exclusion 

of all others. Yet in practice, that is exactly what BLM Wyoming is doing. Specifically, the BLM allocates 

47 times more forage to privately-owned livestock than to federally-protected wild horses in this planning 

area. This practice and its resulting environmental degradation leads to the exclusion of all other enumerated 

multiple uses, including wildlife and endemic species conservation, recreational uses and more. This is both 

illegal and unacceptable.

Comment ID: 2850

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Alternative A also has an extensive list of criteria in the BTNF LRMP which totally ignores 

livestock needs in favor of wildlife needs. We feel this clearly shows a bias by the Forest for one multiple 

use over another and feel both uses need to be provided equal weight. The discussion of range improvements 

on the MBNF appears to stray into a number of other uses such as recreation, logging etc. We question the 

appropriateness of analyzing these activities under the title of range improvements. Alternative B appears 

to use the "benefit sage-grouse" yard stick to measure all range improvements in priority habitat. We feel 

this is not appropriate as a management strategy. Alternative C even goes further in requiring peer reviewed 

studies to determine whether an action is allowed. This will virtually guarantee "analysis paralysis" which 

has been inflicted upon agencies in the past which has contributed to unhealthy conditions. We strongly 

reject this action alternative.

Comment ID: 2853

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 95 in Table 2-1 discusses vegetation treatments focusing on controlled burns. Under 

Alternative C no vegetation treatments would be allowed if in priority or general sage-grouse habitat unless 

it solely benefited sage-grouse. Again we do not feel this is appropriate multiple use management and urge 

the Agencies to reject such proposals. Item 97 in Table 2-1 discusses management actions in vegetation 

treatment areas. Under Alternative A in the Green River RMP it discusses fencing of these areas. It seems 

that the document is on both sides of the fence, so to speak, with this requirement. In much of the document 

the Agencies seem to be advancing the idea that fences should be removed, yet in this particular situation, 

they are advocating for fences. We believe that fences should be utilized to advance the overall ease of

management actions both for the Agencies as well as livestock. Alternative E requires that treated areas be 

rested from grazing for at least 2 years. Later in the document the Agencies indicate that they would 

consider resting areas until sage brush is reestablished. This process could take a significant amount of time 

which could impact the livestock operator significantly. We feel the Agencies should work with the 

livestock operator to develop a rest program that is beneficial to both parties. Alternative B discusses long 

term removal of livestock in response to a burn. This action should be taken in cooperation and consultation 

with permittees since a long term removal will have a significant impact on the operators management. We 

do not support a long term removal as a matter of course in these types of situations.

Summary: Livestock grazing is only one of many uses allowed on the public lands under BLM Wyoming's

jurisdiction; and to comply with the 1976 FLPMA, the agency may not prioritize one use to the exclusion 

of all others. Yet in practice, that is exactly what BLM Wyoming is doing. Specifically, the BLM allocates 

47 times more forage to privately-owned livestock than to federally-protected wild horses in this planning 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-830 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

area. This practice and its resulting environmental degradation leads to the exclusion of all other enumerated 

multiple uses, including wildlife and endemic species conservation, recreational uses and more. This is both 

illegal and unacceptable. Alternative A also has an extensive list of criteria in the BTNF LRMP that ignores 

livestock needs in favor of wildlife needs. This shows a bias by the Forest Service for one multiple use over 

another; both uses need to be provided equal weight.

Response: Forage for livestock use is allocated through the issuance of AUMs on an allotment basis. 

Livestock grazing is not prioritized to the exclusion of all other uses. To ensure healthy rangeland habitat 

and appropriate amounts of forage for all species, the BLM requires the implementation of specific grazing 

practices that lead to achieving the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health. Based on land health 

assessments or long-term vegetation monitoring, the BLM and Forest Service can adjust forage allocation 

levels for livestock grazing use and require changes to other grazing practices on an as needed basis. The 

agencies will also prioritize review of grazing permits and leases within priority habitat and incorporate 

terms and conditions to meet habitat objectives.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Management actions for livestock grazing do not change management in a way that provides 

habitat for sage-grouse

Comment ID: 1359

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 53 states that in sage grouse habitat "existing range improvements would continue to be

evaluated and modified when necessary" but nothing within any of the current RMPs require that existing 

range improvements be "evaluated and modified when necessary". While the current RMPs state such 

things as "existing fences would be eliminated or modified to reduce conflicts on a case-bycase basis" but 

because the RMP does not actually require this, it been implemented. Without a clear requirement and 

timeframe to achieve the requirement this cannot be seen as an effective regulatory mechanism. This same 

basic flaw applies to action 57.

Comment ID: 1355

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 47 is very telling in that only alternative C has the objective that lands be managed to 

their ESD potential, all other alternatives state "no similar action".

Comment ID: 1352

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 44 maintains the status quo for livestock grazing management. No changes, requirements 

or limitations are added to the direction that has been in place for least 15 years which has done little if

anything to provide for sage grouse habitat. In addition, as we have discussed previously the appropriations 

rider has been abused for years by the BLM for nearly all permit renewals resulting in no changes to 

livestock management. Even worse, when the BLM actually completes standards and guidelines 

assessments it does not examine the condition of sage grouse habitat. For instance, in two recent standards 

and guidelines assessments on the Pinedale field office, the Boulder Landscape and the James Ryegrass, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-831

determine that the areas in question, that Rangeland Health Standards are being met but in both cases there 

had been a near total conversion from mid-stature cool season bunchgrasses to short stature grazing tolerant 

species. The effects of this conversion on sage grouse habitat were entirely ignored.

Comment ID: 1360

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 55 provides that "grazing between riparian habitats and upland habitats would be 

balanced" but provides no actual requirements to meet sage grouse habitat needs.

Comment ID: 1353

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 45 proposes to "work cooperatively.... to develop voluntary grazing management 

strategies". Again this is not a regulatory mechanism to protect sage grouse.

Summary: The management actions for livestock grazing do not provide actual requirements to meet 

sagegrouse habitat needs. The Preferred Alternative essentially continues current management for livestock 

grazing that has been in place for least 15 years and has done little, if anything, to provide for sage-grouse 

habitat. In addition, when the BLM actually completes standards and guidelines assessments, it does not 

examine the condition of sage-grouse habitat.

Response: The issue raised in the comment is specifically addressed in Management Action #48 in Chapter 

2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. This action will ensure that sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations are incorporated into all BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments, which 

could result in changes to grazing management practices, if needed, to help conserve sage-grouse habitat. 

The desired conditions for sage-grouse seasonal habitat that are displayed in Seasonal Habitat Desired 

Condition tables in the Final EIS. In completing assessments of whether allotments meet the Standards for 

Rangeland Health, sage-grouse habitat is considered specifically in relation to Standard #4, which relates 

to wildlife habitats and specifically to habitats for threatened species, endangered species, species of special 

concern, or sensitive species. The agencies will also prioritize review of grazing permits and leases within 

priority habitat and incorporate terms and conditions to meet habitat objectives.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Proposed grazing restrictions violate the Taylor Grazing Act

Comment ID: 2114

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew

Comment: Adoption of the Proposed Amendments to Rangeland Management Standards and Guidelines 

and Limitations on Land Treatments, Water Developments, and Structural Developments and

Improvements Would Violate the Taylor Grazing Act. Put simply, the TGA places limits on BLM’s

discretion to devote grazing districts for purposes other than grazing and, in proposing sage-grouse specific 

management standards and guidelines, BLM is crossing the bounds of its discretion. The proposal is also 

inconsistent with Federal Land Management and Policy Act’s (FLPMA) focus on “multiple use” and 

“sustained yield” principles. The purpose of the TGA is to establish grazing as the primary, dominant use 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-832 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

on public rangelands, and FLPMA does not undermine that purpose. BLM’s proposed amendments to the 

LUPs/RMPs, in effect, threaten to shift the primary use of lands within grazing districts from livestock 

grazing to sage-grouse conservation. To be clear, PLC and NCBA do not believe that livestock grazing and 

sage-grouse conservation are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, a robust grazing program actually ensures 

the health of sage-grouse habitat.

Comment ID: 2118

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew

Comment: Adoption of the Proposed Consideration of Permanent Grazing Permit Retirements Would 

Violate the Taylor Grazing Act. BLM may not permanently retire grazing permits that are subject to

preference under the Taylor Grazing Act. See Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Memorandum 

Regarding Retirement of Grazing Lands, M-37008 (May 13, 2003). Conversely, BLM “may suspend active 

use in whole or in part on a temporary basis” only when, for example, “use exceeds the livestock carrying 

capacity.” 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3-2(b). However, a grazing preference may not be permanently retired absent 

un-designation of land as “chiefly valuable for grazing.” This would allow the area to be closed to grazing 

even if there were no negative impacts to sage-grouse or if grazing provided long term benefits to sagegrouse habitat. It is difficult to see how this proposed action would be a conservation measure which will 

address a threat to sage-grouse or its habitat.

Summary: Adoption of the proposed consideration of permanent grazing permit retirements would violate 

the Taylor Grazing Act. BLM may not permanently retire grazing permits that are subject to preference

under the Taylor Grazing Act. See Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Memorandum Regarding 

Retirement of Grazing Lands, M-37008 (May 13, 2003). Conversely, BLM “may suspend active use in 

whole or in part on a temporary basis” only when, for example, “use exceeds the livestock carrying 

capacity.” 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3-2(b). However, a grazing preference may not be permanently retired absent 

un-designation of land as “chiefly valuable for grazing.” Adoption of the proposed amendments that limit 

grazing practices, land treatments, and range improvements would violate the Taylor Grazing Act. The 

Taylor Grazing Act places limits on BLM’s discretion to devote grazing districts for purposes other than 

grazing, and in proposing sage-grouse specific management standards and guidelines, BLM is crossing the 

bounds of its discretion. The proposal is also inconsistent with FLPMA's focus on “multiple use” and 

“sustained yield” principles. BLM’s proposed amendments to the LUPs, in effect, threaten to shift the 

primary use of lands within grazing districts from livestock grazing to sage-grouse conservation.

Response: The management actions included in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS are in compliance 

with all laws, statutes, and regulations.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Reclassify lands within grazing districts

Comment ID: 338

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: In addition to enshrining the consideration of livestock permit retirement on a voluntary basis 

in the RMP amendment, The Taylor Grazing Act gives federal agencies the authority to re-examine and 

reclassify lands within a grazing district that are “more valuable or suitable for any other use” than for 

grazing livestock. 43 U.S.C. § 315(f). The BLM’s sage grouse plan amendment process provides an ideal 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-833

vehicle for the Secretary to make a new determination that all existing sage-grouse habitat (or a subset of 

extant habitat – e.g., preliminary priority habitat or preliminary general habitat) is not “chiefly valuable for 

grazing,” and thus modify existing grazing districts to excise these areas. Through this same process, the 

Secretary may separately determine that these same areas are “chiefly valuable” for sage grouse protection 

and conservation. This should be accomplished as part of the Wyoming RMP amendment process.

Summary: The Taylor Grazing Act gives federal agencies the authority to re-examine and reclassify lands 

within a grazing district that are “more valuable or suitable for any other use” than for grazing livestock. 

43 U.S.C. § 315(f). The BLM’s sage-grouse plan amendment process provides an ideal vehicle for the

Secretary to make a new determination that all existing sage-grouse habitat (or a subset of extant habitat –

e.g., preliminary priority habitat or preliminary general habitat) is not “chiefly valuable for grazing,” and 

thus modify existing grazing districts to excise these areas. Through this same process, the Secretary may 

separately determine that these same areas are “chiefly valuable” for sage-grouse protection and 

conservation. This should be accomplished as part of the Wyoming RMP amendment process.

Response: The comment is beyond the scope of this planning effort. In addition, the action proposed is not 

responsive to the purpose and need for the project. Please see other comment responses regarding 

relinquishment of grazing permits.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Reduce grazing on public lands.

Comment ID: 1806

Organization:

Name: Marla Jones

Comment: Also, I would like to see more bison ranching and less cattle ranching. Although they may look 

similar, their behaviors and therefore effects on the landscape are distinctly different. In the areas of the

American west that originally fostered significant bison populations, I'd like to see that again rather than 

cattle.

Comment ID: 1194

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Just as reducing automobile emissions represents an incremental step in addressing climate 

change, so does reducing emissions and other impacts of livestock grazing. A recent study recommends

removing or reducing livestock grazing across large areas of public lands in order to eliminate this longterm stressor and make the lands less susceptible to the effects of climate change. The DLUPA/DEIS is 

required to consider livestock grazing in this context.

Comment ID: 324

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Livestock grazing also leads to cheatgrass invasion, as overgrazing eliminates native

bunchgrasses and degrades biological soil crusts, both of which represent the ecosystem’s natural defenses 

against this invasive weed (Reisner et al. 2013, Attachment 18). The plan amendment must implement 

measures that will reverse this trend with ironclad certainty. In order to minimize the spread of cheatgrass, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-834 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

livestock forage removal limits need to be set under the RMP amendment, allowing no more than 25% of 

the available forage to be consumed each year. Widespread devastation of rangeland (and more pertinently 

to this amendment, sage grouse habitat) and loss of habitat value can be wrought by this invasive weed.

BLM must restore degraded habitats by managing for elimination of cheatgrass from the system.

Comment ID: 1808

Organization:

Name: Marla Jones

Comment: The mining, drilling etc. operations are another consideration of course but as far as land use for

animal ranching I would like to see bison being ranched in areas that they lived previously, and if an area 

can't tolerate a grazing animal population high enough to be profitable, then certainly some wind turbines 

and solar panels could be set up in it to bring in a continuous guaranteed income from a nonpolluting and 

completely reliable and constant resource.

Comment ID: 1131

Organization:

Name: Susan Galentine

Comment: Decrease the numbers of cattle and sheep devastating the natural resources, leave the wild 

horses, sage grouse, and other wildlife native to the environment free to exist as mother nature meant them

to exist...without cattle...without sheep.

Comment ID: 1818

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: Because livestock-grazing is the major cause of Sage-Grouse habitat-loss, it should be classified 

as a Sage-Grouse disruptive activity. Further, because livestock outnumber wild horses in the Planning

Area by a ratio of 50 to 1, BLM needs to ... 1. Reduce or close livestock-grazing in core / priority SageGrouse habitat, and / or 2. Reform the grazing regime by requiring permittees to practice Holistic 

Management. Number 1 might not be necessary if Number 2 were chosen. But BLM-Wyoming's Preferred

Alternative E would do neither. Core / priority Sage-Grouse habitat would remain open to livestockgrazing

at current levels. Retirements of grazing privileges would be voluntary -- as "an option" when permittees 

are willing to relinquish allotments. The ill-managed livestock-grazing would continue in its destructive 

ways, which . I urge BLM-Wyoming to implement Holistic Management of livestock-grazing in the 

Planning Area.

Comment ID: 1228

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology concludes that livestock grazing

contributes to the domination of some western landscapes by cheatgrass, an invasive grass that both

destroys sage-grouse habitat and increases the frequency of wildfire.29 To mitigate the spread of cheatgrass, 

the study suggests maintaining and restoring bunchgrasses and soil crusts, two ecological features that are 

quickly degraded under the hooves of livestock. Such mitigation would require the decrease or elimination 

of livestock grazing in the affected areas.

Comment ID: 2782

Organization:
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-835

Name: Sandy Baker

Comment: How about a reduction in livestock grazing which much more heavily impacts the environment 

than the grazing of wild mustangs.

Comment ID: 2803

Organization:

Name: TOM ELLIS

Comment: The sage grouse is an important and beautiful species and must be protected. Wild horses are 

not as destructive as cattle, nor are they as plentiful. Please restrict grazing of cattle on public lands.

Comment ID: 2954

Organization:

Name: Kristine Jusko

Comment: I Would like you to add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the 

option to eliminate welfare livestock grazing leases. 3 . I expect and demand an analysis of all grazing 

allotment in the EIS process. 6. I require that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek

(display and mating grounds) and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 2779

Organization:

Name: Val West

Comment: You need to look at the over grazing by herds of cattle and sheep that are introduced to these 

areas. Maybe a healthy cut back in BLM grazing rights is in order. I think the number of permits for grazing

to livestock is too high. Maybe less livestock or less permits are in order. Maybe fencing off certain areas 

where the grouse mate would keep the larger animals from disturbing them. Why do we need to spend 

millions of dollars to protect something that has a rightful place right where they are now. Try smaller 

measures to see what works instead of sterilizing the whole BLM lands just so the grouse can live and thrive 

is pure stupidity as well. I would start with backing off of the grazing permits and numbers of animals 

allowed to graze. The livestock owners will have to make other arrangements for their animals.

Comment ID: 2959

Organization:

Name: lynnequus@aol.com

Comment: The welfare livestock grazing leases need to be eliminated and the number of wild horses 

allowed to recover to a level enabling genetic viability. An analysis of all grazing allotments is needed 

because this has not yet been done. Any land disruption should be a minimum of 4 miles from any Sage

Grouse Lek and the welfare livestock removed from any critical core habitats. Get the welfare livestock off 

of these lands.

Comment ID: 3014

Organization:

Name: Barbara Azari

Comment: A "BLIND EYE" TO LIVESTOCK GRAZING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE - REDUCE THOSE 

HERDS NOW!
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-836 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2484

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Chapter 4.7 Livestock Grazing, 4.7.1 Impact Indicators Page 4-87: Please consider restricting 

certain areas to livestock grazing (third bullet).

Comment ID: 2989

Organization:

Name: elizabeth fahy

Comment: Add to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), in all alternatives, the option to eliminate 

welfare livestock grazing leases. Demand an analysis of all grazing allotments in the EIS process. Many 

have no data available which evaluate the condition of the land. Many others that have had an assessment 

conclude that the land is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing. Require in the Preferred 

Alternative that land disruption be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek (display and mating grounds) 

and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 2371

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Besides Alternative C, which would prohibit livestock grazing in core sage grouse habitat, none 

of the proposed alternatives would adequately protect sage grouse because they do not require reduction or 

elimination of livestock grazing in sage grouse habitat, despite the known detrimental impacts of this 

activity on sage grouse habitat. As stated above, BLM has wrongly excluded livestock grazing from 

classification as a surface disturbing activity under all alternatives. Under Alternative B, livestock grazing 

would continue in sage grouse habitat and would only be restricted (20-30% forage allocation) for 

allotments not meeting standards in priority/ sage grouse habitat. Under Alternatives D and E, the BLM’s 

preferred alternative, no reductions in livestock grazing in GRSG habitat would be required. Instead under 

Alternative E, the BLM would work “cooperatively with permittees” and utilize “voluntary management 

strategies” to improve GRSG habitat. The same monitoring practices that BLM utilizes today – and which 

are widely criticized as inadequate – would be employed under Alternative E. Additionally, no effort would 

be made under Alternative E, the preferred alternative, to identify grazing retirement opportunities to 

benefit sage grouse.

Comment ID: 3110

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: Where existing leases might interfere with conservation objectives, BLM should work with 

operators and other stakeholders to target selected leases for retirement, relinquishment, exchange or

termination. Leases covering lands with relatively low disturbance levels, located in areas with significant 

surface values, should be initially targeted. Once unleased, prioritized landscapes can be targeted for 

priority reclamation actions to restore ecosystem, habitat, agricultural, and other values. The DEIS/LUPA 

should fully take advantage of any unique opportunities based on shifting trends and market conditions for 

various commodities. BLM should not consider itself locked into existing leases or other instruments where 

innovative approaches might yield win-win solutions.

Comment ID: 2935

Organization:
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-837

Name: Kristina Shankel

Comment: First I would like to see added to the EIS, in all alternatives, the option to eliminate welfare 

livestock grazing leases. There are several respected reports/studies to show that the sheep and cattle grazed

on these lands do the greatest damage to the grouse and other wildlife by destroying the habitat. An analysis 

of all grazing allotments needs to be part of the EIS process. This will provide factual information on the 

true condition of the lands. Finally, it should be required in the Preferred Alternative that land disruption 

be at least 4 miles from and Sage Grouse Lek and that livestock be removed from any critical core Sage 

Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 2993

Organization:

Name: c oehlert

Comment: Livestock grazing should be reduced in all areas where the Sage Grouse is impacted. This should 

be mandatory not voluntary. Most Ranchers will not voluntarily give up there grazing rights. Grazing fees 

for the remaining permits should be raised to Market Rates. Livestock grazing should be reduced to ZERO 

over 3 or 4 years in ALL HMA's.

Comment ID: 2931

Organization:

Name: Shyla Tailor

Comment: Please add to the EIS the option to eliminate livestock grazing lease options. Please add a 

provision for the option to increase wild horse populations by reducing livestock grazing. An analysis of 

all grazing allotments must be made. Not just random sampling. And the results should be recognized and 

addressed. Please require in the Preferred Alternative that land disruption be at least 6 miles from the Sage 

Lek. Livestock must be removed from any critical core SAge Grouse habitats.

Comment ID: 2404

Organization:

Name: Maggie Frazier

Comment: OK-lets see about reducing the cattle & sheep grazing in the sage grouse areas. The wild horses 

& burros do more to re-seed grasses & eliminate the inflammable bushes. Cattle & sheep do NOT do that 

- the birds would certainly benefit from their removal.

Comment ID: 2915

Organization: WWP-Wyoming Office

Name: Jonathan B Ratner

Comment: one study that does assess livestock within a larger context of other impacts is a post doctoral 

thesis ( found here: http://www.sagestep.org/pubs/pubs/055Reisner_2010.pdf ) by Dr. Michael Reisner of

Oregon State University. The Michael Reisner paper provides good information that supports reductions in 

cattle grazing and stresses the importance of microbiotic crusts to help prevent weed invasions of sagesteppe landscapes. Here are two paragraphs from the abstract of his paper (found here: 

http://www.sagestep.org/collaborative_projects/projects/reisner_defoliation. html )

Summary: Livestock grazing should be reduced on public lands in order to protect sage-grouse habitat and

other natural resources. Livestock grazing leads to cheatgrass proliferation, which adversely affects sagegrouse habitat and other natural resources. The option to eliminate some grazing leases would help to this 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-838 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

end. Without an assessment of all grazing allotments, it's not possible to determine past impacts on sensitive 

resources from livestock grazing.

Response: Reductions in livestock grazing are considered under Alternatives B and C. Alternative B 

proposes a light grazing management strategy utilizing a 20-30% forage allocation for allotments within 

sagegrouse priority habitat not meeting standards due to livestock grazing. Alternative C prohibits all

livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat. These actions were analyzed in Chapter 4 of the Draft 

EIS, which will be considered when determining the final decisions in the Record of Decision. Grazing 

allotments are assessed by the BLM, and the resultant data is included in Appendix G of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Restricting use of roads could interfere with grazing administration

Comment ID: 2121

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew

Comment: Prohibiting the Construction of New Routes and Limiting Motorized Travel to “Existing” Roads,

Primitive Roads, and Trails Would be Unwise and Has the Potential to Unlawfully Interfere With Historic 

Routes Needed for Grazing Administration. BLM’s preferred alternative recommends a regulatory 

mechanism that would restrict all mechanical travel in sage-grouse habitat to existing roads and trails. 9-

Plan EIS at 2-96 (Action 87). It does not clarify if there are any exemptions to this (i.e. emergencies, 

required livestock management, agency admin.). BLM should not amend the LUPs/RMPs to prohibit new 

road construction and limit travel to “existing roads, primitive roads and trails.” PLC and NCBA request 

that BLM not adopt a road construction prohibition and “existing”- route travel management strategy.

Summary: The LUP Amendments should not include actions that prohibit the construction of new routes 

and limit motorized travel to existing roads and trails. This has the potential to unlawfully interfere with

historic routes needed for grazing administration. BLM’s Preferred Alternative recommends a regulatory 

mechanism that would restrict all mechanical travel in sage-grouse habitat to existing roads and trails. Draft 

EIS at 2-96 (Action 87). It does not clarify whether there are any exemptions to this decision.

Response: Management action #87 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS limits motorized 

travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails, until such time as travel management planning is

complete. Because all existing routes would be available for travel, this action would not prevent the use of 

existing, historic routes (i.e., any existing route would be available for travel for livestock operators or any 

other public land user). Off-road travel is currently only allowed in designated OHV "Open" areas. 

Management action #87 under Alternative E represents current management; therefore, Alternative E is 

continuing management that is currently in place and is not proposing a change to current management.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Support Alternative D for livestock grazing

Comment ID: 188

Organization: Upper Green River Cattle Association

Name: Kent Price
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-839

Comment: We support Alt. D. Action Number 55, Riparian areas are important for early-brood rearing, but

especially for late-brood rearing. Studies have shown that sage grouse habitat is enhanced if riparian areas 

receive moderate grazing. Moderate grazing promotes forb production, while maintaining the integrity of 

the riparian area. Alternatives C and B want to keep all riparian areas in their reference state, with at least 

six inches of residual stubble height present in Alt. C. This management will promote grasses at the expense 

of forbs, and forbs are what sage grouse are looking for when they hit riparian areas. This is clearly an 

attempt to limit livestock, not do what is best for sage grouse.

Comment ID: 187

Organization: Upper Green River Cattle Association

Name: Kent Price

Comment: Action Number 53, range improvements are important for grazing distribution and use, and

improvements should be viewed as a positive for sage grouse. Often groups oppose range improvements 

just to oppose good grazing practices, regardless of the benefit to sage grouse. Alternative C appears to 

follow this trend, and Alt. B is more involved than is needed. We support Alt. D. Action Number 54, 

livestock trailing is essential to livestock operations, especially those that trail from BLM lands to Forest 

Service lands. There is no avoiding twice over grazing, but it usually involves a small area for a short period 

of time. Alternative C wants trailing avoided where sage grouse exist, which is all sage brush habitat in 

Sublette County. The real agenda is to remove livestock from the federal lands.

Comment ID: 185

Organization: Upper Green River Cattle Association

Name: Kent Price

Comment: Of the 4 alternatives, we prefer alternative D. Alternative C's prescriptions would devastate 

ranching in Sublette County, including my family's ranch, as it eliminates grazing in the Sage Grouse Core

Area. Alternative B is also too prescriptive from a grazing perspective. Alternative E is better than B and 

C, but we prefer Alternative D. We support Alternative D's approach to Action Number 45, as it will result 

in the best cooperation from ranchers and ultimately be better for sage grouse.

Comment ID: 1844

Organization:

Name: Charles C. Price

Comment: Another thing that should be recognized is that this ecosystem that we are working with evolved

with a large ungulate grazing animal, the bison, as an integral part of the system. Cattle are a good analog 

for the bison and fill the niche in the ecosystem now that the bison filled earlier. If we want to keep this 

ecosystem balanced then grazing must be an essential part of the system. Keeping cattle grazing as a part 

of the BLM and FS management plans is the best and most productive way to maintain a working 

ecosystem. I support Alternative D, Alternatives B&C allow grazing as a optional use that would be phased 

out, Alternative E is better that B&C but would is less likely to have a grazing management component that 

will satisfy the grazing requirement of a heavy ungulate necessary for the health of the ecosystem. The 

selection of Alternative D will help to ensure that good grazing remains a part of the ecosystem 

management. It will be better received by the ranchers and continue to support the history and culture of 

Wyoming.

Comment ID: 1849

Organization:

Name: Charles C. Price
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-840 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Action Item 53 I support Alternative D. With the ADDITION that many range 

improvements for livestock are valuable improvements for sage grouse and other wild life. This is

especially true for water sources in drought years.

Summary: Alternative D would ensure that livestock grazing remains a part of overall ecosystem 

management and would help to support the history and culture of Wyoming. Alternative D allows for uses 

and activities necessary for livestock grazing management, such as flexibility in constructing range

improvements, livestock trailing, and coordination with livestock operators.

Response: Alternative D is within the reasonable range of alternatives included in the Draft EIS, and 

therefore responds to the purpose and need for the planning effort. Elements of Alternative D are included 

in the Proposed LUP Amendments. The Approved Plan will be based on the analysis in this Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS and following public protest and Governor's consistency review. The Final

Approved LUP Amendments will be adopted in a Record of Decision. Based on public comments, new

data and information, and changes in land use policy, the agency Proposed LUP Amendments could be 

revised.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Support Alternative E for livestock grazing management

Comment ID: 184

Organization: Spring Creek Grazing Association

Name: Roy Liedtke

Comment: The SCGA supports Alternative E (the Preferred Alternative); primarily due to its support of 

continued livestock grazing on USFS land. The SCGA adntinisters grazing permits for the US Forest 

Service on the Spring Creek Unit of the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. This area is located north of 

Gillette, Wyand consists of 95,079 acres within the SCGA administrative boundary, of which 48,519 acres 

are US Forest Service owned. The grazing perntits total 13,800 Animal Unit Months. The grazing permits

are vital to the existence of the local ranching families; many of whom have managed this land for

generations. The continuation of these ranching families is critical for the protection of the sage grouse, as 

the ranching families are responsible for managing many acres of private land that also provides sage grouse 

habitat. If these ranchers lose US Forest Service permits, it would threaten their existence, in which case 

the additional urbanization of rural lands would accelerate, resulting in less and less sage grouse habitat. A 

large portion of the SCGA area is sage grouse "core habitat" and includes active sage grouse leks. We 

understand the need to respond to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "warranted, but precluded" listing 

deterntination of April 20 I 0 and we share the goal of avoiding a future Endangered Species Act listing of 

the sage-grouse. The need to maintain properly monitored and controlled livestock grazing is critical for 

many reasons; a few of which include: • Livestock grazing reduces the risk of wildfires, which are extremely 

destructive for sage grouse. • Proper grazing also helps keep grasses in a vegetative state, which is better 

than old decadent grass for sage grouse chick forage. The SCGA, in conjunction with the Forest Service, 

routinely does Conservation Practice projects which are designed to improve grazing and improve wildlife 

habitat. The following is a brief example of recent and upcoming projects: • Replaced a windmill with an

electric pump - improved water source for livestock and wildlife and removed a potential raptor perch for 

sage grouse predators; • Install a pipeline to replace a degraded spring - improved a water source for 

livestock by moving the source out of a riparian area and onto an upland area. This will reduce the livestock 

effect in the riparian area. Draft EIS for Sage Grouse Nine Plan Spring Creek Grazing Association 

Comments March 17, 2014 Page 2 • Repair a stockpond overflow - the pond overflow was severely eroded 

and threatened the integrity of the structure. Rip rap was added to preserve the pond, improving livestock 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-841

watering and continuing to provide a wildlife water source. • Annual weed spraying to reduce noxious 

weeds and encourage the native grass, shrub and forb component. If livestock grazing permits are cancelled 

and the USFS land in our area is not grazed in the future, new improvement projects would cease and 

existing improvements would fall into disrepair. This would be detrimental to sage grouse and other 

wildlife. One common concern voiced by ranchers who have been living in this area for many years is the 

number of predators has increased greatly over the past several years, especially coyotes. This is why there 

are no longer any sheep ranchers in the area. These predators definitely prey on sage grouse, and the SCGA 

feels the EIS does not adequately recognize the impact of predators on the declining sage grouse 

populations. Again, having ranchers on the land is critical, as the ranchers help to control predators. In 

summary, the Spring Creek Grazing Association prefers Alternative E over the other alternatives offered in 

the EIS. The other alternatives do not look at the sage grouse concerns from a allencompassing view, which 

is necessary for continued survival of the species.

Comment ID: 182

Organization: Longreach Buffalo Company, LLC

Name: Roy Liedtke

Comment: Longreach supports Alternative E (the Preferred Alternative) due to its support of continued 

livestock grazing on USFS land. Longreach owns and operates a ranch at 679 Heald Road, Weston, WY 

(north of Gillette). Our ranch is approximately half deeded land that we own and half USFS. The deeded

portion of our ranch (approximately 3,240 acres) is completely surrounded by USFS land, which is the

Spring Creek Unit of the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. The USFS land that we graze is via a permit 

with the Spring Creek Grazing Association. Our entire ranch is within a sage grouse core area. We graze 

primarily bison, in addition to a smaller number of beef cows. In 2013 the only active sage grouse lek in 

the whole Spring Creek area was on USFS land in one of our bison pastures. All USFS monitoring 

conducted on our ranch has shown the range to be in good condition and not overgrazed. It is obvious that 

properly managed livestock grazing (either bison or beef) can benefit sage grouse habitat. It is critical that 

the USFS continue to issue grazing permits to local ranchers, as the ranchers are critical to maintaining sage 

grouse habitat. Habitat fragmentation and wildfire have been identified as major threats to the sage grouse; 

and ranchers, by their very existence, guard against these threats. Longreach also does many other things 

to benefit sage grouse; including: • Annual weed spraying to reduce noxious weeds and encourage the 

native grass, shrub and forb component; • Wildlife ramps in all stock water tanks; Draft EIS for Sage Grouse 

Nine Plan Longreach Buffalo Company, LLC Comments • Harvesting hay in a manner to allow birds to 

flush out of the field; March 17,2014 Page 2 • Not overgrazing the range and allowing grasses significant 

time to recover after grazing; • Utilizing an environmentally friendly bacterium based mosquito control in 

select areas. In summary, Longreach Buffalo Company, LLC prefers Alternative E over the other 

alternatives offered in the E1S. Well managed livestock grazing on federal land is good for sage grouse.

Comment ID: 165

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: In general, Alternative E appears to be the most reasonable and acceptable alternative. It presents

the most opportunity for continued livestock use, stating that no areas would be closed to livestock grazing.

Summary: Alternative E appears to be the most reasonable and acceptable alternative. It presents the most

opportunity for continued livestock use. Properly managed livestock grazing can benefit sage-grouse

habitat. Habitat fragmentation and wildfire have been identified as major threats to sage-grouse habitat; and 

livestock operators, by their very existence, guard against these threats.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-842 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The commentors support for Alternative E is noted and that BLM/Forest Serivce considered a 

range of alternatives with respect to livestock grazing.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

The EIS should clarify the terms and conditions that will be applied in core habitat

Comment ID: 854

Organization:

Name: Albert Sommers

Comment: Under Permit Renewals, issue 48, I am concerned about what types of management objectives 

and considerations will placed into the terms and conditions of permits and AMPs in the Core. Without

permittees knowing what will be implemented on their allotments, there is no way for us to analyze the 

impacts of this EIS on our operations. While exact objectives might be site specific, this wording does not 

even define in broad terms what is being considered. Therefore, I cannot support this wording, because it 

is a "will be incorporated". Alternative D, at least leaves it as a "may incorporate", which gives more 

flexibility to the agencies. I still believe this EIS must disclose impacts to permittees, but these cannot be 

ascertained by wording which is so ambiguous.

Summary: Under Permit Renewals, issue 48, I am concerned about what types of management objectives 

and considerations will placed into the terms and conditions of permits and allotment management plans

(AMP) in sage-grouse core habitat. Without permittees knowing what will be implemented on their

allotments, there is no way to analyze the impacts of this action on livestock grazing operations. While 

exact objectives might be site-specific, this wording does not even define in broad terms what is being 

considered. Therefore, I cannot support this wording, because it is a "will be incorporated". Alternative D, 

at least leaves it as a "may incorporate", which gives more flexibility to the agencies.

Response: The ROD fro the LUP Amendments will decide what specific management actions will be 

applied to livestock management. A "separate" NEPA analysis may occur for individual or groups of 

allotments later, but these documents will have to incorporate plan direction decided by this analysis. 

Specific direction for livestock management is described in the draft planning language (e.g., Bedding sheep

and locating camps within 0.6 miles from the perimeter of a lek during lekking (March 1 to April 30) should 

be avoided). The sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations that would be incorporated 

into all BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments through Allotment Management Plans (AMPs), permit 

renewals, Forest Service Annual Operating Instructions, and/or equivalent planning processes will be 

determined on a site-specific basis and disclosed under a separate planning/NEPA document. These sitespecific NEPA documents and allotment plans would be completed in coordination with grazing permittees 

for the allotment. LUPs are high-level planning documents that generally do not include such site-specific 

management. Site specific design features would incorporate actions needed to meet rangeland health and 

desired vegetation standards already found in the LUPs.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Use of fencing for livestock grazing within sage-grouse habitat should be discontinued

Comment ID: 329

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-843

Comment: Given that fencing is a major cause of collision mortality for sage grouse, the use of fencing for

rotational grazing should be discontinued, and allotments with fences within designated sage grouse habitat

should have their fences removed.

Summary: Given that fencing is a major cause of collision mortality for sage-grouse, the use of fencing for

rotational grazing should be discontinued, and allotments with fences within designated sage-grouse habitat 

should have their fences removed.

Response: The indirect impacts from ACEC designation are analyzed as direct impacts from conservation 

measures, such as withdrawals, to protect sage-grouse habitat. The action that creates the ACEC designation 

does not add more restrictions than those already discussed under other management actions, nor does an 

ACEC have the same level of restrictions as designated wilderness. However, it should be noted that notice 

level operations are not allowed in ACECs; all such activity in an ACEC requires a plan of operations.

Response: New stipulations can only be imposed in conformance with 43 CFR 2805.15( e ).

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Vegetation treatments should be staggered

Comment ID: 1484

Organization:

Name: Denise Langley

Comment: BLM: States on page K-19 Vegetation Treatments: “Grazing would be deferred on treated areas 

for two full growing seasons unless vegetation objectives or vegetation recovery indicates a shorter or

longer rest period is necessary.” Suggestion: Offset treatments so as not to: (a) close down all pasture use 

by a specific lessee, (b) close whole sections of several grazing allotments at the same time, and © cause 

forage loss to a specific lessee more than two years in a row. Stagger the treatments over a period of years 

and offer grass leases in other areas if possible to compensate and give lessees at least 6 months of notice 

before treatments. On the FS side nothing is written here yet—NEPA process ignored by FS?

Summary: The following is stated on page K-19: “Grazing would be deferred on treated areas for two full

growing seasons unless vegetation objectives or vegetation recovery indicates a shorter or longer rest period 

is necessary.” Comment: Treatments should be offset so as not to: (a) close down all pasture use by a 

specific lessee, (b) close whole sections of several grazing allotments at the same time, and (c) cause forage 

loss to a specific lessee more than two years in a row. Stagger the treatments over a period of years and 

offer grass leases in other areas if possible to compensate and give lessees at least 6 months of notice before 

treatments.

Response: Vegetation treatments would be conducted in a way that best serves the purpose of the treatment

while minimizing impacts to livestock grazing practices. However, given the need for some vegetation 

treatments over large areas, it may not be possible to achieve the three points (a, b, and c) discussed in the 

comment.

Livestock Grazing

Range of alternatives

Work cooperatively with landowners

Comment ID: 120
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-844 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: The EIS should include an analysis of the importance of this public-private partnership to the 

sage grouse. Please explore things the FS and BLM can do to strengthen this partnership by keeping ranches 

economically viable. When amending the RMPs, please protect Wyoming from any changes in land 

management. Instead, this region’s land use traditions should be used as a model for sage grouse 

conservation and restoration elsewhere.

Comment ID: 2840

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 32 in Table 2-1 dealing with Right of Way (ROW) corridors under Alternative A which 

was adopted in whole by Alternative E discusses in the Kemmerer RMP that preferred utility corridors

would be 2 miles wide and establishes criteria for various types of corridors. However, it would appear that 

these corridors are going to be developed entirely within the Agencies without coordination with the affect 

private landowners affected. Given the amount of federal lands in the area, the designation of a corridor by 

the agency will almost guarantee that the private land will also be included in the corridor. We request that 

prior to designation of a corridor the Agencies coordinate and consult with private landowners. We are 

unsure why range improvements will automatically be excluded from ROW under Alternative A since this 

could have a significant impact on possible range improvements while having little or no impact on the use 

of the corridor. We request that range improvements be allowed within the 2 mile wide ROW corridor 

unless it can be shown that the improvement would interfere with the purpose of the corridor in the Rawlins 

RMP. Item 40 in Table 2-1 discusses land tenure adjustments in the Casper RMP where under Alternative 

B the action would be to retain public ownership of priority habitat. We question the assumption that public 

ownership of priority habitats is better than private ownership. We would point to the millions of acres of 

public owned sage-grouse habitat that has burned in Nevada as an example. This comment also applies to 

the desire for the BLM to acquire private lands in the South Bighorns/Red Wall area.

Comment ID: 2132

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: APPENDIX F PREDATOR MANAGEMENT F.2. REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES 

RELATIVE TO SAGEGROUSE PREDATORS IN LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 7th Bullet

Point It is important to recognize that in areas of split estate, private landowners have input about what 

roads are being closed. Even though the roads may not appear to be frequently used, the private landowners 

may use the roads for ranching purposes and/or personal use.

Comment ID: 2846

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Under Alternative E, in addition to the actions under Alternative A, the Agencies will 

incorporate grazing actions in core areas into AMPs and AOI. However, we would note that while the 

Agencies want to work cooperatively with landowners under Item 45 there doesn't appear to be the same

desire to do so under Item 48. Permit renewals will have a significant impact on leasees or permittees so 

we strongly urge the Agencies to adopt the same cooperative process as they envision under Item 45.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-845

Summary: The BLM and Forest Service should work collaboratively with landowners when implementing

decisions that have the potential to affect the use of private land. For example, as discussed in the

alternatives, the agencies will incorporate grazing actions in core areas into AMPs and AOI. However, we 

would note that while the agencies want to work cooperatively with landowners under Action 45 there 

doesn't appear to be the same desire to do so under Action 48. Permit renewals will have a significant impact 

on leassees or permittees and therefore we strongly urge the agencies to adopt the same cooperative process 

as they envision under Action 45. Action 32 in Table 2-1 indicates that preferred utility corridors would be 

2 miles wide and establishes criteria for various types of corridors. However, it would appear that these 

corridors are going to be developed entirely without coordination with private landowners. Given the 

amount of federal lands in the area, the designation of a corridor by the agency will almost guarantee the 

private land will also be included in the corridor. We request that prior to designation of a corridor the 

agencies coordinate and consult with private landowners.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service will work cooperatively with permittees, lessees, and other 

landowners to develop and implement livestock grazing strategies on public lands. Such collaboration has 

already occurred to some degree with the general public and cooperating agencies (including county

agencies) during the formal scoping process, public meetings, and lengthy the process to develop a

reasonable range of alternatives for the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Collaboration with landowners 

will continue to occur throughout the planning process and during the plan implementation phase.

Livestock Grazing

Residual Effects/Unavoidable Impacts

Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources

Comment ID: 2511

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Chapter 4.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources and 4.23 Unavoidable 

Adverse Impacts Page 4-497 through 499: The loss of tens of thousands of animal unit months in the 

planning area as possible outcome of the decision is not discussed in detail, rather it is generalized and that 

is, it seems, unacceptable as it effects the human environment. The eventual loss of well-meaning priority 

sage-grouse habitat due to the long term effect (rest) of no livestock grazing is also not discussed.

Summary: The loss of tens of thousands of animal unit months in the planning area as possible outcome of 

the decision is not discussed in detail, rather it is generalized and that is, it seems, unacceptable as it affects 

the human environment. The eventual loss of well-meaning priority sage-grouse habitat due to the long 

term effect (rest) of no livestock grazing is also not discussed.

Response: The loss of AUMs can only be quantified under Alternative C. The analysis of impacts to 

livestock grazing that is contained in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS clearly discloses 

the number of AUMs that would be removed from livestock grazing use due to the prohibition of livestock 

grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat under Alternative C. Current research does not support the premise 

that rest from livestock grazing would result in loss of sagebrush habitats. While perennial grass density 

and vigor might be increased, it is unlikely that sagebrush density would be reduced through rest from 

livestock grazing. The Forest Service intends to do an effects analysis on the Proposed LUP Amendments 

that affect livestock grazing by implementing new use standards in nesting habitat for Appendix K.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-846 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Locatable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

Affected environment is inadequate for locatable minerals

Comment ID: 1873

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM failed to identify locatable minerals as a key issue in the Planning Area despite NWMA’s

comments provided during the scoping period, previously discussed. Mining is a key industry not only in 

the Planning Area but in the State of Wyoming, and contributes to a significant share of state and local 

revenue. The Mineral Occurrence and Potential Development Report (Casper Mineral Report) for the 

Casper Field Office issued in 2004 states “locatable and salable resources are likely to experience steady 

growth, which could mirror the growth rate of Wyoming’s economy” (Casper Mineral Report at ES-1), and 

that Wyoming has been a leading producer of uranium in the United States (id. at 3-34). To that end, the 

potential for adverse impacts on future mineral production could be enormous, especially under 

Alternatives B, C, and E (discussed in detail infra Section V). The DLUPA/DEIS must be revised to include 

an adequate description of the affected environment, and then re-issued to allow for public comment

Comment ID: 1719

Organization: Kennecott Uranium Company

Name: Oscar Paulson

Comment: Chapter 3 discusses the affected environment and Section 3.8 discusses minerals and energy. 

The discussion regarding locatable minerals for the area administered by the Rawlins Field Office. This

description fails to accurately describe all of the uranium activity in the Great Divide Basin. While located 

on private land in Section 15, Township 24 North, Range 93 West, the Great Divide basin hosts the 

Sweetwater Mill, one of the only three (3) remaining conventional uranium mills in the United States. This 

mill has an operating Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license. Associated with this mill are two (2) 

State of Wyoming mining leases and 1,583 unpatented lode mining claims and mill sites in the Great Divide 

Basin, some of which are in Sage Grouse core area. Also associated with this facility are four (4) state 

mining leases and 1,379 unpatented lode mining claims, most of which lie immediately North of the core 

area on Green Mountain. Some of the claims on Green Mountain may extend into sage grouse core area. 

This facility in the Great Divide Basin adjoins lands included in State of Wyoming Permit to Mine #481. 

In addition to the operating Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Source Material License (SUA-1350), 

numerous State Engineer permits for wells, some BLM rights of way, an NPDES discharge permit and 

other applicable permits are existing. Future operation of this Sweetwater Uranium Project will be directly 

impacted by the alternative selected in the LUPA and DEIS processes.. This facility and its associated land 

holdings are part of the affected environment. Any withdrawals or other actions that impact the ability of 

KUC to establish mining claims and operate within core areas may impact the ability of KUC to operate 

the mill or otherwise utilize it to the company’s benefit. Given the proximity of the Sweetwater Mill to the 

core area, the fact that some claims associated with it in the Great Divide Basin are within the core area, 

KUC requests that the draft document be revised to reflect the presence of this facility.

Summary: BLM failed to identify locatable minerals as a key issue in the planning area. Mining is a key 

industry not only in the planning area but in the State of Wyoming, and contributes to a significant share of

state and local revenue. The potential for adverse impacts on future mineral production could be enormous, 

especially under Alternatives B, C, and E. The number of locatable mining claims is discussed in other 

sections of the LUP Amendments, however, it is important within the "Affected Environment" section on 

locatable minerals that the LUP Amendments provide the number of locatable mining claims in the 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-847

potentially affected area. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS must be revised to include an adequate 

description of the affected environment, and then re-issued to allow for public comment. The Chapter 3 

discussion regarding locatable minerals administered by the Rawlins Field Office fails to describe all of the 

uranium activity in the Great Divide Basin. Located on private land in Section 15, Township 24 North, 

Range 93 West, the Sweetwater Mill is one of the only three remaining conventional uranium mills in the 

United States. This mill has an operating Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license. Associated with 

this mill are two (2) State of Wyoming mining leases and 1,583 unpatented lode mining claims and mill 

sites in the Great Divide Basin, some of which are in sage-grouse core area. Also associated with this facility 

are four (4) state mining leases and 1,379 unpatented lode mining claims, most of which lie immediately 

north of the core area on Green Mountain. Some of the claims on Green Mountain may extend into sagegrouse core area. This facility in the Great Divide Basin adjoins lands included in State of Wyoming Permit 

to Mine #481. In addition to the operating Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Source Material License 

(SUA-1350), the operation includes numerous State Engineer permits for wells, some BLM rights-of-way, 

an NPDES discharge permit, and other applicable permits. Future operation of this Sweetwater Uranium

Project will be directly impacted by the alternative selected in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS

processes. This facility and its associated land holdings are part of the affected environment. The draft 

document should be revised to reflect the presence of this facility.

Response: The total number of active claims has been added to the appropriate field office information in

Chapter 3. Before beginning the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS and throughout the planning effort, the 

BLM and the Forest Service considered the availability of data from all sources, adequacy of existing data,

data gaps, and the type of data necessary to support informed management decisions at the landuse plan 

level. The data needed to support broad-scale analysis of the planning area are substantially different than 

the data needed to support site-specific analysis of projects. The data and information is sufficient to support 

the broad scale analyses required for land use planning. Additionally, the BLM and the Forest Service 

consulted with, collected, and incorporated data from other agencies and sources, including but not limited 

to the USFWS and WGFD. The data gathered by the BLM and the Forest Service is of the appropriate scale 

and provided an adequate analysis that led to an adequate disclosure of the potential environmental 

consequences of the alternatives.

Locatable Minerals

Best available information-baseline data

Baseline data is outdated

Comment ID: 1429

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Affected Environment, page 3-108, and 3-132. Several references are made to outdated soda ash

producers. For example, General Chemical Soda Ash Partners, Inc., Texasgulf (TG), Rhone-Poulenc

(Stauffer).

Comment ID: 2966

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc.

Name: John Cash

Comment: Pages 3-122 and 123 provide a status update of the Lost Creek ISR Project. However, the 

description is outdated. On August 2, 2013 the facility was placed into operation. All primary access roads, 

office, plant, holding ponds, power lines and other infrastructure required to begin production is in place.

Lost Creek intends to submit a revision to the Plan of Operations to allow mining within the KM Horizon 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-848 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

which immediately underlies the HJ Horizon which is currently in production. The footprint of the KM 

horizon matches the HJ Horizon almost exactly so there will only be minor additional disturbance resulting 

from mining the KM Horizon. The number of locatable mining claims is discussed in other sections of the 

LUP, however, it is important within the "Affected Environment" section on locatable minerals that the 

LUP provide the number of locatable mining claims in the potentially affected area or at least provide a 

reference back to tables which convey the number of potentially impacted claims.

Comment ID: 2968

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc.

Name: John Cash

Comment: Table 3-46 provides a list of areas with potential for uranium development. The Great Divide 

Basin is described as having "limited future potential, no major deposits." While the size of the uranium

deposits in the Great Divide Basin tend to be on the smaller side, I to 14 million pounds each, there are at 

least six known deposits (both within the basin and within the area affected by the LVP) which are likely 

economically viable and numerous smaller deposits which could become economic if the price of uranium 

were to climb. These deposits occur along oxidation/reduction chemical fronts that extend for at least 

hundreds of miles beyond known deposits and have the likely potential to contain additional uranium 

deposits. Discovery and development of these additional deposits is important to the energy security of the 

U.S. and to satisfy the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Please revise the table so it accurately 

conveys the substantial existing uranium deposits in the basin as well as the potential for additional 

discovery. The mineral endowment of the Great Divide Basin has not been adequately presented in the 

LUP. BLM must re-evaluate the economic impact to the uranium industry based on knowledge of these 

deposits and then issue a new draft LUP/ElS for public comment.

Summary: The baseline data in Chapter 3 is outdated. Several references are made in Chapter 3 to outdated 

soda ash producers. For example, General Chemical Soda Ash Partners, Inc., Texasgulf (TG), and RhonePoulenc. These should be updated or removed. Pages 3-122 and 123 provide a status update of the Lost 

Creek ISR Project. On August 2, 2013 the facility was placed into operation. All primary access roads, 

office, plant, holding ponds, power lines and other infrastructure required to begin production are in place.

Table 3-46 lists the Great Divide Basin as having "limited future potential, no major deposits." While the 

size of the uranium deposits in the Great Divide Basin tend to be on the smaller side, 1 to 14 million pounds 

each, there are at least six known deposits which are likely economically viable and numerous smaller 

deposits which could become economic if the price of uranium were to climb. These deposits occur along 

oxidation/reduction chemical fronts that extend for at least hundreds of miles beyond known deposits and 

have the likely potential to contain additional uranium deposits. Discovery and development of these 

additional deposits is important to the energy security of the US and to satisfy the requirements of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Please revise the table so it accurately conveys the substantial existing uranium 

deposits in the basin as well as the potential for additional discovery.

Response: Chapter 3 has been updated to remove reference to specific mining operators. Lost Creek ISR 

Project [for the uranium yellowcake producer] information will be corrected. Great Divide Basin in Table 

3- 46 has been updated to read "Moderate potential for future development, known mineable uranium

deposits."

Locatable Minerals

Cumulative impact analysis

The cumulative impacts analysis is inadequate

Comment ID: 1885
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-849

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA opposes any impact analysis that does not quantify the cumulative impacts the proposed

management decisions will have on all uses of public lands, including locatable minerals exploration and 

development. Detailed discussion of the impacts to locatable mineral operations and development, as well 

as other land uses, must be thoroughly analyzed, developed, and discussed in a revised DLUPA/DEIS and 

the public given an opportunity to comment on the revised document.

Comment ID: 2365

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA Recommendation No. 5- Analyze, Disclose, and Provide Detailed Discussions of the 

Impacts to Mineral Development Under Each Alternative- BLM failed to identify or provide useful 

explanations of impacts to locatable minerals associated with each alternative as required by 40 CFR

§§1502.16(a)(b),1508.7 (See Ch. 4). AEMA contends that the impact analysis, including the cumulative 

impacts related to mineral withdrawals, and surface use restrictions in sage-grouse habitat across the range 

were not adequately considered, analyzed and disclosed. A “cumulative impact” is defined as: “The impact 

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. . . .Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.

Comment ID: 2366

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: This DLUPA/DEIS is part of multiple NEPA documents, including revisions for Nevada, Idaho,

Montana, and Utah. AEMA maintains that the cumulative impact to locatable minerals from the combined 

land withdrawals, segregations, and de facto withdrawals currently in place, as well as the future land 

withdrawals proposed in dozens of RMP revisions will have an inadequately defined and significant adverse 

effect on the hardrock mining industry nationwide. The nationwide impacts must be thoroughly analyzed; 

otherwise BLM’s analysis is significantly flawed and incomplete. AEMA further contends that the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impact analysis is inadequate and lacks convincing data as well as rationale, as 

described above. BLM must resolve the above issues and reissue a draft of this LUPA to allow for public 

comment. BLM must also expand the analysis to look at the cumulative impacts nationwide on such 

important economic factors as increased unemployment, decreased domestic mineral and energy 

production, and increased reliance on foreign sources of minerals and energy.

Summary: The impact analysis does not quantify the cumulative impacts that proposed management 

decisions will have on all uses of public lands, including locatable minerals exploration and development. 

BLM must expand the analysis to look at the cumulative impacts nationwide on such important economic

factors as increased unemployment, decreased domestic mineral and energy production, and increased 

reliance on foreign sources of minerals and energy. Detailed discussion of the impacts to locatable mineral 

operations and development must be thoroughly analyzed, developed, and discussed in a revised Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS and the public given an opportunity to comment on the revised document.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service have complied fully with the requirements of 40 CFR 1508.7 

and prepared a cumulative impact analysis to the extent possible based on the broad nature and scope of the 

proposed management options under consideration at the land use planning level.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-850 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Locatable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Impacts are understated

Comment ID: 998

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Alternatives B and C of the Draft LUP Amendment analyzes the closure of more than 5 million 

acres of priority GSG habitat to new or expanded non-energy mineral leasing and 3 million acres for

locatable minerals. Such actions will have far-reaching impacts to the mineral industry. The Socioeconomic 

section of Chapter 4 does not analyze the impacts Alternatives B and C will have on the economy, custom 

or culture of the communities within the Planning Area. This is a significant omission that should be 

corrected.

Comment ID: 1417

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Alternatives, Locatable Mineral Activities, Pages 2-88 through 2-91 and Map 2-23 Areas 

Withdrawn from Mineral Entry. As stated under Alternative E, “The withdrawal of sage-grouse core habitat 

areas from mineral entry would be considered for recommendation, based on the risk to sage-grouse and its 

habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development.” There are potentially vast resources 

of locatable minerals that are unknown at this time across the DEIS area, as referenced on Map 2-23. If 

areas are to be withdrawn from mineral entry as indicated in this section, then a complete socioeconomic 

analysis should be completed and included in Appendix N; including the potential socioeconomic impacts 

associated with mineral withdrawal. It is important to note that locatable minerals may include but are not 

limited to gold, silver, lead, platinum, copper, uranium, chromite, beryllium, barium, zeolite-bearing 

minerals, diamonds, lithium, talc, mica, white marble, building stone, fluorspar, chemical grade limestone, 

gypsum, bentonite, pumice, and other rare earth minerals (reference DEIS pp. 3-99 and 3-133). As an 

alternative, disturbances associated with locatable minerals could be handled in accordance with the EO 

through the DDCT process in core/priority habitat.

Comment ID: 2719

Organization: Sweetwater County

Name: Mark Kot

Comment: Sweetwater County is home to two coal mines, four Trona mines and a uranium mine. The

production from these mines creates an assessed valuation of approximately $672,000,000. This assessed 

valuation generates approximately $8,000,000 in ad valorem taxes on an annual basis. Considering these 

values, it is evident that mining is important to Sweetwater County, and that the BLM and USFS should 

ensure that mining is addressed in the Socio-economic Section of Chapter 4 of the Draft LUPA and EIS. In 

Sweetwater County's review of this Section, it found that mining appeared to be omitted. If this is true, the 

County encourages the BLM and USFS to correct this omission.

Comment ID: 2752

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-851

Comment: Appendix N Comment: The BLM omits any discussion of mining in this section. We note that 

the BLM has also omitted any discussion of mining to the Chapter 4 analysis in this regard as well. Please

clarify this omission as it reflects a severe lack in the analysis of socioeconomic impacts.

Comment ID: 2364

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM also fails to include any analysis of the socioeconomic impact its proposed wildland fire 

and fuels management will have on the communities in the Planning Area, despite the proposed

management under Alternatives B, C, and E will subject residents, communities, and local government in 

the Planning Area to increased risk of catastrophic fire. In addition, Alternatives B, C, E, and to a lesser 

extent D propose restrictions and prohibitions that would debilitate mineral development that is co-located 

within special designation areas, and priority/core sage-grouse habitat. The impact analysis as described 

supra Section II(C) does not provide the detailed analysis required under NEPA, and thus is a fatal flaw 

that must be addressed before the final NEPA documents are released. The Final EIS must provide detailed 

analysis in order to withstand legal scrutiny, like in Neighbors of Cuddy Mtn, v. USFS, 137 F.3d 1372 (9th 

Cir. 1998) where the Court ruled that “general statements about ‘possible’ effects and ‘some risk’ do not

constitute a ‘hard look’ absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be

provided.’’ AEMA contends the impact analysis is fatally flawed and does not comply with NEPA, CEQ

regulations, or the DQA. BLM must remedy the errors described above and re-issue the DLUPA and give 

the public another opportunity to comment.

Summary: Alternatives B and C of the Draft LUP Amendments analyze the closure of more than 5 million 

acres of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to new or expanded non-energy mineral leasing and 3 million

acres for locatable minerals. Such actions will have far-reaching impacts to the mineral industry. The

socioeconomic section of Chapter 4 (as well as Appendix N) does not analyze the impacts that Alternatives 

B and C will have on the economy, custom, or culture of the communities within the planning area. This is 

a significant omission that should be corrected. A complete socioeconomic analysis should be completed 

and included. The impact analysis is fatally flawed and does not comply with NEPA, CEQ regulations, or 

the DQA.

Response: Impacts associated with non-energy mineral leasing is discussed qualitatively under each 

alternative. A specific economic value cannot be determined because the effects of the actions are highly

dependent on the location of any proposed non-energy mineral exploration activity or lease relative to sagegrouse priority habitat areas.

Locatable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Missing analysis - ACEC impacts on locatable minerals

Comment ID: 1881

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: Another example includes BLM’s proposal under Alternative B: ...Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat areas would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation ACECs/SIA, 5,025,550 

acres...This management would be focused on the protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, which would 

also benefit special status species, especially those that use sagebrush and associated habitat...(Ch. 4 at 4-

279). The above analysis provides no information on how the designation would relate to the habitat
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-852 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

recommendations proposed elsewhere in the Alternative, such as the 3% disturbance cap and one

disturbance per 640 acres, withdrawal of all priority habitat, etc. Would the designation impose additional 

restrictions? How would the designation protect sage-grouse above and beyond the conservation measures 

proposed elsewhere? Based on the lack of detail provided in the impact analysis, it seems like the ACEC 

designation is redundant. BLM must provide more information and explain how management under the 

ACEC designation relates to the other conservation measures imposed elsewhere in the DLUPA/DEIS. The 

BLM fails to provide any detail or analysis that the disturbance caps and various surface use restrictions 

will have on locatable minerals and limits the analysis to the amount of land being proposed for withdrawal 

and fails to recognize the indirect impacts resulting from surface use restrictions including seasonal timing 

prohibitions, and ROW exclusions will have on locatable resources which will ultimately lead to de facto 

withdrawals.

Summary: The impacts analysis fails to discuss impacts from the Greater Sage-Grouse ACEC designation 

on locatable minerals. The BLM fails to provide any detail or analysis that the disturbance caps and various 

surface use restrictions from the ACEC designation will have on locatable minerals and limits the analysis 

to the amount of land being proposed for withdrawal. The analysis fails to recognize the indirect impacts 

resulting from surface use restrictions, including seasonal timing prohibitions and ROW exclusions, will 

have on locatable resources which will ultimately lead to de facto withdrawals.

Response: The indirect impacts from ACEC designation are analyzed as direct impacts from conservation

measures, such as withdrawals, to protect sage-grouse habitat. The action that creates the ACEC designation 

does not add more restrictions than those already discussed under other management actions, nor does an 

ACEC have the same level of restrictions as designated wilderness.

Locatable Minerals

Impact Analysis

Missing analysis - mineral potential

Comment ID: 1883

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: In addition, BLM states in the impact analysis related to mineral resources: ...The potential for 

mineral resources is a prediction of the likelihood of the occurrence of these resources. The occurrence of 

a mineral resource does not necessarily imply that the mineral can be economically exploited or is likely to 

be developed; mineral occurrence potential includes both exploitable and potentially exploitable 

occurrences. The potential for the occurrence of a mineral resource also does not imply that the quality and 

quantity of the resource are known...(Ch.4 at 4- 103). AEMA does not disagree with the above assumption. 

However, BLM fails to include any mineral potential or occurrence information with respect to locatable 

minerals in the impact analysis, which makes the impact analysis associated with locatable minerals 

completely useless.

Summary: BLM fails to include any mineral potential or occurrence information with respect to locatable

minerals in the impact analysis, which makes the impact analysis associated with locatable minerals

completely useless.

Response: A link to current mineral potential reports has been added to the general locatable mineral

discussion in Chapter 3.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-853

Locatable Minerals

Mitigation measures

Mitigation should not exceed Wyoming Core Area Policy

Comment ID: 540

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: However, Anadarko does not support, and the agencies should not impose, development of

unnecessary mitigation measures for the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) that go beyond 

the requirements of the Wyoming Core Area Policy, are not based on the best scientific information 

available, and are impracticable and unworkable. Anadarko is specifically concerned by the agencies 

development of onerous stipulations which lack rigorous scientific justification and reliance upon gray 

literature and subjective interpretation of the “best” available science. Specifically, the National Technical 

Team (“NTT”) report referenced throughout and incorporated thoroughly into the agencies preferred 

alternative is not representative of the best available science to be used in promulgating prescriptive land 

management decisions.

Summary: Mitigation measures for the Greater Sage-Grouse that go beyond the requirements of the 

Wyoming Core Area Policy are not based on the best scientific information available, and are impracticable 

and unworkable.

Response: A National Technical Team (NTT) was formed as an independent, science-based team made up 

of representatives from the BLM, USFWS, Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Geological

Survey, and state wildlife agencies from Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and Utah, to ensure that the 

best information about how to manage the Greater Sage-Grouse is reviewed, evaluated, and provided to the 

BLM and the Forest Service in the planning process. The group produced a report in December 2011 that 

identified science-based management considerations to promote sustainable Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. The NTT report (NTT 2011) used the best current scientific knowledge to guide the BLM 

planning efforts through management considerations to ameliorate threats, focused primarily on priority 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitats on public lands. In a letter to Secretary Salazar, dated January 15, 2013, more 

than 100 scientists endorsed the NTT report, stating that it, “represented comprehensive compilation of the 

scientific knowledge needed for conserving sage-grouse” and that it “offers the best scientifically 

supportable approach to reduce the need to list sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species.” The 

NTT is staying involved as the BLM and the Forest Service work through the strategy to make sure that 

relevant science is considered, reasonably interpreted, accurately presented, and that uncertainties and risks 

are acknowledged and documented. As a starting point for developing a range of alternatives, the BLM 

used the NTT report, the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report, and the Wyoming Core Area 

Strategy, all of which were based upon the best scientific and commercial data available at the time. These 

reports were not the only source of information for developing a range of alternatives. The purpose of these 

reports was to identify key areas for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation, key threats in those areas, and the

extent to which the threats need to be reduced for the species to be conserved. Further, the Summary of 

Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies that Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (referred to as the BER) provided additional sources of baseline 

information and management objectives.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-854 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Locatable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Compliance with General Mining Law

Comment ID: 2360

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA Recommendation No. 4: Demonstrate Compliance with the General Mining Law- The

DLUPA/DEIS should discuss how the conservation measures proposed in the NTT Report, and included 

in the DLUPA/DEIS, as well as the proposed land withdrawals, validity exams, and surface use restrictions 

detailed in Alternatives B, C, E and to a lesser degree Alternative D are in compliance with rights under the 

General Mining Law to allow access to public lands for prospecting, mining and processing and uses 

reasonably incident thereto.

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS should discuss how the conservation measures proposed 

in the NTT report as included in the plan, including proposed land withdrawals, validity exams, and surface

use restrictions detailed in Alternatives B, C, E and to a lesser degree Alternative D are in compliance with 

rights under the General Mining Law to allow access to public lands for prospecting, mining, processing, 

and uses reasonably incident thereto.

Response: All alternatives would comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and standards,

including FLPMA multiple-use mandates and the General Mining Law. As stated page 1-15 of the Draft 

EIS, the LUP Amendments will be in compliance with all other applicable laws, regulations and policies.

Locatable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Locatable mineral withdrawals are excessive

Comment ID: 1011

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: I am concerned with the permanent withdrawal of significant acreage of land from locatable 

mineral entry, especially when the State has mechanisms to protect GSG core area habitat from locatable

mineral exploration and development. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

manages locatable mineral exploration, using two permitting mechanisms, consistent with EO 2011- 5. 

First, any mineral exploration in the state, regardless of the amount of surface disturbance, requires a 

mineral exploration permit from the DEQ Land Quality Division. Second, any cumulative surface 

disturbance over one acre in a project requires a storm water permit from the DEQ Water Quality Division. 

Both of these permitting processes use the DDCT to ensure GSG core habitat is protected. Additionally, 

closing lands to unauthorized off road vehicle use as contemplated under Management Action 18 (p. 2-17) 

would restrict operation of bulldozers and other excavation equipment. It does not appear that permanently 

withdrawing these lands from locatable mineral entry provides any additional protections to GSG habitat. 

If the BLM and USFS proceed with Management Action 79, under Alternative E, I request that the agencies 

work with the State develop risk based, site specific criteria, similar to oil and gas screening.

Comment ID: 1716

Organization: Kennecott Uranium Company
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-855

Name: Oscar Paulson

Comment: Action 79 – Alternative. E – The withdrawal of sage-grouse core habitat areas from mineral 

entry would be considered for recommendation, based on risk to sage-grouse and its habitat from conflicting 

locatable mineral potential and development (Map 2-23). While this action is not directly recommended in 

Alternative E, its inclusion creates the potential for withdrawal of the entire core area and a great deal of 

confusion and concern. KUC is completely opposed to Action 79 Table 2-1 remaining in Alternative E and 

to withdrawal of any sage grouse core areas from mineral entry for the following reasons: • Mineral entry 

(the establishment of mining claims) does not involve surface disturbance or surface occupancy. Any 

subsequent proposed action must meet the WY Department of Environmental Quality, and 43CFR 3809 

requirements, as well as many others including the Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order (WY EO 2011-

05). • The Executive Order establishes core areas and provides stipulations regarding protection of Sage

Grouse. The Executive Order does not prohibit mining or other activities, but establishes requirements to 

operate. The Executive Order is now being implemented via the Sage Grouse Implementation Team (SGIT) 

through regular meetings. This process enjoys the wide support of the stakeholders including the WY BLM 

State Office and all other applicable state and federal agencies (See Appendix A). There has not been any 

suggestion through the SGIT process that the core areas should be withdrawn for mineral entry. • The LUPA 

and DEIS do not adequately describe why Locatable Minerals are singled out for withdrawal, versus any 

other activity. • The DEIS does not adequately address the economic impacts of withdrawing the core areas 

from mineral entry. KUC strongly recommends that the language in Action 79 Alternative E be removed

from the document and be fully addressed by a future document when and if the Wyoming Governor’s 

Executive Order (WY EO 2011-05) and resulting conservation efforts are not sufficient.

Comment ID: 1176

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA is extremely concerned due to the significant impact the proposed revisions contained 

in the DLUPA/DEIS will have on the Land Use Plans within the Planning Area, and specifically the 

restrictions it will impose on surface-disturbing activities, and the limitation on mineral exploration and

development in the future. BLM has failed to address any of these concerns or issues raised during the 

regional call for public comment (76 Fed. Reg. 77008, December 9, 2011). In addition BLM fails to identify 

hardrock minerals as a key planning issue within the sub-region or nationally (See National Greater SageGrouse Planning Strategy Land Use Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Statements Scoping 

Summary Report, May 2012). AEMA does not support any of the action Alternatives as they are drafted. 

Specifically, Alternatives B, C, D and E which do not recognize rights provided to individuals under the 

Mining Law of 1872 (General Mining Law, 30 U.S.C. 21a et seq), and are not consistent with provisions 

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C 1701 et seq). In addition 

to being inconsistent with FLPMA and the General Mining Law, all of the action alternatives propose 

surface-disturbing restrictions that are not scientifically supported as required by the regulations that 

implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 40 C.F.R §1502.24

Comment ID: 2336

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: The widespread mineral withdrawals are completely inappropriate in light of the very limited 

extent of mineral activities in the state of Wyoming – let alone the Planning Area. BLM must provide

convincing data to support the mineral withdrawals (Alternatives A and D-1,677,420 acres; Alternatives B, 

C, and E-5,002,170), surface use restrictions, and explain its rationale for inappropriately targeting mineral 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-856 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

development in the DLUPA/DEIS in light of the relatively small footprint associated with locatable 

minerals.

Comment ID: 2983

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: In addition, the WCCA requests that the draft statement referring to potential locatable mineral

withdrawals within GSG Core Areas in Chapter 2 Management #79 Alternative E on page 2-88 be

reconsidered. Rather than withdrawing Sage Grouse Core Areas from potential locatable mineral entry, the 

WCCA suggests that the Agencies, in close collaboration with the State of Wyoming, work together to 

ensure that mineral development, when necessary within Core Areas, occurs in accordance with 

collaboratively developed protocols resulting from the Plan.

Comment ID: 2425

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals

Name: Joel Severin

Comment: Vast and inadequately justified proposed withdrawals. The preferred Alternative E proposes the 

most significant locatable mineral withdrawals among all the Alternatives without any explanation or

justification as to why such a significant withdrawal is necessary or appropriate considering BLM's

mandates. The proposed withdrawal under Alternative A for locatable minerals is 117,370 acres. The

proposed withdrawal under Alternative E (and B and C) is 3,442,120 acres, or nearly 30 times as much 

proposed land that would be completely restricted from development. BLM never provides any substantive 

justification for requiring such a substantial increase in proposed withdrawals, nor can it possibly justify 

this under its requirements related to non-discretionary mineral development. See 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(1). 

There is simply no analysis of why the proposed withdrawal from mineral entry based on risk to GRSG and 

its habitat is necessary where the same objective can be achieved through avoidance, minimization of 

impacts, and mitigation of impacts within the designated areas. It is also unclear whether BLM considered 

the ACEC in Alternative C in its proposed withdrawal calculations. To the extent one ACEC 

(approximately 9,876,565 acres) proposed in Alternative C also includes a recommended withdrawal, BLM 

failed to fully present this alternative for comparison and cannot adopt it in any final amendments without 

proper analysis. BLM also wholly failed to adequately evaluate the direct and indirect costs from its 

proposed withdrawals. In a recent environmental impact statement for a smaller proposed withdrawal in

northern Arizona, BLM found that a one-million acre withdrawal would result in significant impacts to 

employment and economic output in the mining sector and that these impacts would spread into important 

sectors of the local economy, including retail trade, health and social services, real estate, and professional 

services. BLM should perform a similar quantitative economic analysis for each proposed alternative that 

includes proposed withdrawals or ACEC and identify measures to mitigate these impacts.

Comment ID: 2357

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: Moreover, the restrictions on rights of way, roads, and other infrastructure may make economic

development of some mineral deposits impossible. Maintaining lands available for mineral entry, not in 

direct conflict with sage-grouse, is a hollow gesture if the lands are inaccessible or surrounded by lands on 

which infrastructure cannot be located. These restrictions also are unlawful because they conflict with the 

rights granted by § 22 of the General Mining Law and 30 U.S.C. 612(b) (Surface Use Act), which guarantee 

the right to use and occupy federal lands open to mineral entry, with or without a mining claim, for 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-857

prospecting, mining and processing and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including but not limited to 

ancillary use rights, and rights of and associated with ingress and egress.

Comment ID: 3008

Organization: Wyoming Mining Association

Name: Marion Loomis

Comment: A fundamental requirement in any DEIS is a clear presentation and comparison of the available

alternatives in a way that will allow the public to make informed comments. Many of the proposed

alternatives rely on best management practice (BMP) conservation measures or stipulations that are unclear, 

undefined, or unsupported. Many of the management areas in this DEIS are not clearly defined and appear 

to be expanded over the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 core areas. Thus it is unclear what impacts the 

BLM/Forest Service are assigning to the management areas. BLM and Forest Service have thus failed in 

their mandate. The DEIS has failed to consider local economic impacts. Existing conditions and trends, as 

well as the impacts to conditions and trends associated with each alternative must be assessed along with 

the income and employment associated with all economic sectors, community infrastructure, state and local 

revenues and expenditures, and land use patterns. WMA believes that the DEIS fails to address the effects 

of increased restrictions on mineral development, including withdrawal from mineral entry, to the State and 

local economies. Mineral mining operations can only take place where the minerals are located and as such, 

expansion of the restrictions beyond those outlined in the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 must be 

clearly defined and all impacts must be assessed within the DEIS. Further, it is recommended that the 

document justify restrictions on those activities that would appear to have little or no impact in the field,

including mineral entries. Mining operations are critical to the economy of the state of Wyoming. Mining 

directly accounts for and supports thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in payroll. Fees, royalties and 

taxes paid by the industry account for over a billion dollars annually to state and local governments. Issues 

such as expanded restrictions, overly restrictive seasonal prohibitions and unsupported BMPs and

regulations could have a drastic effect on these operations and subsequently, on Wyoming's local and state 

economies. WMA believes BLM and Forest Service failed to conduct comprehensive analyses of economic 

impacts.

Comment ID: 2337

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM’s proposed prohibition against mineral development in sage-grouse habitat areas is

disproportional to the amount of land used for mineral development; and the impacts associated with 

mineral exploration and development, especially considering that the projected long term, unclaimed 

surface disturbances (i.e., open pit mines that are stabilized at closure but remain as features on the 

landscape) are small in the context of the habitat area. BLM asserts that the sage-grouse populations within 

MZ II are at low risk for declines largely due to the various actions the State of Wyoming has taken such 

as the various EOs concerning sage-grouse by the Governor (See DLUPA/DEIS Ch.3 at 3-239, 240). As 

such, BLM must explain why compounding and/or discarding existing conservation strategies in favor of 

those presented in the NTT Report are necessary.

Summary: Alternatives B, C, D and E do not recognize rights provided to individuals under the Mining 

Law of 1872 and are not consistent with provisions under FLPMA. Proposing surface-disturbing 

restrictions that are not scientifically supported violates NEPA. The permanent withdrawal of significant 

acreage of land from locatable mineral entry is not needed to protect sage-grouse habitat. There is simply 

no analysis of why the proposed withdrawal from mineral entry is necessary where the same objective can 

be achieved through avoidance, minimization of impacts, and mitigation of impacts within the designated 

areas. The State of Wyoming has mechanisms to protect core area habitat from locatable mineral 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-858 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

exploration and development. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) manages 

locatable mineral exploration using two permitting mechanisms consistent with EO 2011-5. First, any 

mineral exploration in the state, regardless of the amount of surface disturbance, requires a mineral 

exploration permit from the DEQ Land Quality Division. Second, any cumulative surface disturbance over 

one acre in a project requires a storm water permit from the DEQ Water Quality Division. Both of these 

permitting processes use the DDCT to ensure core habitat is protected. Additionally, closing lands to 

unauthorized off road vehicle use as contemplated under Management Action 18 would restrict operation 

of bulldozers and other excavation equipment. It does not appear that permanently withdrawing these lands 

from locatable mineral entry provides any additional protections to sage-grouse habitat. If the BLM and 

Forest Service proceed with Management Action 79, under Alternative E, the agencies should work with 

the state develop risk based, site-specific criteria, similar to oil and gas screening. BLM asserts that the 

sage-grouse populations within MZ II are at low risk for declines largely due to the various actions the State 

of Wyoming has taken such as the various EOs concerning sage-grouse. As such, BLM must explain why 

compounding and/or discarding existing conservation strategies in favor of those presented in the NTT 

report are necessary. It is also unclear whether BLM considered the ACEC in Alternative C in its proposed 

withdrawal calculations. To the extent one ACEC (approximately 9,876,565 acres) proposed in Alternative 

C also includes a recommended withdrawal, BLM failed to fully present this alternative for comparison 

and cannot adopt it in any final amendments without proper analysis. BLM also wholly failed to adequately 

evaluate the direct and indirect costs from its proposed withdrawals. In a recent environmental impact 

statement for a smaller proposed withdrawal in northern Arizona, BLM found that a one-million acre 

withdrawal would result in significant impacts to employment and economic output in the mining sector 

and that these impacts would spread into important sectors of the local economy, including retail trade, 

health and social services, real estate, and professional services. BLM should perform a similar quantitative 

economic analysis for each proposed alternative that includes proposed withdrawals or ACEC and identify 

measures to mitigate these impacts.

Response: The Wyoming LUP Amendments is a targeted amendment specifically addressing goals, 

objectives, and conservation measures to conserve Greater Sage-Grouse and to respond to the potential of 

it being listed (see Draft EIS Section 1.3, Purpose and Need). Both the Forest Service’s and BLM’s planning 

processes allow for analysis and consideration of a range of alternatives in the Draft LUP

Amendments/Draft EIS that identified and incorporated appropriate regulatory mechanisms to conserve, 

enhance, and restore sage-grouse habitat and to eliminate, reduce, or minimize threats to this habitat to 

ensure that a balanced management approach was recommended. Impacts associated with withdrawal of 

portions of sage-grouse priority habitat from mineral entry for locatable mineral development based on risk 

to sage-grouse and its habitat are discussed qualitatively under each alternative. Specific economic values 

cannot be determined because the effects of this action depend on the location of economically developable 

mineral resources relative to priority areas. The BLM is aware of their requirement to notify the US 

Congress of any decision for mineral withdrawal on an aggregate of 5,000 acres or more, or removing one 

or more of the principle uses on 100,000 acres or more, as required by Sections 202 and 204 of FLPMA. 

When the BLM makes a decision on such actions, which will occur when the Record of Decision is 

finalized, the appropriate notifications related to the decision made at that time will be submitted to the US 

Congress, as necessary. The process for determining whether or not a nominated ACEC meets the relevance 

and importance criteria is detailed in Appendix H, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, of the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. According to BLM Manual 1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 

an area must meet at least one relevance and one importance criterion to be considered as a potential ACEC 

and analyzed in resource management plan alternatives (see BLM Manual 1613.11, Identification Criteria). 

Through the evaluation process, the BLM determined that the nominated ACEC for Greater Sage-Grouse 

met relevance criteria for a fish and wildlife resource and a natural process or system. The nominated ACEC 

also met the importance criteria because it warrants national priority/FLPMA protection. BLM Manual 

1613, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, directs that, “All areas which meet the relevance and 

importance criteria must be identified as potential ACECs and fully considered for designation and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-859

management in resource management planning.” (see BLM Manual 1613.21, Identifying Potential 

ACEC’s). Based on this direction, the BLM considered designation of the potential Greater Sage-Grouse 

ACEC under Alternatives B and C and identified special management attention for the area.

Locatable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Mining methods and existing infrastructure should be considered

Comment ID: 2436

Organization: Bridger Coal Company

Name: Norman E. Hargis

Comment: Mining methods, such as surface mining where that is the prudent method, should not be 

excluded from consideration where the infrastructure to support it already exists. Necessary extensions of

existing infrastructure such as haul roads to access new coal leases should be considered, especially when 

needed to connect to existing infrastructure. These arrangements are best worked out between the mining 

operation and local BLM staff and State Regulatory Authority staff.

Summary: Mining methods, such as surface mining where that is the prudent method, should not be 

excluded from consideration where the infrastructure to support it already exists. Necessary extensions of

existing infrastructure such as haul roads to access new coal leases should be considered, especially when 

needed to connect to existing infrastructure. These arrangements are best worked out between the mining 

operation and local BLM staff and State Regulatory Authority staff.

Response: The Wyoming LUP Amendments and EIS contains only planning actions and does not include 

any implementation actions. A more quantified or detailed and specific analysis would be required only if

the scope of the decision included implementation actions. As specific actions that may affect the area come 

under consideration, the BLM would conduct subsequent NEPA analyses that include sitespecific project 

and implementation-level actions. Site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions 

would be addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 

CFR 1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate 

in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions.

Locatable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Recommend withdrawal from mineral entry

Comment ID: 266

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: The NTT Report recommends withdrawal of Core Areas from mineral entry. We concur that 

this is necessary; it makes no sense to protect sage grouse from excessive levels of oil and gas development, 

only to allow their key habitats to be strip-mined.

Summary: The NTT Report recommends withdrawal of core areas from mineral entry. BLM should protect 

sagegrouse from mining in addition to protection from oil and gas development.

Response: The combination of management actions 75 through 81 are presented as a way to adequately

protect sage-grouse habitat while maintain the multiple use mandates of the agencies. Withdrawal is
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-860 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

identified as a possible mitigation in action 79 based on risk to sage-grouse and its habitat from conflicting 

locatable mineral development.

Locatable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Underground mining safety policies must be added

Comment ID: 2348

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc.

Name: Beth Goodnough

Comment: All surface and underground mining operations must adhere to very specific safety practices as

mandated by the Mine Safety Act of 1977. References in the draft plan are made to the State of Wyoming 

Executive Order (EO) No. 2011-5 but no reference is made to the Specific Stipulations on Page 12. 

Consistency with the EO regarding mining and miner safety must be addressed and maintained. Stipulation 

2d in the EO states: "Surface disturbance and surface occupancy stipulations will be waived within the Core 

Area when implementing underground mining practices that are necessary to protect the health, welfare, 

and safety of miners, mine employees, contractors and the general public. The mining practices include but 

are not limited to bore holes or shafts necessary to: 1) provide adequate oxygen to an underground mine; 

2) supply inert gases or other substances to prevent, treat, or suppress combustion or mine fires; 3) inject 

mine roof stabilization substances; and 4) remove methane from mining areas. Any surface disturbance or 

surface occupancy necessary to access the sites to implement these mining practices will also be exempt 

from any stipulation." In order to provide proper ventilation, boreholes and shafts must be placed over the 

workings of an underground mine, these locations are dictated by the location of the underground ore body 

or seam. These surface manifestations can and do currently exist in the Greater Sage Grouse Core Area.

Western Fuels believes that this language must be included in any alternative or any combination of

alternatives that may be adopted.

Summary: All surface and underground mining operations must adhere to very specific safety practices as

mandated by the Mine Safety Act of 1977. Consistency with the EO regarding mining and miner safety 

must be addressed and maintained. Stipulation 2d in the EO states: "Surface disturbance and surface 

occupancy stipulations will be waived within the core area when implementing underground mining 

practices that are necessary to protect the health, welfare, and safety of miners, mine employees, contractors 

and the general public. The mining practices include but are not limited to bore holes or shafts necessary 

to: 1) provide adequate oxygen to an underground mine; 2) supply inert gases or other substances to prevent, 

treat, or suppress combustion or mine fires; 3) inject mine roof stabilization substances; and 4) remove 

methane from mining areas. Any surface disturbance or surface occupancy necessary to access the sites to 

implement these mining practices will also be exempt from any stipulation." In order to provide proper 

ventilation, boreholes and shafts must be placed over the workings of an underground mine. These locations 

are dictated by the location of the underground ore body or seam. These surface manifestations can and do

currently exist in the Greater Sage-Grouse core area. This language must be included in any alternative or 

any combination of alternatives that may be adopted.

Response: All alternatives would require compliance with all state and federal laws, including the Mine 

Safety Act of 1977.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-861

Locatable Minerals

Required Design Features

RDF requirements conflict with the General Mining Law

Comment ID: 10

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Name: Thom Seal

Comment: Thus we strongly support the “No Action” because the “alternative will have no effect on 

locatable mineral management.” Language within the BLM proposed rules would leave this open to local

District Ranger interpretation and is a deliberate intention of the BLM & USFS to override the intent of 

congress. In 30 U.S.C.A. § 612(b) Congress clearly states: “Rights under any mining claim hereafter located 

under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right 

of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other 

surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United 

States). Any such mining claim shall also be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the 

United States, its permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for 

such purposes or for access to adjacent land: Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such 

mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not to endanger or materially 

interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto... “.

Comment ID: 2358

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: In addition, BLM asserts that required design features would apply as mandatory stipulations or

conditions of approval for locatable minerals (and all other BLM programs) in priority/core habitat (Ch. 2 

at 2-15, 16) across all action alternatives. AEMA contends that BLM does not have the authority, outside 

of the regulations at 43 C.F.R §3809, to impose RDFs on operators exercising their rights under the General 

Mining Law. Therefore, BLM must remove or revise the above management actions to be in compliance 

with the General Mining Law.

Summary: BLM asserts that required design features would apply as mandatory stipulations or conditions 

of approval for locatable minerals in priority/core habitat across all action alternatives. BLM does not have 

the authority, outside of the regulations at 43 C.F.R §3809, to impose RDFs on operators exercising their 

rights under the General Mining Law. Therefore, BLM must remove or revise the above management 

actions to be in compliance with the General Mining Law.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service will only apply conservation measures to locatable mineral 

operations consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, including the Mining Law of 1872 and

FLPMA's requirement that BLM take necessary action to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the 

public lands, and the surface management regulations at 43 CFR subpart 3809. The BLM and the Forest 

Service complied with NEPA by including a discussion of measures that may mitigate adverse 

environmental impacts of the alternatives in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. See 40 CFR 1502.14(f), 

1502.16(h). Additionally, site-specific concerns and more detailed environmental descriptions will be 

addressed when project-level reviews are tiered to the analysis in this EIS (40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 

1508.28). In addition, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity to participate in the 

NEPA process for any site-specific actions. RDFs included in the Draft EIS are based on best management

practices included in the NTT report and are based on the best available science at the time of publication.

RDFs are BMPs; BLM describes BMPs as “state-of-the-art mitigation measures.” The aim of BMPs is to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-862 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

protect wildlife, air quality, landscapes, and other natural resources. BMPs tend to be general principles for 

resource protection and are not in themselves regulatory in nature. BLM’s policy is that all “Field Offices 

consider BMPs in NEPA documents to mitigate anticipated impacts to surface and subsurface resources." 

BMPs are not "one size fits all." The actual practices and mitigation measures best for a particular site are 

evaluated through the NEPA process and vary to accommodate unique, site-specific conditions and local 

resource conditions. Required design features that comply with the Surface Management regulations (43 

CFR §3809) and LQD's guidelines will be incorporated into locatable mineral mining actions. The Bureau 

does not have the authority to make this a requirement when they (required design features) do not comply 

with these regulations.

Locatable Minerals

Valid Existing Rights

Alternatives violate valid mining rights

Comment ID: 15

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Name: Thom Seal

Comment: Many other counties in the GRSG depend on the development of natural resources for their

economy. This includes the potential to affect the entire GRSG region where minerals are found. “Under 

all of the action alternatives, locatable mineral development would be expected to decrease due to 

restrictions and mitigation measures placed on development.” Do not allow decreases in mineral 

production; with any alternative under which the BLM and Forest Service would recommend public land 

be withdrawn from mineral entry.

Comment ID: 1040

Organization: American Colloid Company

Name: Melody Smith

Comment: Additional withdrawals of excessive acreage from development of areas for which a right-tomine exists without valid site-specific information supporting the benefit of that removal creates

unnecessary operational and economic hardships. (An estimated additional 117,370 acres proposed for 

withdrawal under Alternatives A and D verses 3,442,120 acres for Alternatives B, C, and E.)

Comment ID: 2361

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM must evaluate the substantially adverse consequences of making it impossible to explore 

and develop pre-discovery unpatented mining claims, lands that are currently open to location on which

there are no unpatented mining claims, and lands on which there are claims without a discovery that would 

be withdrawn from mineral entry and location of mining claims. BLM must recognize the rights granted in 

§ 22 of the General Mining Law, and the § 22 VERs associated with access to and use and occupancy of 

pre-discovery claims and unclaimed lands open to mineral entry. BLM must also recognize rights granted 

under § 612, which provides the right “to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such 

purposes or for access to adjacent land.” These rights cannot be extinguished by executive fiat.

Summary: Alternatives that remove or limit the valid existing rights of locatable mineral development 

would be considered a "taking" and should not be carried forward. The BLM and Forest Service should not

allow any reduction in locatable mineral production due to withdrawals, as they create unnecessary
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-863

operational and economic hardships. BLM must recognize the rights granted in §22 of the General Mining 

Law, and the rights associated with access to and use and occupancy of pre-discovery claims and unclaimed 

lands open to mineral entry. BLM must also recognize rights granted under §612, which provides the right 

“to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land.” 

These rights cannot be extinguished by executive fiat.

Response: As stated in the planning criteria in Chapter 1, the agencies will comply with all laws, regulations 

and policies. Additionally the commenter is correct that the amendment may not remove any valid existing 

rights. However, the agencies have the authority and the responsibility to direct the implementation of those 

rights in an environmentally responsible manner. Individual projects will be analyzed and mitigated caseby-case based on site specific environmental and economic information.

National Trails

Best available information-baseline data

Map 3-1 Rawlins trails inconsistency

Comment ID: 2573

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Map 3-1; Historic Sites and National Scenic Trails This map is inconsistent with the BLM 

Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan and its classification of trails depicted in Map 2-47; 

specifically, the Cherokee Trail is improperly shown as crossing the public and private land checkerboard 

south of Rawlins. This Map 3-1 must be corrected for the Final LUPA/EIS.

Summary: Map 3-1, Historic Sites and National Scenic Trails: This map is inconsistent with the BLM 

Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan and its classification of trails depicted in Map 2-47. 

Specifically, the Cherokee Trail is improperly shown as crossing the public and private land checkerboard 

south of Rawlins.

Response: The segment of the Cherokee Trail described in the comment is a segment currently being 

reviewed by the National Park Service for feasibility for inclusion in the trail system. This study was started 

by the National Park Service after completion of the Rawlins RMP. The segment will be removed from

Map 3-1 until the National Park Service has completed their feasibility study and made their

recommendation regarding the status of the segment.

Paleontological Resources

Impact Analysis

Oil and gas don't necessarily impact paleontological resources

Comment ID: 791

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon disagrees with BLM's assumption that fluid mineral leasing and development would

necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. As discussed earlier, oil and gas development and 

the surveys required prior to such development will likely discover far more paleontological resources in 

Wyoming than would otherwise be discovered in the State. This is particularly true now that Congress has 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-864 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

passed additional protections for paleontological resources on public lands as part of the Omnibus Public 

Land Management Act of 2009.

Comment ID: 1568

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG disagrees with BLM‘s assumption that fluid mineral leasing and development would 

necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. As discussed earlier, oil and gas development and 

the surveys required prior to such development will likely discover far more paleontological resources in

Wyoming than would otherwise be discovered in the State. This is particularly true now that Congress has

passed additional protections for paleontological resources on public lands as part of the Omnibus Public 

Land Management Act of 2009.

Comment ID: 666

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Section 4.9 - Paleontology Samson disagrees with BLM's assumption that fluid mineral leasing 

and development would necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. As discussed earlier, oil 

and gas development and the surveys required prior to such development will likely discover far more 

paleontological resources in Wyoming than would otherwise be discovered in the State. This is particularly 

true now that Congress has passed additional protections for paleontological resources on public lands as 

part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

Comment ID: 1782

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: ConocoPhillips disagrees with BLM’s assumption that fluid mineral leasing and development 

would necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. As discussed earlier, oil and gas development

and the surveys required prior to such development will likely discover far more paleontological resources 

in Wyoming than would otherwise be discovered in the State. This is particularly true now that Congress 

has passed additional protections for paleontological resources on public lands as part of the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act of 2009.

Comment ID: 1218

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Anschutz disagrees with BLM’s assumption that fluid mineral leasing and development would

necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. As discussed earlier, oil and gas development and 

the surveys required prior to such development will likely discover far more paleontological resources in 

Wyoming than would otherwise be discovered in the State.

Comment ID: 2291

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana disagrees with BLM’s assumption that fluid mineral leasing and development would

necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. As discussed earlier, oil and gas development and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-865

the surveys required prior to such development will likely discover far more paleontological resources in 

Wyoming than would otherwise be discovered in the State.

Summary: The commenter disagrees with the assumption that fluid mineral leasing and development would

necessarily cause impacts to paleontological resources. Oil and gas development and the surveys required 

prior to such development will likely discover far more paleontological resources in Wyoming than would 

otherwise be discovered in the state. This is particularly true now that Congress has passed additional 

protections for paleontological resources on public lands as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act of 2009.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service did not modify the LUP Amendments in response to this comment. 

It is true that oil and gas development can result in the discovery of unknown paleontological resources.

However, it is also true that oil and gas development can result in inadvertent damage to and intentional 

removal of paleontological resources, thereby resulting in adverse impacts to those resources.

Recreation

Best available information-baseline data

Recreation values must be addressed in the plan

Comment ID: 115

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: Adequate recreational opportunity for all visitors is the supreme issue that must be addressed by 

this action. The relative importance of recreation on a national basis is demonstrated by the Bureau of

Economic Analysis statistics for spending on recreation. In 1979 the index for recreation spending was 

32,537 (year 2000 = 100, ). In 2004, the index was 113,695 for an increase of 349%. No other sector has 

increased this dramatically. Clearly, the public wants and needs adequate recreational opportunity and this 

should be the over-arching theme of this evaluation and decision.

Summary: Adequate recreational opportunity for all visitors must be addressed. The relative importance of

recreation on a national basis is demonstrated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis statistics for spending 

on recreation. In 1979 the index for recreation spending was 32,537. In 2004, the index was 113,695 for an 

increase of 349%. No other sector has increased this dramatically. Clearly, the public wants and needs 

adequate recreational opportunity and this should be the over-arching theme of this evaluation and decision.

Response: Section 4.11.4 provides quantitative analysis of economic effects related to recreation.

Recreation

Impact Analysis

Describing impacts to recreation from minerals restrictions is out of scope

Comment ID: 2910

Organization: TransWest Express LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Similarly, the recreation resources analysis seems to be out of scope for the purpose and need 

for the LUPA/EIS, such as this statement on page 4-122: Surface disturbing activities from ROWs, mineral 

and energy development, livestock management, and fuels and vegetation treatments could reduce the 

quality of recreation experiences in some parts of the planning area where roads, trails, dispersed camping 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-866 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

areas, and other such types of recreation occur near oil and gas leasing, mining activities, including coal 

and trona, non-energy solid mineral leasing, mineral materials exploration and sales, wind energy 

development, utility facility development, and transmission line development occurs. The purpose of this 

LUPA/ElS is not to evaluate and disclose how human infrastructure development such as transmission lines 

might impact recreation resources. Again, this is completely outside the scope of the Wyoming SageGrouse Draft LUPA/ElS; therefore, such analysis and proposed management actions must be deleted from 

the LUPA/ElS. The BLM may not use this LUPA/EIS to analyze potential impacts and propose 

management actions unrelated to the stated purpose and need of the LUPA/ElS, which is to address 

management of sagegrouse habitat. Piggybacking on this LUPA/ElS to address energy impacts to other 

resources is out of scope and a clear violation of the NEPA and of the BLM's land use planning regulations.

Summary: The recreation resources impacts analysis is out of scope for the purpose and need of the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The purpose of this plan is not to evaluate and disclose how human

infrastructure development such as transmission lines might impact recreation resources. Such analysis and 

proposed management actions must be deleted from the LUP Amendments/EIS. Addressing energy impacts 

to other resources is out of scope and a clear violation of NEPA and the BLM's land use planning 

regulations.

Response: The impacts analyzed in Chapter 4 are based on the management actions in Chapter 2, Table 2.1.

BLM and Forest Service must analyze the impacts from the management actions for Greater Sage- Grouse 

in Chapter 2 to the resources described in Chapter 3 (Existing Environment). This is entirely within scope 

of the project and follows NEPA.

Recreation

Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures should be considered before restrictions

Comment ID: 1445

Organization: International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA)

Name: Jason Bertolacci

Comment: clarification that we would like to see in the Final EIS includes: • Are there any limitations or 

specific standards for trail maintenance (vegetation clearing, drainage work, and minor reroutes) or new 

trail construction in Priority/Core and or Connectivity Habitat Areas? • Are there any seasonal or other 

temporal limitations on non-motorized uses in Priority/Core and or Connectivity Habitat Areas? • 

Clarification that mountain bicycling is a non-motorized use and will be managed along with other nonmotorized uses. In the case of the Greater Sage-Grouse mitigation measures such as seasonal and or time 

of day limitations can avoid disturbing occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat,

winter habitat, and winter concentration areas and seasonal restrictions on disruptive activities such as trail 

work. Careful attention to trail routes can avoid fragmentation of critical habitat and avoid leks. Trail 

construction techniques can be used as a framework for enticing/encouraging trail users to conform their 

behavior to the desired conditions. All of these measures should be considered prior to resorting to outright 

prohibitions.

Summary: Are there any limitations or specific standards for trail maintenance or new trail construction 

(e.g. vegetation clearing, drainage work, or minor reroutes) in core or connectivity areas? Clarify any

seasonal or other temporal limitations on non-motorized uses in core or connectivity areas? Clarify that 

mountain bicycling is a non-motorized use and will be managed along with other non-motorized uses. 

Careful trail construction techniques can route trails to avoid fragmentation of critical habitat and avoid 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-867

leks and can be used as a framework for encouraging trail users to conform their behavior to the desired 

conditions. These techniques should be considered prior to resorting to outright prohibitions.

Response: There are three different issues brought up in this comment and they should be addressed

separately. Issue #1: Are there any limitations or specific standards for trail maintenance, new trail

construction. Response:: Specific trail construction and maintenance levels will be addressed in Travel 

Management Plans and not in this document. 

Issue # 2: Requests clarification seasonal or temporary limitations on non-motorized uses. Response: 

Seasonal or temporary limitations on nonmotorized uses will be addressed and analyzed in Travel 

Management Plans after completion of this plan. 

Issue #3: Request clarification regarding mountain bicycling and how other non-motorized uses will be 

managed. Response: Mountain bicycle use is categorized as nonmotorized/mechanical transport. BLM 

recognizes the changing demographics, increasing populations, emerging technologies, and issues unique 

to mountain bicycling. BLM policy recognizes mountain bicycling as an appropriate use of public lands 

under its jurisdiction. All trail use, regardless of trail mode, impacts natural resources. All motorized, 

mechanized, and nonmotorized roads and trails have been inventoried or in the process of being inventoried. 

The BLM will collaborate within the agency and with other agencies to coordinate appropriate resource 

management and diverse mountain bicycle opportunities. BLM will coordinate with community leaders, 

trail organizations, and the recreation industry to enhance recreational opportunities and visitor safety, and 

to provide opportunities for educating visitors on management issues in Travel Management Plans.

Recreation

Mitigation measures

Recreational groups should not be responsible for mitigation measures

Comment ID: 138

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: A contractor bidding work would have no idea of the amount of mitigation required by the

permitting agency. We would like some more definition of ratios of mitigation to be in this document. Who 

would take responsibility for the mitigation and/or set a directive on how the mitigation should be done. 

For example, with our OHV group, we are not wildlife biologists. The responsibility should not be placed 

on groups such as ours.

Comment ID: 349

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Special Recreation Permits should be allowed only in cases where they have no negative impact 

of sage grouse populations and/or habitats. BLM would allow SRPs unless impacts could not be mitigated 

the Alternative E; this is only appropriate only if “mitigation” means reducing direct impacts to 

insignificance on-site.

Summary: Special Recreation Permits should be allowed in cases where they have no negative impact of 

sage grouse populations and/or habitats. Stating that SRPs would only be allowed if impacts could not be

mitigated under Alternative E is only appropriate only if “mitigation” means reducing direct impacts to 

insignificance on-site. Provide more definition of ratios of mitigation, who should take responsibility for 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-868 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the mitigation, and directives on how mitigation should be done. Groups such as an OHV group do not have 

the expertise to conduct the mitigation discussed in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Response The 

range of alternatives under action 82 considers a variety of management, including activities that have 

neutral or beneficial effects under Alternative C. Mitigation measures are issued by the BLM to the 

applicant/permittee to perform in the event that the use is approved. Proposed activities that cannot be 

controlled or changed (e.g., speed or timed events, seasonal events, noise, large numbers of participants, 

etc.) may be denied. It is the responsibility of the permittee to work with the BLM on these type of 

particulars for SRPs. The permittee is responsible for implementation and success of the mitigation. Impacts 

are activityspecific. Some activities create impacts more quickly or to a greater degree than others. Impacts

even from the same activity can vary according to such factors as mode of transportation, characteristics of 

visitors, party size, and behavior.

Recreation

Mitigation measures

Some mitigation measures may not be appropriate for recreation

Comment ID: 2267

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: Mitigation is discussed throughout the EIS across all alternatives and for many of the actions 

(e.g., Actions 62, 63, 128). Regarding mitigation, as outlined in the alternatives, we would point out that

the concept of “no-net loss” should extend beyond habitat acres and include a broader scope of values such 

as recreational opportunity. If, for example, a quality hunting or fishing area is impacted, the BLM may not 

be able to mitigate this impact by moving the opportunity somewhere else, depending on the distance and 

quality of the “mitigation site.” Some sportsmen may be unwilling to travel new distances to mitigation 

sites instead of going to their traditional favorite places, so we strongly encourage BLM to include 

recreational opportunity more extensively in their pre-impact analysis and mitigation planning.

Summary: The concept of “no-net loss” should extend beyond habitat acres and include a broader scope of

values such as recreational opportunity. If, for example, a quality hunting or fishing area is impacted, the 

BLM may not be able to mitigate this impact by moving the opportunity somewhere else, depending on the 

distance and quality of the “mitigation site.” Some sportsmen may be unwilling to travel new distances to 

mitigation sites instead of going to their traditional favorite places. BLM should consider recreational 

opportunity more extensively in their pre-impact analysis and mitigation planning.

Response: The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments is specifically for the management of sage-grouse. 

The suggested revisions are outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments.

Recreation

Range of alternatives

Recreation management prescriptions to add

Comment ID: 1698

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Seasonally 

prohibit camping within 7.6 km of active leks.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-869

Comment ID: 1702

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --No new 

trail construction within 6.4 km of active leks.

Comment ID: 1703

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Seasonally 

prohibit camping within 6.4 km of active leks.

Comment ID: 1699

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Allow no 

commercial or special use permitted activities in SGRAs unless there is a demonstrated beneficial affect 

for the grouse.

Summary: Management prescriptions inside sage-grouse core areas should include: Seasonally prohibit 

camping within 7.6 kilometers of active leks. Seasonally prohibit camping within 6.4 kilometers of active 

leks. Allow no commercial or special use permitted activities in core areas unless there is a demonstrated

beneficial affect for sage-grouse. No new trail construction within 6.4 kilometers of active leks.

Response: BLM and Forest Service have drafted a range of alternatives for sage-grouse habitat management 

to support unfragmented, contiguous habitat, including management requested by the commenters. BLM 

and Forest Service will consider the entire range of alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of 

Decision when the land use planning process is completed.

Recreation

Range of alternatives

Recreation should be addressed in site-specific plans

Comment ID: 1789

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: The local Forest/District or Field Office level comprehensive review of the recreation activities 

that occur in the amendment areas is important. Throughout most of the planning area recreational activities 

are mostly dispersed and do not rely on developed facilities and use is year-round and consists of varied 

activities including hiking, mountain biking, OHV riding, camping, hunting, and scenic touring. Day use is 

high, and there are very few developed facilities. Areas of concentrated use occur at popular destinations. 

There could be many motorized special events, mostly in June, that could be adversely impacted by adverse 

local travel planning. BLM permitted events include competitive motorcycle races, OHV and other vehicle 

races, competitive horse endurance rides, organized camping events, and competitive mountain bike races. 

These types of events and use patterns need to be understood and addressed at the site-specific level as 

opposed to being painted over by some generic, one-size-fits-all management direction.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-870 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1792

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: The agency should allow SRPs and Forest Service Recreation Special Use Authorization 

(RSUA) in PPMAs and PGMAs that have neutral or beneficial effects on Grouse. BRC believes that an 

Alternative (Modified Alt. E) should be created that empowers local land managers the ability to grant 

special recreation permits. Depending on need and other factors, mitigation or restrictive measures could 

be placed on types, locations, and timing of activities to ensure consistency with the related management 

objectives. Group events could be subject to seasonal or timing prescriptions, which could limit the ability 

of some participants to attend. For example, some recreation events for which permits are issued on public 

land take place in June. In June, the grouse are on nests and brood rearing. If the proposed activity poses a 

threat, the event may be moved or timing changed in order to reduce impacts during this period. It is possible 

that organizers may decide not to hold their event if they cannot hold the event at a particular time. This

would represent a reduction in opportunity for participants who would otherwise have been attending such 

events each year. Regardless, it is essential that these factors be evaluated and decisions ultimately made at 

a site-specific level, and not through some broad criteria that cover all public lands.

Summary: The local Forest/District or Field Office level comprehensive review of the recreation activities 

that occur in the amendment areas is important. Throughout most of the planning area recreational activities 

are mostly dispersed and do not rely on developed facilities, use is year-round and consists of varied 

activities including hiking, mountain biking, OHV riding, camping, hunting, and scenic touring. Day use is 

high, and there are very few developed facilities. Areas of concentrated use occur at popular destinations. 

There could be many motorized special events, mostly in June, that could be adversely impacted by adverse 

local travel planning. BLM permitted events include competitive motorcycle races, OHV and other vehicle 

races, competitive horse endurance rides, organized camping events, and competitive mountain bike races. 

These types of events and use patterns need to be understood and addressed at the site-specific level as 

opposed to being painted over by some generic, one-size-fits-all management direction. The agency should 

allow recreation permits that have neutral or beneficial effects on grouse. BLM should create a modified 

Alternative E that empowers local land managers the ability to grant special recreation permits. Depending 

on need and other factors, mitigation or restrictive measures could be placed on types, locations, and timing 

of activities to ensure consistency with the related management objectives. Group events could be subject 

to seasonal or timing prescriptions, which could limit the ability of some participants to attend. For example, 

some recreation events for which permits are issued on public land take place in June. In June, the grouse 

are on nests and brood rearing. If the proposed activity poses a threat, the event may be moved or timing 

changed in order to reduce impacts during this period. It is possible that organizers may decide not to hold 

their event if they cannot hold the event at a particular time. This would represent a reduction in opportunity 

for participants who would otherwise have been attending such events each year. Regardless, it is essential 

that these factors be evaluated and decisions ultimately made at a site-specific level, and not through some 

broad criteria that cover all public lands.

Response: BLM and Forest Service have drafted a range of alternatives for sage-grouse habitat management 

to support unfragmented, contiguous habitat. BLM and Forest Service will consider the entire range of

alternatives and make a final decision in the Record of Decision when the land use planning process is 

completed. All special recreation use permits are evaluated on a site-specific basis. As stated in Chapter 4, 

the majority of permitted activities on BLM managed lands in Wyoming consist of hunting and fishing 

outfitters and guides. Less than 5% of the SRPs are for competitive mountain bike races. Currently there 

are no SRPs for competitive/commercial OHV or motorcycle races in Wyoming. Rarely would competitive 

motorcycle or off-highway vehicle events be considered as events with neutral or beneficial effects on sage 

grouse.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-871

Recreation

Range of alternatives

Recreational road use should be restricted

Comment ID: 206

Organization: The 7L Livestock Company

Name: Doug Cooper

Comment: Minimizing or removing roads is very difficult do to because of recreational users. The BLM 

has not taken an aggressive posture toward limiting recreational use of roads or the creation of new roads 

by recreationists, as well as the conversion of pipelines and fence lines to roads by the public.

Summary: Minimizing or removing roads is very difficult do to because of recreational users. The BLM 

should take an aggressive posture toward limiting recreational use of roads or the creation of new roads by

recreationists, as well as the conversion of pipelines and fence lines to roads by the public.

Response: Management Action 87 states that motorized travel is limited to existing roads, primitive roads, 

and trails until such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are either designated or

closed. New user created routes are prohibited and violators will be cited.

Recreation

Range of alternatives

Recreationists should not have the burden of proof of no impacts

Comment ID: 221

Organization: American Motorcyclist Association

Name: Wayne Allard

Comment: The AMA has concerns that the amendment and EIS may be putting into place guidelines that 

could drastically impact motorized recreation. However, the USFS Land Resource Management Plan's

Preferred Alternative (E) for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest, and the 

Thunder Basin National Forest states that the amendment will not allow recreational events requiring a 

permit in core habitats unless the negative impacts can be adequately mitigated. The USFS plan places the 

burden on the applicant. Instead, the AMA suggests adopting language that puts the burden on the land 

manager to prove that impacts to the habitat cannot be adequately mitigated through efforts already in place, 

If studies indicate that additional restrictions are necessary. Recreation could be limited during periods of 

increased Lek use (March I - May 15) and crepuscular hours. It would be unfair to blame motorized 

recreation for loss of habitat resulting in the decline of the Grouse - especially without quantifying how that 

habitat is lost and its precise effects. Such action would be especially unfair when other activities that have 

a clearly quantifiable effect on the population - such as hunting - are allowed to continue.

Summary: The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS could drastically impact motorized recreation. 

Alternative E will not allow recreational events requiring a permit in core habitat unless the negative 

impacts can be adequately mitigated. This places the burden on the applicant. Instead, the plan should adopt

language that puts the burden on land managers to prove that impacts to the habitat cannot be adequately 

mitigated through efforts already in place. Recreation could be limited during periods of increased lek use 

(March I - May 15) and crepuscular hours. It would be unfair to blame motorized recreation for loss of 

habitat resulting in the decline of the sage-grouse - especially without quantifying how that habitat is lost 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-872 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and its precise effects. Such action would be especially unfair when other activities that have a clearly 

quantifiable effect on the population - such as hunting - are allowed to continue.

Response: Mitigation is undertaken by a permittee according to the approved project permit. The permittee 

is ultimately responsible for implementation and success of the mitigation. No one resource is at the source 

of the decline of sage-grouse, it is the combined loss of and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat along with 

anthropomorphic development that is threatening the species.

Recreation

Range of alternatives

Restrictions affecting rockhounding are excessive

Comment ID: 716

Organization: Natrona County Rockhounds Club

Name:

Comment: The rockhounds club is primarily concerned with ‘Locatable Mineral Restrictions’ preferring

Alternative A or D as only 117,370 acres are withdrawn. We are also concerned with ‘Right-of-way

Restrictions’, preferring Alternative A as it is least restrictive. While we fall under “recreation” on the

socioeconomic Impact Analysis we don’t fall in the “Annual Average Jobs” or “labor Earnings” – Are we 

counted at all? We want to be able to get off-road and look for rocks. We don’t believe this activity impacts 

sage-grouse. We find the March – June 30 dates to be half our rockhounding season, and excessive.

Summary: Rockhounding does not impact sage-grouse. Closures from March to June 30 is half the

rockhounding season. These timing restrictions, together with locatable mineral restrictions and ROW 

restrictions are excessive.

Response: In general, rockhounding does not meet the definition of surface disturbing or disruptive activity 

(see Glossary). In those rare instances when rockhounding does raise to the level of disruptive activity it

may be necessary to mitigate or restrict the activity to protect the sage-grouse. These determinations will 

be made case-by-case based on local conditions.

Saleable Minerals

Range of alternatives

Alternatives B and C saleable minerals decisions do not support multiple use

Comment ID: 1418

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Alternatives, Saleable Minerals, Page 2-91, Item #80. As stated under Alternatives B and C, 

“Sagegrouse priority habitat areas would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use

permits subject to valid existing rights.” Alternatives B and C do not support the BLM’s policy of multiple 

use. As an alternative, and as suggested under Alternative E, disturbances associated with saleable minerals 

should be handled in accordance with the EO through the DDCT process in core/priority habitat.

Summary: Page 2-91, Action 80: As stated under Alternatives B and C, “Sage-grouse priority habitat areas 

would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits subject to valid existing rights.”

Alternatives B and C do not support the BLM’s policy of multiple use. As an alternative, and as suggested 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-873

under Alternative E, disturbances associated with saleable minerals should be handled in accordance with 

the EO through the DDCT process in core/priority habitat.

Response: All of the alternatives support BLM's policy of multiple use. Closing specific areas to specific 

uses does not necessarily conflict with this policy. All resource uses do not have to be authorized in all

areas in order to meet the policy of multiple use.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Inaccurate statements in the DEIS need to be corrected

Comment ID: 2707

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page N-11, paragraph 3: Commodity price forecasts can be substantially incorrect. It is therefore

recommended that a range of potential values be included in the analysis.

Comment ID: 2677

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-129 Text: Economic benefits to the socioeconomic study area (defined in Chapter 3), in 

terms of labor earnings and employment, would accrue from BLM and USFS-influenced activities such as 

oil and gas development, wind energy development, livestock grazing, and recreation. Comment: This

assumption is misleading and should be amended to read: “Individual economic benefits to the 

socioeconomic study area (defined in Chapter 3), in terms of labor earnings and employment, would accrue 

from BLM and USFS-influenced activities such as oil and gas development, wind energy development, 

livestock grazing, and recreation.” The BLM may assume that individual benefits may accrue to, because 

of, and from these activities but it may not assume that these benefits will cumulatively outweigh the 

detrimental impact. The statement must be revised to narrow its scope.

Comment ID: 2648

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-201, paragraph 5: “The net economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined as the restriction standards are substantially different than those used in Alternative A.” This

sentence is confusing and should either be stricken or corrected.

Comment ID: 3206

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 2.1.4 N‐ 11 Paragraph 3 Commodity price forecasts can be substantially incorrect. It is therefore

recommended that a range of potential values be included in the analyses.

Summary: Issue #1: Page N‐ 11, Paragraph 3: Commodity price forecasts can be substantially incorrect. 

It is therefore recommended that a range of potential values be included in the analyses. Issue #2: Page 4-

129 Text: Economic benefits to the socioeconomic study area (defined in Chapter 3), in terms of labor 

earnings and employment, would accrue from BLM- and Forest Serviceinfluenced activities such as oil and 

gas development, wind energy development, livestock grazing, and recreation. Comment: This assumption 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-874 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

is misleading and should be amended to read: “Individual economic benefits to the socioeconomic study 

area (defined in Chapter 3), in terms of labor earnings and employment, would accrue from BLM- and 

Forest Service-influenced activities such as oil and gas development, wind energy development, livestock 

grazing, and recreation.” The BLM may assume that individual benefits may accrue because of, and from 

these activities, but it may not assume that these benefits will cumulatively outweigh the detrimental impact. 

The statement must be revised to narrow its scope. Issue #3: Page 4-201, paragraph 5: “The net economic 

impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined as the restriction standards are substantially different 

than those used in Alternative A.” This sentence is confusing and should either be stricken or corrected.

Response: Issue #1: The State of Wyoming CREG price forecasts are the commonly accepted standard for 

oil and gas economic analysis in Wyoming. Further, use of different price scenarios would not alter the

proportional relationships between the economic results for the various alternatives. Issue #2: The 

following language will be added to this section in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS: “Uses of 

BLM- and Forest Service-administered land such as oil and gas development, wind energy development, 

livestock grazing, and recreation have a variety of economic and social costs (many of which are not priced 

in markets) that may affect resource users and communities.” The phenomena reflected in all of the 

assumptions, not just the one identified in the comment, contribute to the net effects on the socioeconomic 

study area. Issue #3: The section in question has been revised for clarity.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

The socioeconomic analysis area is too small

Comment ID: 2574

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-172 The following material summarizes key findings from the Socioeconomic Baseline 

Report (Appendix N). In most cases, this material discusses statistics for the socioeconomic study area as 

a whole or for counties within the study area. In some cases, statewide statistics serve as a proxy for study 

area conditions. In many cases, statistics for Wyoming and the nation are provided for comparative 

purposes. Comment: The BLM applies too narrow of a scope in its socioeconomic analysis. The BLM relies 

exclusively on the Socioeconomic Baseline Report (Appendix N) that deals with only a portion of Wyoming 

and does not include any analysis whatsoever of the other states and regions that are integrally tied to the 

GRSG planning scheme. BLM does not discuss Wyoming’s contribution to the US economy through 

natural resource production and development. Nor does BLM discuss the impacts of the national demand 

for these resources on Wyoming, its towns and communities. The BLM may not conveniently ignore the 

interplay between other states, the nation, and several unmentioned Wyoming Counties to avoid a hard look 

at the full impacts of the project. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Andrus, 440 F. Supp. 1245, 1252 (D.D.C. 1977) 

(One of the purposes of NEPA is “to break the cycle of such incremental decision-making.”). The decision 

maker must include data from the entire project area and analyze the full extent of the cumulative impacts 

to local, regional, and national economies in this instance.

Summary: The BLM applies too narrow of a scope in its socioeconomic analysis. The BLM relies 

exclusively on the Socioeconomic Baseline Report (Appendix N) that deals with only a portion of Wyoming 

and does not include any analysis of the other states and regions that are integrally tied to the sagegrouse

protection measures included in the LUP Amendments. The LUP Amendments do not discuss Wyoming’s 

contribution to the US economy through natural resource production and development. In addition, the plan 

does not discuss the impacts of the national demand for these resources on Wyoming, its towns and 

communities. The BLM may not conveniently ignore the interplay between other states, the nation, and 

several unmentioned Wyoming counties to avoid a hard look at the full impacts of the project. The decision 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-875

maker must include data from the entire project area and analyze the full extent of the cumulative impacts 

to local, regional, and national economies in this instance.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service acknowledge that there are social and economic linkages between 

the administered public lands in the planning area and areas outside of the socioeconomic study area. A

socioeconomic study area must capture a majority of the socioeconomic activity associated with the lands 

under management. The socioeconomic study area for this Draft EIS does this. Capturing a significantly 

higher percentage of activity would require considerable expansion of the size of the study area, with 

diminishing returns in terms of analytical value and likely with considerable additional complexity in 

understanding the socioeconomic conditions of a much larger area. Expanding study areas can also dilute 

capability to characterize more localized rural impacts by including areas with more metropolitan 

characteristics. With respect to the interplay of the socioeconomic study area and other parts of Wyoming, 

as noted in Appendix N and shown in Chapter 4, economic impacts for the entire state were calculated for 

each resource use that could be quantified. Appendix N, Section 1.2.1, describes the modeling of economic 

impacts on Wyoming counties that were not included in the socioeconomic study area for each BLM field 

office or Forest Service planning unit, but were included in the state-wide analysis. Further, the analysis 

does address the impacts on Wyoming and its communities of national demands for resources on BLMand Forest Service-administered lands. Prices for these resources are set in regional and national markets. 

These prices drive development of public land resources, with resulting socioeconomic effects on local

communities and the state. Both the quantitative analysis (IMPLAN) and qualitative discussions of

socioeconomic effects of the alternatives address those effects.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

Assumptions regarding wind energy development should be revised

Comment ID: 2578

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Chapter4-11, Socioeconomics Page 4-152 includes a discussion of wind energy development 

and production, and it claims that "it is not clear how many of these projects will be approved, and how 

many will be built." Tills should be corrected in the Final LUPA/EIS since, as noted above, the CCSM 

Project site was approved for wind energy development in October 2012. Therefore there are actual 

economic estimates from that EIS that can and should be considered in this LUPA/EIS, in order to be using 

the best available data and information regarding wind development on federal land in Wyoming and 

economic benefits, We suggest that the BLM incorporate tax, jobs and economic impact data from the BLM 

Final EIS Section 4.8.2, Impacts to Socioeconomics from Alternative 1R, Applicant Proposed Alternative, 

and specifically, Section 4.8.2.5, Fiscal Effects. Otherwise, it appears that BLM is under-representing the

significant positive economic impacts that wind energy development will have on local communities. For 

example, while the Draft LUPA/EIS claims that only up to $172 million would be collected in sales/use 

taxes from all wind energy development in the planning area (page 4-152), the CCSM Project Final EIS 

says the following, for this project alone: Alternative IR could yield between $216 million and $336 million 

in sales and use tax receipts. Of those sums, between $144 million and $244 million would be derived from 

the state's 4 percent levy; 69 percent of which accrues to the general fund. The remaining $44 million to 

$69 million, less a 1 percent administrative fee, would be distributed to local governments with a substantial 

portion returned to Carbon County and local municipal governments. Based on the population distribution

within Carbon County, these revenues would provide a substantial source of revenues to the City of Rawlins 

and towns of Saratoga and Sinclair. Also, the Draft LUPAIEIS appears to have under-reported potential 

property tax revenues, claiming only $85 million would be paid in the high wind development scenario. 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-876 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

However, according to the CCSM Final EIS, page 4.8-23, property taxes or ad valorem taxes will contribute 

another huge slice of tax dollars to local communities: Local ad valorem taxes: projected capital 

development costs of Alternative lR could range between $4.2 and $6.2 billion, depending on pending 

decisions regarding WTG capacity. Initially, the CCSM project would have an assessed value in the range 

of $483 million and $690 million (11.5 percent of improved value) declining over time as depreciation 

reduces the value of equipment. That assessment would qualify the CCSM as the single largest property 

taxpayer in the county, by a considerable margin. Based on current tax rates, projected ad valorem taxes 

across all local tax entities would total between $29.7 million and $42.4 million the first year following 

project completion. Approximately 20 percent of that total would accrue to Carbon County, 7 percent to 

various special districts and the remainder to support public education, not just locally but across the state 

based on Wyoming's education funding mechanisms. The $5.8 to $8.3 million that would accrue to Carbon 

County would be a significant boost in revenues given the County's total current general fund revenues of 

$22.1 million for 2010. Estimated total annual payments across all local tax entities after 10 years would 

be between $21.7 million and $31 million and cumulative ad valorem tax payments over that period range 

from $257 million to $367 million. Most surprising, the Draft LUPAIEIS fails to disclose the significant 

rental revenues paid by wind developers that have installed turbines on federal land. As outlined in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy, the BLM requires a rental fee 

that phases up over three years to $4,155 per year per megawatt of installed capacity on federal land. These 

revenues continue over the life of the project and accrue to the Federal Treasury, therefore to the American

public. For the CCSM Project, we estimate that rental fees will total $117 million in payments over 20

years, paid directly to the Treasury. In addition to paying per-megawatt rental fees on turbines, wind

developers also must pay rental fees for the project area. As outlined in BLM 1M 2009-043, "the rental fee 

for the total public land acreage of the grant will be $1,000 per year or $1 per acre per year, whichever is 

greater. This rental fee is based on comparable fees on non-Federal lands and is consistent with the limited 

use of the land." Therefore, the Draft LUPA/EIS socioeconomic analysis does not adequately calculate or 

disclose the enormous amount of revenue that will be lost to local Wyoming communities, to the U.S.

Government and to the American people if wind energy development is severely curtailed, restricted or 

precluded, under the potential pretense that this must be done to conserve sage-grouse habitat and thereby 

avoid a listing of the species. Further, it appears that Alternative E unfairly reduces the economic 

opportunities for Wyoming that are associated with wind energy development, as compared to oil and gas 

development. Alternative E will reduce the economic benefits and labor earnings to Wyoming from wind 

energy development by 90%, as compared to Alternative A, according to tables 4-61 through 4-63. In 

contrast, according to Table 4-43, Alternative E only reduces the economic benefits to Wyoming by 8% for 

oil and gas development. Readers reviewing this data could infer that BLM has designed and selected

Alternative E and its associated restrictions specifically to protect oil and gas interests, instead of working 

to ensure the Draft LUPA/ElS leads to a balance of impacts on industries and resources and is based on 

science-based measures to conserve sage-grouse habitat.

Summary: Page 4-152 includes a discussion of wind energy development and production, and it claims that 

"it is not clear how many of these projects will be approved, and how many will be built." This should be

corrected in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS since the Chokecherry Sierra Madre Project site 

was approved for wind energy development in October 2012. Therefore there are actual economic estimates 

from that EIS that can and should be considered in the LUP Amendments/EIS. We suggest that the BLM 

incorporate tax, jobs, and economic impact data from the BLM Final EIS Section 4.8.2, Impacts to 

Socioeconomics from Alternative 1R, Applicant Proposed Alternative, and specifically, Section 4.8.2.5, 

Fiscal Effects. Otherwise, it appears that BLM is under-representing the significant positive economic 

impacts that wind energy development will have on local communities. Also, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS appears to have under-reported potential property tax revenues, claiming only $85 

million would be paid in the high wind development scenario. However, according to the CCSM Final EIS, 

page 4.8-23, property taxes or ad valorem taxes will contribute substantially more than the figures disclosed 

in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Most surprising, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS fails to 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-877

disclose the significant rental revenues paid by wind developers that have installed turbines on federal land. 

As outlined in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-043, Wind Energy Development Policy, the BLM 

requires a rental fee that phases up over three years to $4,155 per year per megawatt of installed capacity 

on federal land. These revenues continue over the life of the project and accrue to the Federal Treasury, 

therefore to the American public. For the CCSM Project, we estimate that rental fees will total $117 million 

in payments over 20 years, paid directly to the Treasury. In addition to paying per-megawatt rental fees on 

turbines, wind developers also must pay rental fees for the project area. As outlined in BLM 1M 2009-043, 

"the rental fee for the total public land acreage of the grant will be $1,000 per year or $1 per acre per year, 

whichever is greater. This rental fee is based on comparable fees on non-federal lands and is consistent with 

the limited use of the land." Therefore, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS socioeconomic analysis does 

not adequately calculate or disclose the enormous amount of revenue that will be lost to local Wyoming

communities, to the US Government and to the American people if wind energy development is severely 

curtailed, restricted or precluded, under the potential pretense that this must be done to conserve sagegrouse habitat and thereby avoid a listing of the species.

Response: Many factors besides BLM’s 2012 approval of CCSM, including critical market factors, will 

determine whether CCSM is actually built and at what pace. Further, a broadly based analysis using industry

data is appropriate for the planning-level Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS, rather than basing the analysis 

on one project in one part of the state. In terms of the $85 million in potential property tax revenue being 

an underestimate, the CCSM EIS indicates $29.7 million to $42.4 million in projected property taxes in the 

first year following the completion of the project and that these revenues would decline over time from 

depreciation after that. The range of first-year tax revenues represents a 2,000 MW or a 3,000 MW project. 

This works out to $14,850 to $14,133 of property tax revenue per MW. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS used an estimate of $14,808 of property tax revenue per MW for the first year following project 

completion, essentially the same as the figures used in the CCSM EIS. The comment correctly notes that 

rental fees were not presented in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS impact analysis. However, it is also 

important to note that these fees accrue to the Federal Treasury and thus do not have a direct impact on 

Wyoming state or local government or the state and local economies. The overall thrust of the comment is 

a claim that the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS under-represents the potential for substantial economic 

and government revenue losses under some alternatives. Tables 4-61 through 4-63 of the Draft LUP

Amendments/Draft EIS show that the reductions under several alternatives are very large both

proportionately and absolutely. No one can say with certainty what the actual numerical values will turn 

out to be; however, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS clearly shows the potential for very large 

reductions in wind energy-based economic activity and government revenues under Alternatives B, C, and 

E, and to a lesser extent Alternative D, compared to Alternative A.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

Assumptions used for analysis need to be revised

Comment ID: 2705

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page N-5, paragraph 5: It is understandable that a discount rate greater than the OMBrecommended 0.1 % was applied; however, using a rate of 3% simply because it is more typical historically 

is insufficient justification for this very large change. Additional reasoning for the 3% is needed or a range 

of values from 0.1 % to 3% may be provided to provide a greater understanding of the potential range of 

outputs.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-878 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 3203

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Appendix N 1.2.3 N‐ 5 Paragraph 5 It is understandable that a discount rate greater than the

OMB‐ recommended 0.1% was applied. However, using a rate of 3% simply because it is more typical

historically is insufficient justification for this very large change. Additional reasoning for the 3% is needed 

or a range of values from 0.1% to 3% may be provided to provide a greater understanding of the potential 

range of outputs.

Comment ID: 2706

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page N-7, paragraph 4, lines 2-5: It is incorrect to declare that management decisions in this

document would apply only to oil and gas leasing. Therefore, it must be noted that socioeconomic impacts 

could be substantially larger than those identified herein. Page N-7, footnote 4: See comment above, and it 

appears the correct action item referenced here is 63, not 57.

Comment ID: 3204

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Appendix N 2.1.1 N‐ 7 Paragraph 4, lines 2‐ 5 It is incorrect to declare that management 

decisions in this document would apply only to oil and gas leasing. Therefore, it must be noted that socio‐

economic impacts could be substantially larger than those identified herein.

Summary: Page N‐ 7, Paragraph 4, lines 2‐ 5: It is incorrect to declare that management decisions in this

document would apply only to oil and gas leasing. Therefore, it must be noted that socio‐ economic impacts 

could be substantially larger than those identified herein. Page N‐ 5, Paragraph 5: It is understandable that 

a discount rate greater than the OMB‐ recommended 0.1% was applied. However, using a rate of 3% simply 

because it is more typical historically is insufficient justification for this very large change. Additional 

reasoning for the 3% is needed or a range of values from 0.1% to 3% may be provided to provide a greater 

understanding of the potential range of outputs.

Response: This section of Appendix N correctly states that the management actions essentially apply only 

to development of and production from new wells under new leases. A footnote includes a caveat on this 

statement. The referenced lines are located under the oil and gas economic analysis methodology section. 

The specific sentence is, "This is because the management decisions under consideration in the Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) and the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (hereafter, land use plans 

[LUP]) amendments essentially only apply to new oil/gas leasing and not to the existing leases." The BLM 

and Forest Service stand by the choice of a 3% interest rate as appropriate, given historic interest/discount 

rate considerations. Given the location of this sentence as part of the oil and gas economic analysis 

methodology discussion, this sentence is not indicating that management decisions in the document only 

apply to oil and gas leasing, but that management decisions will affect only new oil/gas leasing and not 

existing leases. The sentence is clarifying that for the oil/gas economic analysis that the analysis is 

considering management decisions applied to only new oil/gas leases. The remaining portion of this 

paragraph does indicate that the economic impact figures associated with the LUP Amendments would be 

a subset of overall economic impacts from all oil and gas wells (new and existing). The specificity to oil 

and gas leasing in these lines is warranted since the discussion if focused on the oil/gas economic impact 

analysis.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-879

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

Restricting uses on public land will adversely affect the local economy

Comment ID: 649

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Severance tax, royalties, and bonuses provide billions of dollars to the State of Wyoming and 

provide a substantial portion of the state's economic stability. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pgs. 3-177 - 3-178.

Additionally, ad valorem taxes provide an important source of revenue that is used to fund education within 

the State of Wyoming. When considering final alternatives the BLM should ensure that its actions do not 

adversely impact the citizens and students within the State of Wyoming by removing this important source 

of revenue.

Comment ID: 1405

Organization: Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Name: Darlene Steffan

Comment: The alternatives identified by BLM are expected to further limit use, including uses such as 

ROW for electric distribution and transmission lines, on BLM-administered lands within the Planning Area. 

The increased restrictions are expected to increase costs for infrastructure that may utilize BLM lands.

which would in turn impact electric utility customers through increased costs and time delays for new 

projects. As a not-for-profit, consumer-owned utility, Basin Electric is deeply concerned about maintaining 

affordable, reliable electricity for our members - especially those residents of rural communities that already 

spend more per capita on energy than other parts of the country. Distribution cooperatives would experience 

an even greater financial impact, as compliance with these new restrictions and requirements would account 

for a larger percentage of overall project cost.

Comment ID: 1549

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Oil and gas development provides strong, reliable jobs for the citizens in Wyoming. The BLM 

should take this into consideration when selecting an alternative in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The BLM

should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the socioeconomic stability within Wyoming. When

considering final alternatives the BLM should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the citizens 

and students within the State of Wyoming by removing this important source of revenue.

Comment ID: 583

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Overall, many of the alternatives in the Sage-grouse DLUPA are overly restrictive, unnecessarily

limiting to oil and gas development in Wyoming, and should be eliminated from further consideration. Oil 

and gas development is one of the primary employment and tax revenue sources in Wyoming. Sage-Grouse 

DLUPA, pgs. 3-175 - 3-180. In these uncertain economic times, the BLM should take every action to 

promote and foster the employment and revenue opportunities in Wyoming, not limit economic 

development and job creation. The BLM's adoption of Alternative B or Alternative C would have 

devastating economic impacts upon the region, State of Wyoming, and even the nation.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-880 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 785

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM should take this into consideration when selecting an alternative in the Sage-Grouse

DLUPA. The BLM should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the socioeconomic stability within 

Wyoming.

Comment ID: 8

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Name: Thom Seal

Comment: Mining & ranching plays an important part of the United States’ current economy. The ranching 

and mined resources are a far more valuable resource to the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North

and South Dakota, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming than sage grouse use of the land. Often the land is

sagebrush with minimal wildlife, unless a lot of water is present. Locking up the land for no use because of 

the sage grouse is a drain on the each state’s economy with the potential to also retard the economy in 

United States. Mining provides good paying jobs and reclaims the land when completed.

Comment ID: 2558

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC)

Name: Richard M. Loughery

Comment: APLIC is also concerned that decisions proposed in the LUP, if implemented, would have a 

negative impact on the utility customers in the state. Electric utilities expend significant financial resources 

to avoid sensitive environmental resources when siting transmission lines. When decisions are made in the 

middle of the project, forcing the lines to be rerouted, the cost of this rework is then passed on to ratepayers. 

Despite substantial costs incurred for siting lines and scheduling construction to avoid sagegrouse and their 

habitats, these efforts are typically not considered when analyzing project impacts and determining required 

mitigation, resulting in significant costs to customers for which there is not mitigation "credit". BLM should 

consider these ratepayer concerns in the socioeconomics section of the LUP.

Comment ID: 1208

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Oil and gas development provides strong, reliable jobs for the citizens in Wyoming. The BLM 

should take this into consideration when selecting an alternative in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The BLM

should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the socioeconomic stability within Wyoming. When 

considering final alternatives the BLM should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the citizens 

and students within the State of Wyoming by removing this important source of revenue.

Comment ID: 1777

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: Oil and gas development provides strong, reliable jobs for the citizens in Wyoming. The BLM 

should take this into consideration when selecting an alternative in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The BLM 

should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the socioeconomic stability within Wyoming.

ConocoPhillips also appreciates the BLM’s acknowledgement that oil and gas development has led to the 

very low unemployment rate for the State of Wyoming. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 3-175. As discussed 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-881

earlier, the BLM should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the significant source of revenue 

and jobs for the State of Wyoming.

Comment ID: 2362

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: The location of mineral resources is determined by geology; therefore, mineral deposits can only 

be developed where they are found. Consequently, the withdrawal of mineral areas within sage-grouse

habitat, and ACECs would result in significant economic harm to the counties and residents within the 

Planning Area that contain locatable minerals, and to any company whose mineral deposit is located in a 

sage-grouse habitat area. BLM must take into account the disproportionately high adverse impact to low 

income populations in the Planning Area and throughout the State of Wyoming as a result of restrictions 

and prohibitions to locatable mineral development under Alternatives B, C, D, and E. These restrictions 

could result in a decrease in funding of education and assistance programs that are partly dependent on the 

revenues collected directly from mining operations and other revenue that is created from the indirect 

economic benefits associated with mining activities. These are important revenue sources to the counties 

where mineral production occurs and to the State General Fund.

Comment ID: 2281

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Oil and gas development provides strong, reliable jobs for the citizens in Wyoming. The BLM 

should take this into consideration when selecting an alternative in the Sage-Grouse DLUPA. The BLM 

should ensure that its actions do not adversely impact the socioeconomic stability within Wyoming.

Summary: Implementation of the management actions/decisions included in the alternatives would have an

adverse impact on the Wyoming economy, which could affect industry, economic development, job

creation, funding for social services, energy-related costs that are passed on to customers, ranching

activities, etc. The BLM and Forest Service should ensure that their actions do not negatively affect the 

socioeconomic stability of Wyoming. In some cases, the actions/decisions are overly restrictive and 

unnecessarily limit energy development and other land uses.

Response: The BLM and the Forest Service have assessed the relative socioeconomic impacts of each

alternative, including the effects of reduced resource uses under some alternatives, and will consider these 

impacts along with the many other impacts of each alternative.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

Restricting uses on public land would benefit the local economy

Comment ID: 89

Organization:

Name: Greg Bodker

Comment: Please take all actions available to save critical breeding habitat for this bird. Birding, Eco 

tourism, and Eco photography have an economic benefit to those in the area where people want to visit. It 

is incumbent on the BLM to protect that land so people want to visit an area.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-882 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 68

Organization:

Name: Edward Newbold & Delia Scholes

Comment: by setting aside sufficient chunks of sagebrush habitat, enough to allow this bird to really survive 

and thrive, the BLM will probably ensure also the economic vibrancy of nearby communities. Businesses

want to locate in places that respect their own natural beauty.

Summary: Eco-tourism has an economic benefit to the planning area. The BLM and Forest Service should

protect the land and natural resources in order foster such tourism and the related economic benefits to the 

state. Protecting natural resources within the planning area will ensure economic vibrancy of communities 

within the planning area, as it would encourage businesses to locate in the area.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service have assessed the relative socioeconomic impacts of each 

alternative, including beneficial effects of tourism related to public lands, and will consider these impacts 

along with the many other impacts of each alternative.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

Socioeconomics should be the primary consideration in making land use decisions

Comment ID: 479

Organization:

Name: Jean Harshbarger

Comment: Another area which has not been satisfactorily addressed is socia-economic and cultural impact. 

All federal actions must take these into consideration as the primary emphasis, with consideration of other 

factors such as wildlife secondary. The impact of thousands of acres being withdrawn from mineral

exploration, wind energy development or livestock grazing would be extremely detrimental to the counties, 

state and population. This is unacceptable and illegal under several federal laws.

Summary: Another area which has not been satisfactorily addressed is socio-economic and cultural impact. 

All federal actions must take socioeconomics and cultural impacts into consideration as the primary

emphasis. Other considerations, such as wildlife issues, should be a secondary emphasis.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service are obligated under NEPA to consider the full range of impacts of

implementing the alternatives, including socioeconomics, cultural impacts, impacts to wildlife, and other 

impacts.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

Socioeconomics should not be considered in the plan.

Comment ID: 208

Organization:

Name: jean public
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-883

Comment: 4-128 I DO NOT BELIEVE SOCIOECONOMICS SHOUDL BE CONSIDERED. THE STATE 

LAND AND RESIDENTS HAVE TO MAKE THEMSELVES SUCCESSFUL. THEY CANNOT RELY 

ON NATIONAL LAND TO DO THAT.

Summary: Socioeconomics should not be a consideration in the plan amendment. The state and local 

counties cannot rely on national land to be financially successful.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service are obligated under NEPA to assess the socioeconomic effects that

would result from implementing the management actions included in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP

Amendments/Draft EIS.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Impact Analysis

The impacts analysis needs to be revised

Comment ID: 668

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: The BLM should explain why its economic analysis only predicts the impact between 2011 and 

2020. Samson understands that BLM's land use planning efforts are normally 20-year efforts. Samson

believes that if the BLM used a more appropriate time frame the negative impacts associated with

Alternative B and Alternative C would be further exacerbated. The BLM should develop more updated 

information released with the final EIS associated with the sage-grouse resource management planning 

process.

Comment ID: 792

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: The BLM should explain why its economic analysis only predicts the impact between 2011 and 

2020. Devon understands that BLM's land use planning efforts are normally 20-year efforts. Devon believes 

that if the BLM used a the twenty-year time frame normally used for planning efforts, the negative impacts 

associated With Alternative B and Alternative C would be further exacerbated. The BLM should develop 

more updated information released with the final EIS associated with the sage- grouse resource 

management planning process.

Comment ID: 1507

Organization: American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Name: John Anderson

Comment: NEPA implementing regulations state that “[w]hen an environmental impact statement is 

prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the 

environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.” More 

specifically, the incremental socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action and each alternative should be 

evaluated in the cumulative effects section of the EIS. Therefore, the final EIS should address the local, 

regional, and national socioeconomic effects related to wind energy on: 1) Employment; 2) Economic 

Development; and 3) Taxable Income. We are encouraged that BLM and Forest Service will address 

socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Jobs and 

Economic Development Impact model (JEDI) for renewable energy impacts.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-884 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2556

Organization: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC)

Name: Richard M. Loughery

Comment: APLIC is concerned that the BLM's socioeconomic analysis in the DEIS is inadequate. Based 

on the current demand for energy in the western United States, the benefits of transmission lines outweigh

impacts associated with the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed lines, particularly 

since efforts will be made to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts as appropriate. APLIC recommends 

that the BLM revise the socioeconomics section of the DEIS to include a discussion of the benefits of 

enhancing the reliability and redundancy of high-voltage transmission in the west.

Comment ID: 779

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: It also appears the BLM failed to consider the significant detrimental impact seasonal prohibition 

on oil and gas operations could have upon the local economy. By precluding production during several 

months of the year, the BLM would force operators to significantly reduce their workforces on an annual 

basis. The management action would create a seasonal boom and bust cycle with routine maintenance 

workers and pumpers being laid off annually. The inconsistent nature of the work would almost certainly 

reduce the number of local employees operators are able to hire, which would restrict or eliminate the longterm beneficial impacts of the oil and gas development to the local economy. The BLM's current socioeconomic analysis does not account for this cycle.

Comment ID: 898

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS does not discuss the fact that the economic effects of some of the proposed

mitigation measures, including the burying of power lines when feasible, would have a significant impact 

to our members and the communities they serve. Tri-State is an electric power cooperative, meaning costs 

incurred in one portion of our service territory would be spread across all of our member systems. Members 

that are not in GrSG range will be required to pay for mitigation costs outside of their service territory. The 

cost of burying high voltage transmission lines is 4-10 times the cost of an overhead line. This is a 

significant cost that would need to be passed along to our members and the rate payers.

Comment ID: 897

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz

Comment: The socioeconomic analysis favors many of the non-market valuation methods which are not a 

good measure of how natural resource use on public lands contributes to the regional economic indicators

such as output/sales, labor income, and employment. The DLUPA/DEIS assesses the social and economic 

impacts of the entire planning area, but should work to identify the effects that would result from the 

proposed management restrictions on specific areas, including counties.

Comment ID: 896

Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Name: Barbara A. Walz
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-885

Comment: The electric power delivery system is a critical component to the social infrastructure that

contributes to the general public's welfare in the planning area and throughout the United States. The 

management restrictions proposed in the DLUPA/DEIS alternatives will have a direct social and economic 

impact to this critical infrastructure, yet the DLUPA/DEIS fails to discuss how these restrictions will affect 

electric utilities in the Social and Economic Impact Analysis Methodology (Appendix N). The costs 

associated with reduced routing options and ROW restrictions would be real, and would be attributable to 

increased project time lines, decreased construction windows, increased planning and coordination, and 

likely increased route lengths/material costs. Continuous, safe, reliable delivery of power to end-users is a 

critical function in our society and often there is no other economically feasible or reasonable alternative 

than to have transmission system infrastructure traversing Agency administered lands. The increased costs 

associated with the imposed restrictions are directly passed on to our members system electrical end users.

Comment ID: 522

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Similarly, the BLM ignores the regional and national implications of Wyoming’s massive 

energy influence. BLM fails to analyze and disclose the nation’s obvious reliance on Wyoming natural gas 

as well as an increasing interest in wind energy and interstate grazing operations.

Comment ID: 1937

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS, Page 3-171 We 

support BLM’s efforts to incorporate the socioeconomic impacts into the LUPA/DEIS, including the 

quantification of the economic benefits of key activities, such as oil and natural gas exploration and 

production; however, the effort only goes so far as to identify the current economic output, and does not 

make an endeavor to analyze the negative impacts of the potential management decisions in each of the 

alternatives, particularly alternatives B and C. The document does not shy away from addressing perceived 

impacts to the GRSG from a variety of activities, including minerals development, yet it fails to similarly 

portray the costs of implementation of GRSG management on those activities: negative impacts certainly 

go both ways. Moreover, the agencies have further underestimated the negative socioeconomic impacts that 

will result from the proposed management strategy in many alternatives because the socioeconomic analysis 

is biased in favor of non-market valuation methods. Due to this bias, the agencies have overestimated nonmarket valuations and underestimated the negative economic impact on local communities, Wyoming, and 

the nation. We question how members of the community, who rely so heavily on a broad number of the 

multiple uses of public lands, can completely understand the true impact of an alternative, and comment

accordingly, when the document fails to identify and quantify the socioeconomic costs associated with 

GRSG management. It is vital for the analysis to clearly identify the implementation costs, including the 

impact on oil and gas leasing, exploration, permitting, and development within the planning area, for both 

current and future production zones (i.e. the document must account for not only current potential, but also 

future resource potential). Without these estimates, it is impossible to properly understand and assess the 

range of alternatives analyzed in the LUPA/DEIS.

Comment ID: 2545

Organization: Peabody Energy Corporation

Name: Philip C. Dinsmoor

Comment: Peabody believes BLM and Forest Service failed to conduct comprehensive analyses of 

economic impacts to coal mining. Extensive economic analyses seem to have been performed on most of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-886 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the resource uses in areas covered by the LUPA. There are discussions of wind resources, recreational

resources, grazing, oil and gas, just to mention a few. A word search of Appendix N, suggests that coal 

mining has been ignored in the economic analysis of Appendix N. Coal mining is rarely mentioned, yet the 

contribution from coal mines located on lands and minerals covered in this LUPA and DEIS exceeds onethird of all coal production in Wyoming and certainly exceeds the total coal production from any other state 

in the Union. Despite this and the enormous contribution to federal, state and local economies, there is no 

apparent economic analysis of the impact the LUPA alternatives would have on this major resource use.

Comment ID: 1876

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM may have presented impacts (i.e. environmental consequences) by resource and alternative 

in the DLUPA/DEIS, however BLM completely fails to provide adequate detail of the potential direct,

indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed management actions under each alternative 

and across programs , including but not limited to, density disturbance caps, surface use restrictions and 

prohibitions. For example, BLM failed to include any detailed or meaningful analysis of the impacts to 

resources, especially the socioeconomic impacts of withdrawing millions of acres from locatable mineral 

development (See Chapter 4), which is discussed in detail infra Section V.

Comment ID: 2123

Organization: Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Name: Dustin Van Liew

Comment: While PLC and NCBA appreciates that the 9-Plan EIS discloses estimated economic and social 

impacts that would result from choosing Alternative E, PLC and NCBA are concerned that the impacts may 

be understated. Moreover, in evaluating the significance of the economic and social impacts, BLM appears 

to have ignored its duty to evaluate the significance of impacts based on “context and intensity” pursuant 

to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. BLM’s proposed LUPAs/RMPAs threaten to reduce livestock production in 

affected sage-grouse areas, as well as economic development opportunities relating to energy development 

and infrastructure. These factors weigh heavily against taking all but the most absolutely necessary

measures to prevent an ESA listing—highlighting the importance of BLM carefully reassessing the purpose 

and need. PLC and NCBA appreciate that an ESA listing could have far greater economic consequences 

than the LUPAs/RMPAs currently under consideration, but that does not relieve BLM from its 

responsibility to carefully consider and fully disclose the economic and social impacts of the proposed 

actions. PLC and NCBA request that BLM reevaluate and fully disclose the economic and social impacts 

of the proposed alternatives based on the context and intensity framework required by NEPA.

Comment ID: 2199

Organization: Thunder Basin Coal Company

Name: Steven J. Beil

Comment: A fundamental requirement in any DEIS is a clear presentation and comparison of the available

alternatives in a way that will allow the public to make informed comments. Many of the proposed

alternatives rely on best management practice (BMP) conservation measures or stipulations that are unclear, 

undefined, or unsupported. Many of the management areas in this DEIS are not clearly defined and appear 

to be expanded over the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 core areas. Thus it is unclear what impacts the 

BLM/USFS are assigning to the management areas. BLM and USFS have thus failed in their mandate. The 

DEIS has failed to consider local economic impacts. Existing conditions and trends, as well as the impacts 

to conditions and trends associated with each alternative must be assessed along with the income and 

employment associated with all economic sectors, community infrastructure, state and local revenues and 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-887

expenditures, and land use patterns. The DEIS fails to address the effects of increased restrictions on mineral 

development, including withdrawal from mineral entry, to the State and local economies. Mineral mining 

operations can only take place where the minerals are located and as such, expansion of the restrictions 

beyond those outlined in the Wyoming Executive Order 2011-05 must be clearly defined and all impacts 

must be assessed within the DEIS. Further, it is recommended that the document justify restrictions on 

those activities that would appear to have little or no impact in the field, including mineral entries. Mining 

operations are critical to the economy of the state of Wyoming. Mining directly accounts for and supports 

thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in payroll. Fees, royalties and taxes paid by the industry account 

for over a billion dollars annually to state and local governments. Issues such as expanded restrictions, 

overly restrictive seasonal prohibitions and unsupported BMPs and regulations could have a drastic effect 

on these operations and subsequently, on Wyoming's local and state economies. These impacts have not 

been quantified in the DEIS.

Comment ID: 2981

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: Over one-fifth (approximately $4.8 billion) of Wyoming's total assessed valuation is derived 

from the minerals and materials mined in this state; therefore, any chosen alternative in the final DEIS must

consider potential adverse impacts to this segment of Wyoming's industrial economy. However, despite its 

potential implications, an appropriate analysis regarding mining is conspicuously absent from the DEIS in 

Chapter 4's socioeconomic analysis-at least to the same degree as oil and gas, wind energy, agriculture and 

recreation received. Such a superficial treatment is simply unacceptable and a more robust analysis 

regarding potential impacts to mining must be inserted into the final document.

Comment ID: 2647

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-134, Table 4-43, Total Economic Output: Again, with the large difference between 

Alternative A and Alternative E, this table indicates that there will be only a $2,525,538 difference in total

economic output. This grossly underestimates the impacts that restrictions on oil and gas operations will 

have on the local communities, the state, and the nation.

Comment ID: 2669

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: 4-128 Comment: The BLM entirely omits any discussion of the impacts of mining in the project 

area. Nor are the effects of the alternatives on mining analyzed. Without analyzing and disclosing the

impacts of mining and to mining, the EIS is severely flawed.

Comment ID: 2691

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-179 Comment: This section would be enhanced by the inclusion of a tabular summary of

economic effects of the alternative, combining one or two of the economic indicators for the four major 

activities: oil and gas development and production, wind energy development and operation, grazing, and 

recreation. Given the differences in units/quantities, total labor earnings and total jobyears through 2020 

would be one option. Another essential summary is a distribution/allocation of the economic effects among 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-888 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the field offices, towns and counties. The effects are not uniformly distributed among the field offices, 

towns and counties, with a disproportionate share of the projected adverse economic effects occurring in

the Rock Springs and Pinedale field offices. The BLM must amply demonstrate the impacts of each

alternative.

Comment ID: 2433

Organization: Bridger Coal Company

Name: Norman E. Hargis

Comment: It is very important that Alternative E, the preferred alternative, account for local and statewide

socio-economic impacts of sage grouse restrictions. In the case of coal mining, consideration needs to be 

given to existing operations and infrastructure and how long those operations have been in place and the 

need for new lands and coal reserves to be added as existing reserves are mined out.

Comment ID: 2432

Organization: Bentonite Performance Minerals

Name: Joel Severin

Comment: BLM failed to consider local economic impacts. BLM is required under 43 CFR § 1610.4-4 (g) 

to analyze the level of dependence of local communities on resources from public lands during land use

planning. As such, the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-H) and Instruction Memorandum No. 

2002-167 each specifically address the requirement for a social and economic analysis for land use 

planning. Factors required to be analyzed include: demographic, economic, social and fiscal conditions and 

land use patterns. In addition, existing conditions and trends, as well as the impacts to conditions and trends 

associated with each alternative must be assessed along with the income and employment associated with 

all economic sectors, community infrastructure, state and local revenues and expenditures, and land use 

patterns. BLM wholly fails to adequately analyze the effects increased restrictions on mineral development 

will have on the state and local economy. For example, in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIS, BLM summarizes

the socio-economic effects on oil and gas development, wind energy, livestock grazing and recreation. But 

it completely evades any analysis of the Draft EIS on locatable mineral development. Instead, BLM simply 

states that "[w]ithdrawal of portions of sage-grouse core habitat from mineral entry for locatable mineral 

development may result in reductions in economic activity; however, this depends on the location of 

economically developable locatable mineral resources relative to core habitat areas." Draft EIS 4-181. 

Elsewhere, BLM claims that the economic impacts of withdrawal on locatable mineral development 

"cannot be determined because the effects of this action depend on the location of economically developable 

locatable mineral resources." Draft EIS at 4-187. Or with respect to mitigation, BLM simply states that 

"[m]itigation requirements for locatable mineral development may increase costs for operators." Draft EIS 

at 4-200. This is a clear failure by BLM to undertake the required regulatory-mandated analyses. Further, 

by failing to evaluate specific information on mitigation and reclamation, BLM could not have possibly 

met the requirement for the detailed social and economic analysis required for land use planning. BPM 

produces 1,500,000 tons of bentonite annually in Wyoming. 300,000 tons of the bentonite is used in drilling 

fluids for oil and gas exploration and production. In the process of producing bentonite, BPM employs 193 

direct employees and spends $40,000,000 on local contractors, salaries and materials in Wyoming. Its 

operations also contribute in many indirect ways though salaries for BPM employees and contractors. A 

recent study conducted for BPM estimated that BPM operations induce an additional 147 jobs and $4.5 

million in additional earnings for non- BPM employees. See attached Socioeconomic Study for BPM (Dec. 

2012). Overly restrictive seasonal prohibitions and unsupported BMPs and regulations could have a drastic 

effect on these operations and Wyoming's state and local economy. As a result, BLM failed to conduct 

comprehensive analyses of local economic impacts.

Comment ID: 2970
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-889

Organization: Ur-Energy USA, Inc.

Name: John Cash

Comment: Ur-Energy believes that the socio-economic evaluation is inadequate to comply with NEPA

requirements and the impacts of Alternatives B thru E are significantly greater than the BLM analysis

purports. For example, the BLM analysis did not account for the loss of locatable minerals mining despite 

the fact that there is an operating uranium mine within the study area as well as a uranium mine and mill 

on standby. There are at least tens of thousands of acres of locatable mineral claims in the study area with 

known mineralization. Since the LUP Preferred Alternative E will potentially remove several million acres 

from mineral entry, it is critical that the BLM assess the economic impact of such an action. Failure to 

complete such an analysis and make it available for public review and comment invalidates the NEPA 

process. The socio economic analysis fails to discuss the substantial costs associated with validity exams 

and the prospects for expensive and lengthy litigation if lands are withdrawn from mineral entry. We urge 

the BLM to provide a NEPA and FLPMA compliant socio-economic analysis that includes all potential 

impacts; specifically, include an analysis of the impacts on existing and potential locatable mineral mines 

and claims that have not, to date, been included in the BLM's analysis. The data needed for this analysis is 

readily available from the U.S. Geological Survey and other sources. The socio-economic analysis as 

presented does not provide an accurate picture of the impact of alternatives B thru E, and any decision based 

on this analysis is flawed and does not comply with applicable law.

Comment ID: 2684

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-129 Text: Tax and royalty revenues derived from activities on BLM and USFSadministered lands would continue to have fiscal implications for communities within the socioeconomic 

study area, the state, and the Federal Government. Comment: BLM completely omits sales tax revenues 

that accrue to local governments. Analyzing and disclosing economic impacts by field offices leaves 

massive gaps with regards to the impacts on local economies such as counties, towns, and local 

governments. The BLM may not make a decision without properly analyzing the actual dollar amounts that 

each alternative will impact towns and counties. To the extent that the EIS does not include the analysis of 

these problems, it is severely flawed.

Comment ID: 2985

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: The socioeconomic analysis in the preferred alternative should expressly identify its intended

application for use and reliance by Agency planners. Further, when a difference exists between an analysis 

done on a multi-regional scale like that in the Plan, and that done in accordance with an individual Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) or Forest Plan (FP), the management objectives in the individual RMP or FP 

must take precedence. Because the Agencies are required in their analysis to take into account the various 

stated goals and objectives of various stakeholders existing in the Planning Area, we believe the resulting 

analysis in the Preferred Alternative must therefore identify the potential for disparate impacts on 

stakeholders. Where such analysis is lacking on the part of Agencies-for example, as a result of data 

acquisition constraints or landscape-level analysis that does not warrant a more detailed examination- the

Agencies should expressly state that in the final document and provide explanation for intended, appropriate 

reliance by present and future planners.

Comment ID: 2387

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-890 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The LUP Amendments/DEIS considers the economic impacts of livestock grazing on the 

economy, but omits an analysis of the costs of public lands livestock grazing to the public. The final 

document should include a full analysis of the costs to the American taxpayer incurred due to 1) belowmarket grazing rates that do not cover administrative costs; 2) indirect costs for environmental

mitigation/restoration, etc.; 3) costs of the removal of wild horses on livestock grazing allotments within 

HMAs; 4) costs of the government’s predator management program as they relate to public lands ranchers. 

Attachment 7, Congressional Research Service Report, addresses some of these costs and is incorporated 

herein by reference.

Comment ID: 2386

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The importance of social considerations was reaffirmed in the NAS report of 2013. (Attachment 

5). The prevailing public preference for protecting wild horses in any sage grouse conservation plans can

be seen by the more than 8500 public comments that have been submitted on this LUP Amendments/DEIS, 

along with recent polls that show 72% of Americans support protecting wild horses and burros on public 

lands, while just 29% want public lands used for livestock grazing. (Attachment 6). These social impacts 

must be analyzed when considering any alternatives that could result in a reduction of wild horse and burro 

population numbers.

Comment ID: 2363

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: BLM’s assertion that there was only adequate data to conduct a quantitative analysis on oil and 

gas, wind energy, livestock grazing, and recreation (See Ch. 4 at 4-130, Appendix N at N-2), is utter

nonsense, and demonstrates a complete lack of due diligence made by the BLM. BLM could have obtained 

the necessary information to conduct a trend analysis from Wyoming’s Department of Revenue, or the 

published USGS mineral reports, which would have provided a reasonable alternative to the “lack of 

reliable forecasts.” It seems clear that Alternatives B, C, E, and Alternative D to a lesser extent, will have 

an extremely adverse impact on the locatable mineral industry due to land withdrawals and surface use 

restrictions, which will in turn adversely affect the economic stability of the counties which rely on mining.

BLM must include locatable minerals in the socioeconomic impact analysis, especially considering that 

BLM’s own Mineral Report clearly establishes that bentonite production is expected to remain steady or 

increase based on demand trends (See Mineral Report Ch. 3). BLM has inappropriately minimized the value 

that mining has on not only the counties in the Planning Area but the state as whole. BLM must revise the 

socioeconomic impact analysis to include recent employment data, and the most severance tax information.

Comment ID: 2878

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 183 of Chapter 4 the discussion on non-market economic values does not appear to 

reflect the "say versus do" aspect of many of these types of analysis. This "say/do" aspect can result in

significant variability, which is difficult to measure. Studies have shown that what people say they would 

be willing to pay for some benefit versus what they actually will pay have significant differences.

Comment ID: 2355
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-891

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc.

Name: Beth Goodnough

Comment: The DLUPA/DEIS additionally failed to consider local economic impacts. The BLM is required 

under 43 CFR § 1610.4-4 (g) to analyze the level of dependence of local communities on resources from 

public lands during land use planning. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-H) and Instruction

Memorandum No. 2002-167 each specifically address the requirement for a social and economic analysis 

for land use planning. Factors required to be analyzed include: demographic, economic, social and fiscal 

conditions and land use patterns. In addition, existing conditions and trends, as well as the impacts to 

conditions and trends associated with each alternative must be assessed along with the income and 

employment associated with all economic sectors, community infrastructure, state and local revenues and 

expenditures, and land use patterns. The costs associated with land withdrawals, seasonal caps, sound 

abatement, ROW restrictions will decrease access, increase construction costs, increase planning and 

coordination costs, and may deter many industries from continuing operations in specific regions of 

Wyoming. This could result in significant reduction of employment and reduced natural resource tax 

revenues, drastically affecting Wyoming's state and local communities. Any modifications from Wyoming 

Executive Order 2011-05 should be accompanied by detailed county by county economic and social impact 

assessments as part of the DLUPA/DEIS.

Comment ID: 2367

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: In addition, AEMA contends that the socioeconomics analysis related to locatable minerals is

completely inadequate, especially with respect to small entities, and does not comply with the CEQ

regulations as cited in BLM’s NEPA Handbook: The CEQ regulations require the BLM to obtain 

information if it is “relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts,” if it is “essential to a 

reasoned choice among alternatives,” and if “the overall cost of obtaining it is not exorbitant (40 CFR 

1502.22)” (BLM Handbook H-1-1790, Page 54) The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) requires BLM to analyze adequately the 

impacts of its proposal on small entities. The EIS documents for the Planning Area do not consider the 

adverse impact on small businesses of requiring validity exams in withdrawn or segregated lands, and are 

devoid of any analysis or discussion of the impact of sweeping and cumulative land withdrawals in 

priority/core sage-grouse on small entities. This is a significant omission that must be addressed in the

socioeconomic analysis in a revised DLUPA/DEIS, especially because the proposed land withdrawals are 

co-located in areas with moderate to high mineral potential.

Comment ID: 2368

Organization: American Exploration and Mining Association (AEMA)

Name: Laura Skaer

Comment: AEMA Recommendation No. 6: Include a Detailed Socioeconomic Analysis of the Impacts 

Related to Locatable Minerals – For each alternative, the EIS documents must re-evaluate the 

socioeconomic benefit or harm each alternative will have and disclose and quantify any adverse effects to 

job creation and local economies.

Summary: Issue #1: The socioeconomic impacts associated with implementing restrictions on locatable 

mineral development and coal mining must be disclosed in the analysis. The socioeconomic analysis 

focuses on impacts associated with leasable minerals, livestock grazing, and recreation, but ignores impacts

associated with locatable mineral development and coal mining. Issue #2: The planning period for the 

socioeconomic analysis should be longer than the 2011-2020 timeframe. Issue #3: The socioeconomic 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-892 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

analysis does not consider the seasonal restrictions on oil and gas leasing and development. Issue #4: The 

socioeconomic analysis does not disclose the impacts to electric utilities that would occur from 

implementing the land use decisions in the alternatives. Issue #5: The socioeconomic analysis favors many 

of the non-market valuation methods which are not a good measure of how natural resource use on public 

lands contributes to the regional economic indicators such as output/sales, labor income, and employment.

Issue #6: The Draft EIS does not disclose the economic effects of implementing some of the proposed 

mitigation measures, such as burying power lines when feasible. Issue #7: The incremental socioeconomic 

impacts of the Preferred Alternative and each alternative should be evaluated in the cumulative effects 

section of the EIS. Therefore, the Final EIS should address the local, regional, and national socioeconomic 

effects related to wind energy on employment, economic development, and taxable income. Issue #8: The 

Draft EIS does not provide adequate detail of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

associated with some of the proposed management actions, including but not limited to, density disturbance 

caps and surface use restrictions and prohibitions. Issue #9: The socioeconomic impacts appear to be 

underestimated, especially given the intensive restrictions on oil and gas leasing. Also, the analysis does 

not disclose the significance of the impacts, based on context and intensity, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.

Issue #10: The Draft EIS has failed to consider local economic impacts. Existing conditions and trends, as 

well as the impacts to conditions and trends associated with each alternative must be assessed along with 

the income and employment associated with all economic sectors, community infrastructure, state and local 

revenues and expenditures, and land use patterns. Issue #11: The BLM and Forest Service ignore the 

regional and national implications of Wyoming’s massive energy influence. The Draft EIS fails to analyze 

and disclose the nation’s reliance on Wyoming's natural gas as well as an increasing interest in wind energy 

and interstate grazing operations. Issue #12: Social impacts must be analyzed when considering any 

alternatives that could result in a reduction of wild horse and burro population numbers. Issue #13: The 

Final EIS should include a full analysis of the costs incurred due to 1) below-market livestock grazing rates 

that do not cover administrative costs; 2) indirect costs for environmental mitigation/restoration, etc.; 3) 

costs of the removal of wild horses on livestock grazing allotments within HMAs; 4) costs of the 

government’s predator management program as they relate to public lands ranchers. Issue #14: The Draft 

EIS completely omits sales tax revenues that accrue to local governments. Issue #15: The analysis would 

be enhanced by the inclusion of a tabular summary of economic effects by alternative. Issue #16: The 

discussion on non-market economic values does not appear to reflect the "say versus do" aspect of many of 

these types of analysis. This "say/do" aspect can result in significant variability, which is difficult to 

measure. Studies have shown that what people say they would be willing to pay for some benefit versus 

what they actually will pay has significant differences.

Response: Issue #1: Impacts associated with locatable mineral development are addressed qualitatively in

Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Decisions potentially affecting coal mining (e.g., 

finding all surface mining of coal unsuitable in sage-grouse priority habitat) are not expected to have actual 

economic impacts, based on known coal potential and existing coal leases across the planning area. Issue 

#2: The planning period for socioeconomic analysis was determined by the minimum common period for 

the available resource development projections. Issue #3: Seasonal restrictions are addressed qualitatively 

in Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Issue #4: Impacts to utilities such as those from 

ROW avoidance areas, utility corridors, line burial requirements, etc., are addressed qualitatively in Section 

4.11.5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Impacts from different levels of wind energy development

in the alternatives are encompassed by the IMPLAN analysis, which calculates the economic output, 

employment, and other impacts across all sectors affected by the development and production of wind 

energy. To the extent that management alternatives require linear construction projects to avoid Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat or require increased construction costs for projects crossing Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat, some impacts could occur. A 2012 WECC study cites transmission line costs per mile, ranging 

from $927 thousand to $2,967 thousand depending on voltage and type of lines. This study provides cost

multipliers for difficult terrains, reaching up to 2.25 in the case of forested lands. According to the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA 2013), transmission costs form typically around 11 percent of the cost of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-893

energy bills, with the remaining being formed by power generation and distribution. Restrictions on federal 

lands which surround state and private lands could adversely impact the current use of those lands, including 

ability to lease for mineral or energy development. Issue #5: The socioeconomic analysis does not favor 

non-market valuation. The Draft EIS has lengthy treatments of market-based values and impacts: a) much 

of Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS qualitatively describes market impacts that 

cannot be quantified; and b) quantifiable impacts to output/sales, labor income, and employment are treated 

at length in Section 4.11.4. The qualitative discussions of non-market values in Section 4.11.5 of the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS are included to provide a full treatment of all types of economic impacts of

the alternatives, consistent with the recommendations of BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013- 131, 

Guidance on Estimating Non-market Environmental Values. Issue #6: Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provides qualitative discussion of such impacts. These impacts can only be 

quantified at the implementation level when more is known about the specific levels of such activities. Issue 

#7: The discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 4.22.3 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS is 

consistent with a planning-level analysis. With respect to wind energy specifically, Section 4.11.4, 

“Summaries of the Quantitative Economic Impact Analysis Results, and Section 4.11.6 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS provide both quantified and qualitative analysis. Issue #8: The effects of density 

disturbance caps and surface use restrictions and prohibitions are incorporated into the RFD and thus their 

economic impacts are included in the IMPLAN analysis. Effects of additional management actions are 

addressed qualitatively in Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. Issue #9: The impacts 

of restrictions on oil and gas leasing are included in the RFD and in the IMPLAN analysis to the extent 

these management actions are quantifiable. Effects of additional management actions are addressed 

qualitatively in Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. This discussion addresses relevant 

aspects of 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27, consistent with the available information and level of analysis appropriate 

to this planning-level EIS. Issue #10: The Draft EIS quantifies impacts (to the extent possible) at the BLM 

field office and Forest Service planning unit level. The qualitative discussion of other impacts indicates the 

types of impacts that may be experienced locally. Analysis of impacts on specific local communities is not 

feasible or appropriate given the scale of this planning-level EIS. A county-by-county IMPLAN analysis is 

not feasible because discussion of economic impacts requires knowing where expenditures will be made.

This input data is often not available at the county level, and there is typically loss of information regarding 

indirect and induced impacts that expand beyond the county boundary. Issue #11: The US Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) (2014) identified Wyoming as the top producing coal state in 2012 

producing 401,442 thousand short tons, which is more than triple the amount of the second ranked coal 

producing state. EIA (2014) also identified that Wyoming ranked 5 in natural gas, ranked 8 in crude oil, 

and ranked 2 in overall total energy production in 2012. The BLM and Forest Service acknowledge that 

there are social and economic linkages between the administered public lands in the planning area and areas 

outside of the socioeconomic study. The focus of the socioeconomic analysis on the localized area is 

appropriate given that the socioeconomic study area must capture a majority of the socioeconomic activity 

associated with the lands under management. Expanding the analysis area to a national level would dilute 

capability to characterize more localized rural impacts. Issue #12: The analysis in this document is 

adequate. This is a sage-grouse document, not a wild horse document. Issue #13: These issues are not 

directly germane to the sage-grouse management actions and the selection of a preferred alternative. Issue 

#14: Sales and use taxes related to wind energy are estimated in Tables 4-61 and 4-62 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS. Sales and use taxes related to other resource uses cannot be estimated reliably 

given the available information. It is noted that other tax revenue sources may be affected by BLM 

management actions. Issue #15: Section 4.11.4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provides 

summaries by alternative for the analyses that could be quantified. The many and complex qualitative 

impacts do not lend themselves to a tabular summary. Issue #16: The studies underlying the estimate of 

consumer surplus value for recreation under Alternative A in Section 4.11.5 of the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS are not based on the types of stated preference surveys (e.g., contingent valuation) 

that appear to be the concern raised in the comment. The studies are based on surveys that directly ask 

respondents for actual expenditures, rather than asking for willingness to pay under hypothetical scenarios 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-894 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

as used in stated preference surveys. This methodology (e.g., travel cost method) is less subject to any “say 

versus do” bias and is widely accepted in the economics field as appropriate and reliable. The Draft EIS 

briefly mentions values from stated preference surveys when discussing the potential non-market value of 

protecting habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. This discussion is preceded by this caveat: “However, it is also 

true that, due to the hypothetical payment nature of ‘stated preference’ studies (e.g., contingent valuation 

surveys) of passive use values, there is likely to be some overestimation in the results of these studies –

stated willingness to pay, per person or household (Loomis 2011).” This caveat and the limited use of 

passive use values estimates in this Draft EIS is consistent with the recommendations of BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2013-131, Guidance on Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Range of alternatives

Alternatives B and C would create significant adverse effects on the local economy that the BLM 

and Forest Service should avoid.

Comment ID: 2001

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page 4-134: “Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic 

indicators noted above would decrease by 10% to 11% based on the reductions in oil and gas development 

that are projected in the RFD.” Page 4-141: “Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were

implemented, the economic indicators noted above would decrease by 4% to 6% based on the reductions 

in oil and gas development – and thus resulting reductions in production – that are projected in the RFD.” 

We find it difficult to believe that implementation of Alternative B, which is based on the conservation 

measures developed by the NTT in IM-2012-044, would only decrease production and the economic 

indicators related to oil and gas development by 4% to 6%. Conservation measures developed by the NTT 

are extremely restrictive and draconian by nature and would likely reduce oil and gas development, 

production and associated economic impacts by a much greater degree than what is estimated by BLM. We 

recommend that BLM reevaluate the actual impact the measures recommended by NTT, if implemented, 

would have on future oil and gas development, as well as associated and ancillary economic impacts, so 

the public can fully understand the estimated impacts of the proposed management alternatives in the 

LUPA/DEIS.

Comment ID: 1283

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: The removal of vast areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions 

on existing leases under Alternatives B or C would also significantly restrict regional earnings, jobs, and

tax revenue. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that would reduce economic development, decrease 

domestic energy supplies, result in a loss of jobs, and harm the local tax base.

Comment ID: 667

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: As already described, oil and gas development is a significant driver of the economy within the

Planning Area. The BLM's analysis demonstrates that Alternative B and Alternative C would have

significant adverse impacts to the local and regional economies. It is estimated that Alternative B and
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-895

Alternative C would reduce oil and gas economic output by $3,457,294,000 and $8,047,983,000

respectively. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-134. This is a significant loss of regional earnings and should be 

avoided by the BLM. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-135. The BLM's own analysis also indicates that

Alternative B would result in a loss of approximately 7,000 jobs which is directly contrary to the statements 

by the Obama Administration indicating they would take any and all steps necessary to ensure that jobs are 

gained not lost during this difficult economic times. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4- 135. Additionally, the 

analysis indicates that there will be significant job loss under both Alternative C and Alternative D. SageGrouse DLUPA, pg. 4-135. The BLM should ensure that its actions are improving not destroying the 

economy of Wyoming. The BLM's analysis also demonstrates that there would be significant loss to federal 

royalty and state taxes under Alternative B, Alternative C, and Alternative D. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-

142. Given the dependence the State of Wyoming has on oil and gas revenues, the BLM must not adopt 

Alternative B or Alternative C as they would both have significant adverse impacts upon royalty earnings 

in the area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-142. Under Alternative B and Alternative C there could be a

reduction in royalties ranging from 4% to 22%. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-141.

Comment ID: 1219

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: Given the dependence the State of Wyoming has on oil and gas revenues, the BLM must not 

adopt Alternative B or Alternative C as they would both have significant adverse impacts upon royalty

earnings in the area. The BLM should explain why its economic analysis only predicts the impact between 

2011 and 2020. Anschutz understands that BLM’s land use planning efforts are normally 20- year efforts. 

Anschutz believes that if the BLM used a more appropriate time frame the negative impacts associated with 

Alternative B and Alternative C would be further exacerbated. The BLM should develop more updated 

information released with the final EIS associated with the sagegrouse resource management planning 

process.

Comment ID: 1141

Organization: Anschutz Exploration Corp

Name: Brant Gimmeson

Comment: The removal of vast areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions 

on existing leases under Alternative B or C would also restrict regional earnings, jobs, and tax revenue. The 

BLM must not adopt an alternative that would reduce economic development, decrease domestic energy 

supplies, result in a loss of jobs, and harm the local tax base.

Comment ID: 1570

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: Given the dependence the State of Wyoming has on oil and gas revenues, the BLM must not 

adopt Alternative B or Alternative C as they would both have significant adverse impacts upon royalty

earnings in the area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-142. The BLM should explain why its economic analysis 

only predicts the impact between 2011 and 2020. EOG understands that BLM‘s land use planning efforts 

are normally 20-year efforts. EOG believes that if the BLM used a more appropriate time frame the negative 

impacts associated with Alternative B and Alternative C would be further exacerbated. The BLM should 

develop more updated information released with the final EIS associated with the GRSG resource 

management planning process.

Comment ID: 1783
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-896 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: ConocoPhillips Company

Name: Eileen Danni Dey

Comment: Given the dependence the State of Wyoming has on oil and gas revenues, the BLM must not 

adopt Alternative B or Alternative C as they would both have significant adverse impacts upon royalty

earnings in the area. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-142. Under Alternative B and Alternative C there could 

be a reduction in royalties ranging from 4% to 22%. Sage-Grouse DLUPA, pg. 4-141. The BLM should 

explain why its economic analysis only predicts the impact between 2011 and 2020. ConocoPhillips 

understands that BLM’s land use planning efforts are normally 20-year efforts. ConocoPhillips believes 

that if the BLM used a more appropriate time frame the negative impacts associated with Alternative B and 

Alternative C would be further exacerbated. The BLM should develop more updated information released 

with the final EIS associated with the sage-grouse resource management planning process.

Comment ID: 2288

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: The removal of vast areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential restrictions 

on existing leases under Alternative B and Alternative D would also significantly restrict regional earnings, 

jobs, and tax revenue. Such alternatives are inappropriate and should be eliminated. The BLM must not 

adopt an alternative that would reduce economic development, decrease domestic energy supplies, and 

harm the local tax base.

Comment ID: 2292

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Given the dependence the State of Wyoming has on oil and gas revenues, the BLM must not 

adopt Alternative B or Alternative C as they would both have significant adverse impacts upon royalty 

earnings in the area. The BLM should explain why its economic analysis only predicts the impact between

2011 and 2020. Encana understands that BLM’s land use planning efforts are normally 20-year efforts. 

Encana believes that if the BLM used a more appropriate time frame the negative impacts associated with 

Alternative B and Alternative C would be further exacerbated. The BLM should develop more updated 

information released with the final EIS associated with the sage-grouse resource management planning 

process.

Summary: Given the dependence the State of Wyoming has on oil and gas revenues, the BLM must not 

adopt Alternative B or Alternative C as they would both have significant adverse impacts upon royalty

earnings in the area. The removal of vast areas of lands from future oil and gas development and potential 

restrictions on existing leases under Alternatives B or C would significantly restrict regional earnings, jobs, 

and tax revenue. The BLM must not adopt an alternative that would reduce economic development, 

decrease domestic energy supplies, result in a loss of jobs, and harm the local tax base.

Response: The BLM and Forest Service acknowledge the concerns with Alternatives B and C reflected in 

this comment. Economics, including jobs, earnings, royalties, and taxes for oil and gas are analyzed and

compared for all alternatives, as indicated in 'Methods of Analysis' of the Final EIS in Chapter 4. Economic 

impact results, including percent differences from Alternative A are summarized in subsequent sections of 

the socioeconomics section of the Final EIS.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-897

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Reclamation

Reclamation bonding is unnecessary

Comment ID: 2649

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 4-262, paragraph 1: Reclamation bonding is unnecessary as we are already required to 

provide bonding by both the state and federal government. As stated on page 12 of the 2007 BLM Gold 

Book, "Bonding is required (43 CFR 3104 and 36 CFR 228 Subpart E) for oil and gas lease operations in 

order to ensure that the operator performs all obligations of the lease contract, including but not limited to: 

royalty obligations, plugging leasehold wells, surface reclamation, and cleanup of abandoned operations." 

QEP has already fulfilled bonding requirements for reclamation. Furthermore, the reclamation bonding 

requirement mentioned in the DLUPA/ElS goes against current regulation and must go through a formal 

rulemaking process.

Summary: Page 4-262, paragraph 1: Reclamation bonding is unnecessary as operators are already required 

to provide bonding by both the state and federal government. As stated on page 12 of the 2007 BLM Gold 

Book, "Bonding is required (43 CFR 3104 and 36 CFR 228 Subpart E) for oil and gas lease operations in 

order to ensure that the operator performs all obligations of the lease contract, including but not limited to: 

royalty obligations, plugging leasehold wells, surface reclamation, and cleanup of abandoned operations." 

QEP has already fulfilled bonding requirements for reclamation. Furthermore, the reclamation bonding 

requirement mentioned in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS is inconsistent with current regulation and 

must go through a formal rulemaking process.

Response: In accordance with 43 CFR §3104.1, the BLM does have the authority to increase bond amounts 

for full reclamation, regardless of operator compliance history, beyond the minimum amounts established. 

Bond obligations; where "the bond amounts shall be not less than the minimum amounts described in this 

subpart in order to ensure compliance with the act, including complete and timely plugging of the well(s), 

reclamation of the lease area(s), and the restoration of any lands or surface waters adversely affected by 

lease operations after the abandonment or cessation of oil and gas operations on the lease(s) in accordance 

with, but not limited to, the standards and requirements set forth in §§3162.3 and 3162.5 of this title and 

orders issued by the authorized officer."

Soil

Appendices

Appendix B language should be edited

Comment ID: 2736

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg B-5 Text: Implement irrigation during interim or final reclamation for sites where 

establishment of seedlings has been shown or is expected to be difficult due to dry conditions. Use 

mulching, soil amendments, and/or erosion blankets to expedite reclamation and to protect soils. Comment: 

When used in conjunction, irrigation and mulching should be evaluated on a site-bysite basis to prevent 

unnecessary erosion.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-898 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: On page B-5, when used in conjunction, irrigation and mulching should be evaluated on a siteby-site basis to prevent unnecessary erosion.

Response: BLM and Forest Service concur with the comment. As clearly explained in page B-1, application 

of required design features will be analyzed and applied based on site-specific conditions.

Soil

Appendices

Appendix C language should be edited

Comment ID: 1443

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-15. The document makes a reference to soils with a pH 

greater than 7.8 become less suitable for reclamation. Much of Wyoming soils exhibit pH values greater 

than 7.8. High pH soils in Wyoming are the norm and should not be considered as anything out of the 

ordinary. Appropriate reclamation practices should be taken to mitigate these higher pH soil values, which

could be included in the approved reclamation plans.

Comment ID: 2107

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: C.2.7 Monitoring, Page C-7 1. Standard Monitoring Requirements “c. Erosion control/soil 

stability: The reclaimed area should be evaluated for any signs of erosion problems annually (until the 

timeline determined by the ESD model has been satisfied) and when the site is subject to erosional events. 

Identified erosion features should be monitored using repeat photography. Absence of erosion features is a 

positive indication that the soil is stabilizing.” The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) provides guidance concerning erosion and stabilization in accordance with their SWPPP 

requirements, and using the guidance that has already been established by WDEQ would be more suitable.

Comment ID: 678

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Soil sampling and laboratory analysis will be required to obtain some of this information. 

Anadarko suggests changing this requirement to allow proponents to conduct lab analysis only if the site

indicates a need for detailed soil analysis.

Comment ID: 1444

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-19. The appendix states “Mulch shall be applied at a 

rate that achieves 50 percent ground cover to provide protection from erosion...” Many of the requirements

in the reclamation plan will require coordination and collaboration with the Land Quality Division or other

agencies that approve reclamation plans. General statements such as mulch application rates should not be

made, but rather specific site conditions and decades of research and trial and error that has gone into site

specific reclamation plans should be utilized on a case by case basis where available.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-899

Comment ID: 2112

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Suitable Soil Inventory, Page C-14, 3rd Bullet Point In order to determine some of the 

characteristics described under this provision, it will require soil sampling and laboratory analysis. We 

suggest adding a qualifier to it in order to require proponents to conduct lab analysis only if the site indicates 

a need for detailed soil analysis, including how it will be determined that the need exists.

Comment ID: 2111

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Form 7310-12, Determination of Erosion Condition Class, Page C-12 This form is not 

referenced at any point in Appendix C, so we are at a loss as to why it is included.

Summary: Issue 1: Language should be added on page C-15 that much of the soils in Wyoming exhibit pH

values greater than 7.8. Appropriate reclamation practices should be taken to mitigate these higher pH soil 

values, which could be included in the approved reclamation plans. Issue 2: Language on page C-19 should 

be edited as general statements such as mulch application rates should not be made, but rather specific site 

conditions and decades of research and trial and error that have gone into site specific reclamation plans 

should be utilized on a case-by-case basis where available. Issue 3: On Page C-7, the WDEQ provides 

guidance concerning erosion and stabilization in accordance with their SWPPP requirements; using the 

guidance that has already been established by WDEQ would be more suitable. Issue 4: Form 7310-12, 

Determination of Erosion Condition Class, on page C-12 is not referenced at any point in Appendix C; 

clarify why it is included. Issue 5: The soil sampling and laboratory analysis requirement should be changed 

to allow proponents to conduct lab analysis only if the site indicates a need for detailed soil analysis.

Response: Issue 1: It is true that many Wyoming soils do exhibit pH values greater than 7.8, higher pH 

soils are addressed in the reclamation plan and Wyoming BLM reclamation policy. Issue 2: Ideally mulch 

application rates should be based on local soil conditions and a variety of soil characteristics but especially 

on surface horizon textures and slope. This is addressed in the Wyoming BLM reclamation policy. Issue 3: 

Wyoming DEQ guidance on erosion and stabilization is very helpful as are NRCS guidelines. The 

Wyoming BLM reclamation policy is also helpful. Issue 4: Form 7310-12, is included as another tool to 

assist in the determination of erosion class and provide site information for erosion potential and to assist 

in the development of reclamation plans. Issue 5: Detailed soil characteristics information and a soil 

sampling and analysis protocol helps to provide the best chance for successful reclamation over the long 

term.

Soil

Best available information-baseline data

Soil quality and productivity revisions

Comment ID: 2468

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Pages 3-194 and 195: We have trouble understanding how the soil quality is generally good yet 

the major resource concern is soil quality. There may need to be more explanation? The statement: "The
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-900 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

TBNG supports native grasses and shrubs grazed by cattle and sheep." Seems to be out of place or a different 

statement?

Summary: On pages 3-194 and 195, clarification is needed on how the soil quality is generally good yet the

major resource concern is soil quality. Also, the statement: "The TBNG supports native grasses and shrubs 

grazed by cattle and sheep." seems erroneous.

Response: The soil quality on the TBNG is generally good and the major resource concern is maintenance 

of the current quality. The statement that the TBNG supports native grasses and shrubs grazed by sheep

and cattle is not erroneous. A native plant is a term to describe plants endemic (indigenous) or naturalized 

to a given area in geologic time. This includes plants that have developed, occur naturally, or existed for 

many years in an area.

Soil

Impact Analysis

Alternative C language should be edited

Comment ID: 2490

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-2214.12.5 Alternative C: Strangely enough the impact of not having hoof action ever 

again in sage-grouse priority habitat due to the absolute prohibition of livestock grazing is not discussed in

Alternative C.

Summary: Page 4-221 4.12.5 The impact of not having hoof action ever again in sage-grouse priority habitat

due to the absolute prohibition of livestock grazing should be discussed.

Response: The impacts on sage-grouse habitat and all other resources from prohibiting livestock grazing 

within sage-grouse priority habitats under Alternative C are disclosed in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP

Amendments/Draft EIS. The analysis is comprehensive and is in compliance with all NEPA requirements.

Soil

Impact Analysis

Alternative E language should be edited

Comment ID: 2492

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-230 4.12.7 Alternative E: How do the BLM and Forest Service know that "Identifying 

areas that could be identified for vegetation restoration both inside and outside priority habitat could .... as

a larger area could be restored.", that a "larger area" could be restored? How do we know if restoration of 

burned areas could be accomplished through the planning area? How do we "specifically" control erosion 

as mentioned in paragraph seven?

Summary: Page 4-230 4.12.7 Clarify how the BLM and Forest Service know that in "Identifying areas that 

could be identified for vegetation restoration both inside and outside priority habitat could .... as a larger

area could be restored." that a "larger area" could be restored. Also clarify how to assess if restoration of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-901

burned areas could be accomplished through the planning area, and how to "specifically" control erosion 

as mentioned in paragraph seven.

Response: The analysis in Chapter 4 has been clarified to more accurately depict the impacts.

Soil

Impact Analysis

Edits to Assumptions

Comment ID: 669

Organization: Samson Resources Company

Name: Heather N. Smith

Comment: Section 4.12 - Soils The BLM's falsely assumes that roads and pads necessarily lead to longterm erosion impacts. Samson believes that the WDEQ's extensive regulations requiring storm water control 

and management significantly reduce erosion associated with oil and gas activities across the Planning

Area. Samson urges the BLM to reconsider this assumption.

Comment ID: 793

Organization: Devon Energy Corporation

Name: Randy Bolles

Comment: Devon disagrees with the BLM's assumption that roads and pads necessarily lead to long-term

erosion impacts. As the BLM is aware, the WDEQ has extensive regulations requiring storm water control 

and management. Devon believes these regulations significantly reduce erosion associated with oil and gas 

activities across the Planning Area. Devon urges the BLM to reconsider this assumption.

Comment ID: 1571

Organization: EOG Resources, Inc.

Name: Carlos Jallo

Comment: EOG disagrees with the BLM‘s assumption that roads and pads necessarily lead to long-term 

erosion impacts. As the BLM is aware, the WDEQ has extensive regulations requiring storm water control 

and management. EOG believes these regulations significantly reduce erosion associated with oil and gas

activities across the Planning Area. EOG urges the BLM to reconsider this assumption.

Comment ID: 2489

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-2114.12.2 Assumptions: It appears that the second bullet and third bullet are the same?

Suggest rewording the bullet to suggest that wind is only secondary to the amounts of water erosion. The 

fifth bullet "storm intensity and duration" could be plural and add snowfall accumulations in upland areas. 

In the seventh bullet add "due to soil and subsoil compaction" after "impact." In the ninth bullet please 

consider adding after "erosion.", the phrase "and successful interim reclamation ."

Comment ID: 2867

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-902 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: On page 183 under the section dealing with soils the document states that, "The introduction of

livestock, which tend to congregate in one area more than the native bison historically did, . . ."which seems 

to indicate some scientific study was conducted to reach this conclusion. However, we could not see any 

reference to that study. The author of this particular statement should provide the study which lead to the 

conclusion. Otherwise it should not be included in the document or perhaps should be identified as an 

opinion. On page 190 of Chapter 3, under the section on soil salinity, it identifies one of the major causes 

as being overgrazing. Again, we would be interested in the studies that establish this connection since there 

wasn't any identifying references provided.

Comment ID: 2293

Organization: Encana Oil and Gas

Name: Paul Ulrich

Comment: Encana disagrees with the BLM’s assumption that roads and pads necessarily lead to long-term 

erosion impacts. As the BLM is aware, the WDEQ has extensive regulations requiring storm water control 

and management. Encana believes these regulations significantly reduce erosion associated with oil and gas 

activities across the Planning Area. Encana urges the BLM to reconsider this assumption.

Summary: Issue 1: The assumption that roads and pads lead to long-term erosion impacts should be

reconsidered, as the WDEQ's extensive regulations requiring storm water control and management

significantly reduce erosion associated with oil and gas activities across the planning area. Issue 2: On page 

4-211 4.12.2 clarify if the second and third bullets should be the same. Reword the bullet to suggest that 

wind is only secondary to the amounts of water erosion. The fifth bullet "storm intensity and duration" 

could be plural and add snowfall accumulations in upland areas. In the seventh bullet add "due to soil and 

subsoil compaction" after "impact." In the ninth bullet please consider adding after "erosion." the phrase 

"and successful interim reclamation." Issue 3: On page 183, a study and reference should be provided that 

substantiates the statement that, "The introduction of livestock, which tend to congregate in one area more 

than the native bison historically did, . . ." The author of this particular statement should provide the study 

which lead to the conclusion. Otherwise it should not be included in the document or perhaps should be 

identified as an opinion. Issue 4: On page 190, a study and reference should be provided that identifies one 

of the major causes as being overgrazing.

Response: Issue #1: Although mitigation measures help to alleviate impacts on soils, the construction and

presence of roads and well pads contribute to soil erosion. The assumption is accurate and appropriate.

Issue #2: The second and third bullets are not the same. The intent is to identify water erosion as the primary 

driver of soil erosion, but that wind can also result in soil erosion. The 5th bullet is accurately stated and 

changes are not necessary. The suggested change to the 7th bullet does not appear to be an appropriate 

change. Raindrop impact is not necessarily due to soil compaction. The 7th bullet is accurately stated and 

changes are not necessary. The suggested change to the 9th bullet does not appear to be an appropriate 

change. Soil compaction does not increase successful interim reclamation. The 9th bullet is accurately 

stated and changes are not necessary. Issue #3: The statement has been removed. Issue #4: The statement 

has been removed.

Soil

Impact Analysis

Impact analysis language should be revised

Comment ID: 2461

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-903

Comment: Page 2-200 Table 2-7. Comparative Summary of Impacts - Soils: The first paragraph across all 

the Alternatives is misleading and is not reflective of the management actions below them. The lead

paragraph should be re-written to reflect the verbiage following the statement.

Summary: On page 2-200 Table 2-7, the first paragraph across all the alternatives is misleading and is not

reflective of the management actions below them. The lead paragraph should be re-written to reflect the 

verbiage following the statement.

Response: The first paragraph is not intended to directly relate to the second paragraph. The first paragraph

explains that adverse impacts to soil would occur from actions that remove vegetation. The second

paragraph explains that other actions would help to mitigate such impacts. The text is accurate and

appropriate and changes are not necessary.

Soil

Impact Analysis

Impact indicator edits

Comment ID: 2488

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-211: 4.12.1 Impact Indicators: In the amount of land statement would it include the types 

of lands surfaces classified such as clay, loam, sand?

Summary: On page 4-211 clarify if the amount of land includes the types of lands surfaces classified such 

as clay, loam, sand.

Response: The impact indicator is accurately stated. One indicator of impacts to soil resources is the amount 

of land subject to surface disturbance, regardless of the soil type. Although the soil type would affect the 

rate of erosion, such specifics are not included/reflected in the impact indicator.

Travel Management

Appendices

Appendix F edits

Comment ID: 2750

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg F-1 Text: Remove roads, unimproved roads, and two-tracks in core sage-grouse habitats 

according to travel management plans and restore sagebrush habitat. Comment: Travel management 

decisions cannot be made as part of the LUPA.

Summary: Page F-1: “Remove roads, unimproved roads, and two-tracks in core sage-grouse habitats 

according to travel management plans and restore sagebrush habitat.” Travel management decisions should

not be made as part of this plan.

Response: These decisions (remove roads, unimproved roads, and two-tracks in core sage-grouse habitats) 

will be made in the travel management plans during the route-by-route evaluation process.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-904 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Travel Management

Best available information-baseline data

Include pro-OHV studies and ID team members in planning

Comment ID: 125

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: The preparation of the document must work hard to avoid “confirmation bias. Confirmation bias 

is a tendency to favor information that confirms an individual’s or group think preconceptions or hypotheses 

regardless of whether the information is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ). Only 

studies with negative motorized conclusions have been cited. The evaluation should have included a broad 

screening of issues, information, data, opinions, and needs so that it is not based on confirmation bias and 

meets NEPA procedural requirements. One important component required to avoid confirmation bias is the 

inclusion of OHV and other motorized recreationists on the inter-disciplinary team. OHV recreationists 

must be included on the inter-disciplinary team to help avoid confirmation bias.

Summary: Only studies with negative motorized conclusions have been cited. The evaluation should have

included a broad screening of issues, information, data, opinions, and needs that meet NEPA procedural 

requirements. OHV recreationists must be included on the inter-disciplinary team to help avoid 

confirmation bias.

Response: The use of literature sources regarding the impacts of motorized vehicle use on natural resources

were used when determining how OHV use could potentially impact sage-grouse habitat and other sensitive 

resources. There are no positive impacts of OHV use on natural resources. The BLM and Forest Service 

recreation resource specialists were included as part of the interdisciplinary team that was involved in 

developing the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS.

Travel Management

Best available information-baseline data

Use data and analysis from 3-state OHV decision and National OHV Rule

Comment ID: 122

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: The 3-State OHV decision and National OHV rule require site-specific data and analysis to be 

used in any actions that could affect OHV recreation.

Summary: The 3-State OHV decision and National OHV rule require site-specific data and analysis to be 

used in any actions that could affect OHV recreation.

Response: Prior to initiation of a Travel Management Plan (TMP) all roads and trails within the travel

management area (TMA) are 100% ground-truthed via an inventory. During the TMP process each

individual road and trail (motorized and non-motorized) go through a route-by-route evaluation to

determine purpose and need, condition, types of use, etc. prior to a proposed designation. In January 2001, 

BLM issued the National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public Lands. 

This strategy is a comprehensive effort to address a significant issue for natural resource management. This 

document was a first step in developing a proactive approach to determine and implement better on-the-
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-905

ground motorized off-highway vehicle management solutions designed to conserve soil, wildlife, water 

quality, native vegetation, air quality, heritage resources, and other resources. The purpose and need of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse planning effort is limited to making land use planning decisions specific to the 

conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. During the travel management planning process that will 

occur under a separate NEPA analysis effort, the BLM may offer cooperating agency status to multiple 

government entities and agencies to assist in developing route designations.

Travel Management

Cooperating agency relationships

Work with cooperators for route management

Comment ID: 132

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: The amendments should recognize that local agency recreation planners and managers are the 

best suited to work with motorized stakeholders to establish a manageable, designated, user and nature

friendly route network for motorized access. This includes access roadways away from paved highways; 

high clearance routes for pickups, jeeps and other 4WD vehicles; that can be shared under mixed-use by 

other OHV categories such as trail bikes, ATV/UTV and/or OSV in the winter. Just as important to the 

motorized community are rural 2 track routes, ATV width trails, and trail bike singletrack width routes.

Comment ID: 131

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: Regarding recreation, the plan amendments should direct local land managers to cooperate and

coordinate with local governments and affected stakeholders to establish achievable goals for protection of 

the Grouse (lek /nest disturbance, wintering areas and sage habitat degradation) and to mitigate potential 

affects upon recreation through closure of existing, inventoried and managed routes.

Summary: Regarding recreation, the plan amendments should direct local land managers to cooperate and

coordinate with local governments and affected stakeholders to establish achievable goals for protection of 

the sage-grouse and to mitigate potential affects on recreation through closure of existing, inventoried, and 

managed routes. The amendments should recognize that local agency recreation planners and managers are 

the best suited to work with motorized stakeholders to establish a manageable, designated, user and nature

friendly route network for motorized access. This includes access roadways away from paved highways for 

high clearance routes for pickups, jeeps, and other 4WD vehicles that can be shared under mixed-use by 

other OHV categories such as trail bikes, ATV/UTV, and OSVs in the winter. Just as important to the 

motorized community are rural 2 track routes, ATV width trails, and trail bike single-track width routes.

Response: During the travel management planning process that will occur under a separate NEPA analysis

effort, the BLM will offer cooperating agency status to multiple government entities and agencies to assist 

in developing route designations.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-906 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Travel Management

Impact Analysis

Non-motorized impacts should not be lumped in with motorized impacts

Comment ID: 133

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: Any plan amendment should include adequate site-specific analysis on anticipated impacts of

motorized and non-motorized recreational activities, which often have little to no impact on wildlife. The 

impacts of motorized and mountain bike routes that are primarily used for recreation should not be "lumped 

in" with highways and other high-speed access roads.

Summary: Any plan amendment should include adequate site-specific analysis on anticipated impacts of

motorized and non-motorized recreational activities, which often have little to no impact on wildlife. The 

impacts of motorized and mountain bike routes that are primarily used for recreation should not be "lumped 

in" with highways and other high-speed access roads.

Response: The analysis of environmental consequences in Chapter 4 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft 

EIS provides a detailed analysis of the management actions included in Chapter 2, including an analysis of 

the impacts of motorized travel and associated restrictions on all resource values and uses. The BLM and 

Forest Service agree the impacts are not inappropriately lumped together; the analysis provides the 

information needed to make informed decisions regarding resource management within the planning area. 

General evaluations of impacts should be made on site-specific or areaspecific basis due to the many 

interrelated factors affecting them. They do, however, offer the following generalizations regarding the 

impacts of various trail uses: backpacking causes more damage than hiking without a pack; hiking and 

backpacking cause greater changes to trails than walking; horses and packstock cause greater damage than 

hiking; trail biking causes more damage than hiking; and track-driven vehicles cause more damage than 

wheel driven vehicles.

Travel Management

Impact Analysis

The relative magnitude and comparative impacts of OHV must be considered

Comment ID: 126

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: An adequate sense of magnitude must be employed within the analysis and decision-making. 

For example, the total naturally occurring loss of soil from the Cibola National Forest is estimated to be on 

the order of 1,577 acre-feet per year (1,892,000 acres total forest area times a depth of 0.008 feet of soil 

loss per year). The loss associated with OHV use is on the order of 52 acre-feet (5,200 acres of roads and 

trails times a depth of 0.01 feet of soil loss per year). Therefore, the soil erosion associated with OHV 

recreation is relatively insignificant compared to the naturally occurring erosion rate and acceptable for 

multiple-use lands. Moreover, there are many mitigation measures that can be employed to reduce soil 

erosion on roads and trails while still allowing the public to enjoy them. Other examples that should be part 

of the evaluation include the naturally occurring mortality rate of sage grouse compared to the mortality 

rate associated with OHV recreation. The evaluation and disclosure to the public must include the analysis 

and a comparison of the magnitude of OHV impacts to naturally occurring impacts for all resource areas 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-907

used to assess impacts based on site-specific data. Lack of the comparison of impacts to naturally occurring 

levels combined with the lack of sitespecific data could allow inaccurate statements and opinions due to the 

lack of an adequate sense of magnitude.

Summary: An adequate sense of magnitude must be employed within the impacts analysis. For example, 

the total naturally occurring loss of soil from the Cibola National Forest is estimated to be on the order of

1,577 acre-feet per year (1,892,000 acres total forest area times a depth of 0.008 feet of soil loss per year). 

The loss associated with OHV use is on the order of 52 acre-feet (5,200 acres of roads and trails times a 

depth of 0.01 feet of soil loss per year). Therefore, the soil erosion associated with OHV recreation is 

relatively insignificant compared to the naturally occurring erosion rate and acceptable for multiple-use 

lands. Moreover, there are many mitigation measures that can be employed to reduce soil erosion on roads 

and trails while still allowing the public to enjoy them. The analysis must include a comparison of the 

magnitude of OHV impacts to naturally occurring impacts for all resource areas used to assess impacts 

based on site-specific data. Lack of the comparison of impacts to naturally occurring levels combined with 

the lack of site-specific data could allow inaccurate statements and opinions due to the lack of an adequate 

sense of magnitude.

Response: The BLM will ensure that OHV use follows the travel and transportation plan within each RMP, 

which would limit the amount of erosion. This would include but not be limited to seasonal use restrictions.

Guidelines in 43 CFR 8342 ensure that undue environmental degradation would not occur. The soil loss 

from naturally occurring erosion is assumed to be the same across all alternatives. The analysis focuses on 

comparing the erosion loss, above naturally occurring erosion, between the alternatives presented.

Travel Management

Mitigation measures

Road mitigation measures need to be clarified

Comment ID: 416

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Yates is not opposed to the road location/construction stipulations proposed under Alternative 

E. However, this method of applying such stipulations based on use could be problematic and confusing as 

road use cannot always be clearly categorized.

Summary: Road location and construction stipulations proposed under Alternative E are confusing and

problematic because road use cannot always be clearly categorized.

Response: Some roads and trails are more difficult to clearly categorize. A transportation route inventory 

may be used during the land use planning process to: 1) define current conditions and develop the

management situation analysis, 2) quantify land use planning issues, 3) formulate land use plan alternatives, 

4) describe an affected environment, 5) conduct an impact analysis, 6) implement and support land use plan 

decisions, and 7) monitor change in resource conditions.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

Consider operating standards and local travel plans

Comment ID: 2722
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-908 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Sweetwater County

Name: Mark Kot

Comment: Sweetwater County requests that the Draft LUPA and EIS, in its travel management alternatives, 

take into account the ongoing and extensive Transportation and Travel Planning coordination efforts that

Sweetwater County the BLM High Desert District have been engaged in. Also, because of Sweetwater

County extensive county road network and the need to maintain this network, Sweetwater County request 

that the BLM insert into its management preferred alternatives the need to coordinate with local 

governments and stakeholder prior to making decision that affect the transportation network of the County.

Comment ID: 2984

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: The ability for counties to maintain county roads in the Planning Area (including "core" areas) 

is vital to protect public health and safety. The Plan must note that critical necessity by exempting road

maintenance-for example, grading, culvert replacement, and bridge repair-on existing rights-of-way from 

disruptive activities.

Comment ID: 2577

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 3-337 Transportation and Access Management discussion. Comment: BLM must state that 

it relies on Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development 

during the design for any roadways. The BLM must also incorporate local government and county Travel

and Transportation Plans (see attached) in its analysis of the affected environment. The Coalition notes that 

the BLM has not accurately described the existing travel and transportation elements in Sublette, 

Sweetwater and Lincoln Counties, and although no transportation decisions may be made as part of this 

document, the BLM must fully analyze and disclose the affected environment.

Summary: BLM must state that it relies on Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas

Exploration and Development during the design for any roadways. The BLM must also incorporate local 

government and county Travel and Transportation Plans in its analysis of the affected environment. Insert 

into the Preferred Alternative the need to coordinate with local governments and stakeholder prior to 

making decisions that affect the transportation network of local entities. The ability for counties to maintain 

county roads in the planning area is vital to protect public health and safety. The plan must note that critical 

necessity by exempting road maintenance, for example grading, culvert replacement, and bridge repair on 

existing ROWs from disruptive activities.

Response: New stipulations can only be imposed in conformance with 43 CFR 2805.15(e).

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

Do not limit motorized travel

Comment ID: 116

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-909

Comment: Multiple uses of our public lands are marginalized every time a forest plan or resource 

management plan or travel management plan comes up for action. The motorized closure trend has created

significant cumulative effects and has reached the point where it is causing severe public distress.

Reasonable alternatives to motorized closures must be pursued. The continual loss of motorized recreational 

opportunities is our primary concern. Because of the significant cumulative effect of motorized closures at 

this point in time, we feel strongly that there can be “no net loss” of motorized recreational opportunities 

with the Sage Grouse Plan.

Comment ID: 1990

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: Travel Management: WSGA requests that, under travel management (Action Numbers 86-91), 

a statement be added that no existing roads would be removed within the core habitat area where such roads 

were deemed necessary to foster appropriate grazing management or to access nonfederal lands.

Comment ID: 114

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: All of these multiple-use visitors use roads and motorized trails for their recreational purposes 

and the decision must take into account motorized designations serve many recreation activities, not just

recreational trail riding. We have observed that 97% of the visitors to this area are there to enjoy motorized 

access and motorized recreation.

Comment ID: 1787

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: BRC believes that “trail” construction or reconstruction should be allowed to address 

environmental or recreational needs as they arise. BRC is concerned future unit level travel planning has 

the potential to greatly affect/impact all aspects of motorized/mechanized recreation, from traditional 

camping, hunting and fishing access to access for photography, bird watching, mountain biking, boating, 

cross country skiing and wilderness areas. Most of all, this proposal could have a serious negative impact 

on casual OHV use and permitted special events such as enduros, trials, hare-scrambles and dual sport rides. 

All forms and aspects of motorized recreation --off-highway/off road motorcycle, dual sport/adventure 

sport motorcycle, ATV, SBS, OSV, 4WD and even all street legal vehicles -- could be adversely yet

unjustifiably impacted, should the agency craft a “one size fits all” decision.

Comment ID: 145

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: As members of the OHV community, we strongly support responsible OHV recreation on public

lands. Modern OHV management tools are being used throughout the West to protect our natural resources. 

We believe those proven techniques have already been embraced by many federal and state land 

management agencies to allow for managed OHV recreation while protecting important species such as the 

Northern Spotted Owl, redlegged frog, and snowy plover. We believe those same management principles 

can be used to enhance the bistate sage grouse population in the Wyoming.

Comment ID: 139
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-910 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: These seasonal use and timing restrictions are problematic for public access to public lands. Doe 

the agencies anticipate creating special stipulations for OHV and public access?

Comment ID: 118

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: We often hear others say that the BLM and Forest Service are going to close our roads and trails

regardless of what we say or do. Another common comment is “Why are motorized recreationists the only 

ones to lose in every action?” We are very concerned about the perception of a federal agencies with a 

stated commitment to equal program delivery. We urge the BLM and Forest Service to address this 

significant issue by developing a preferred alternative based on no impacts to motorized access and 

motorized recreation.

Comment ID: 136

Organization:

Name: CTVA Action Committee

Comment: The analysis should include the fact that the BLM, Forest Service, state, county, local and tribal 

land management agencies are moving towards a "limited to designated route" paradigm. This process

should prioritize areas where such planning has not yet occurred. We strongly believe that the goals,

objectives and new paradigm can be met without severely limiting or restricting responsible, managed 

motorized recreation uses within the planning area.

Comment ID: 13

Organization: Mackay School of Earth Sciences and Engineering

Name: Thom Seal

Comment: Do not limit motorized travel for ranchers to access their grazing allotment to inspect vegetation 

and salt their livestock, as well as for miners to access their claims, and for exploration of valuable mineral 

deposits. These roads are also important for off road recreation vehicles (ORV). Many of these roads lead 

to old pioneer grave sites. Also a lot of our people have their loved ones ashes buried in these remote sites 

only accessed by these roads and trails. This is part of the Custom and Culture of the western US. The roads 

for the most part existed before the creation of BLM/USFS and therefore fall under RS2477 and are under 

the Counties jurisdiction and control.

Comment ID: 2346

Organization: Western Fuels Association Inc.

Name: Beth Goodnough

Comment: Alternatives B & C within priority and general habitat would eliminate the ability for the 

upgrading of existing roads that would change road category, unless it was necessary for motorist safety or 

it eliminated the need to construct a new road. This stipulation could prevent Western Fuels and our

affiliated coal suppliers from accessing and, therefore upgrading or maintaining existing facilities. Western 

Fuels suggests that the Agencies provide emergency access, and make provisions for access to valid existing 

ROWs. Also, new road construction would be prohibited within 4 miles of active sagegrouse lek, and 

avoided in priority or general habitat. As currently written, without exemptions, this language could prevent 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-911

our electric utility suppliers, mining operations and affiliated coal suppliers from upgrading or maintaining 

facilities if they were within 4 miles of a lek.

Comment ID: 2609

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Pages 2-96 - 2-97, Table 2-1, Action 88, Alternative E: No new large roads (primary, secondary,

collector and local) within 1.9 miles of occupied leks or any roads within 0.6 mile of occupied leks would 

be allowed in core habitat areas. This will likely lead to an unanticipated number of new long resource 

(small) roads which could have a larger adverse effect due to increased road miles disturbed and traveled. 

It is suggested that the 1.9 mile restriction be dropped and that allowance for sitespecific analysis be 

included that will consider traffic and disturbance acreages such that one or both of these items are 

minimized in the long-term.

Comment ID: 3050

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2‐ 1 2‐ 96 through 2‐ 97 Action 88 Alt E No new large roads (primary, secondary, 

collector and local) within 1.9 miles of occupied leks or within 0.6 mile for all roads would be allowed in 

core. This will likely lead to an unanticipated number of new long resource (small) roads which could have 

a larger adverse affect due to increased road miles disturbed and traveled. It is suggested that the 1.9-- ‐

mile restriction be dropped and that allowance for site‐ ‐ ‐ specific analyses be included that consider

traffic and disturbance acreages such that one or both of these items are minimized in the long-- ‐ term.

Comment ID: 3038

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-17, action 18: Travel management plans should incorporate areas that ARE

available to recreate with increasing ORV use and public participation in development of the plans.

Summary: Issue #1: Do not limit motorized travel for ranchers to access their grazing allotment, for miners 

to access their claims and for exploration of valuable mineral deposits, or for off road recreation vehicle

(ORV) use. Issue #2: Action 18: Travel management plans should incorporate areas that ARE available to

recreate with increasing ORV use and public participation in development of the plans. Issue #3: Action 

88, Alternative E: No new large roads (primary, secondary, collector and local) within 1.9 miles of occupied 

leks or any roads within 0.6 mile of occupied leks would be allowed in core habitat areas. This will likely 

lead to an unanticipated number of new long resource (small) roads which could have a larger adverse effect 

due to increased road miles disturbed and traveled. Drop the 1.9 mile restriction and allow for site-specific 

analysis that will consider traffic and disturbance acreages. Issue #4: Action 86-91: Add a statement that 

no existing roads would be removed within the core habitat area where such roads were deemed necessary 

to foster appropriate grazing management or to access non-federal lands. Roads and access are part of the 

western culture and many are RS-2477 claims. The cumulative loss of motorized closures is of concern. 

There should be “no net loss” of motorized recreational opportunities with the LUP Amendments. Consider 

creating special stipulations for OHV and public access. Agencies are moving towards a "limited to 

designated route" paradigm. The goals, objectives, and new paradigm can be met without severely limiting 

or restricting responsible, managed motorized recreation uses within the planning area. Issue #5: Trail 

construction or reconstruction should be allowed to address environmental or recreational needs as they 

arise. Future unit level travel planning has the potential to greatly impact all aspects of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-912 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

motorized/mechanized recreation, from traditional camping, hunting and fishing access to access for 

photography, bird watching, mountain biking, boating, cross country skiing and wilderness areas. This plan 

could have a serious negative impact on casual OHV use and permitted special events such as enduros, 

trials, hare-scrambles, and dual sport rides. All forms and aspects of motorized recreation --off-highway/off 

road motorcycle, dual sport/adventure sport motorcycle, ATV, SBS, OSV, 4WD and even all street legal 

vehicles could be adversely yet unjustifiably impacted, should the agency craft a “one size fits all” decision.

Issue #6: Alternatives B and C within priority and general habitat would eliminate the ability for the

upgrading of existing roads that would change road category, unless it was necessary for motorist safety or 

it eliminated the need to construct a new road. Also, new road construction would be prohibited within 4 

miles of active sage-grouse lek, and avoided in priority or general habitat. These stipulations could prevent 

operators from accessing and upgrading or maintaining existing facilities. The plan should allow emergency 

access and access to valid existing ROWs.

Response: Issue #1: The management actions in the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS do not limit access 

to grazing allotments by livestock operators. Under all alternatives, motorized travel would continue to be 

allowed on all existing roads and trails until travel management planning is completed. Issue #2: Travel 

management plans would assess all routes within the planning area and determine whether those routes 

should be open, closed, or limited to motorized and non-motorized travel. Therefore, travel management 

plans do indeed identify areas that are available to motorized travel. Issue #3: Management action #88 does 

not preclude the construction of new roads within sagegrouse core habitat areas. The action states the 

following: “New primary and secondary (BLM route category) or Route Category level 4 and 5 (Forest 

Service) roads would be avoided within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within 

sage-grouse core habitat areas. Other new roads would be avoided within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within core habitat areas.” It is possible that this action could result in an 

increased number of small (non primary and secondary) roads; however, such roads would also be restricted 

within 0.6 miles of occupied sagegrouse leks. Overall the action would reduce the number of primary and 

secondary roads within 1.9 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks and reduce the number of other roads within 

0.6 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks, thereby providing needed protection to sage-grouse populations 

and habitat. Issue #4: The actions suggested in the comment have not been be added to the LUP 

Amendments, as the assessment of whether roads should be designated as closed, open, or limited will be

conducted as part of the travel management planning process. Issue #5: The issues raised in the comment 

will be addressed as part of the travel management planning process. Therefore, the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS includes continues to allow motorized travel on all existing roads and trails until 

travel management planning is completed. Issue #6: The Alternative B and C management actions 

identified in the comment would not prevent operators from accessing, upgrading, or maintaining existing 

facilities. All existing routes would be open for motorized travel under all of the alternatives. The actions 

identified in the comment would only prevent routes from being upgraded to a different route category, but 

would not prevent travel on such routes that might be needed to access existing facilities. Emergency access 

is always available, provided the user coordinates with the BLM and Forest Service to obtain approval for

emergency access.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

OHV area designation suggestions

Comment ID: 1791

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-913

Comment: The proposed OHV management prescriptions in the Draft LUPA’s preferred alternative (Alt. 

E) has identified the need to eliminate cross-country travel (on non-open sand areas) in the project area

where BLM lands are “open” to cross-country travel. Again, BRC in general supports this concept, but

cautions the agency from any blanket statement that precludes the designation or retention of “Open” OHV 

areas where said use is appropriate.

Comment ID: 1794

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: OHV Management Guideline One: Limit Use to Existing and/or Designated Roads and Trails

Overview: On Forest Service lands, no off-road driving is allowed; the BLM does allow some crosscountry

travel in “Open” areas. Existing travel routes on BLM have not been completely evaluated through a travel 

management planning process and have not been completely “designated.” The current OHV designation 

for much of the BLM managed land in the amendment area is “open” to unrestricted cross-country travel. 

The few route designation plans that have been undertaken on BLM managed lands in Wyoming has 

focused almost entirely on the road network and have not included existing trails (routes not commonly for 

use by full size vehicles) in their inventories. Because of the wide dispersal of these trails and low 

population density surrounding most Wyoming BLM managed lands-these trails often retain their primitive 

or semi-primitive character. This leads to these trails being omitted from inventories that rely heavily on 

satellite imagery instead of on the ground surveys. “Open” to cross-country travel is an important 

recreational opportunity and is appropriate at units such as the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond 

Cooperative Management Unit, and the Great Sand Dune Recreation Area. Prescription: Except where 

“Open” OHV use is appropriate (i.e. sand dunes, specific geographic locations, designated/destination OHV 

areas, etc.), prohibit cross-country travel as the agency’s primary OHV management tool. Limit OHV use 

to existing road and trail use where travel plans have not yet been completed and restrict OHV use to 

designated roads and trails where travel plans have been completed. Casual driving and use of existing or 

designated trails should be considered a diffuse disturbance with no long-term effects.

Summary: Except where “Open” OHV use is appropriate (i.e. sand dunes, specific geographic locations,

designated/destination OHV areas, etc.), prohibit cross-country travel as the agency’s primary OHV

management tool. Limit OHV use to existing road and trail use where travel plans have not yet been

completed and restrict OHV use to designated roads and trails where travel plans have been completed. 

Casual driving and use of existing or designated trails should be considered a diffuse disturbance with no 

long-term effects.

Response: Casual driving as well as recreational trail riding in most areas, is the desired activity by the 

largest segment of the enthusiast population. All trail use, regardless of travel mode, impacts natural

resources. Several factors influence impacts to resources, including wildlife, from casual or permitted

activities.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

OHV noise reduction

Comment ID: 1796

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-914 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: OHV Management Guideline Three – OHV Sound Restriction Overview: Although there are 

not studies specifically focused on the noise effects of OHV use on the Grouse, there are OHV noise studies 

related to the Northern Spotted Owl (specifically OHV events) and other wildlife. At least one project 

shows that noise levels could affect the breeding success of the owl. BRC believes that noise impacts to 

wildlife must be addressed when managing routes for OHV use. Land managers in states that do not have 

any statewide OHV sound laws should consider adopting sound laws for special management areas or units 

that have been designated as critical habitat. (40 CFR, Chapter 1, Section 201.158) Prescription: Consider 

adopting a defensible standard, such as the 2003 California State OHV Sound Law which states, “Sound

emissions of competitive off-highway vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1998, shall be limited 

to not more than 96 dBA, and if manufactured prior to January 1, 1998, to not more than 101 dBA, when 

measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive 

Engineers under Standard J-1287, as applicable. Sound emissions of all other off-highway vehicles shall be 

limited to not more than 96 dBA if manufactured on or after January 1, 1986, and not more than 101 dBA 

if manufactured prior to January 1, 1986, when measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures 

established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J-1287, as applicable.”

Summary: Noise from OHVs can impact sage-grouse. Consider adopting a defensible standard for OHV 

Sound Restrictions, such as the 2003 California State OHV Sound Law which states, “Sound emissions of

competitive off-highway vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1998, shall be limited to not more 

than 96 dBA, and if manufactured prior to January 1, 1998, to not more than 101 dBA, when measured 

from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures established by the Society of Automotive Engineers 

under Standard J-1287, as applicable. Sound emissions of all other off-highway vehicles shall be limited to 

not more than 96 dBA if manufactured on or after January 1, 1986, and not more than 101 dBA if 

manufactured prior to January 1, 1986, when measured from a distance of 20 inches using test procedures 

established by the Society of Automotive Engineers under Standard J- 1287, as applicable.”

Response: The BLM and Forest Service do not have the authority to implement noise restrictions on 

individual OHV vehicles. However, they can implement noise restrictions on the lands they manage. 

Therefore, management action 136 in Chapter 2 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS provides a 

reasonable range of alternatives regarding noise restrictions within specific distances of sage-grouse leks.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

OHV use must be restricted to protect sage-grouse

Comment ID: 1802

Organization: The Wilderness Society

Name: Nada Culver

Comment: This EIS must include an inventory of the existing route network, an analysis of impacts to 

sagegrouse from that network, and initial OHV closures to protect the most sensitive and important habitat. 

BLM should establish a preliminary travel plan in accordance with the agency’s Land Use Planning 

Handbook that includes route density thresholds for priority areas, establishes a prioritization scheme for 

future travel planning to ensure important habitat undergoes travel planning in a timely manner, and puts 

in place criteria and standards for future route designations. There should be no new road construction in 

priority habitat until comprehensive travel planning is complete so BLM can adequately evaluate impacts, 

including cumulative impacts. BLM should adopt seasonal closures and lek buffer zones that are consistent 

with current scientific literature.

Comment ID: 3113
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-915

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The RMP should avoid and discourage construction of new infrastructure. Audubon supports

Alternative B as presented in the DEIS at 4-339. The plan needs to assure adequate budget and staffing to 

pursue inventories and closures, including rehabilitation to benefit wildlife habitat. The Lander FEIS 

properly notes that “simply closing an eroding road without alleviating soil compaction and reseeding can 

be successful in some cases and very unsuccessful in others, leading to more adverse impacts from INNS 

invasion.” Lander RMP FEIS at 810. Across the planning area, reduced road densities will reduce 

fragmentation and improve habitat. Ensuring no net increase in road density might be a condition of 

approval for new road proposals. A combination of protection (avoidance of no new infrastructure), 

especially in relatively undeveloped areas, and rehabilitation will best achieve habitat goals. Avoidance of 

invasive nonnative species through additional disturbances that degrade habitat is another important 

infrastructure and road issue.

Summary: This EIS must include an inventory of the existing route network, an analysis of impacts to 

sagegrouse from that network, and initial OHV closures to protect the most sensitive and important habitat. 

BLM should establish a preliminary travel plan in accordance with the agency’s Land Use Planning 

Handbook that includes route density thresholds for priority areas, establishes a prioritization scheme for 

future travel planning to ensure important habitat undergoes travel planning in a timely manner, and puts 

in place criteria and standards for future route designations. There should be no new road construction in 

priority habitat until comprehensive travel planning is complete so BLM can adequately evaluate impacts, 

including cumulative impacts. BLM should adopt seasonal closures and lek buffer zones that are consistent 

with current scientific literature. The LUP Amendments should avoid and discourage construction of new 

infrastructure. Across the planning area, reduced road densities will reduce fragmentation and improve 

habitat. Ensuring no net increase in road density should be a condition of approval for new road proposals. 

A combination of protection, especially in relatively undeveloped areas, and rehabilitation will best achieve 

habitat goals.

Response: The existing transportation system within the planning areas is shown on Map 3-20 in the Draft 

LUP Amendments/Draft EIS. The management actions that address travel and motorized vehicle use

(management actions #86-92) address new route construction and route densities. The actions will provide 

appropriate protections to sage-grouse habitat until comprehensive travel management planning can be 

completed.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

OHV-related sage-grouse conservation measures need to be added

Comment ID: 348

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: For Wyoming, BLM notes that “the lack of appropriate signage, a shortage of law enforcement

personnel, the increase of OHV use throughout the planning area, and a general lack of understanding of 

land use ethics have increased inappropriate uses of OHVs on federal lands and represent management 

challenges for the BLM.” DEIS at 3-339. With this in mind, we are concerned that conservation measures 

prescribed in the RMP Amendment will be undermined by noncompliance. The final RMP Amendment 

should include measures to address the above-noted deficiencies in education and enforcement regarding 

off-road vehicle use.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-916 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 1696

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Close 

existing trails and roads to achieve an open road and trail density not greater than 1 km/km2.120

Comment ID: 1700

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --All travel 

must be on designated open roads and trails, subject to seasonal restrictions.

Comment ID: 1693

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --All travel 

must be on designated open roads and trails, subject to seasonal restrictions.

Comment ID: 1697

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --During travel 

management planning evaluate the closure of secondary and primary roads in the SGRA.

Comment ID: 1694

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Seasonal 

restriction should include the periods of courtship, nesting and early brood raising, as well as times when 

the grouse are on wintering habitats.

Comment ID: 1695

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --No new trail 

construction within 7.6 km of active leks.

Comment ID: 1701

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Seasonal 

restriction should include the periods of courtship and nesting, as well as times when the grouse are on 

wintering habitats.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-917

Summary: For Wyoming, BLM notes that “the lack of appropriate signage, a shortage of law enforcement

personnel, the increase of OHV use throughout the planning area, and a general lack of understanding of 

land use ethics have increased inappropriate uses of OHVs on federal lands and represent management 

challenges for the BLM.” Conservation measures will be undermined by noncompliance. The Proposed 

LUP Amendments should include measures to address deficiencies in education and enforcement regarding 

off-road vehicle use. Specific conservation measures to include in the Proposed LUP Amendments includes 

the following: All travel must be on designated open roads and trails, subject to seasonal restrictions.

Seasonal restrictions should include the periods of courtship, nesting and early brood raising, as well as 

times when the grouse are on wintering habitats. No new trail construction within 7.6 kilometers of active 

leks. Close existing trails and roads to achieve an open road and trail density not greater than 1 km/km2.

During travel management planning evaluate the closure of secondary and primary roads in the SGRA.

Response: The issues raised in the comment will be specifically addressed in the travel management 

planning process that will be conducted after the completion of the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS 

in a separate NEPA analysis.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

Reduce restrictions on permitted recreation events

Comment ID: 1795

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: OHV Management Guideline Two – Limited Operating Period for OHV Permitted Events

Overview: There are motorized special events in the planning area, some could occur in June. These might 

include competitive motorcycle races, OHV and other vehicle races, competitive horse endurance rides, 

organized camping events, and competitive mountain bike races. Lekking occurs between March 1 and 

May 15. Prescription: Between March 1 and May 15, prohibit OHV events from using routes that pass 

through an active lek. Impose a time of day restriction (after 10 a.m.) for routes that pass within 1⁄4 mile of 

an active lek. The proposed 1.9 to- 4 mile lek buffers referenced in Alt. E are unwarranted.

Summary: Between March 1 and May 15, prohibit OHV events from using routes that pass through an 

active lek. Impose a time of day restriction (after 10 a.m.) for routes that pass within 1⁄4 mile of an active 

lek. The proposed 1.9 to 4 mile lek buffers referenced in Alternative E are unwarranted.

Response: The management action regarding OHV events that is specified in the comment is not included 

in the range of alternatives in Chapter 2 of the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUP

Amendments/Draft EIS. The 1.9-mile lek buffer only applies to the construction of new roads, which may 

be necessary to help conserve sage-grouse habitat.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

Route minimization process should be conducted

Comment ID: 1337

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-918 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Page ix. states that the EIS will "consider vehicle use and roads within core habitat, as well as

potential for reduced access to BLM and Forest Service lands from the new management for sage grouse" 

but the EIS completely fails to conduct a route minimization process in accordance with BLM regulations. 

We refer the BLM to the recent ruling in the Richfield RMP regarding this issue.

Summary: The EIS fails to conduct a route minimization process in accordance with BLM regulations, as 

per the recent ruling in the Richfield RMP.

Response: The issues raised in the comment will be specifically addressed in the travel management 

planning process that will be conducted after the completion of the Sage-grouse LUP Amendments in a

separate NEPA analysis.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

Transportation planning should not be part of LUP Amendments

Comment ID: 1786

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: BRC agrees with the preferred Alternative E rationale for the decision (Chapter 2, pages 3 & 4) 

to eliminate OHV area closures from this process. BRC agrees with the preferred Alternative E decision 

that identifies the appropriate planning level to evaluate closed OHV areas and routes is during field office 

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

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

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

and appropriate inventories would be conducted or local level information would be available in order to 

make sitespecific decisions related to area closures. OHV decisions at the BLM field office/Forest Service

district scale would take all resource conflicts and uses into consideration, not just sage-grouse. The massive 

scale of this programmatic EIS amendment is not conducive to providing detailed analysis concerning this 

decision.

Comment ID: 2838

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 19 in Table 2-1 indicates that regardless of alternative adopted the Agencies will complete

within 5 years after the record of decision (ROD) an activity-level travel plan. We again ask if this is a

reasonable time frame for the Agencies and what the potential implications could be should they not comply 

with this portion of the LUP.

Summary: The appropriate planning level to evaluate closed OHV areas and routes is during field office 

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

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

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

and appropriate inventories would be conducted or local level information would be available in order to 

make site-specific decisions related to area closures. OHV decisions at the BLM field office/Forest Service 

district scale would take all resource conflicts and uses into consideration, not just sage-grouse. The massive 

scale of this programmatic EIS amendment is not conducive to providing detailed analysis concerning this 

decision. Action 19 in Table 2-1 indicates that regardless of alternative adopted, the agencies will complete
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-919

within 5 years after the record of decision (ROD) an activity-level travel plan. This is not a reasonable time 

frame.

Response: OHV area designations and route designations are not included in the planning process for the 

LUP Amendments, except for one action that addresses OHV Open areas, as cross-country OHV use has

the potential to significantly affect sage-grouse habitat. A comprehensive travel and transportation

management plan will be conducted within five years of the Record of Decision for the LUP Amendments.

Travel Management

Range of alternatives

Transportation plans must consider sage-grouse habitat fragmentation.

Comment ID: 1372

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Page 4-273 states that "completing activity level travel plans within 5 years of the record of 

decision would provide each BLM and Forest Service office the opportunity to address and analyze

transportation routes that fragment greater sage grouse habitat". To provide Pinedale as an example, they 

have completed travel planning nowhere on the field office in the 5 years since the record of decision was 

signed. In only one subset of the field office, the Boulder landscape area, has the BLM even begun this 

process and the proposed action is to close no roads within the analysis area. In fact, sage grouse habitat 

fragmentation was not even considered within that process.

Summary: Page 4-273 states that "completing activity level travel plans within 5 years of the record of 

decision would provide each BLM and Forest Service office the opportunity to address and analyze

transportation routes that fragment Greater Sage-Grouse habitat.” This transportation planning is not taking 

place in the 5-year time frame and where it has begun, sage-grouse habitat fragmentation has not been 

considered.

Response: The BLM is currently conducting road and trail inventories in sage-grouse priority areas. This 

is a huge endeavor and as a result in the loss of staff, inventories are contracted out and the cost is exorbitant

exceeding $125/per mile. Funding to assist in accomplishing these inventories was received in FY13 and 

14 and only covers a percentage of lands in sage-grouse priority areas. TMAs in sage-grouse priority areas 

have been mapped and prioritized for inventories. Although it is anticipated that travel management plans 

would be initiated once an inventory is completed, it is almost impossible that all lands within sage-grouse 

priority and connecting areas will be completed within this five-year time period. If a TMP has been 

initiated in an area that isn't controversial, a plan can be accomplished under an Environmental Assessment. 

If the area has controversial issues, an EIS would need to be initiated. Either way, public involvement is 

required and the minimum period for completing plans is two years. Comprehensive travel and 

transportation management will occur within five years of the record of decision for the Wyoming Greater 

Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments planning effort. Sagegrouse habitat fragmentation will be considered 

during the travel management planning process.

Vegetation-Other

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management support

Comment ID: 2825
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-920 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On the same page, the third bullet mentions that the Agencies will "develop vegetation 

management objectives . . ." but leaves it up in the air as to what those objectives will be. Since part of the 

NEPA process is to provide information to the public about possible actions, the document needs to expand 

on what the objectives will be for the Agencies. Also on the same page under the fourth bullet it states that 

LUP amendments will be based on the "principles of Adaptive Management." We would repeat our earlier 

comments regarding adherence to the Department of Interior's technical guide on adaptive management.

Comment ID: 2522

Organization: Converse County

Name: Richard C. Grant

Comment: Table K-3, p, K-18, MA 89: This action requires the agencies to manage vegetation for the site

potential, which may not be attainable except under ideal climatic conditions. We recommend that

incremental adaptive management be used in implementation of this action.

Summary: Issue 1: In Table K-3, p, K-18, MA 89, adaptive management should be required to implement 

this action. Issue 2: The document needs to expand on what vegetation management objectives will be

developed for the agencies, and there must be adherence to the Department of Interior's technical guide on 

adaptive management.

Response: Issue 1: As referenced in In Table K-3, p, K-18, MA 89, vegetation management within sagegrouse core and general habitat would reflect ESDs or other methods that reference site potential. Adaptive

management strategies would be used to achieve vegetative objectives. Issue 2: Vegetative management 

objectives are addressed in: Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011); 

Appendix C - Reclamation Plan; and Chapter 2 - Alternatives.

Vegetation-Other

Appendices

Appendix B language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 2737

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Page B-6 Text: Restore prior perennial grass/shrub plant communities infested with non-native

invasive species to a species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs as outlined 

in Ecological Site Descriptions. Comment: This language should be amended to read: “Perennial 

grass/shrub plant communities infested with DELETE "non-native" invasive and noxious species should 

be restored according to established site-specific baseline criteria where non-native species may be used to 

stabilize and promote the long term rehabilitation of the area to its original condition.”

Summary: Page B-6 language should be amended to read: “Perennial grass/shrub plant communities 

infested with DELETE "non-native" invasive and noxious species should be restored according to 

established site-specific baseline criteria where non-native species may be used to stabilize and promote 

the long term rehabilitation of the area to its original condition.”

Response: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been updated to reflect these changes.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-921

Vegetation-Other

Appendices

Appendix C language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1439

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-6 and C-7. The appendix states, “Native Forbs: The 

average percent composition and total diversity of forbs must be equal to or greater than pre-disturbance

composition. Native Shrubs: The average frequency of the shrub component must be at least 80 percent of 

predisturbance composition within eight years. Native Grasses: Reclaimed sites must exhibit grass percent

composition equal to the reference site. Non-Native/Noxious/Invasive Weeds: Sites must be free from all 

species...” Final reclamation performance standards should be compared to a nearby reference or extended

reference area at the same time as the evaluation, and not compared to the pre-disturbance date, because 

the range conditions for vegetation change over time. Native reference areas fluctuate in vegetation 

composition over time, and the reclamation performance should be compared to the current native 

condition, not something many years ago. Additionally, although 8 years is commendable, it may or may 

not be consistent with a final bond release request date utilized in the mining industry. This timing is not 

consistent with state regulations for mining, eg. Land Quality Division rules. It is unrealistic to require that 

sites are “free from all” non-natives, this condition doesn’t even exist in native areas. Unfortunately, native 

and reference areas almost always have a non-native and noxious component, hence, comparisons should 

be made to current reference areas. Please note that this particular item is not consistent with the EO, for 

example, the EO does not prescribe time limits on the reclamation, and the shrub component requirement 

is 70% rather than 80%. Due to the likely variability in site specific and industry specific reclamation plans, 

we advise the BLM to utilize Appendix C as a guideline or reference document, rather than as a compliance 

requirement.

Comment ID: 2104

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: C.2.5 Best Management Practices for Sage-Grouse Habitat Pre-Development Habitat 

Management, Page C-5 “Use native site seed collection and local seed sources to the maximum extent 

practicable to maintain genetic diversity of local plant populations. Consider the use of cultivars of native 

species in the absence of sources of native seeds.” Native site seed collections are rarely available. This 

provision should state that when native site seed collection is not available, certified weed free seed sources 

may be used following the same germination recommendations as listed on page C-17 of this Appendix.

Comment ID: 2105

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Sage-grouse Habitat Requirements Vegetative Criteria, Page C-6 The term “ESD model" is used 

several times throughout Appendix C. Clarification needs to be added to the document as to what this is 

referring to, if one will be created for every site and who will be creating them.

Comment ID: 2106

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-922 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: C.2.6 Criteria for Determining Reclamation Success Final Reclamation Criteria, Page C-7 “NonNative/Noxious/Invasive Weeds: ...Aggressive action to eliminate highly competitive invasive species 

such as cheatgrass and other invasive brome grasses must be taken to prevent spread.” Downy brome is a 

landscape scale issue across Wyoming lands. It would be impossible in many places to "eliminate" this 

species. As such the above sentence should be removed from this provision.

Comment ID: 1440

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-7. The appendix states “Standards for success will be

developed on performance based criteria and the ESD.” Standards for success should be forward looking 

and not retroactive, as many areas have already been release from bond (at least in mining). Standards for

success should consider other regulatory programs, such as the Wyoming Department of Environmental

Quality’s, Land Quality Divisions program for bond release.

Comment ID: 1441

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-10. A qualitative monitoring sheet example is provided. 

These monitoring sheets should be provided as an example only and not required in the exact format. Project

proponents should be allowed to develop their own monitoring sheets as applicable.

Comment ID: 1438

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Appendix C, Reclamation Plan, page C-6. Vegetative criteria are provided for Native Forbs, 

Native Shrubs, Native Grasses, and Non-Native and Invasive Species. The Reclamation and restoration 

goals should be commensurate with the EO, and not different because multiple and unique requirements 

are difficult to manage on a parcel by parcel basis. In fact, a reclamation professional (seed applicator) 

could be required to use distinct seed mixtures on a given reclamation site split by Federal or State sections. 

This could result in reduced reclamation or restoration success and slow reclamation/restoration efforts.

Comment ID: 679

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Appendix C; Page C-16; Invasive Plant Management Plan for Construction and Reclamation 

Activities: Recommendation: The last paragraph in this section adds additional language concerning

reclamation success. Section C.2.6 already provides criteria for reclamation success. Anadarko suggests 

eliminating this language.

Comment ID: 2120

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Standard Seed Mixtures, Page C-18 “The use of a non-sterile plant species such as wheat as a 

cover crop is not recommended because of its ability to reseed itself.” We disagree with this statement. 

Annual crops such a wheat do not readily reseed themselves in a native rangeland situation. There may be 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-923

some remnant plants show up for one to two years following seeding, however the possibility of them 

reseeding continually and spreading is non-existent.

Comment ID: 2126

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page C-19, Paragraph 6 “Any mulch used must be certified free from mold, fungi, or noxious 

or invasive weed seeds.” We suggest this be changed to read: “Any mulch used must be certified weed 

free.” There is no mechanism/authority set up to certify mulch from mold and/or fungi. There is only the

possibility of certification that it will be weed free and even this does not exclude all weed seeds.

Comment ID: 3190

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Attachment A C‐ 19 Paragraph 6 No mold or fungi‐ free mulch certification process is known, 

nor is this biologically attainable. In addition, very few vendors certify seed or mulch that is free of invasive

species. Counties do certify noxious weed‐ free mulch.

Comment ID: 3186

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 8 This forb composition and diversity criterion (equal to or greater than) 

will be unattainable within a reasonable timeframe.

Comment ID: 3184

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: C.2.6 C‐ 6 Paragraph 5, lines 3‐ 4 It is recommended that field‐ wide Weed Management Plans 

be developed and referenced, thereby notably reducing the paperwork required for each site‐ specific

action.

Comment ID: 2115

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION AND 

RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES, Page C-16 Section C.2.6 of Appendix C already provides criteria for 

reclamation success. This section adds additional language concerning reclamation success. We 

recommend either eliminating this language or including it within Section C.2.6.

Comment ID: 2681

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 2, lines 1-2: Further explanation/definition of the subjective term 

"desirable" is needed. Assuming all non-weedy forbs are desirable a 75% criterion will be unattainable 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-924 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., 5-8 years). It is therefore recommended that this frequency be reduced

to 35-50%.

Comment ID: 2692

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-19, paragraph 6: No mold or fungi-free mulch certification process is known, nor is this

biologically attainable. In addition, very few vendors certify seed or mulch that is free of invasive species. 

Counties do certify noxious weed-free mulch.

Comment ID: 2682

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 2, lines 4-5: This forb diversity criterion (greater than or equal to) is 

unattainable within a reasonable timeframe. The availability of area-appropriate forb species seed varieties 

is extremely limited.

Comment ID: 2119

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Germination Test, Page C-17, Paragraph 4 Seeding on a Pure Live Seed (PLS) basis should 

always be used when calculating seeding rates. This will take into account the dormant seed. It would be 

beneficial to cite the following NRCS document regarding reading seed packaging labels and calculating 

seed mixtures: http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/WY/pm6.pdf.

Comment ID: 2685

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 5, lines 3-4: It is recommended that field-wide Weed Management Plans 

be developed and referenced, thereby notably reducing the paperwork required for each site-specific action.

Comment ID: 2687

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 8: This forb composition and diversity criterion (equal to or greater than) 

will be unattainable within a reasonable timeframe.

Comment ID: 2689

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-17, paragraph 2, lines 5-7: No seed mixes are provided in the document.

Comment ID: 2690

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-925

Comment: Page C-17, paragraph 5, line 1: Delete the first sentence-germination tests will not determine 

siteproductivity. This material is appropriately described in later sections.

Comment ID: 2116

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: SEED, Page C-16, Paragraph 1 “On all areas to be reclaimed, seed mixtures are required to be 

weed free and site specific...” We recommend the word “certified” be inserted before “weed free”, so the 

above statement would read “On all areas to be reclaimed, seed mixtures are required to be certified weed

free...”

Comment ID: 2125

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Mulch, Page C-19, Paragraph 4 “Gravel or other inorganic material shall be applied 

approximately two inches thick and shall consist of pieces 0.75 inch to two inches in diameter. The mulch 

material shall provide no more than 90 percent ground cover in order to ensure adequate air drainage (NRCS 

2005).” Gravel at a depth of 2 inches would be prohibitive to seedling growth and establishment and as 

such it would not promote reclamation.

Comment ID: 2117

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Describe Seeding Methods, Page C-17, Paragraph 3 If BLM is requiring certified seed, 

germination testing is already required and available on seed certifications. We are not sure how this is 

related to the productivity of a site as there are many factors aside from seed viability that influences the 

productivity of a site, such as soils, seeding practice, weather/precipitation, grazing etc.

Comment ID: 2124

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page C-18, 1st Bullet Point Any seed used for reclamation should be certified weed free and 

have the same standards required as commercially purchased seed.

Comment ID: 2683

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page C-6, paragraph 3, lines 1-2: This forb frequency requirement will also be difficult to 

achieve within a reasonable timeframe.

Summary: The following revisions are requested: Issue 1: On Page C-16 the last paragraph in this section 

adds additional language concerning reclamation success. Section C.2.6 already provides criteria for 

reclamation success, so this language should be eliminated. Issue 2: On Page C-6, reclamation and 

restoration goals should be commensurate with the EO, and not different because multiple and unique 

requirements are difficult to manage on a parcel by parcel basis. Issue 3: On Page C-6 and C-7, final 

reclamation performance standards should be compared to a nearby reference or extended reference area at 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-926 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the same time as the evaluation, and not compared to the pre-disturbance date, because the range conditions 

for vegetation change over time. And, the timing of 8 years is not consistent with state regulations for 

mining, e.g.. Land Quality Division rules, and it is unrealistic to require that sites are free from all nonnatives. Appendix C should be used as a reference document, rather than as a compliance requirement.

Issue 4: On page C-7, standards for success should be forward looking and not retroactive. Standards for 

success should consider other regulatory programs, such as the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, Land Quality Division program for bond release. Issue 5: On page C-10, project proponents should 

be allowed to develop their own monitoring sheets as applicable. Issue 6: On page C-5, when native site 

seed collection is not available, certified weed free seed sources should be allowed following the same 

germination recommendations as listed on page C-17 of this appendix. Issue 7: Clarification is needed on 

the term “ESD model", if one will be created for every site and who will be creating them. Issue 8: On 

page C-7 the above sentence regarding downy brome should be removed from this provision. Issue 9: On 

page C-16, paragraph 1, the word “certified” should be inserted before “weed free”, so the statement would 

read “On all areas to be reclaimed, seed mixtures are required to be certified weed free...” Issue 10: On 

page C-17, paragraph 3, clarification is needed on how the requirement of certified seed is related to the 

productivity of a site as there are many factors aside from seed viability that influences the productivity of 

a site, such as soils, seeding practice, weather/precipitation, grazing, etc. Issue 11: On page C-17, paragraph 

4, when calculating seeding rates, the Pure Live Seed (PLS) basis should be used. Also, cite the following 

NRCS document regarding reading seed packaging labels and calculating seed mixtures: 

http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/WY/pm6.pdf Issue 12: On page C-18 the statement: "The 

use of a non-sterile plant species such as wheat as a cover crop is not recommended because of its ability 

to reseed itself.” should be edited as "annual crops such a wheat do not readily reseed themselves in a native 

rangeland situation." Issue 13: On page C-18, 1st bullet point, include language that any seed used for 

reclamation should be certified weed free and have the same standards required as commercially purchased 

seed. Issue 14: Edit page C-19, paragraph 4, as gravel at a depth of 2 inches would be prohibitive to seedling 

growth and would not promote reclamation. Issue 15: Edit page C-19, paragraph 6, to say “Any mulch 

used must be certified weed free.” as there is no mechanism/authority set up to certify mulch from mold 

and/or fungi, nor is this biologically attainable. Issue 16: On page C-6, paragraphs 2 and 3, provide 

definition of "desirable" and reduce frequency to 35-50%. Issue 17: On page C-6, paragraphs 2 and 8, the 

forb composition and diversity criterion is unattainable within a reasonable timeframe and the availability 

of area-appropriate forb species seed varieties is extremely limited. Issue 18: On page C-6, paragraph 5, 

lines 3-4, field-wide Weed Management Plans should be developed and referenced. Issue 19: On page C17, paragraph 2, lines 5-7 provide seed mixes. Issue 20: On page C-17, paragraph 5, line 1, delete the first 

sentence as germination tests will not determine site productivity.

Response: Issue 1: Section C 2.6 doesn't specifically address the Invasive Plant Management Plan as 

described on Page C-16. Issue 2: Protections provided in this document are consistent with the Governor's 

Executive Order and Core Strategy. Issue 3: In the context of invasive species, the standards referenced on 

page C 6 and 7 for "being free from all species the Wyoming Noxious Weed List", is in adherence to state 

and federal laws. Other invasive species not on the Wyoming Noxious Weed list will be controlled as 

specified in a Weed Management Plan. Issue 3, 4, 5: The final decision for these actions will be included 

in the Record of Decision after completion of the public involvement process. Issue 6: On page C-5, 

exceptions are addressed. Issue 7: ESDs are described in Appendix C, page C-2. Issue 8: As described in 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment, downy brome is one of the invasive plants posing a threat to maintaining 

quality sage-grouse habitat in the planning area. Vegetation composition that comprises of downy brome

would not meet management objectives common to all alternatives as stated in Chapter 2, Alternatives, 

page 2-12. Issue 9, 10, 11: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been updated to reflect these 

changes. Issue 12: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS have been updated to clarify the use of 

sterile plant species. Issue 13: ESDs that have been developed provide best desired characteristics for 

restoration of sagegrouse habitat. On specific areas that cannot meet ESD standards, adaptive management 

would be used to address the criteria necessary to maximize the site potential, based on localized conditions.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-927

Issue 14, 15: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been updated to reflect these changes. Issue 

16: The final decision for these actions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of the 

public involvement process. Issue 17: Weed management plans would identify adaptive management 

strategies to maximize ESD vegetation composition in specific areas. Desired plant communities would be 

based on a variety of factors, but initially use ESD reference sites as the standard for vegetation 

composition. Issue 18: The decisions under consideration by the BLM and the Forest Service are 

programmatic in nature and would not result in on-the-ground planning decisions or actions, the scope of 

the management actions were considered at a broad, programmatic level. Because of the varied and diverse 

ecosystems contained in the planning area development of a field-wide weed management plan would not 

be practical within this document and is outside the scope of this effort. Weed management plans are more 

appropriately developed and analyzed as specific actions at the local level to implement the broad objectives 

and goals presented here. The BLM and the Forest Service will conduct subsequent NEPA analyses as local 

weed management plans are developed and, as required by NEPA, the public will be offered the opportunity 

to participate in the NEPA process for any site-specific actions. Issue 19: Site-specific seed mixes should 

be included in Weed Management Plans. Issue 20: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been 

updated to reflect these changes.

Vegetation-Other

Best available information-baseline data

Invasive species baseline information

Comment ID: 342

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: BLM provides essentially no baseline information on the spatial extent of cheatgrass infestation

in the planning area, the only spatial data refers to lands “suitable” for cheatgrass to take over (See DEIS at 

3-376). This totals 20 million acres across all land types in Wyoming, with almost 7 million acres on BLM 

land. Id. There is no information at all for cheatgrass or Japanese brome infestation rates on the BridgerTeton National Forest (DEIS at 3-394), and no quantitative information on these species is provided for the 

Medicine Bow National Forest (DEIS at 3-397) or on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (DEIS at 3-

402). There is no cumulative analysis on cheatgrass extent or prognosis across Management Zone I. DEIS 

at 4-489. These are NEPA baseline information, hard look, and cumulative impacts shortcomings. How are 

weed infestations distributed in Priority versus General Habitats? GIS-based maps are listed as currently

unavailable (DEIS at 3-376) but are currently under development; BLM should incorporate such maps into 

its FEIS analysis. How will cheatgrass infestation change by alternative over the life of the plan 

amendment? There also is no baseline information on the spatial extent of non-native grasses such as crested 

wheatgrass, which also are deleterious to sage grouse. This information should be in included in the EIS to 

inform impact analyses under the various alternatives.

Comment ID: 1370

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The entire section on noxious weeds is predicated on the assumption that current methods and

actions to control or eliminate noxious weeds and invasive species have been effective. The BLM's own 

data shows that this is clearly not the case. Invasive species are dramatically increasing throughout BLM 

and Forest Service lands, but no information is provided as to effectiveness of current methods in relation 

to the massive level of surface disturbance predicted by the DEIS.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-928 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: No baseline information on the spatial extent of cheatgrass and other non-native grass infestation 

in the planning area has been provided, nor information for cheatgrass or Japanese brome infestation rates 

on the Bridger-Teton National Forest, and no quantitative information on these species is provided for the 

Medicine Bow National Forest or on the Thunder Basin National Grassland, and no cumulative analysis on 

cheatgrass extent or prognosis across Management Zone I. Weed infestationsin priority and general habitats 

and GIS-based maps should be provided along with descriptions on how cheatgrass infestation would 

change by alternative over the life of the plan amendment. Information as to the effectiveness of current 

methods of invasive species control should also be provided.

Response: Complete and verified acreage data on invasive species is not available and is not required to 

make a reasoned choice among the alternatives. The Chapter 3 and the COT characterized the relative 

presence of invasive species and the associated threat.

Vegetation-Other

Best available information-baseline data

Vegetation baseline information

Comment ID: 2875

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 370, Table 3-100 lists the vegetative communities. Some of the numbers seem 

unrealistic. For example in the Casper Field Office there is 1.1 plus million acres of agriculture/town and 

the Rawlins Field Office lists 1,006,350 acres. In the planning area 3,228,700 acres are classified as

agriculture/town. These numbers seem fairly high to us.

Summary: The numbers of vegetative communities listed on page 370, Table 3-100 seem too high and 

should be re-examined.

Response: The acres in this table are based on GIS data derived from the habitat map for vegetation

communities, Map 3-21.

Vegetation-Other

Forestry

Forest Management language should be edited

Comment ID: 2588

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-66 Text: Clearcut areas, which average between 10 and 25 acres, would be reforested with 

tree seedlings within 5 to 7 years after harvest. No new permanent roads would be approved for timber

harvest unless the roads are also needed for other resource management activities. Temporary roads would 

be revegetated within 3 to 5 years after closure. Comment: This language should be amended to read:

Clearcut areas, which average between 10 and 25 acres, DELETE "would be" reforested with tree seedlings 

within 5 to 7 years after harvest. DELETE "No new" Permanent roads would be approved for timber 

harvest, would be avoided unless the roads are also needed for other resource management activities. 

DELETE "Temporary roads would be revegetated within 3 to 5 years after closure." The BLM fails to 

recognize that clearcut areas provide benefits against fire, promote forest health, and promote watershed 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-929

health. Also the BLM implies, and we infer, that the BLM anticipates road closures. We reiterate our 

position that BLM may not close roads and direct the BLM to the transportation layers attached to these 

comments. Finally, it is unclear from which alternative the BLM draws these conclusions. Upon careful 

review, the actions discussed in quoted language do not appear in any alternative and thus the BLM may 

not discuss these actions or their impacts in chapter 4.

Comment ID: 2587

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-66 Text: The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) will provide the direction for

identifying and managing designated old-growth stands, both within forested stands and woodlands. 

Comment: As written, the BLM misstates the full purpose of the act which will skew the analysis with 

regards to GRSG habitat. Old-growth stands may conflict with and impair GRSG habitat and the DEIS does 

not evaluate to what extent, if at all, the HFRA will impact GRSG habitat. The BLM cannot misstate the

HFRA to avoid the unavoidable consequences that will result by improperly evaluating the effects of old 

growth on GRSG habitat. The purposes of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act as follows: The purposes of 

this chapter are: (1) to reduce wildfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk 

Federal land through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel 

reduction projects; (2) to authorize grant programs to improve the commercial value of forest biomass (that 

otherwise contributes to the risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease infestation) for producing electric

energy, useful heat, transportation fuel, and petroleum-based product substitutes, and for other commercial 

purposes; (3) to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health,

including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape; (4) to promote systematic gathering of information to 

address the impact of insect and disease infestations and other damaging agents on forest and rangeland 

health; (5) to improve the capacity to detect insect and disease infestations at an early stage, particularly

with respect to hardwood forests; and (6) to protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem components—

(A) to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species; (B) to improve biological 

diversity; and (C) to enhance productivity and carbon sequestration See 16 U.S.C. § 6501.

Summary: Issue 1: The BLM misstates the full purpose of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and should

evaluate to what extent, if at all, the HFRA will impact Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Issue 2: The language 

on page 4-66 should be amended to read: Clearcut areas, which average between 10 and 25 acres, DELETE 

"would be" reforested with tree seedlings within 5 to 7 years after harvest. DELETE "No new" Permanent 

roads would be approved for timber harvest, would be avoided unless the roads are also needed for other 

resource management activities. DELETE "Temporary roads would be revegetated within 3 to 5 years after 

closure." and should be clarified from which alternative this conclusion is drawn. Issue 3: The BLM should 

recognize that clearcut areas provide benefits against fire, promote forest health, and promote watershed 

health. Issue 4: The BLM may not close roads and should refer to the transportation layers attached to these

comments.

Response: Issue 1: That assumption has been removed. Issue 2: The suggested edits do not increase the 

clarity of the assumptions and in some cases do not make sense. The assumptions are appropriate as listed 

in the Draft EIS. Issue 2, 3, 4: The roads referenced here are temporary logging access roads, which are 

required to be revegetated under forestry management regulations and are part of the management of the 

LUP Amendments. The language being referenced are only assumptions for the analysis, not management 

actions, and provide a basis for the analysis.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-930 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Vegetation-Other

Impact Analysis

Assumptions revisions

Comment ID: 2494

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-342 4.16.2 Assumptions: Will current trends in plant succession and vegetation health

continue notwithstanding climate variations? Why is an assumption made that we are finding more special 

plant species (persistency even with livestock grazing)? Would there not be an assumption that reclamation 

success would be ever increasing in the long term?

Summary: On page 4-342 4.16.2 further clarification is required on whether current trends in plant 

succession and vegetation health will continue notwithstanding climate variations, why the assumption is 

made that more special plant species are being found, and why it is not assumed that reclamation success

would be ever increasing in the long term.

Response: It is not possible to predict the extent of climate change during the analysis period, or what 

impact it might have on plant communities; however, even in the absence of climate change, changes in 

plant community composition are slow to occur and generally not detectable in less than 10 year increments. 

It is reasonable to predict that as survey areas expand and available information increases, additional 

information about sensitive plant species would become available. It is also not possible to predict the rate 

of technology development in reclamation methods and their impact on reclamation success. The 

assumptions are appropriate as presented in the Draft EIS.

Vegetation-Other

Impact Analysis

Chapter 4 language needs revised

Comment ID: 1374

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: On page 4-342 we see that the assumption is that "current trends in plant succession and 

vegetation health would continue" but the BLM has provided virtually no information regarding these two

criteria. Stunningly, the BLM states that "vegetation resources would primarily be impacted by different 

forms of surface disturbance and disruptive activities" listing livestock grazing as the last in the list of these 

activities yet livestock grazing is the primary impact to vegetation resources throughout the analysis area 

except in heavily developed oil and gas fields.

Comment ID: 1373

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: On page 4-328 the document states that vegetation will be managed using "ESD potential 

vegetation composition and structure" but this contradicts the table of specific actions.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-328 the document states that vegetation will be managed using "ESD 

potential vegetation composition and structure" but this contradicts the table of specific actions. Issue 2:
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-931

On page 4-342 no information is provided regarding the assumption that "current trends in plant succession 

and vegetation health would continue." Also, livestock grazing should not be listed last as a type of surface 

disturbance and disruptive activity that impacts vegetation resources.

Response: Issue 1: There doesn’t appear to be any conflict between the analysis and the management. Issue 

2: The statement is a basis for the analysis. The list of types of surface disturbance is just a list of examples, 

not a ranked list.

Vegetation-Other

Impact Analysis

Impact analysis revisions

Comment ID: 2493

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-342 4.16.1 Impact Indicators: Is there a reason why the acres of non-natives was not 

included in the indicators? Is there a reason why age of sagebrush communities is not included in the

indicators?

Comment ID: 2509

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-494 4.22.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource-Vegetation: The cumulative impacts on the

human environment caused by the loss of grazing lands across the State of Wyoming is not discussed, and 

one cannot assume a long term beneficial impact on vegetation from applying rest from livestock grazing 

for the balance of time.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-342 4.16.1, clarify why the acres of non-natives and the age of sagebrush

communities were not included in the indicators. Issue 2: On page 4-494 4.22.3, discuss cumulative impacts 

on the human environment caused by the loss of grazing lands, and clarify assumption of long term 

beneficial impacts on vegetation from application of livestock grazing.

Response: Issue 1: The parameters requested are adequately represented in the indicators for the condition 

of native vegetation communities and likelihood, amount or density of weeds and invasive grasses. Issue 

2: The BLM thoroughly explained its consideration and analysis of cumulative effects in the Draft LUP 

Amendments/Draft EIS in Chapter 4. The Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS considered the present effects 

of past actions to the extent that they are relevant, present, and reasonably foreseeable (not highly 

speculative) federal and non-federal actions, taking into account the relationship between the proposed 

range of alternatives and the reasonably foreseeable actions.

Vegetation-Other

Invasive Non-native Plant Species

Additional herbicide/insecticide application requirements

Comment ID: 377

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-932 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Although the use of Plateau in heavily cheatgrass-infested areas might be allowed in cases where

sage grouse are not using the treated habitats, aerial spraying of herbicides and insecticides over or within 

one mile of sage grouse habitats should not be allowed. Hand spraying might be accomplished by 

deliberately driving grouse off by teams on foot prior to treatment, and by treating from backpack units 

rather than aerial or truck/ATV application.

Summary: Aerial spraying of herbicides and insecticides over or within one mile of sage-grouse habitats 

should not be allowed. Hand spraying might be accomplished by deliberately driving grouse off by teams 

on foot prior to treatment, and by treating from backpack units rather than aerial or truck/ATV application.

Response: BLM operating procedures for herbicide application can be found in the Vegetation Treatment 

on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western States Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

(BLM 2007d).

Vegetation-Other

Invasive Non-native Plant Species

Additional invasive plant species need to be identified

Comment ID: 1932

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: DEIS Volume 1, Page 3-245 The DEIS provides information for a number of threatened, 

endangered, and candidate plant species, but does not contain information for the Fremont County Rock 

Cress. The Service recommends that the DEIS include information for this candidate species.

Comment ID: 2636

Organization: QEP Energy Company

Name: Mike Smith

Comment: Page 3-403, paragraph 3, line 7: Salt cedar is classified as noxious in WY.

Comment ID: 3136

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: 3.16.2 3‐ 403 Paragraph 3, line 7 Salt cedar is classified as noxious in WY.

Summary: The Draft EIS should contain information for the Fremont County Rock Cress. Additionally, 

salt cedar is classified as noxious in Wyoming.

Response: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been updated to reflect these changes.

Vegetation-Other

Invasive Non-native Plant Species

Additional Invasive species prevention methods

Comment ID: 1686

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-933

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Do not use 

prescribed fire as a tool in low elevation areas where the potential for cheatgrass invasion is above low.

Comment ID: 1225

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Livestock grazing is a well-known vector of invasive, non-native, or noxious species 

colonization on public lands. Livestock promote the spread and colonization of alien plants, which can 

increase fire frequencies.24 Disturbance is a reliable indicator of alien dominance in vegetation 

composition, and livestock grazing is a significant disturbance to arid ecosystems.25 Grazing across many 

states has led to the invasion of cheatgrass, a highly flammable noxious weed that accelerates the fire cycle 

to less than five years destroying the sagebrush upon which sagegrouse rely for food and cover. 

Approximately 36 percent of the Greater sage-grouse range is invaded by cheatgrass.26 Because sagebrush 

requires at least 15 years (and up to 50) to reoccupy burned sites, restoring invaded areas is a difficult and 

slow process. Preventing further spread into intact sagebrush should be prioritized.

Comment ID: 1690

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --In areas 

where sagebrush is prevalent or where cheatgrass is a concern, utilize mechanical methods rather than 

prescribed fire.

Comment ID: 1227

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Biological invasions, especially invasion by exotic annual grasses such as cheatgrass, are 

consistently cited as among the most important challenges to maintenance of healthy sagebrush 

communities. Estimates of the rapid spread of weeds in the West include 2,300 acres per day on BLM lands 

and 4,600 acres per day on all western public lands. Clearly, the BLM needs to consider the cause of these

infestations and the contribution of domestic livestock grazing to them as well as the effectiveness of current 

measures.

Comment ID: 2862

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Table 2-5 on page 183 discusses weed control. We would suggest the Agencies add that livestock

grazing can be utilized to control some weed infestations and limit the impacts of others.

Summary: The following methods should be examined: Issue 1: The cause of cheatgrass infestations and 

the contribution of domestic livestock grazing to them as well as the effectiveness of current measures 

should be considered. Issue 2: Table 2-5 on page 183 should include livestock grazing as a method to be 

utilized to control some weed infestations and limit the impacts of others. Issue 3: Outside sage-grouse 

core areas in sage-grouse habitat, prescribed fire should not be used as a tool in low elevation areas where 

the potential for cheatgrass invasion is above low. In areas where sagebrush is prevalent or where cheatgrass 

is a concern, utilize mechanical methods rather than prescribed fire.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-934 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: Issue 1: Proper grazing management minimizes the spread of cheatgrass. Targeted livestock 

grazing can be used as an additional method to control cheatgrass in localized areas. Timing livestock 

grazing early in the spring or in the fall can be an effective supplemental tool to remove cheatgrass biomass.

Repeated targeted grazing can potentially reduce the abundance of cheatgrass. (Cheatgrass Management 

Handbook, University of Wyoming and Colorado St. University, 2013). Issue 2: Livestock grazing as a 

method to control weed infestations is part of integrated vegetation management and is cited in Chapter 2, 

Table 2-1, Action Number 11. Issue 3: Prescribed fire is an effective tool to remove dead cheatgrass 

biomass; allowing selective pre-emergent herbicides to properly penetrate the soil surface.

Vegetation-Other

Invasive Non-native Plant Species

Additional OHV stipulations needed

Comment ID: 1797

Organization: Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)

Name: Don Amador

Comment: OHV Management Guideline Four – Invasive Species Overview: Cheatgrass and Medusahead 

wildrye have become the most problematic of the exotic annual grasses within the Sage-grouse 

Conservation Area” (Miller et al. 2011) OHVs can inadvertently spread invasive/noxious weeds including 

cheatgrass and medusahead. It is important that vehicles be weed-free before travelling off-highway. 

Thoroughly washing the OHVs will ensure that the seeds are removed and will help mitigate the spread of 

noxious weeds. It should be noted that no studies can claim that OHV use is the primary distributor of 

noxious weeds. Prescription: Adopt and promote an invasive species related prevention/education program 

based on the tenets at - http://playcleango.org/

Summary: OHVs should weed-free and thoroughly washed before traveling off-highway, and an invasive 

species related prevention/education program should be promoted.

Response: OHV washing to remove weed seeds and plant parts is addressed as a best management practice 

in Appendix B - Required Design Features. Invasive species information is provided at each BLM field

office. Additionally, the BLM Wyoming web site also provides information and prevention guidance

(http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/weeds_pests.html).

Vegetation-Other

Invasive Non-native Plant Species

More control of invasive species is needed

Comment ID: 1852

Organization:

Name: Charles C. Price

Comment: Control of invasive plant species on BLM and FS lands has been minimal in the past. Since 

habitat is a primary responsibility of these agencies the control of invasive plant species such as cheat grass

should receive much more effort and finance and direct control on the ground. Invasive plants pose a long 

term problem for the sage grouse population.

Comment ID: 2883

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-935

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: On page 272 of Chapter 4 and elsewhere in the document, there is a discussion of efforts to limit

opportunity for invasive species. While this is an important aspect of any plan to deal with invasive species, 

the Agencies also need an aggressive plan to address those species which are already established, or are 

showing up in an area. There seems to be a limited amount of discussion about this aspect, which should 

be included in any LUP.

Comment ID: 2402

Organization:

Name: Elisa Enders

Comment: What really needs to be done is a comprehensive plan to protect the ecosystem that the grouse

needs to survive. Cheatgrass is an example of one invasive plant that is affecting the sagebrush habitat. If 

the sagebrush is protected, then the grouse will be helped, as well as Sage Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, and 

other bird, insect, and plant species.

Comment ID: 2160

Organization: The Cloud Foundation

Name: Ginger Kathrens

Comment: Wild fires have damaged sage grouse habitat in Wyoming, allowing opportunistic invasive plant

species, like cheat grass, to take over. All alternatives should include a plan to eliminate invasive plants in 

order to improve sage grouse habitat, prioritizing leks and brood rearing locations.

Summary: Preventing further cheatgrass spread into intact sagebrush should be prioritized, and control of

invasive plant species should receive much more effort, finance, and direct control on the ground. All

alternatives should include a plan to eliminate invasive plants, and should include an aggressive plan to 

address those species which are already established or are showing up in an area.

Response: A range of alternatives is presented in the LUP Amendments concerning invasive species

management in Management Actions 9, 11, 107, 114, and 117. Accomplishment of cheatgrass and other 

invasive plant control would be dependent on future budget allocations from Congress and could not be 

predetermined in the LUP Amendments.

Vegetation-Other

Monitoring

Edits to ESD reference state and monitoring requirement

Comment ID: 1043

Organization: American Colloid Company

Name: Melody Smith

Comment: Options for use of existing, successful, long standing reclamation monitoring practices 

developed for mining operations to satisfy current State and BLM requirements should be considered an 

option rather than requiring use of global government standards such as Ecological Site Descriptions.

Comment ID: 186

Organization: Upper Green River Cattle Association

Name: Kent Price
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-936 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Action Number 46, Alternative C requires all vegetative communities would be "consistent with 

the reference state of the appropriate ESD" This does not discuss that some of the rangeland is in a steady 

state that is not at the reference state, and may not go back to the reference state. ESDs have not been 

developed for all of the possible sites in any given area, let alone the reference state. The reference state 

might be beneficial for sage grouse nesting, but a lower state might provide more of what a grouse needs 

in early-brood rearing and late-brood rearing. Alternative C is unachievable and unwarranted. Action 

Number 47, Alternative C requires that land management agencies "ensure" plants are at their ESD potential 

to protect against invasive plants. Is potential, the reference state? Many events can push plant succession 

backwards, including fire, drought (even without livestock grazing), insects, sage die-offs of unknown 

origin, and native ungulates. We do need to be aware of exotics, like cheatgrass, but they have invaded 

Sublette County in areas with little livestock grazing, and on sites at their reference state. We need a 

thoughtful, inclusive approach to invasive species management. We support Alt. D. Action Number 48, 49, 

50, 51, and 52, we support Alternative D.

Summary: Some rangeland is in a steady state that is not at the reference state, and may not go back to the

reference state. ESDs have not been developed for all of the possible sites in any given area, let alone the 

reference state. And, many events can push plant succession backwards, including fire, drought (even 

without livestock grazing), insects, sage die-offs of unknown origin, and native ungulates. Additionally, 

options for use of existing, successful, long standing reclamation monitoring practices developed for mining 

operations to satisfy current state and BLM requirements should be considered an option rather than 

requiring use of global government standards such as ESDs.

Response: An ecological site description is a description of the vegetation that can be expected on a site 

based on soil, elevation, slope and other factors, not a "global government standard." It is reasonable to

temper vegetation expectations to specific sites based on their individual potential. The development of 

ecological site descriptions and state and transition models is an ongoing science; the models are continually 

being refined to consider all the events listed and others that may contribute to creating the actual plant 

communities present on the ground at any specific location. The information gathered from the ecological 

site descriptions should be helpful in evaluating the success of reclamations methods currently being used 

in mining and other situations.

Vegetation-Other

Range of alternatives

Further clarification needed among alternatives

Comment ID: 2450

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-102,103 Vegetation Management: Actions 94 -Is one to interpret that the Alternative A

reference to TBNG LRMP is carried onto each Alternative (B,C,D,E), and if so would that not change the 

intent of each management action listed? (As to what actions should be coupled with others) Page 2-105 

Vegetation Management: Actions 96 - Same question regarding the reference to TBNG LRMP in 

Alternative A (Does the reference carryon to the other Alternatives).

Comment ID: 2451

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-937

Comment: Page 2-107 Vegetation Reclamation : Action 99 -It would seem other wording would be used in

Alternatives B, C, and D due to the other controlling management actions proposed. The Preferred

Alternative (E) should make mention of seeding methodologies and timing to ensure the success of

sagebrush restoration as part of the monitoring plan. Neither federal reclamation policies provide such 

information.

Comment ID: 2454

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-109 Vegetation Reclamation : Action 102 - For the TBNG the statements made in 

Alternative A and E make the most sense and hopefully are adopted by the decision maker.

Comment ID: 2462

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-203 Table 2-7. Comparative Summary of Impacts - Vegetation: While each Alternative

describes acreages restricted or closed they do not indicate or explain the long or short term benefits to the 

greater sage-grouse, the number of acres of priority habitat or general habitat with undisturbed vegetation 

thereon saved from disturbance. Impacts to vegetation should be defined. Generalized statements such as: 

"These closures would reduce .... associated with mineral development and surface disturbing activities." 

The statement should be redressed in such that reclamation practices cannot be all thrown into one basket 

suggesting that the entire industry causes the problems of invasive species, vegetation removal and habitat 

fragmentation across the board .

Summary: Issue 1: On page 2-102,103, and 105, for management actions 94 and 96, clarification is needed 

as to whether the Alternative A reference to TBNG LRMP is carried onto each Alternative (B,C,D,E), and

if it would change the intent of each management action listed. Issue 2: On page 2-107, Action 99, 

additional language or clarification should be added to Alternatives B, C, and D due to the other controlling 

management actions proposed, and Alternative E should include seeding methodologies and timing as part 

of the monitoring plan. Issue 3: On page 2-109, Action 102, the statements made in Alternatives A and E 

make the most sense for TBNG and should be adopted. Issue 4: On page 2-203 Table 2-7, the alternatives 

do not indicate or explain the long or short term benefits to the Greater Sage-Grouse, the number of acres 

of priority habitat or general habitat with undisturbed vegetation thereon saved from disturbance. Impacts 

to vegetation should be defined.

Response: Issue 1: Unless it is stated “In addition to Alternative A,” before the management action,

management under Alternatives B, C, D, and E would amend the management under Alternative A. Issue 

2, 3: The final decision for these actions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of the 

public involvement process. Issue 4: It would be difficult to calculate the acres of undisturbed vegetation 

using current data due to the overlap of uses and resources, prompting the need for actual on the ground 

surveys to accurately account for undisturbed vegetation. “Impacts to vegetation” has been edited to more

effectively describe the effects to vegetation from the management for Greater Sage-Grouse.

Vegetation-Other

Range of alternatives

Language in Alternative C needs to be revised

Comment ID: 2496
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-938 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-350 4.16.5 Alternative C: The second sentence of the fifth paragraph does not make 

sense. The annual precipitation amount does not alone cause large fires, and eliminating a valid tool for

management is risky.

Comment ID: 2453

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-108 Vegetation Reclamation: Action 100 - Alternative C statement once again suggests

livestock grazing is not prohibited in sage-grouse priority habitat. We suggest all Management Actions in 

Alternative C be reviewed to clear up inconsistencies.

Comment ID: 3045

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-38, action 47, alt C: This is an unreasonable statement to achieve climax 

vegetation state in all areas. This also does not allow for multi-aged habitat, which increases diversity and 

in many occasions allows for preferred habitat for wildlife and other grazing species.

Comment ID: 2455

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-110 Vegetation Reclamation: Action 104 - Alternative C statement uses the statement 

"within sage-grouse priority and general habitat" as has with many other of the management actions. The

text in Chapter 1 seems to disassociate general habitat from any ACEC designation and should be carried 

through in such a way in the alternatives management actions.

Comment ID: 2452

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 2-107 Vegetation Reclamation : Action 100 - Alternative C statement does not make sense.

Suggest: Within sage-grouse priority habitat reclamation of long term disturbed areas would be reclaimed 

to enhance and expand the priority habitats.

Summary: The following needs to be revised: Issue 1: On page 2-107, language for Action 100 should be 

changed to “Within sage-grouse priority habitat reclamation of long term disturbed areas would be 

reclaimed to enhance and expand the priority habitats.” Issue 2: On page 2-108, language for Action 100 

suggests livestock grazing is not prohibited in sagegrouse priority habitat; this should be revised. Issue 3: 

All Management Actions in Alternative C need to be reviewed to clear up inconsistencies. Issue 4: On 

page 2-110, language for Action 104 uses the statement "within sage-grouse priority and general habitat" 

while the text in Chapter 1 seems to disassociate general habitat from any ACEC designation and should 

be carried through in such a way in the alternatives management actions. Issue 5: On page 3-350 4.16.5, 

clarification is needed on the second sentence of the fifth paragraph, as annual precipitation amount does 

not alone cause large fires. Issue 6: In Table 2-1, page 2-38, MA 47, it is unreasonable to achieve climax 

vegetation state in all areas. Also, the management action should allow for multi-aged habitat.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-939

Response: Issue 1: Considering Alternative C takes into account all sage-grouse habitat, limiting the 

language to just priority areas would not seem to be appropriate. Issue 2: Livestock grazing would be 

prohibited in priority habitat under Alternative C. Issue 3: Without specific descriptions of the perceived 

inconsistencies we are not able to respond to the comment. Issue 4: The action does not propose ACEC 

designation in general habitat. The action is specific to core habitat. Issue 5: The sentence has been revised 

for clarity and to better reflect both the management action and the effects to vegetation resources from that 

action. Issue 6: The action is correct as written and is provided for a reasonable range of alternatives.

Vegetation-Other

Range of alternatives

Language in Alternative D needs to be revised

Comment ID: 3051

Organization: Ultra, Shell, and QEP

Name: Kelly Bott

Comment: Table 2-1, page 2-100, action 91, alt D: Please define "natural reclamation."

Summary: The following language needs to be revised: In Table 2-1, page 2-100, action 91, define "natural 

reclamation".

Response: Natural reclamation refers to naturally occurring vegetation changes without human intervention 

or action.

Vegetation-Other

Range of alternatives

Language in Alternative E needs to be revised

Comment ID: 1419

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Alternatives, Vegetation Reclamation, Page 2-107, Items #99 and #100. As stated under 

Alternative E, “Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse core habitats would be consistent with 

the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a)...A monitoring plan would be developed for each 

restoration or reclamation project and reporting progress and changes in resource conditions.” The DEIS 

does not provide adequate documentation to fully describe the requirements of a reclamation plan or 

monitoring and reporting plan, so it is difficult to fully comment on the requirement. However, as a 

recommendation we suggest that other agency approved reclamation plans be considered to meet the 

requirements of this item. For example, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality 

Division has existing requirements for reclamation plansfor project proponent in the mining industry. These 

reclamation plans should be referenced as an appropriate mechanism to meet the BLM requirements 

suggested under this item.

Comment ID: 2034

Organization: Wyoming Wildlife Federation

Name: Joy Bannon

Comment: Vegetation Reclamation – Chapter 2, pages 108 and 109, action #’s 100 and 102: Non-native 

seed mixtures are allowed in Alternative E for these action numbers. Language regarding non-native seed
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-940 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

mixtures needs to be more restrictive. Incorporate watering cycles so that the native seeds are more likely 

to take hold and grow. The goal for WWF is to reclaim the landscape back to its original vegetative makeup so that all wildlife species can benefit. In these action numbers, the goal seems to be simply to restore 

the vegetation to meet Greater sage-grouse habitat objectives and although that may work for Greater sagegrouse, other wildlife will suffer if non-native vegetation is planted. o The BLM/Forest Service need to be 

cautious about the spread of invasive plants and non-native plants so as to maintain and meet management 

objectives for other wildlife species in the ecosystem.

Comment ID: 1014

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: The management prescriptions vary from the WGFDs vegetation treatment protocols. For any

vegetation treatments conducted in core area the BLM and USFS should use WGFD protocols. I request 

that the BLM and USFS remove Alternative A protocols from Alternative E under MA 95 (pp. 2-103 - 2-

104)

Comment ID: 2497

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-352 4.16.7 Alternative E: The first two sentences in the fourth paragraph seem they could 

be one, and how does one create levels of vegetation compaction?

Summary: Issue 1: The management prescriptions vary from the WGFD vegetation treatment protocols. 

For any vegetation treatments conducted in core areas, the BLM and Forest Service should use WGFD

protocols, and thus Alternative A protocols should be removed from Alternative E under MA 95. Issue 2:

The Draft EIS does not provide adequate documentation to fully describe the requirements of a reclamation 

plan or monitoring and reporting plan, so it is difficult to fully comment on the requirement. Other agency 

approved reclamation plans, such as the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality 

Division plan, should be considered to meet the requirements of this item. Issue 3: Language regarding 

non-native seed mixtures needs to be more restrictive, and include incorporation of watering cycles. Issue 

4: On page 4-352 4.16.7, the first two sentences in the fourth paragraph should be combined and explain 

how levels of vegetation compaction are created.

Response: Issue 1: Although the WGFD does provide protocols for vegetation treatment, there are portions 

of the protocols that may not meet each agency's legal or policy-related obligations, which is why there are 

occasional deviations from that strategy. The referenced section specifically includes consideration of the 

WGFD protocols for vegetation treatment. The language is appropriate as presented in the Draft EIS. Issue 

2: The BLM Wyoming Reclamation Plan is publically available at

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/reclamation.Par.60413.File.dat/wy2012- 032watch.pdf Additional information and details regarding reclamation plans is included in Appendix C. Issue 

3: BLM and Forest Service specialists considered this issue at length. The language is appropriate as 

presented in the Draft EIS. Non-native seed use is described in the BLM Wyoming Reclamation Plan Issue 

4: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been updated for clarity and content.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-941

Vegetation-Other

Range of alternatives

Support for Alternative B

Comment ID: 2258

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: (Action 111, page 2-114): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are 

most appropriate for Action 111.

Comment ID: 2257

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: (Action 110, page 2-114): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are 

most appropriate for Action 110.

Comment ID: 2260

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: (Action 112, page 2-115): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are 

most appropriate for Action 112.

Comment ID: 2261

Organization: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and North American Grouse Partnership

Name: Edward B. Arnett

Comment: (Action 113, page 2-115): We recommend management actions outlined in Alternative B are 

most appropriate for Action 113.

Summary: Management actions outlined in Alternative B are most appropriate for Actions 110, 111, 112, 

and 113.

Response: The final decision for these actions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion 

of the public involvement process.

Vegetation-Other

Range of alternatives

Support for wildland seed collection

Comment ID: 179

Organization: Stevenson Intermountain Seed, Inc.

Name: Ronald M. Stevenson

Comment: The federal Government, through vast land ownership in the west and applicable legislation, has

created a large need for native plant species seed for disturbed wildland land restoration. A significant 

number of important plant species seed used in wildland restoration is only available through wildland seed 

collections and the Federal Government is failing its responsibility to help provide favorable conditions to 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-942 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

provide the seed for the need it has created even though it could be accomplished with minimal effort and 

controversy. If this problem of "no wildland seed collecting on my district" attitude continues to exist, it 

will do great harm by greatly reducing the amount of needed seed that could and should be collected on 

U.S. Forest Service Land. This greatly increases seed prices because of shortages and the need to collect 

from less productive sites. This kind of attitude shows a lack of commitment to the USFS and BLM's goal 

to restore sage-grouse habitat and increase sage-grouse numbers and to use its renewable resources for the 

betterment of the American public.

Comment ID: 2744

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg C-5 Text: Use native site seed collection and local seed sources to the maximum extent 

practicable to maintain genetic diversity of local plant populations. Consider the use of cultivars of native 

species in the absence of sources of native seeds. Comment: The Coalition approves of this language.

Summary: A significant number of important plant species seed used in wildland restoration is only 

available through wildland seed collections. If wildland seed collection is not allowed to occur, it will do 

great harm by greatly reducing the amount of needed seed that could be collected on Forest Service Land,

and increase seed prices because of shortages. Additionally, the text in Appendix C (page C-5) regarding 

the use native site seed collection and local seed sources to the maximum extent practicable to maintain 

genetic diversity of local plant populations is supported.

Response: Seed collection is allowed on BLM lands by acquiring a permit.

Vegetation-Other

Reclamation

Reclamation method requirements should be modified

Comment ID: 515

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Reclamation Deterred Elsewhere Well sites, pipelines, and roads are being sited away from sage 

brush habitat, with the result that the development sites are more difficult to reclaim. The sites are forced 

into the saline and shallow sites that are harder to reclaim and result in accelerated weeds and invasive 

species. Reclamation is also hindered by BLM policy that prohibit use of non-native seeds to establish in 

the poorer soils. Sterile non-native plants or a mix of native and non-native seeds will hold the soil until 

native plants can get established. The DEIS needs to address the impacts on reclamation which are 

significant and apply to all projects in the respective field offices.

Comment ID: 677

Organization: Anadarko

Name: David Applegate

Comment: Downy brome is a landscape scale issue across Wyoming lands. It would be impossible in many

places to "eliminate" this species as required by this section. Anadarko suggests removal of this

requirement.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-943

Summary: Well sites, pipelines, and roads away from sage-grouse habitat located in saline and shallow sites 

are harder to reclaim and result in accelerated weeds and invasive species. Reclamation is also hindered by 

BLM policy that prohibit use of non-native seeds to establish in the poorer soils. Sterile non-native plants 

or a mix of native and non-native seeds could be used to hold the soil until native plants can get established. 

The requirement to eliminate down brome should also be removed, as it is a landscape scale issue across 

Wyoming lands and would be impossible to do so.

Response: The range of management alternatives and the protocols in Appendices A and C provide the

variability for reclamation practices, including the use of non-native plants and seeds if they meet sagegrouse restoration objectives. Many of these statements are not accurate when compared to the LUP 

Amendments. The BLM Wyoming Reclamation Policy does allow for non-native seeding in some 

circumstances.

Vegetation-Other

Vegetation Treatments

Additional Vegetation Treatment Plan requirements

Comment ID: 1673

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Any 

vegetation treatment plan must include pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish nongrazing exclosures, and include long-term monitoring of treated areas.

Summary: Require pretreatment data on wildlife and habitat condition, establish non-grazing exclosures, 

and include long-term monitoring of treated areas in vegetation treatment plan.

Response: The requirements and protocol for monitoring is described in Appendix D and in the text of

Management Actions 4, 6, 9, 46, 49, 99, 114, 125 in Chapter 2. The recommendations suggested in this 

comment would be considered during project-specific environmental analysis and decisionmaking.

Vegetation-Other

Vegetation Treatments

Management for persistent woodlands

Comment ID: 1689

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --In areas of 

PJ, avoid treating the areas of persistent woodlands. Persistent woodlands are an ecological condition, 

irrespective current observed “fire condition class”, where site conditions and disturbance regimes are 

inherently favorable for PJ, and where trees are a major component of the vegetation unless recently 

disturbed. These woodlands do not represent twentieth century conversion of formerly non-wooded 

vegetation types, but are places where trees have been an important stand component for several hundred 

years.117

Comment ID: 1680

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-944 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --In areas of 

PJ, avoid treating the areas of persistent woodlands. Persistent woodlands are an ecological condition, 

irrespective current observed “fire condition class”, where site conditions and disturbance regimes are 

inherently favorable for PJ, and where trees are a major component of the vegetation unless recently 

disturbed. These woodlands do not represent twentieth century conversion of formerly non-wooded 

vegetation types, but are places where trees have been an important stand component for several hundred 

years.

Summary: In areas of prairie juniper, both inside and outside sage-grouse core areas, avoid treating the 

areas of persistent woodlands.

Response: Management action 118 identifies treatment in areas of woodland encroachment. A persistent

woodland would be classified as an encroachment and therefore would not be treated.

Vegetation-Other

Vegetation Treatments

Monitoring and treatment requirement edits

Comment ID: 1347

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Action 9 requires the BLM to "monitor and treat invasive species associated with existing range

improvements" but fails to provide any information regarding the costs or personnel to accomplish this and 

how that relates to current and projected budgets. No requirement that would trigger this action has been 

provided.

Comment ID: 1691

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Apply 

appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing management treatments consistent with the types of 

seasonal habitats present.

Comment ID: 1682

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --Apply 

appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing management treatments consistent with the types of 

seasonal habitats present.

Comment ID: 1965

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-945

Comment: Pg. B-5, Vegetation Treatments/fire and Fuels Management – In general, we support the 

narratives under this section with the exception of the requirement on pg. B-6 to require power washing of 

“all” vehicles and equipment prior to entering veg treatment areas. If that restriction applies to all nonfederal

owned vehicles/equipment, it will likely preclude the assistance of non-federal vehicles/equipment on fires 

and veg treatments.

Summary: Issue 1: The requirement to monitor and treat of invasive species associated with existing range

improvements needs to include the trigger for this action, along with information regarding the costs or 

personnel to accomplish this and how that relates to current and projected budgets. Issue 2: Seasonal 

restrictions for implementing management treatments consistent with the types of seasonal habitats present 

should be applied. Issue 3: If the requirement on pg. B-6 to require power washing of “all” vehicles and 

equipment prior to entering vegetation treatment areas applies to all non-federal owned vehicles/equipment, 

it will likely preclude the assistance of non-federal vehicles/equipment on fires and veg treatments.

Response: Issue 1: The Forest Service currently monitors and treats invasive species associated with 

existing range improvements, so all action alternatives are the same as the No Action, and determining cost

and personnel is irrelevant to the analysis. Issue 2: Seasonal restrictions would be applied to actions that 

are surface disturbing or disruptive according to Management Actions 131 through 134. Issue 3: If power 

washing of vehicles is required for vegetation treatment projects and if non-federal vehicles/equipment is 

needed and non-federal partners cannot power wash their vehicles, then the BLM or Forest Service would 

consider providing power washing services if possible.

Vegetation-Other

Vegetation Treatments

Prohibit all pesticide use for vegetation management

Comment ID: 219

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: I OPPOSE VEGETATIOIN ALLEGED "MGT". I WANT OUR LANDS LEFT NATURAL 

AND UNTOUCHED AND BELIEVE THESE LANDS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WILDERNESS. 

BAR ALL PESTICIDE APPLICATION WHICH IS KILLIGN BATS AND BEES, SNAKES AND ALL 

SPECIES.

Summary: Prohibit all pesticide applications.

Response: The final decision for this resource area will be included in the Record of Decision after 

completion of the public involvement process.

Vegetation-Riparian

Monitoring

Support riparian habitat monitoring and management

Comment ID: 340

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-946 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Riparian areas should be the focus of monitoring efforts, as these areas can become ecologically

impaired before upland habitats begin to show signs of damage. The federal agencies need properly

functioning riparian areas to provide adequate brood-rearing habitat for sage grouse.

Comment ID: 327

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: While not necessarily associated with livestock grazing, in some areas, tamarisk and Russian

olive are increasing in riparian areas (see, e.g., DEIS at 3-403); we are concerned that this will also degrade 

brood-rearing habitats through sage grouse avoidance of trees and creation of raptor perching and nesting 

habitat. What is the relationship between tamarisk and Russian olive invasion and livestock overgrazing in 

riparian habitats, and what does BLM propose to do to address the spread of these invasive trees?

Summary: Riparian areas should be the focus of monitoring efforts, as these areas can become ecologically

impaired before upland habitats begin to show signs of damage. Properly functioning riparian areas are 

needed to provide adequate brood-rearing habitat for sage-grouse. Invasive species, such as tamarisk and 

Russian olive, may also degrade riparian habitat and must be addressed.

Response: The alternatives under Riparian Area Management provide protection for sage-grouse habitat 

within riparian zones for nesting and brood rearing in addition to vegetation management, monitoring,

seasonal restrictions, and buffer distances for development found in the rest of the management actions in 

Chapter 2.

Vegetation-Riparian

Range of alternatives

Apply recommendations from Staff Report released by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission, Lessons Learned in the Front Range Flood of 2013

Comment ID: 3118

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: High quality riparian habitats foster healthy wildlife species and habitat, including numerous

migratory bird species. Threats from oil and gas development were recently illustrated by the September 

2013 floods across Colorado’s front range. Because similar rainfall events are foreseeable in Wyoming, the 

plan should apply the recommendations from the new Staff Report released by the Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, Lessons Learned in the Front Range Flood of 2013.15 Specific 

recommendations are advanced at pages 28-32.

Summary: The plan should apply the oil and gas development recommendations from the new Staff Report

released by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, as rainfall events similar to those that 

occurred in September 2013 floods across Colorado's front range are foreseeable in Wyoming.

Response: BLM and Forest Service used the best available science and information to prepare and analyze 

the LUP Amendments. Some science/information provided was published following the preparation or

release of the LUP Amendments. The COGCC recommendations apply to wells within 500 feet of stream 

channels, which are in danger of being damaged by flooding. Some of them (e.g., establish new staging, 

refueling, and chemical storage areas outside of riparian zones and floodplains) are standard BMPs. Others 

could possibly be incorporated here or in site-specific documents. See the COGCC document beginning on 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-947

p.20:

http://cogcc.state.co.us/Announcements/Hot_Topics/Flood2013/FinalStaffReportLessonsLearned201

40314.pdf.

Vegetation-Riparian

Range of alternatives

Edits to Item 55 in Table 2-1

Comment ID: 2851

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Item 55 in Table 2-1 begins the discussion regarding riparian area management. Under 

Alternative D the document contains information regarding actions in core sage-grouse areas, however the 

actions appear to expand into the management of non-riparian areas. Discussions on non-riparian areas

should not be located within discussions about riparian management. Alternative B discusses management 

towards "reference state vegetation." We could not find further information regarding how the Agencies 

would implement this concept. Alternative C contains a requirement that a statewide standard of six inch 

stubble height be required in all riparian areas and meadows. We strongly reject this concept of one-sizefits-all management since in reality it isn't management, just a cookbook approach to a complex system.

Alternative A under the Pinedale RMP discussion talks about livestock actions within riparian areas, but 

does not address wildlife or wild horses if present. Both can have impacts on riparian areas, but it appears 

that, at least, in the Pinedale RMP these two sources will not be considered. We believe any discussion 

should consider these two uses along side of livestock.

Summary: Specific Issues include: Issue 1: Under Alternative D, discussions on non-riparian areas should 

not be located within discussions about riparian management. Issue 2: Under Alternative B, no further 

information regarding how the agencies would implement "reference state vegetation" is provided. Issue 3: 

Under Alternative C, oppose requirement that a statewide standard of six inch stubble height be required in 

all riparian areas and meadows.

Response: Issue 1: It is appropriate to mention adjacent upland areas in conjunction to riparian habitat 

when discussing habitat management. Issue 2: Because riparian areas are widely variable, it is not possible 

to provide detailed methods for achieving reference vegetation at the scale of the LUP Amendments. The 

methods would be determined individually on a site specific basis. Issue 3: BLM and Forest Service are 

required to analyze a range of alternatives, and while not all of the management is agreeable to everyone, 

each alternative complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and is based on the best available science.

Vegetation-Riparian

Range of alternatives

Establish widths for riparian management zones

Comment ID: 253

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: 36 C.F.R § 219.8(a)(3). The plan must establish widths for riparian management zones, to which 

the management outlined in the quoted section above will apply. 36 C.F.R. § 219.8(a)(3)(ii). This
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-948 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

requirement has special significance with regard to sage grouse, which use riparian areas as broodrearing

habitats.

Summary: The plan must establish widths for riparian management zones. This requirement has special 

significance with regard to sage-grouse, which use riparian areas as broodrearing habitats.

Response: The plan purposely does not establish widths to allow for variability in riparian areas. To limit a

distance could reduce areas in some systems and overly expand areas in others. The alternatives under 

Riparian Area Management provide protection for sage-grouse habitat within riparian zones for nesting and 

brood rearing in addition to the rest of the seasonal restrictions and buffer distances for development found 

in the rest of the management actions in Chapter 2.

Vegetation-Riparian

Range of alternatives

Support Alternative B for riparian management

Comment ID: 3115

Organization: Audubon Rockies

Name: Mike Chiropolos

Comment: The ecological value of riparian-wetland communities is inversely proportional to their limited

physical extent. These communities support the greatest diversity of plant and animal life of all habitat 

types. Riparian-wetland areas are a component of brood-rearing habitat for greater sagegrouse because they 

provide needed forbs and insects necessary for chick survival. Actions that improve riparian-wetlands 

improve habitats for special status wildlife species, especially increasing the quantity and quality of 

riparian-wetland vegetation and insects, are critical. BLM needs to select management actions that protect, 

develop, restore, and improve these areas. The measures in Alternative B (DEIS at 2-55 to 56) will best 

achieve conservation objectives.

Summary: The measures in Alternative B will best achieve riparian-wetland conservation objectives.

Response: The final decision for this resource area will be included in the Record of Decision after 

completion of the public involvement process.

Vegetation-Sagebrush

Invasive Non-native Plant Species

Manage to avoid invasive vegetation

Comment ID: 1688

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: ii. Management outside SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --

Aggressively monitor and control invasive vegetation in sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Rapidly restore 

burned or disturbed habitat to minimize or prevent the incursion of invasive plants.

Comment ID: 1679

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-949

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --

Aggressively monitor and control invasive vegetation in sagebrush steppe ecosystems. Rapidly restore 

burned or disturbed habitat to minimize or prevent the incursion of invasive plants.

Comment ID: 1681

Organization: Center for Biological Diversity

Name: Randi Spivak

Comment: Management Prescriptions: i. Management inside of SGCAs in sage-grouse habitat --In areas 

where sagebrush is prevalent or where cheatgrass is a concern, utilize mechanical methods rather than 

prescribed fire.

Comment ID: 2589

Organization:

Name: Elisa Enders

Comment: What really needs to be done is a comprehensive plan to protect the ecosystem that the grouse

needs to survive. Cheatgrass is an example of one invasive plant that is affecting the sagebrush habitat. If 

the sagebrush is protected, then the grouse will be helped, as well as Sage Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, and 

other bird, insect, and plant species.

Summary: Aggressively monitor and control invasive vegetation, such as cheatgrass, in sagebrush steppe

ecosystems and rapidly restore burned or disturbed habitat to minimize or prevent the incursion of invasive 

plants. In areas where sagebrush is prevalent or where cheatgrass is a concern, utilize mechanical methods 

rather than prescribed fire.

Response: Management for invasive, non-native plant species control and monitoring is within the

management alternatives under Vegetation and Wildland Fire and Fuels Management.

Vegetation-Sagebrush

Range of alternatives

Conifer removal in sagebrush

Comment ID: 323

Organization: Wild Earth Guardians

Name: Erik Molvar

Comment: Juniper expansion into sagebrush habitat is a very minor issue in Wyoming. However, we

recommend targeted conifer removal in potential sage grouse habitats while maintaining sagebrush-grass 

understory in as natural a state as possible.

Summary: Juniper expansion into sagebrush habitat is an issue in Wyoming. Consider targeted conifer 

removal in potential sage-grouse habitats while maintaining sagebrush-grass understory in as natural a state

as possible.

Response: Although there is no specific management in Chapter 2 for conifer encroachment, if there was 

an issue with conifer encroachment within the planning area, vegetation treatment protocols and

management within the plan would be used to treat the area if deemed necessary to protect, improve, or 

enhance sage-grouse habitat.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-950 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Vegetation-Sagebrush

Vegetation Treatments

Amend sagebrush vegetation treatment requirements

Comment ID: 420

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Table 2-1, Action #100, pg. 108: These management decisions proposed under Alternatives C 

and E place a high priority on sagebrush restoration. Yates requests BLM acknowledge and consider that 

due to uncontrollable factors such as drought, weather, soil conditions, erosion, grazing, etc., sagebrush 

restoration can be a difficult objective that may take years to achieve. Establishing restoration and 

reclamation standards based on sagebrush restoration may be unrealistic and unachievable.

Comment ID: 419

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Vegetation treatments, especially sagebrush treatments designed to benefit GSG, should not be 

considered a surface “disturbance” that would contribute toward the 5% surface disturbance threshold 

provided under EO 2011-5 and proposed under Alternative E. Although a vegetation treatment may 

technically disturb the surface and reduce sagebrush canopy cover in the short term, the objective is to 

improve GSG habitat and sagebrush canopy cover in the longer term. As a result, such a disturbance should 

not count against an operator’s 5% surface disturbance cap. If it did, this would create disincentive to 

conduct vegetation treatments and negatively impact GSG habitat in the long term.

Comment ID: 418

Organization: Yates Petroleum

Name: Shay Westbrook

Comment: Table 2-1, Action #94, pg. 102: These stipulations do not account for circumstances in which

sagebrush canopy cover is already < 15% in an area where vegetation treatments are occurring or should 

be conducted as part of reclamation efforts. They establish a canopy threshold based on a fixed percentage 

rather than pre-existing vegetative conditions. Additionally, sage brush grows very slowly and takes 

significant time (often years) to establish (or re-establish) during late stages of vegetative succession. As 

such, vegetation treatments aimed at increasing sage brush canopy cover in the long-term often will result 

in decreased sage brush canopy cover in the short-term as early succession plant species (grasses) establish 

first. These vegetation management stipulations proposed under Alternatives D and E do not allow such 

vegetation treatments and reclamation efforts to occur in GSG habitats. Yates requests BLM remove the 

15% sagebrush canopy requirement and allow vegetation treatments that reduce the sagebrush canopy 

below this level. A minimum sagebrush canopy stipulation should be based on the pre-existing vegetative 

community in the area (what is the pre-existing sage brush canopy?). Such a stipulation should also focus 

on the end result (i.e. final vegetative succession stages) of a vegetation treatment rather than the beginning.

Summary: Remove the 15% sagebrush canopy requirement in Table 2-1 Action 94, and allow vegetation

treatments that reduce the sagebrush canopy below this level. A minimum sagebrush canopy stipulation 

should be based on the pre-existing vegetative community in the area and focus on the end result. 

Establishing restoration and reclamation standards based on sagebrush restoration may be unrealistic and 

unachievable due to uncontrollable factors such as drought, weather, soil conditions, erosion, grazing, etc. 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-951

Additionally, vegetation treatments should not be considered a surface disturbance that would contribute 

toward the 5% surface proposed under Alternative E.

Response: The range of management alternatives and the protocols in Appendices A and C provide the

variability to treat vegetation for the best end result. The 15% canopy requirement varies across the

alternatives in Action 94 and only applies to northeast Wyoming. Not all vegetation treatments would be 

counted toward the 5% under Alternative E (MA 95).

Visual Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Map 3-22 has incorrect VRM information south of Rawlins

Comment ID: 2575

Organization: Power Company of Wyoming LLC

Name: Garry L. Miller

Comment: Map 3-22: BLM Visual Resource Management Classifications This map is inconsistent with the 

October 2012 ROD for the CCSM Project and Approved Visual Resource Management Plan Amendment. 

Figure 2-1 on page 2-2 within the ROD for the VRM Plan Amendment shows the public and private land 

checkerboard south of Rawlins as VRM Class IV throughout. Instead, Map 3-22 incorrectly shows these 

lands as VRM Class III throughout. This map must be corrected for the Final LUPA/EIS to properly show 

the updated VRM Class IV designations approved by BLM in 2012. Such blatant data errors such as this, 

Map 3-1, the potential wind energy development scenarios and other examples throughout these comments 

call into question the quality of BLM's analysis and highlight the need for BLM to take the time to carefully 

locate and utilize best available information and data in the Final LUPA/EIS.

Summary: Map 3-22: The BLM Visual Resource Management Classifications map is inconsistent with the

October 2012 ROD for the CCSM Project and Approved Visual Resource Management Plan Amendment. 

Figure 2-1 on page 2-2 within the ROD for the VRM Plan Amendment shows the public and private land 

checkerboard south of Rawlins as VRM Class IV throughout. Instead, Map 3-22 incorrectly shows these 

lands as VRM Class III throughout. This map must be corrected for the Final LUP Amendments/Final EIS 

to properly show the updated VRM Class IV designations approved by BLM in 2012. Such blatant data 

errors call into question the quality of BLM's analysis.

Response: Information and maps published in the Draft EIS were based on information collected from the 

agencies in 2011 and early 2012. The VRM information for Rawlins was updated after the Draft EIS was 

in final editing and not reflected in Draft EIS. The VRM information has been changed to reflect the October 

2012 Record of Decision.

Visual Resources

Best available information-baseline data

Visual resources does not tie into the larger Sage-grouse issue

Comment ID: 2476

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Chapter 3-Visual Resources TBNG Page 3-415 and 416: Is there a reason why the discussion 

does not tie into the greater sage-grouse, the subject of the EIS?
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-952 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary: Page 3-415 and 416: The discussion regarding visual resources in the TBNG does not tie into 

the Greater Sage-Grouse issue.

Response: The Revised TBNG Plan utilizes the SMS which provides an overall framework for the orderly

inventory, analysis, and management of scenery. It applies to all activities including, but not limited to, 

timber harvesting, road building, streams, range, wildlife improvements, sage-grouse viewing areas, special 

use developments, utility line construction, recreation developments, and fuels management.

Visual Resources

Impact Analysis

Stock ponds are compatible with VRM I and II

Comment ID: 2885

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Beginning on page 355 of Chapter 4 is a discussion on visual resources and later on page 357

describes that range improvements such as ponds would be visible from great distances. We believe that 

stock ponds add significantly to the landscape and question why they wouldn't be compatible with VRM 

classes I and II.

Summary: Beginning on page 355 of Chapter 4 is a discussion on visual resources and later on page 357

describes that range improvements such as ponds would be visible from great distances. Stock ponds add 

significantly to the landscape and should be compatible with VRM classes I and II.

Response: Stock ponds could meet the criteria for VRM Class II; however, VRM Class I requires no 

modification to the landscape.

Water

Overall language and content throughout document needs to be revised

Comment ID: 925

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Understandably, the information from the 9 LUPs varies considerably in level of detail. However 

the authors should consider providing approximately the same level of detail for each of the 9 LUPs, and

consider whether discussion of .waters outside of occupied GSG habitat or outside federal lands or mineral 

ownership is relevant to this EIS.

Comment ID: 924

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 3-417, 2nd Paragraph, and global comment: The DEIS often confuses the term "beneficial 

uses" with "designated uses". "Designated uses" means those uses specified by DEQ for each water body

or segment whether they are being attained, or not. "Beneficial uses", however, pertain to water rights and 

how the state's water is put to use; water rights are regulated by the Wyoming State Engineer. The EIS 

should use the term "designated uses" when discussing water quality.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-953

Comment ID: 939

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Language in Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7 frequently concludes that actions "would (emphasis

added) result in short-term and long-term soil erosion and sediment, salt and excess nutrient loading to 

water bodies". Elsewhere in these sections the word "could" is used. While the WDEQ agrees that increased 

surface disturbance would likely increase the potential of on-site arid near-site, short-term and/or long-term 

soil erosion, the potential of sediment, salt or excess nutrient loading to water bodies is also highly 

dependent on a number of other variables. Considering that the BLM and Forest Service analyze these 

factors when authorizing surface disturbing activities to ensure actions and alternatives do not result in 

exceedences of state water quality standards, the WDEQ. and suggests using the terms “could” or "would 

potentially.”

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-417, in the 2nd paragraph and throughout the document, the Draft EIS often

confuses the term "beneficial uses" with "designated uses.” "Designated uses" means those uses specified 

by DEQ for each water body or segment whether they are being attained, or not. "Beneficial uses," however, 

pertain to water rights and how the state's water is put to use; water rights are regulated by the Wyoming 

State Engineer. The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS should use the term "designated uses" when 

discussing water quality. Issue 2: The BLM should provide approximately the same level of detail for each 

of the 9 LUPs, and consider whether discussion of waters outside of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

or outside federal lands or mineral ownership is relevant to the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS.

Issue 3: Language in Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7 frequently concludes that actions "would (emphasis 

added) result in short-term and long-term soil erosion and sediment, salt and excess nutrient loading to 

water bodies." Elsewhere in these sections the word “could” is used. Although increased surface disturbance 

would likely increase the potential of on-site arid near-site, short-term and/or long-term soil erosion, the 

potential of sediment, salt or excess nutrient loading to water bodies is also highly dependent on a number 

of other variables. Considering that the BLM and Forest Service analyze these factors when authorizing 

surface disturbing activities to ensure actions and alternatives do not result in exceedences of state water 

quality standards, the terms “could” or “would potentially” should be used.

Response: Issue 1: The definition given is correct and the paragraph has been checked to determine 

appropriate terminology. Issue 2: The CEQ regulations require an environmental impact statement to 

"succinctly describe the environment of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under

consideration. The description shall be no longer than is necessary to understand the effects of the

alternatives. Data and analyses in a statement shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact, 

with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Agencies shall avoid useless 

bulk in statements and shall concentrate effort and attention on important issues (40 CFR 1502.15)." 

Additionally, the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS is a programmatic NEPA effort to conserve Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat across a broad geographic area. The BLM and the Forest Service described the 

current conditions and trends in the affected environment broadly, across a range of conditions, appropriate 

to program-level land use planning actions. The BLM and the Forest Service complied with these 

regulations in describing the affected environment. The requisite level of information necessary to make a 

reasoned choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope and nature of the proposed decision. 

The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various appendices is sufficient to support, at the 

general land use planning-level of analysis, the environmental impact analysis resulting from management

actions presented in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. Programmatic documents are regional in 

scope and place emphasis on developing broad environmental policies, programs, or plans. Site-specific 

data is important during implementation level decisions, which may be tiered to the decisions made in this 

document. Data scales include broad-scale, mid-scale, fine-scale, and site-scale. For this planning 

document, it is appropriate to utilize data at the mid-scale (e.g., WAFWA Management Zones) and fine-
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-954 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

scale (e.g., sub-region data). For this document, the best available information was used as generated and 

provided by the organizations and agencies with authority and special expertise to provide that information 

on a planning scale. Issue 3: The agencies feel that the terminology is used appropriately and expresses the 

likelihood of the identified impacts.

Water

Best available information-baseline data

Additional groundwater information needed

Comment ID: 929

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 3-425, Last Paragraph: The USGS. Wyoming Groundwater Monitoring Network 

Groundwater Characterization of the Green River Basin report should be referenced here.

Comment ID: 1430

Organization: FMC Alkali Chemicals

Name: John Lucas

Comment: Affected Environment, page 3-434, Table 3-127 Groundwater Occurrences in the Rock Springs 

Field Office. Reference information suggests that the TDS ranges may differ somewhat from those in Table

3-127. Laney shales have been noted to have TDS concentrations as high as 17,000 mg/L, and the Tipton

Shale as high as 2,000 mg/L.

Comment ID: 2480

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-442 Groundwater Supply and Use: Clinker outcrops are basically classified as an 

infiltration zone for groundwater recharge to the Wasatch Formation and the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone.

Please see Water-Resources Investigation Report 02-4045 USGS-2002 (Report). Other recharge areas

include places where the coal zone intercepts streams or the alluvial groundwater mound associated with 

the stream in the valley bottoms. The section should discuss the other hydrogeological components to the 

groundwater in the TBNG.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-442, clinker outcrops are basically classified as an infiltration zone for

groundwater recharge to the Wasatch Formation and the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone. Other recharge areas 

include places where the coal zone intercepts streams or the alluvial groundwater mound associated with 

the stream in the valley bottoms. The section should discuss the other hydrogeological components to the 

groundwater in the TBNG. Issue 2: On page 3-434, in Table 3-127, the reference information suggests that 

the TDS ranges may differ somewhat from those in Table 3-127. Laney shales have been noted to have 

TDS concentrations as high as 17,000 mg/L, and the Tipton Shale as high as 2,000 mg/L.; this should be

corrected. Issue 3: On page 3-425 in the last paragraph, the USGS Wyoming Groundwater Monitoring 

Network Groundwater Characterization of the Green River Basin report should be referenced here.

Response: Issue 1: This statement is correct, the document has been changed to include either by inclusion 

or reference, other recharge/discharge areas if present and other hydrogeologic conditions if appropriate.

Issue 2: Table has been checked for consistency with referenced information. Issue 3: Wyoming Water 

Development Commission, Green River Basin Water Plan II, Groundwater Study, Level 1 (2007-2009) 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-955

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/2010/finalrept/gw_toc.html Wyoming Water Development 

Commission, Green River Basin Water Plan II, Groundwater Study, Level 1 (2007-2009) 

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/2010/finalrept/gw_toc.html 2010 WWDC Groundwater Study (at

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/2010/finalrept/gw_toc.html and

http://www.wsgs.uwyo.edu/Research/Water-Resources/GGRB/).

Water

Best available information-baseline data

Baseline information revisions needed

Comment ID: 921

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Much of Section 3.18 "Watershed and Water Quality" is primarily a reiteration of those sections 

from the affected land use plans (LUPs). As a result, this section incorrectly cites similar information

regarding Wyoming's water classes, uses, water quality standards, regulations and assessments. The EIS 

would be greatly strengthened if that background information was summarized at the beginning of Section 

3.18.1 rather than repeat throughout the section. Since this EIS will update the nine (9) LUPs, the EIS 

should be updated with the most current information.

Comment ID: 926

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 3-418, 1st Paragraph: There are no Class 1 Waters in the Powder River Watershed in the 

Casper Field Office; The Class 1 reach of the Middle Fork of the Powder River lies within the area managed

by the Buffalo Field Office. All watersheds that lie within the Casper Field Office even have Class 2 and 3 

waters.

Comment ID: 2477

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-441: First paragraph, last sentence reference to "Powder River Basin on the west" should

have "Little Powder River basin" in parenthesis after " ... Basin on the west". The third paragraph is a basic 

rewrite of the definition for Class 3B streams found in Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ)-Chapter 1 Water Quality Rules and Regulations (Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards), a 

simple reference citation should suffice? The fifth paragraph should be updated consistent with the latest 

Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2012 Integrated 305(b) 303(d) Report. The 

2012 Report identifies the Little Powder River impaired for primary contact recreation from fecal coliform 

from the WY/MT state line upstream to the confluence with Spring Creek. The next sentence is just wrong. 

Please refer to the 2012 Wyoming Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. The causations of any of the 

impairments on the Belle Fourche River are presently unknown. The Belle Fourche River Watershed 

TMDLs for Ammonia, Chloride and Pathogens has now been approved by both the WDEQ and EPA. Is 

the last sentence referring to the WDEQ BURP assessments, if so then the correct identification should be 

made?

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-441, in the last sentence in the first paragraph, the reference to "Powder 

River Basin on the west" should have “Little Powder River basin” in parenthesis after “... Basin on the
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-956 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

west.” Also, the third paragraph is a basic rewrite of the definition for Class 3B streams found in Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-Chapter 1 Water Quality Rules and Regulations (Wyoming 

Surface Water Quality Standards), so a simple reference citation should suffice. Issue 2: Much of Section 

3.18 "Watershed and Water Quality" is primarily a reiteration of those sections from the affected land use 

plans (LUPs). As a result, this section incorrectly cites similar information regarding Wyoming's water 

classes, uses, water quality standards, regulations and assessments. Summarize this background information 

at the beginning of Section 3.18.1 rather than repeat throughout the section. Issue 3: On page 3-418, 1st 

Paragraph, there are no Class 1 Waters in the Powder River Watershed in the Casper Field Office; The 

Class 1 reach of the Middle Fork of the Powder River lies within the area managed by the Buffalo Field 

Office. All watersheds that lie within the Casper Field Office even have Class 2 and 3 waters.

Response: Issue 1: Terminology for Powder River Basin and Little Powder River Basin has been checked 

for accuracy. The reference for WDEQ-WQD has been added. Issue 2: Appropriate corrections have been 

made. Issue 3: Appropriate corrections have been made.

Water

Best available information-baseline data

Watershed and stream quality and health revisions

Comment ID: 931

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: The second paragraph on Page, 3-434 states that many riparian zones in the Rock Springs Field 

Office have been over utilized by grazing animals. A reach of the Little Sandy River is on Wyoming's 

303(d) List, and the BLM is part of a stakeholder group committed to complete a watershed based plan for

the watershed. Since, this reach is within GSG core area, and healthy riparian areas are important habitat 

for GSG, this watershed planning effort should be discussed in this paragraph, especially in regard to GSG 

habitat.

Comment ID: 935

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 3-436, Table 3-128: For clarification, the Forest Service does not have the authority to

determine if state water quality standards are met, that responsibility lies with WDEQ's Water Quality 

Division. Of the information in Table 3-128, only the data collected on Flat Creek was sufficient to make a 

use support determination. We recognize that there is a disclaimer stating Table 3-128 is not a 

comprehensive summary. However, since the WDEQ has collected large amounts of credible data in the 

BTNF indicating designated use support on hundreds of miles of streams, the LUP would benefit from its 

inclusion in the document.

Comment ID: 922

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: The discussion in Chapter 3 for the Rock Springs Field Office and the Forest Service cite the 

most current "Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1, Surface Water Quality 

Standards" http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/9176.pdf. However, the rest of the document incorrectly 

cites the 2001 Standards: WDEQ 2001b and WDEQ 2002. Additionally, the "Wyoming Surface Water
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-957

Classification List" (WDEQ 2001a available at http://deg.state.wy.us/wgd/watershed/surfacesta

ndards/Downloads/Standards/Wyoming_Surface_Water_Classification_List_07262013.pdf) was updated 

in 2013 and should be correctly cited in the EIS.

Comment ID: 923

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: The "Wyoming Water Quality Assessment arid Impaired Waters List" is updated every two 

years. The EIS should cite the latest version: "Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters 

List (2012 Integrated 30S(b) and 303(d) Report)" available at

http://deq.state.wy.us/wgd/watershed/Downloads/30Sb/2012/WY2012IR.pdf. Information regarding water 

quality assessments, designated use support, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development should 

be updated for the Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices in Chapter 3.

Comment ID: 930

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-433 3rd Paragraph: this paragraph states that 12 streams are being gaged and sampled 

but later states that Jack Morrow and Pacific Creeks are the only ones being sampled. The language should 

be clarified. [Comment coder suspects this is a typo and should refer to page 3-433.]

Comment ID: 934

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: The second paragraph on Page 3-434 also states that phosphate is partially responsible for

eutrophication and fishery impacts to the Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Please cite the source of this

information.

Comment ID: 2479

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-442 Overall Watershed Stream Health: The discussion of small impoundments 

(reservoirs) on ephemeral drainages is repeating the discussion in Wetlands and Riparian Areas above. 

There are 2 watersheds in the TBNG, is the section discussing both and is it confined to within the 

administrative boundary of the TBNG? Should other sources of information be used? The section should 

discuss the health of the streams (chemical, physical and biological characteristics), not just the 

impoundments and coal bed methane produced water. Positive research in preventing West Nile Virus 

should be discussed?

Summary: Issue 1: On page 3-442, the discussion of small impoundments (reservoirs) on ephemeral 

drainages is repeating the discussion in Wetlands and Riparian Areas above. There are 2 watersheds in the

TBNG, so this section should clarify if it is discussing both and if it is confined to within the administrative 

boundary of the TBNG. The section should discuss the health of the streams (chemical, physical and 

biological characteristics), not just the impoundments and coalbed methane produced water, positive 

research in preventing West Nile virus should be discussed, and other sources of information may be 

needed. Issue 2: The discussion in Chapter 3 cites the most current "Wyoming Water Quality Rules and

Regulations, Chapter 1, Surface Water Quality Standards". However, the rest of the document incorrectly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-958 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

cites the 2001 Standards: WDEQ 2001b and WDEQ 2002. Additionally, the "Wyoming Surface Water 

Classification List" was updated in 2013 and should be correctly cited in the Final EIS. Issue 3: Information 

regarding water quality assessments, designated use support, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

development should be updated for the Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices in 

Chapter 3. Issue 4: On page 3-433 the 3rd paragraph states that 12 streams are being gaged and sampled 

but later states that Jack Morrow and Pacific Creeks are the only ones being sampled. The language should 

be clarified. Issue 5: The second paragraph on page 3-434 states that many riparian zones in the Rock 

Springs Field Office have been over utilized by grazing animals. A reach of the Little Sandy River is on

Wyoming's 303(d) List, and the BLM is part of a stakeholder group committed to complete a watershed 

based plan for the watershed. Since, this reach is within Greater Sage-Grouse core area, and healthy riparian 

areas are important habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, this watershed planning effort should be discussed in 

this paragraph, especially in regard to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Issue 6: The second paragraph on Page 

3-434 states that phosphate is partially responsible for eutrophication and fishery impacts to the Flaming 

Gorge Reservoir; cite the source of this information. Issue 7: On page 3-436, Table 3-128, the Forest 

Service does not have the authority to determine if state water quality standards are met, that responsibility 

lies with WDEQ's Water Quality Division. Of the information in Table 3-128, only the data collected on 

Flat Creek was sufficient to make a use support determination. Although there is a disclaimer stating Table 

3-128 is not a comprehensive summary, since the WDEQ has collected large amounts of credible data in 

the BTNF indicating designated use support on hundreds of miles of streams, the LUP Amendments should 

include it in the document. Issue 8: On page 3-441, the fifth paragraph should be updated as the 2012 

Report identifies the Little Powder River impaired for primary contact recreation from fecal coliform from 

the Wyoming/Montana state line upstream to the confluence with Spring Creek. The next sentence is

incorrect; please refer to the 2012 Wyoming Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. The causations of any of 

the impairments on the Belle Fourche River are presently unknown. The Belle Fourche River Watershed 

TMDLs for Ammonia, Chloride and Pathogens has now been approved by both the WDEQ and EPA. If 

the last sentence is referring to the WDEQ BURP assessments, then the correct identification should be 

made.

Response: Issue 1: The text is appropriate as written. Information and discussion on West Nile virus is 

presented in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. Issue 2, 3: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been 

updated for clarity and content. Issue 4: The referenced text is incorrect and has been modified accordingly. 

Monitoring for physical, chemical and baseline data is now conducted by the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality not by the BLM. Beginning in 2004, a survey of the Rock Springs Field Office 

using the PFC method was conducted. PFC is a qualitative methodology that quickly provides an initial 

estimate of riparian and water quality condition based on riparian vegetation and stream morphology. The 

text on page 3-433, lines 9-15 was replaced with: "The intent of monitoring is to ensure that the BLM 

complies with the Wyoming DEQ Water Quality 11 Rules and Regulations, Chapter I (WDEQ 2013a) and 

Quality Criterion for Water (EPA 2012). Monitoring for physical, chemical and baseline data is conducted 

by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Beginning in 2004, a survey of the Rock Springs 

Field Office using the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) method was conducted. Proper Functioning 

Condition [PFC] is a qualitative methodology that quickly provides an initial estimate of riparian and water 

quality condition based on riparian vegetation and stream morphology." Issue 5: Results of the TMDL 

project associated with Little Sandy and other streams within the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS 

affected environment will be incorporated into on-the-ground actions. Issue 6: The Proposed LUP 

Amendments/Final EIS has been updated for clarity and content. Issue 7: The commenter is correct that 

the Forest Service does not have the authority to determine if state water quality standards are met. The 

information in Table 3-128 has been revised in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS to revise the 

determinations to be opinions. The Forest Service is simply sharing water quality results for areas on the 

Thunder Basin National Grasslands. It is not apparent why the reader thinks the data does not make sense. 

Exact locations of wetlands, ponds or reservoirs displayed on maps is not appropriate for the level of 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-959

analysis required by a plan amendment. Issue 8: The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS has been 

updated for clarity and content

Water

Best available information-baseline data

Wetland and riparian revisions

Comment ID: 2478

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 3-442 Wetland and Riparian Areas: The second sentence does not make sense with the 

third sentence. The next sentence is a bold generalization and should be deleted or referenced as to the exact 

locations of wetlands and the location of the pond(s) or reservoir(s) in the watershed. Maybe a map could 

help?

Summary: On page 3-442, the second sentence does not make sense with the third sentence. The next

sentence is a bold generalization and should be deleted or referenced as to the exact locations of wetlands 

and the location of the pond(s) or reservoir(s) in the watershed, and a map should be provided.

Response: Proper use of beneficial use vs. designated use has been checked and corrections made if 

necessary. The run-on sentence has been corrected. No map will be included.

Water

Cumulative impact analysis

Cumulative impacts language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 2510

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-495 4.22.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource-Watershed and Water Quality: In the first

paragraph "water quantity" should be also mentioned as it is discussed further in the second paragraph. 

Another water quantity impact would be drought in the planning area, and the lack of water storage 

possibilities. The last sentence in paragraph two does not make sense. How can only one activity make all 

the difference in water quality and quantity? Would there be an opportunity for discussing precipitation and 

recharge zones as they relate to climate in the planning area? In the fourth paragraph what is meant by the 

phrase "large range improvements"? If it is only prescribed fire then that terminology should be used. The 

balance of the sentence seems to be tied to a vegetative removal scheme and direct impacts caused by 

erosion and soil particle movement. Is there a chance the sentence can be re-written? The last three 

sentences seem to generalize impacts by the various activities listed in the second sentence of the fourth

paragraph. We cannot agree with said wording. The writer is suggesting that grazing practices alter the 

natural vegetative community causing a myriad of negative impacts to the natural resource and that is 

problematic. Will there be a possibility of rewording?

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-495, in the first paragraph "water quantity" should be also mentioned as it 

is discussed further in the second paragraph. Another water quantity impact would be drought in the

planning area, and the lack of water storage possibilities. Also, clarify the last sentence in paragraph two, 

how only one activity can make all the difference in water quality and quantity, and if there would be an 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-960 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

opportunity for discussing precipitation and recharge zones as they relate to climate in the planning area.

Issue 2: On page 4-495 in the fourth paragraph, clarify and re-write what is meant by the phrase "large 

range improvements." If it is only prescribed fire, then that terminology should be used. The balance of the 

sentence seems to be tied to a vegetative removal scheme and direct impacts caused by erosion and soil 

particle movement. The last three sentences seem to generalize impacts by the various activities listed in 

the second sentence of the fourth paragraph. The language is suggesting that grazing practices alter the 

natural vegetative community causing a myriad of negative impacts to the natural resource and that is 

problematic and should be reworded.

Response: Issue 1 and 2: This analysis has been revised in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS.

Water

Impact Analysis

Alternative C language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 2501

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-374 4.18.5 Alternative C: The second paragraph concerning prohibiting livestock grazing 

in the TBNG in sage-grouse priority habitat is suggesting the impacts to watersheds and water resources

would decrease, we suggest the long term impact of rest will cause severe erosion and vegetation

destruction. The use of the phrase "No surface disturbing activities associated with livestock grazing ... " 

runs opposite of the previous phrase where livestock grazing was not a disturbance.

Comment ID: 2503

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-377 4.18.5 Alternative C: Grazing exclusion for sage-grouse habitat objectives is 

problematic in burned areas and may never allow grazing for a very long time and may never improve 

watershed function.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-377, grazing exclusion for sage-grouse habitat objectives is problematic in 

burned areas and may never allow grazing for a very long time and may never improve watershed function;

this should be noted. Issue 2: On page 4-374, the second paragraph concerning prohibiting livestock grazing 

in the TBNG in sage-grouse priority habitat is suggesting the impacts to watersheds and water resources 

would decrease; it should say that the long term impact of rest will cause severe erosion and vegetation

destruction. The use of the phrase "No surface disturbing activities associated with livestock grazing ... " 

runs opposite of the previous phrase where livestock grazing was not a disturbance.

Response: The final decision for these actions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion 

of the public involvement process.

Water

Impact Analysis

Assumptions language should be revised

Comment ID: 942

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-961

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-365, Paragraph 3. Suggest changing this assumption to "A reduction in surface 

occupancy ... water bodies, and better maintain ...

Comment ID: 940

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-364, Section 4.18.3: The majority of the first five paragraphs and a number of other

paragraphs of section 4.18.3 are basic assumptions regarding erosion and potential of water quality impacts 

that apply to the type of activity described, regardless of the alternatives, and are not specific to Alternative 

A. These should be moved to the Section 4.18.2 Assumptions section, with the exceptions listed below. 

Only the language specific to the actions in Alternative A should remain.

Comment ID: 937

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-364, Section 4.18.2 Assumptions: Suggest Adding; "BLM and Forest Service 

management actions or use authorizations must comply with all Federal and State water quality laws, rules 

and regulations to address water quality issues that originate on public lands" to the first bullet. Suggest 

adding: A bullet stating that all BLM actions must meet the Standards for Health Rangelands (BLM 1997a), 

specifically Standards #2 and #5.

Comment ID: 946

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-366, Paragraph 3. This paragraph should be moved to the Section 4.18.2 (Assumptions).

Comment ID: 943

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-365, Paragraph 4. This action is common to all and should be noted as such. The last 

sentence is an assumption and should be moved to Section 4.18.2 (Assumptions).

Comment ID: 2504

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-410 4.21.2 Assumptions: The tenth bullet should be used in other assumptions in Chapter 

4 such as Watershed and Water Quality, Soils, and Vegetation.

Comment ID: 2500

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-364 4-18.2 Assumptions: The first bullet may be revised to not include all the base

information that most readers will already know (laws however, are not rules and regulations). The last 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-962 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

sentence would suffice? If not it still needs a lot of editing. Regarding the second bullet, we question the 

accuracy of the language "more and bigger". Larger aggregate size is generally reserved to larger flows not 

just faster flows, and just because water flows fast doesn't mean it will pick up aggregate of any size. In the 

fourth bullet the statement about degradation of stream channel and land health can be quite rapid may be 

misleading. Normally there needs to be some other factor(s) that leads degradation and how rapid it 

develops. In the fifth bullet what aquifers are being referred to? It appears to be a coal bed methane 

development assumption?

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-410, the tenth bullet should be used in other assumptions in Chapter 4 such 

as Watershed and Water Quality, Soils, and Vegetation. Issue 2: On page 4-364, the first bullet should be 

revised to not include all the base information that most readers will already know (laws however, are not 

rules and regulations), and the last sentence would suffice or it needs to be reworded. Also, the language in 

the second bullet, "more and bigger" should be revised. The fourth bullet the statement about degradation 

of stream channel and land health can be rapid may be misleading. Finally, clarify what aquifers are being 

referred to in the fifth bullet. Issue 3: On page 4-364, add: "BLM and Forest Service management actions 

or use authorizations must comply with all federal and state water quality laws, rules, and regulations to 

address water quality issues that originate on public lands" to the first bullet. Also add a bullet stating that 

all BLM actions must meet the Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997a), specifically Standards #2 

and #5. Issue 4: On page 4-364, the majority of the first five paragraphs and a number of other paragraphs

of section 4.18.3 are basic assumptions regarding erosion and potential of water quality impacts that apply 

to the type of activity described, regardless of the alternatives, and are not specific to Alternative A. These 

should be moved to the Section 4.18.2 Assumptions section, with the exceptions listed below. Only the 

language specific to the actions in Alternative A should remain. Issue 5: On page 4-365, in paragraph 3 

this assumption should be changed to "A reduction in surface occupancy ... water bodies, and better 

maintain ... Issue 6: On page 4-365, the action in paragraph 4 is common to all and should be noted as 

such. The last sentence is an assumption and should be moved to Section 4.18.2 (Assumptions). Issue 7: 

Paragraph 3 on page 4-366 should be moved to the Section 4.18.2 (Assumptions).

Response: Issue 1: Assumption was added to Watershed and Water Quality and Vegetation. Issue 2: The 

first bullet is an appropriate assumption for the analysis. Revisions have been made to clarify the other 

bullets. [“More and bigger” have been changed to read “Larger volumes of material of greater sizes can be 

carried the faster the water flows.” Added “for example, during a single, large flood event” to bullet 4. 

Changed “aquifer” to “ground water.”] Issue 3: This list is assumptions for analysis of impacts, these 

statements are not appropriate for this list. BLM/Forest Service include this information in Chapter 1 and 

Appendix L. The BTNF Forest Plan has a Standard that addresses this comment (Water Quality Standard).

Issue 4: This analysis applies to Alternative A and it applies to the other alternatives. Although it is not 

specific to a management action, it applies to all activities listed in the text. Issue 5: The text has been 

changed. Issue 6 and 7: The way this is stated is correct.

Water

Impact Analysis

Impacts analysis needs to be revised

Comment ID: 944

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-365, Paragraph 6. Actions in Alternative A are existing management actions and are the

baseline against which the other alternatives/actions are analyzed. They don't result in greater or lesser 

impacts except when compared the action alternatives impacts under Alternative A.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-963

Comment ID: 941

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-364, Section 4.18.3 the fifth sentence in first paragraph in Section 4.18 should be 

reworded. "Soil disturbance can also alter timing and duration of runoff, reduces infiltration capacity, 

accelerate erosion, and potentially increase sedimentation and nutrient loading to stream channels, thereby

degrading water quality, channel structure, and overall watershed health."

Comment ID: 947

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-366, Paragraph 4. Actions in Alternative A are existing management actions and are the

baseline against which the other alternatives/actions are analyzed. They don't result in greater or lesser 

impacts except when compared to the action alternatives impacts under Alternative A. The last sentence 

appears to be specific to CBNG development and should be noted as such.

Comment ID: 936

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Section 4.18, Watershed and Water Quality: The document would benefit from the inclusion of 

an overall summary of the impacts of the alternatives. Although Table 2-7 in Chapter 2 provides a very

brief summary of impacts based on affected acreage, the other management actions which are not applied 

on specific acreages are not addressed. A summary table in Section 4.18 would allow the reader to quickly 

compare the impacts of comparable actions between each alternative. The description and comparison of 

each action in Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7 would be strengthened if the actions were identified by 

number, allows the reader to quickly look up the specific language of the action in Table 2-l or refer to the 

impacts of that action elsewhere in Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7.

Comment ID: 949

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-367, Paragraph 2. "Improve" would be a better way to describe water quality, however 

it should be compared with the action alternatives.

Comment ID: 950

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-367, Paragraph 4. This should.be compared with the action alternatives based on acreage.

Comment ID: 951

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-370, Paragraph 1. Managing riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC or similar 

condition is a requirement. Suggest this be reworded to better explain .how the action compares with 

alternative A.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-964 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 952

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: As discussed previously, many of the actions in the various alternatives are poorly summarized 

and not referenced, making it difficult to compare impacts and provide constructive criticism. Similar

comments can be applied to the remainder of Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7, however. As cooperators, the 

WDEQ is more than willing to work with the authors to strengthen the Watershed and Water Quality 

Sections when the FEIS is written.

Comment ID: 948

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Name: Todd Parfitt

Comment: Page 4-366, Paragraph 5. Suggest changing to " ... throughout the planning area could allow for 

the most surface disturbance compared with the action alternatives ... "

Comment ID: 2499

Organization: Campbell County Conservation District

Name: Timothy J. Morrison

Comment: Page 4-364: 4.18.1 Impact Indicators: Is there a reason why climate is not an indicator for 

watersheds and water quality?

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-364, provide reasoning why climate is not an indicator for watersheds and 

water quality. Issue 2: Many of the actions in the various alternatives are poorly summarized and not 

referenced, making it difficult to compare impacts and provide constructive criticism. Similar comments 

can be applied to the remainder of Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7, however. As cooperators, the WDEQ is

more than willing to work with the authors to strengthen the Watershed and Water Quality Sections when 

the Final EIS is written. Issue 3: Include an overall summary of the impacts of the alternatives. Although 

Table 2-7 in Chapter 2 provides a very brief summary of impacts based on affected acreage, the other 

management actions which are not applied on specific acreages are not addressed. A summary table in 

Section 4.18 would allow the reader to quickly compare the impacts of comparable actions between each

alternative. The description and comparison of each action in Sections 4.18.3 through 4.18.7 would be 

strengthened if the actions were identified by number, allows the reader to quickly look up the specific 

language of the action in Table 2-l or refer to the impacts of that action elsewhere in Sections 4.18.3 through 

4.18.7. Issue 4: On page 4-364, the fifth sentence in first paragraph in Section 4.18 should be reworded to

say: "Soil disturbance can also alter timing and duration of runoff, reduces infiltration capacity, accelerate 

erosion, and potentially increase sedimentation and nutrient loading to stream channels, thereby degrading 

water quality, channel structure, and overall watershed health." Issue 5: On pages 4-365 and 4-366, actions 

in Alternative A are existing management actions and are the baseline against which the other 

alternatives/actions are analyzed. They don't result in greater or lesser impacts except when compared the 

action alternatives impacts under Alternative A. Issue 6: On page 4-366 in paragraph 4, the last sentence 

appears to be specific to CBNG development and should be noted as such. Issue 7: On page 4-366 in 

paragraph 5, change to “... throughout the planning area could allow for the most surface disturbance 

compared with the action alternatives ...” Issue 8: On page 4-367 in paragraph 2, "Improve" would be a 

better way to describe water quality; however, it should be compared with the action alternatives. Issue 9: 

On page 4-367 in paragraph 4, this should be compared with the action alternatives based on acreage. Issue 

10: On page 4-370 in paragraph 1, managing riparian areas and wet meadows for PFC or similar condition 

is a requirement; this should be reworded to better explain how the action compares with Alternative A.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-965

Response: Issue 1: Climate change is not appropriate as an indicator in this type of analysis. Issue 2: 

Because land use plan-level decisions are typically broad and qualitative rather than quantitative or focused 

on site-specific actions (BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Chapter II, A-B at 11-13 and 

Chapter IV, B at 29; Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 – Land Management Planning), the associated 

analyses are correspondingly high level. The analysis is appropriate for a planning-level document. Issue 

3: The tables following Table 2.1 (Tables 2.2 to 2.7) are included to provide various forms of comparison 

between alternatives. Table 2.7 provides a summary comparison of impacts by resource area. Issue 4: The 

agencies feel that the analysis is appropriate. Issue 5: Alternative A is the baseline that all the other 

alternatives are compared to, it is also analyzed as though it could be picked and implemented in the future, 

the same as the other alternatives. Issue 6: The agencies feel that the analysis is appropriate. Issue 7: Other 

alternatives allow for exceptions, waivers, and modifications; this would not necessarily be “the most.”

Issue 8: Changed “increase” to “improve.” Since this is the baseline analysis, it would not be appropriate 

to compare it to another alternative. Issue 9: Since this is the baseline analysis, it would not be appropriate 

to compare it to another alternative. Table 2.2 compares acres of management by alternative. Issue 10: The 

agencies feel that the analysis is appropriate.

Water

Impact Analysis

Impacts from grazing needed

Comment ID: 1240

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: Eroding soil and manure throughout watersheds end up in streams as increased sediment load,

excessive nutrients, and pathogen contamination. Various grazing management strategies have not been 

found to reduce such watershed degradation.59 The Final LUPA/EIS needs to discuss the impacts of each 

of the alternatives on the soil and watershed conditions within the planning area and to provide appropriate 

mitigation measures under each alternative. A list of impaired waters and the sources of contamination 

within the watersheds of these public lands would be an appropriate place to begin taking a “hard look” at 

potential grazing effects from the public lands.

Comment ID: 1169

Organization: Western Watersheds Project

Name: Jonathan B. Ratner

Comment: The BLM is required to meet the water quality standards of every state in which it administers 

public lands. Livestock grazing in and near streams results in increased E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria.

The Final EIS and RMP must explain how the plan complies with Wyoming surface water quality standards 

for E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria.

Summary: Issue 1: Grazing management strategies have not been found to reduce such watershed

degradation; therefore, the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS needs to discuss the impacts of each of 

the alternatives on the soil and watershed conditions within the planning area and to provide appropriate 

mitigation measures under each alternative. Issue 2: As livestock grazing in and near streams results in 

increased E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria, the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS must explain how 

the plan complies with Wyoming surface water quality standards for E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria.

Response: Issue 1: The agencies feel that the analysis is appropriate. Issue 2: The requested information 

and analysis is not appropriate for a planning level document.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-966 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Water

Mitigation measures

Appendix B language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 2730

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg B-3 Text: Construct road crossings of ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams to 

minimize impacts to the riparian habitat, such as by crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and

stream crossings. Comment: Any crossings of ephemeral drainages or streams will likely be subject to

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Comment ID: 2020

Organization: Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Public Lands Advocacy, Western Energy Alliance

Name: Esther Wagner

Comment: Page B-3, Paragraph 3 Any crossings of ephemeral drainages or streams will likely be subject 

to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As such, this requirement should be reworded as follows to include 

this section: “Construct road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings subject 

to the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.”

Summary: On page B-3, any crossings of ephemeral drainages or streams will likely be subject to Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act. As such, this requirement should be reworded as follows to include this section: 

“Construct road crossings at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings subject to the 

requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.”

Response: The Forest Service and BLM conforms to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act when fill is placed 

in relevant water bodies as a matter of course. There is no need for the additional language. For clarification, 

however, ephemeral drainages are not subject to Section 404 per the US Supreme Court's decision in the 

Rapanos case.

Water

Range of alternatives

Do not implement sage-grouse conservation measures that impact water quality

Comment ID: 220

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: wATER QUALITY IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THE NEGATIVE PROTECTONS 

ALLOWED FOR NATURE AND ITS BENEFITS.

Summary: Do not implement protections that benefit nature, as they negatively impact water quality.

Response: The final management decisions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion of 

the public involvement process.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-967

Wild Horses

Best available information-baseline data

Include NAS wild horse reform recommendations

Comment ID: 469

Organization:

Name:

Comment: In summary, the final EIS must include the following: Incorporation of the June 2013 National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations regarding the reform of the wild horse and burro

management program into all alternatives related to wild horses. The BLM spent more than $1 million and 

waited almost three years for this review to be completed. Consequently the BLM must incorporate the 

recommendations of this thorough and scientifically sound report into its land use pans.

Summary: The Final EIS must include incorporation of the June 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

recommendations regarding the reform of the wild horse management program into all alternatives related 

to wild horses. The BLM spent more than $1 million and waited almost three years for this review to be 

completed and must incorporate the recommendations into its land use plans.

Response: The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments are specifically for the management of sage-grouse, 

not wild horses. The suggested revisions are outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP

Amendments.

Wild Horses

Best available information-baseline data

More baseline data is requested

Comment ID: 1066

Organization:

Name: Eileen Hennessy

Comment: The draft LUP Amendments fails to provide mandatory protections for wild horses and burros 

that are essential for their survival according as dictated by federal law and regulations which has charged

BLM with the protection of these national treasures, who are to be managed as the PRINCIPAL users of 

their lawfully designated areas, not to elevate the interests of special interests, such as the livestock industry, 

who are authorized to graze our public lands at the agency’s discretion. Additionally, the negative impacts 

of the LUP Amendments on federally protected wild horses and burros are not seriously examined. but 

must be included in the final EIS. The DEIS fails to neither sufficiently examines the impacts of the LUP 

Amendments on wild equines nor the obvious negative impacts that rampant livestock grazing in the 

planning area has on struggling sage grouse which are quite clear despite the agency's glaring omission of 

classifying destructive livestock grazing as a surface disturbing activity, which it most certainly is. Not one 

of the alternatives given would provide the remaining wild horses and burros of Wyoming the appropriate 

protections necessary for their future survival and are more in line with ensuring the ultimate demise of 

wild horses and burros in Wyoming under the pretense of sage grouse "conservation", such as reductions 

of wild equine AMLs which would further threaten the genetic viability of these wild herds. The EIS fails 

to seriously analyze the extreme difference of range impacts of overpopulated destructive livestock as 

compared to beneficial wild equines. Instead of constantly implicating wild horses/burros for rangeland

degradation without scientific evidence to back up such a claim, BLM must provide a detailed breakdown 

of range data, including GENUINE data that TRUTHFULLY examines the obvious difference of impacts 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-968 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

between destructive livestock vs. beneficial wild equines is needed, including data on usage of stream 

riparian areas. The BLM arbitrarily and wrongly attempts to categorize livestock AND wild horses together 

under the description of livestock. The agency must once and for all acknowledge the scientific FACT that 

wild horses are a NATIVE, reintroduced species that originated in North America whose ancestors roamed 

these lands for thousands of years and who now peacefully co-exist with sage grouse in the high desert 

sagebrush ecosystems on the Western range. The final EIS must provide all rangeland health assessments 

and procedure for conducting such assessments of the impacts for wild horses as well as livestock and BLM 

must have extensive knowledge of the differences in impacts on the range of wild horses vs. cattle. If the 

agency analyzed the obvious difference of impacts between wild horses and livestock on the range, it would 

become apparent that the evidence would not support wild horse reductions or removals but would implicate

destructive cattle for the damage of forage and riparian areas and would clearly demand their removal or, 

at the very least, that they be reduced so that their numbers are evenly balanced with those of the wild 

horses in their own federally designated areas to rectify the wildly unfair allocation of resources the BLM 

has seen fit to bestow upon them which violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The final EIS must also include a distinct comparative 

analysis of the difference in population numbers between livestock and wild horses/burros in the sage 

grouse planning area. There must be full data in the final EIS of all livestock grazing allocations within the 

whole sage grouse planning area (including within federally designated wild horse/burro habitat areas), 

along with a complete listing of all BLM and FS allotments, acreage, Active (permitted) AUMs as well as 

genuine AUM usage for the last five years. The final EIS must include orders prohibiting reductions of 

current AUMs of forage for protected wild horses and burros. The EIS alternatives must include AUMs for 

wild horses/burros to ensure selfsustaining genetically viable populations of wild equines. There must be 

allowance for increasing AUMs and AMLs for wild horses/burros when reliable scientific data concludes 

that the genetic viability of a current population is threatened. Data and clearly defined maps revealing 

acreage and AUM allocations in all three categories of sage grouse habitat where livestock grazing occurs 

must be provided in the final EIS as well as a listing of all Herd Area territory in the planning area and sage

grouse habitat zone to allow for the restoration of zeroed out HAs as a feasible alternative. Factual data on 

the exact populations -- not guesstimates -- of wild horses and burros within each all HMAs/HAs and data 

on the difference in AUM allocation of wild horses/burros vs. livestock must be provided for the purpose 

of creating a plan for sage grouse, whose protection must not be at the expense of federally protected wild 

equines. Alternative C should be selected as the preferred alternative as it eliminates all AUMs, however, 

it should be ameliorated to include provisions to increase wild horse AMLs along with restoration of 

usurped HA lands as soon as livestock is removed and the effects on wild horses from resultant closure of 

any water sources must be seriously analyzed.

Comment ID: 2933

Organization: Protect Mustangs

Name: Anne Novak

Comment: With regards to BLM Wyoming's Greater Sage Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan (LUP), the 

Draft LUP is not compliant with federal laws and regulations and does not protect wild horses. The Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not provide analysis of the LUP Amendments on wild horses. 

The analyzed alternatives are wrong because they would reduce the number of wild horses on the land while 

give 47 more times forage to livestock grazing. Also the skewed DEIS ignores the difference between 

livestock impact and native wild horse impact on the range. We request the EIS include: 4. Clear delineation 

of wild horses from livestock both legally and biologically/environmentally. 5. Designation of Alternative 

C as the Preferred Alternative. This would eliminate livestock grazing in sage grouse habitat. Alternative 

C should be amended to allow for increases in wild horse AML and restoration of HA territory, where 

appropriate, once livestock grazing is removed. Alternative C should also require mitigations to any impacts 

on wild horses caused by removal of livestock grazing, including closure of water sources. 6. Cumulative 

impacts analysis of proposed alternatives in conjunction with BLM’s plans to zero out wild horses from the
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-969

Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin HMAs, to reduce the Adobe Town HMA population by half, and 

to convert the wild-free roaming horse population in White Mountain to a sterilized herd. 7. Full analysis 

of the social and economic impacts of proposed actions, including the prevailing American social 

preference for wild horse protection and the full costs of the federal livestock grazing program, including 

tax subsidies.

Comment ID: 2393

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The final document must include the findings and recommendations of the NAS report. In 

addition, the BLM should ensure that none of the designated actions will hinder or prohibit implementation 

of the NAS recommendations for reform of the wild horse and burro management program. In addition, the 

final plan and LUP Amendments/EIS must the following: a. Clear and accurate delineation of the BLM’s 

legal mandate to protect wild horses. b. Clear delineation of wild horses from livestock both legally and 

biologically/environmentally. c. Clearly defined charts and maps that delineate all HMAs and Herd Areas, 

data on number of horses estimated within each area, AUM allocations for wild horses COMPARED with 

livestock usage. d. Clear charts, map and explanation of the scale of livestock grazing in all categories of 

GRSG habitat, including acreage, Allotment names, percent of allotment within each category of habitat, 

and AUM allocations. e. All information describing and documenting the differences between wild horse 

and burro and livestock range impacts. f. All genetic reports and documentation of genetic viability status 

of all wild horse and burro herds within the planning area. g. Full analysis of the social and economic 

impacts of proposed actions, including the prevailing American social preference for wild horse protection 

and the full costs of the federal livestock grazing program, including tax subsidies. h. Cumulative impacts 

analysis of proposed alternatives in conjunction with BLM’s plans to zero out wild horses from the Salt 

Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin HMAs, to reduce the Adobe Town HMA population by half, and to 

convert the wild-free roaming horse population in White Mountain to a sterilized herd.

Summary: The following data is requested: Issue 1: All rangeland health assessments and procedures for 

conducting such assessments of the impacts for wild horses as well as livestock. Issue 2: A listing of all 

HA territory in the planning area and sage-grouse habitat zone to allow for the restoration of zeroed out 

HAs as a feasible alternative. Issue 3: Data on the exact populations (not estimates) of wild horses within 

each of the HMAs/HAs. Issue 4: Data on the difference in AUM allocations of wild horses vs. livestock.

Issue 5: Data on HA territory in the planning area and the mapped Greater Sage-Grouse habitat zone. Issue 

6: Clear and accurate delineation of the BLM’s legal mandate to protect wild horses.

Response: Issue 1: The requested change is outside of the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP 

Amendments. Issue 2: The requested change is outside of the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP 

Amendments. The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments need not nor should not identify new HMAs 

from HA s nor is it establishing allocations between livestock grazing and wild horses. Issue 3: Estimates 

are appropriate for the land-use plan level analysis. Populations are too variable over the course of the 

analysis to provide exact numbers. Issues 4-6: The requested change is outside of the scope of the Greater 

Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments.

Wild Horses

Best available information-baseline data

More collaboration with wild horse advocates is needed

Comment ID: 1814

Organization:
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-970 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: A review of Chapter 5 of the Draft LUPA / EIS disclosed the absence of collaboration, 

consultation, cooperation, or coordination, with advocates for wild horses. There was not even a wild-horse

specialist among the BLM staffers that helped prepare the document. Consequently, wild-horse interests 

were not defended. Recommendations: BLM-Wyoming's state office -- as well as each of its district and 

field offices that have wild-horse programs -- needs to establish an advisory committee of mustangadvocates and work with us to formulate policy. BLM should proactively cultivate a collaborative 

relationship with wild-horse advocates, consulting with us just as you do with other partners. Such 

consultation and coordination needs to be conducted, with modifications to the Final LUPA / EIS 

incorporated per the recommendations of the advisory committee.

Comment ID: 1816

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: On pdf-page 8 of the Executive Summary, it states that BLM will "[c]oordinate with livestock 

grazing permittees in the LUP amendment process ...." Later, in Chapter 5, the Rock Springs Grazing

Association is identified as a "cooperating agency." But RSGA is a trade association, not a government 

agency. In fact, all the other organizations listed as "cooperating agencies" are government entities or the 

offices of elected officials. Meanwhile, wild-horse advocates were snubbed.

Summary: A review of Chapter 5 of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS disclosed the absence of

collaboration, consultation, cooperation, or coordination, with advocates for wild horses. BLMWyoming's

State Office, as well as each of its district and field offices that have wild horse programs, need to establish 

an advisory committee of mustang-advocates and work with us to formulate policy. BLM should 

proactively cultivate a collaborative relationship with wild horse advocates, consulting with us just as you 

do with other partners. Such consultation and coordination needs to be conducted, with modifications to 

the Final LUP Amendments/Final EIS incorporated per the recommendations of the advisory committee.

On pdf-page 8 of the Executive Summary, it states that BLM will "[c]oordinate with livestock grazing

permittees in the LUP amendment process ...." Later, in Chapter 5, the Rock Springs Grazing Association 

is identified as a "cooperating agency." But RSGA is a trade association, not a government agency. In fact, 

all the other organizations listed as "cooperating agencies" are government entities or the offices of elected 

officials. Meanwhile, wild-horse advocates were snubbed.

Response: The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments are specifically for the management of sage-grouse, 

not wild horses. Cooperating agency status can only be extended to government entities and agencies based 

on jurisdiction or expertise. BLM cannot offer cooperating agency status to non-government agencies. 

Changes to the Final EIS have been made to remove the statement from the Executive Summary and to 

remove Rock Springs Grazing Association from the cooperating agencies list in Chapter 5.

Wild Horses

Best available information-baseline data

Water source edits

Comment ID: 482

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-971

Comment: The DEIS erroneously recommends developing water to improve wild horse distribution. DEIS 

4-435 (“Water developments to improve herd distribution and manage forage utilization for wild horses

could reduce pressure on areas where wildlife frequent and disperse wild horses elsewhere.” RSGA’s

experience and that of ranchers in Nevada is that water development does not change distribution so much 

as it encourages population growth. Energy development on the Wyoming Checkerboard resulted in new 

water that led to significant increases in wild horse numbers and their relocation to the Checkerboard most 

of the year. Similarly in Fallini v. Hodel, the rancher developed water in the Nevada desert that greatly 

increased wild horse use and numbers. This suggestion finds no support in USFWS COT and should be 

deleted.

Comment ID: 532

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: The USFWS also concludes that the concentration of excess numbers of wild horses near water

sources, such as riparian and wetland areas, may interfere with PFC contrary to Standard #2 of the Wyoming 

Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Wild horses define their territory based on water sources, including 

riparian areas, and return to water at least twice a day. The repeated year-long use at a territorial water site 

and the trails to and from the water site will compact the soil and cause increased soil erosion. Water sources 

may even cease to exist after excessive trampling and wallowing.

Summary: Issue 1: The Draft EIS erroneously recommends developing water to improve wild horse 

distribution (Draft EIS 4-435). This suggestion finds no support in USFWS COT and should be deleted.

Issue 2: The concentration of excess numbers of wild horses near water sources, such as riparian and 

wetland areas, may interfere with PFC contrary to Standard #2 of the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland 

Health. Issue 3: The effects on wild horses from resultant closure of any water sources must be seriously

analyzed.

Response: Issue 1: The analysis in Chapter 4 is based on the management in Chapter 2. The referenced

sentence is based on the management for wild horses found in Chapter 2, it cannot be deleted or the analysis 

would not make sense. Issue 1-3: BLM believes that the analysis in Chapter 4 is sound and appropriately 

addresses the impacts to wild horses from the management actions in Chapter 2.

Wild Horses

Cumulative impact analysis

Wild horse cumulative impacts with Consent Decree

Comment ID: 468

Organization:

Name:

Comment: In summary, the final EIS must include the following: Cumulative impacts analysis of proposed

alternatives in conjunction with BLM’s plans to zero out wild horses from the Salt Wells Creek and Great 

Divide Basin HMAs, to reduce the Adobe Town HMA population by half, and to convert the wild-free 

roaming horse population in White Mountain to a sterilized herd.

Summary: The Final EIS must include a cumulative impacts analysis of the proposed alternatives in 

conjunction with BLM’s plans to zero out wild horses from the Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin 

HMAs, to reduce the Adobe Town HMA population by half, and to convert the wild-free roaming horse

population in White Mountain to a sterilized herd.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-972 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Response: The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments are specifically for the management of sage-grouse, 

not wild horses. The suggested revisions are outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP

Amendments. Management actions regarding these HMAs will be addressed in the Rock Springs RMP/EIS.

Wild Horses

HMAs

HMA and HMA plan revisions

Comment ID: 550

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Wild horses, as just discussed, significantly and adversely effect GRSG habitat. To better 

understand the full range of impacts, the BLM must identify the range and concentration areas of wild 

horses within GRSG core habitat. Although the BLM provides rough estimates (if any) of wild horse 

numbers, these numbers do not demonstrate the location of the horses, their preferred range, and their

cumulative effect on the health of the rangeland. BLM should provide a map that identifies HMA

boundaries, GRSG core habitat delineations, and most importantly, those areas that are heavily affected by 

wild horse populations. It will also allow the public, cooperating agencies, and other interested stakeholders 

to fully review the effects of wild horses on the environment and the appropriate action to reduce their 

numbers.

Comment ID: 508

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: 2. Amend Wild Horse Plans DEIS 2-114 #110, 2-183 The DEIS states: “Within core habitat, the 

BLM/Forest Service would review and consider amending BLM Herd Management Area Plans (HMAPs) 

to incorporate sagegrouse habitat objectives and management considerations for all BLM herd management 

areas (HMAs).” With the exception of the Big Sandy Grazing EIS, it is unlikely that BLM ever wrote a 

wild horse management area plan in Wyoming. The DEIS cannot refer to such management plans without 

acknowledging that they do not currently exist. The management of each HMA is addressed in terms of 

AMLs. RSGA understands that historically BLM has not monitored wild horse impacts on rangeland 

resources. The direction should be revised as follows: “Within core habitat, the BLM/Forest Service would

review and amend applicable land use plans consider amending BLM Herd Management Area Plans

(HMAPs) to incorporate sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations for all BLM herd 

management areas (HMAs).”

Comment ID: 1813

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: HMAs should be designated "no surface occupancy" (NSO) areas -- fracking-free zones, 

drilling-free zones, mining-free zones -- to preserve aesthetic and recreational values and to avoid disturbing 

the equids' natural behavior. HMAs should also be declared "off-limits" to off-highway-vehicles (OHVs) -

- to protect the peace-and-quiet of the range and the cleanliness of the ambient air. These restrictions will 

simultaneously protect Sage-Grouse habitat located in HMAs and HAs.

Comment ID: 2799

Organization:
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-973

Name: marla bosworth

Comment: 5. Why aren't the two herd management areas mentioned, LaBarge and Desert Wild, are “not

managed for wild horses"?

Comment ID: 2810

Organization:

Name: Ann Evans

Comment: I am very opposed to the solution to create non-reproducting herds in White Mountain. In this 

area, BLM has allowed livestock grazing and massive mineral extraction. I also am opposed to zero out any 

additional areas I the Great Divide Basin and Salt Wells. I am also supportive of maintaining the herd at 

Adobe Town and do not favor any additional reductions in this herd area. In addition I support adding a 

provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs).

Summary: Issue 1: On pages 2-114 #110 and 2-183, the Draft EIS cannot refer to such management plans

without acknowledging that they do not currently exist. The management of each HMA is addressed in 

terms of AMLs. The direction should be revised as follows: “Within core habitat, the BLM/Forest Service 

would review and amend applicable land use plans and consider amending BLM HMAPs to incorporate 

sage-grouse habitat objectives and management considerations for all BLM HMAs.” Issue 2: BLM must 

provide the method for which it calculated the numbers for Adobe Town, Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek 

HMAs, and clarify why the LaBarge and Desert Wild areas are not managed for wild horses. Issue 3: BLM 

should provide a map that identifies HMA boundaries, Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat delineations, and 

those areas that are heavily affected by wild horse populations. Issue 4: HMAs should be designated NSO 

areas, including fracking-free zones, drilling-free zones, and mining-free zones, to preserve aesthetic and 

recreational values and to avoid disturbing the equids' natural behavior. Issue 5: HMAs should be declared 

"off-limits" to off-highway-vehicles (OHVs). Issue 6: Provide a cumulative impacts analysis of proposed 

alternatives in conjunction with BLM’s plans to zero out wild horses from the Salt Wells Creek and Great 

Divide Basin HMAs, to reduce the Adobe Town HMA population by half, and to convert the wild-free 

roaming horse population in White Mountain to a sterilized herd. Issue 7: Creation of non-reproducing 

herds in White Mountain should not be allowed. Issue 8: Zeroing out any additional areas in the Great 

Divide Basin and Salt Wells HMAs should not be allowed. Issue 9: The herd at Adobe Town HMA should 

be maintained and not reduced.

Response: Issue 1: The alternatives considered in the Draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply 

with all laws and policy and meet the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. Issue 2: The requested change is 

outside of the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments. Issue 3: Map 3-25 shows the HMA 

boundaries and has been updated in the Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS. Issue 4-9: The suggested 

changes to management are outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments. Management 

regarding the Consent Decree and specific management for wild horses (unrelated to sage-grouse habitat) 

will be addressed in the Rock Springs RMP/EIS. BLM feels the information provided about wild horses 

and the range of management alternatives appropriately address impacts to sage-grouse from the 

management actions for wild horses in the LUP Amendments.

Wild Horses

Impact Analysis

The impact analysis is inadequate

Comment ID: 1960

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-974 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 4-396, 4.19.7, Alternative E – The first sentence under this heading is another example of 

how this “horse” section is not focused on horses. It reads, “ Restricting utility structures within sagegrouse

core habitat would result in impacts to livestock grazing similar to Alternative A.” On pg. 4-397, the last 

paragraph conveys, “ Managing the density of disturbance on the landscape inside sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat would increase impacts to livestock grazing within the planning area long-term, 

compared to Alternative A”. We again comment: How do these statements located under the Preferred 

Alternative, Horse section of this Draft have anything to do with horses ?? We comment that all references 

to livestock be removed from the Horse sections of this draft.

Comment ID: 464

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The DEIS does not adequately address the adverse impacts of wild horses on sage grouse habitat.

DEIS 2-12, 2-14-15; 2-114; 2-182-83; 3-75, 3-443-449; 4-386, 4-396- 398. The DEIS makes only general 

conclusions of impact based on the assumption that maintaining wild horse numbers at current AMLs will 

protect sage grouse habitat and that wild horse impacts are the same as livestock grazing.

Comment ID: 747

Organization:

Name: Jane Beattie

Comment: There are seven Herd Management Areas in Wyoming and at least five Herd Areas designated 

for federally-protected wild horses. However,draft Amendments do not analyze impacts on wild horses and 

the effects of livestock grazin on sage grouse -- excluding livestock grazing from classification as a surface 

disturbing and unsustainable activity. BLM allocates 47 times more forage to privatelyowned livestock than 

to federally-protected wild horses in this planning area. -- more than 100,000 cows vs. 2,135 wild horses! 

Meanwhile, many of the sections regarding impacts of various alternatives to wild horses are apparently 

just cut and pasted from the livestock section.

Comment ID: 1959

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 4-386, 4.19, Wild Horses – Under “Assumptions”, please explain why this narrative conveys

“assumptions” that the BLM knows can not be sustained ? The entire narrative under this section on “wild 

Horses” is tainted by the knowledge of the public that the assumptions that drive the discussion of impacts 

to horses from grouse proposals in this document are unrealistic at best, and probable just wrong. We 

comment that much of the narrative under this section is not really about impacts to horses from grouse 

proposals, but is instead a number of opinion statements about livestock grazing impacts on horses. As 

examples, in the third paragraph, pg. 4-387, the statement “ Use of forage by livestock and wildlife and 

surface disturbing activities associated with grazing can reduce the amount and availability of forage and 

water for wild horses ...”. Also, “There are 188 allotments not meeting the standards due to livestock”. We 

comment: What do these types of statements have to do with potential impacts to horses from implementing 

( grouse we presume ) management actions presented in Chapter 2 ??? We comment that this section should 

be re-written to focus entirely on the actual, realistic impacts to horses from the proposals related to the

conservation of grouse to keep the grouse from being listed. The BLM itself documented during a 

presentation to the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board in the spring of 2013, that there are 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-975

approximately 100,000 acres of core grouse habitat inside existing Herd Management areas, HMA’s. Many 

of these HMA’s are over AML and are likely having adverse impacts to grouse conservation objectives.

Comment ID: 834

Organization:

Name: David Hobart

Comment: I hope you will consider letting the horses have their space. I would like to add that there are 

some tourism dollars to be lost in losing the wild horses.

Comment ID: 914

Organization:

Name: Ingrid de Baintner

Comment: As a retired physician and former wildlife biologist I concur with the protection of the sage 

grouse. however, the real problem is excessive cattle /livestock grazing NOT wild horses. therefore wild

horses have far. less impact on BLM land as opposed to livestock. it is well recognized that one of the prime 

incentives for getting rid of the Mustangs is fueled by competition for grazing land.

Comment ID: 1994

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: Wild Horses (4.19): The assumptions made in this subsection are clearly unrealistic given the 

current status of the horse management program. WSGA requests that BLM incorporate an alternative

analysis based upon an assumption that the current inability to maintain adequate timely gathering,

treatment and removal of wild horses, even in those areas where such action is mandated by a judicial 

consent decree, will continue. Analysis also needs to be incorporated on the potential impacts of sage grouse 

management prescriptions on the ability to gather wild horses in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Comment ID: 2370

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Active HMAs affected by the LUP amendments include the Adobe Town, Lost Creek, Stewart 

Creek, Great Divide Basin, Salt Wells Creek, Little Colorado and White Mountain HMAs. All proposed

alternatives could have significant adverse impacts on wild horses, either directly, or indirectly by setting 

the stage for future changes that would impact wild horses. These impacts are not adequately analyzed or 

disclosed in the DEIS. These impacts have not been adequately analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). In addition, just one of the four alternatives presented would adequately address a major

threat to sage grouse – livestock grazing – while all alternatives could set the stage for future reductions in 

wild horse Allowable Management Levels (AMLs), even though the number of federallyprotected wild 

horses in the planning area is dwarfed by the number of privately-owned cattle and sheep.

Comment ID: 2372

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: In contrast to maintaining the status quo for livestock grazing in the planning area, the 

alternatives described in the DEIS could set the stage for reductions in wild horse populations. Alterative 

B prioritizes the evaluation of AMLs “based on indicators that address structure/condition/composition of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-976 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

vegetation and measurements specific to achieving sage-grouse habitat objectives.” Alternative D calls for 

the evaluation of all AMLs in sage-grouse core habitat would be prioritized based on sagegrouse habitat 

objectives. Alternative E calls for consideration of sage-grouse core habitat management objectives when 

evaluating AMLs and land health assessments in HMAs. However, the DEIS fails to describe the 

methodology for clearly delineating wild horse impacts from livestock impacts when evaluating land health 

and wild horse AMLs. The final DEIS must describe this methodology in detail. The differing impacts of 

wild horses and cattle on the land are detailed in Attachment 2-4, which are incorporated here with these 

comments by reference.

Comment ID: 470

Organization:

Name:

Comment: In summary, the final EIS must include the following: Full analysis of the social and economic 

impacts of proposed actions, including the prevailing American social preference for wild horse protection

and the full costs of the federal livestock grazing program, including tax subsidies.

Comment ID: 2382

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The DEIS is silent on the impacts of the proposed LUP amendments, which could set the stage 

for reductions in wild horse AMLs in GRSG habitat areas, in conjunction with other proposed actions in

the planning area. These actions include: • Amending the Rawlins and Rock Springs Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) to a) reduce by half the AML in the Adobe Town HMA; b) zero out (reduce AML to 0) the 

Salt Wells Creek and Divide Basin HMAs, and c) convert the wild free-roaming White Mountain HMA 

horse population to a sterilized herd. • The Continental Divide-Creston Natural Gas Development Project, 

which will include large scale disruption on nearly 200 square miles of wild horse habitat in the Adobe 

Town and Lost Creek HMAs. Clearly the above-described assaults on wild horse populations in the 

planning area heighten the impacts of any reductions to AML that will result from the LUP amendments. 

These cumulative impacts must be considered and protections for dwindling wild horse populations in the 

planning area must be written into all alternatives. In particular, all alternatives should incorporate the

mandate that no reductions to wild horse AMLS should occur unless and until livestock grazing is severely 

reduced or eliminated from HMAs.

Comment ID: 2385

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Not only was the relative impact of wild horses vs. livestock on sage grouse habitat, in terms of

acreage and AUMs, omitted, but also omitted was an evaluation of the rangeland impact of private livestock 

grazing as opposed to impacts from wild horses. There are extreme differences in the impacts generated by 

these users of public land. These differences were clearly delineated in the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s biological opinion regarding impacts of wild horses in the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory 

in Oregon. (Attachment 4) Additionally, both the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds 

have written extensive reports showing the impact of livestock production (and its cost) to public land 

management. Wild horses, when not impeded by allotment fencing and large turnouts of domestic cattle, 

have minimal impact to the range. To treat both of these uses as “grazing” is irresponsible and unscientific.

Comment ID: 2378

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-977

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Not only was the relative impact of wild horses vs. livestock on sage grouse habitat, in terms of

acreage and AUMs, omitted, but also omitted was an evaluation of the rangeland impact of private livestock 

grazing as opposed to impacts from wild horses. There are extreme differences in the impacts generated by 

these users of public land. These differences were clearly delineated in the National Marine Fisheries 

Service’s biological opinion regarding impacts of wild horses in the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory 

in Oregon. (Attachment 4) Additionally, both the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds 

have written extensive reports showing the impact of livestock production (and its cost) to public land 

management. Wild horses, when not impeded by allotment fencing and large turnouts of domestic cattle, 

have minimal impact to the range.

Comment ID: 462

Organization:

Name:

Comment: the DEIS fails to consider the significant differences in range impacts caused by livestock vs. 

wild horses. The DEIS does not consider wild horses as distinct from livestock, indeed many of the sections 

regarding impacts of various alternatives to wild horses are apparently just cut and pasted from the livestock 

section!

Comment ID: 2381

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The DEIS evaluates impacts to wild horses by the same criteria as impacts to wild horses. Indeed

most of the impacts section of the DEIS was cut and pasted from livestock impacts section and in multiple 

places, the BLM didn’t even bother to change the language to specify wild horses! Just two examples from 

Chapter 4 – Wild Horses: 4.19.7 Alternative E Restricting utility structures within sage-grouse core habitat 

areas would result in impacts to livestock grazing [should say “wild horses”] similar to Alternative A.... 

(P. 4-397) Managing the density of disturbance on the landscape inside sage-grouse core and connectivity

habitat would increase impacts to livestock grazing [should say “wild horses”] within the planning area 

long-term, compared to Alternative B..... The final EIS must clearly distinguish wild horses from livestock, 

clearly delineate the BLM’s legal mandate to protect this species and manage them “as a natural component 

of the lands on which they are found,” and consider the distinct biological and ecological differences 

between wild horses and livestock when evaluating the impacts to this species of the proposed LUP 

Amendments.

Summary: The Draft EIS does not adequately address the adverse impacts of wild horses on Greater SageGrouse habitat. The Draft EIS makes only general conclusions of impacts based on the assumption that 

maintaining wild horse numbers at current AMLs will protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and that wild

horse impacts are the same as livestock grazing. Issue 1: Draft LUP Amendments do not analyze impacts 

on wild horses and the effects of livestock grazing on sage-grouse, and exclude livestock grazing from 

classification as a surface disturbing and unsustainable activity. Many of the sections regarding impacts of 

various alternatives to wild horses are apparently just cut and pasted from the livestock section. Wild horses 

have far less impact on BLM land as opposed to livestock. Issue 2: The Final EIS must include a full 

analysis of the social and economic impacts of proposed actions, including the prevailing American social 

preference for wild horse protection and the full costs of the federal livestock grazing program, including 

tax subsidies. Consider that wild horses are a source of tourism dollars. Issue 3: The Draft EIS fails to 

seriously analyze the difference of range impacts of livestock as compared to wild horses. Issue 4: 

Examination of the difference of impacts between livestock vs. wild horses is needed, including usage of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-978 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

stream riparian areas and on the range. Issue 5: On page 4-386, BLM should explain why this narrative 

conveys “assumptions” that the BLM knows can not be sustained. Much of the narrative under this section 

is not really about impacts to horses from sage-grouse proposals, but is instead a number of opinion 

statements about livestock grazing impacts on horses. As examples, in the third paragraph, pg. 4-387, the 

statement “ Use of forage by livestock and wildlife and surface disturbing activities associated with grazing 

can reduce the amount and availability of forage and water for wild horses ...”. Issue 6: In regards to the 

statement “There are 188 allotments not meeting the standards due to livestock,” BLM should clarify what 

these types of statements have to do with potential impacts to horses from implementing management 

actions presented in Chapter 2. This section should be rewritten to focus entirely on the actual, realistic 

impacts to horses from the proposals related to the conservation of grouse to keep the grouse from being 

listed. The BLM itself documented during a presentation to the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory 

Board in the spring of 2013, that there are approximately 100,000 acres of core grouse habitat inside existing 

HMAs. Many of these HMAs are over AML and are likely having adverse impacts to grouse conservation 

objectives. Issue 7: On page 4-396, the first sentence under this heading is another example of how this 

“horse” section is not focused on horses. It reads, “ Restricting utility structures within sage-grouse core

habitat would result in impacts to livestock grazing similar to Alternative A.” Issue 8: On pg. 4-397, the 

last paragraph conveys, “ Managing the density of disturbance on the landscape inside sage-grouse core 

and connectivity habitat would increase impacts to livestock grazing within the planning area long-term, 

compared to Alternative A”. Issue 9: All references to livestock must be removed from the horse sections 

of this Draft EIS. Issue 10: The assumptions made in Section 4.19 are clearly unrealistic given the current 

status of the horse management program. BLM should incorporate an alternative analysis based upon an

assumption that the current inability to maintain adequate timely gathering, treatment and removal of wild 

horses, even in those areas where such action is mandated by a judicial consent decree, will continue. 

Analysis also needs to be incorporated on the potential impacts of sage-grouse management prescriptions 

on the ability to gather wild horses in a timely and cost-effective manner. Issue 11: The Draft EIS fails to 

describe the methodology for clearly delineating wild horse impacts from livestock impacts when 

evaluating land health and wild horse AMLs. The Final EIS must describe this methodology in detail. Issue 

12: Not only was the relative impact of wild horses vs. livestock on sage-grouse habitat, in terms of acreage 

and AUMs, omitted, but also omitted was an evaluation of the rangeland impact of private livestock grazing 

as opposed to impacts from wild horses. There are extreme differences in the impacts generated by these 

users of public land. These differences were clearly delineated in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 

biological opinion regarding impacts of wild horses in the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory in 

Oregon. Additionally, both the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds have written 

extensive reports showing the impact of livestock production (and its cost) to public land management. 

Wild horses, when not impeded by allotment fencing and large turnouts of domestic cattle, have minimal 

impact to the range. To treat both of these uses as “grazing” is irresponsible and unscientific. Issue 13: 

None of the alternatives analyzed adequately protects wild horses.

Response: Issue 1-4, 10, 12: BLM believes that the analysis in Chapter 4 is sound and appropriately 

addresses the impacts to wild horses from the management actions in Chapter 2. The Greater Sage-Grouse 

LUP Amendments are not analyzing the impacts directly from horses or livestock, but rather impacts from

the management actions in Chapter 2. Issue 5: Assumptions are used as the basis of the impact analysis. 

The assumptions are based on current management or conditions of the resource. The assumptions used are 

believed to be accurate and a sound basis for the analysis. Issue 6-9: The analysis has been edited to make 

it more relevant to the impacts to horses, not livestock. Issue 11, 13: The suggested management is outside 

the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments. This plan is specifically for the management of 

sage-grouse, not wild horses.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-979

Wild Horses

Impact Analysis

Wild horses impact sage-grouse habitat

Comment ID: 1954

Organization: Wyoming State Grazing Board

Name: Dick Loper

Comment: Pg. 3-75, - We agree with the statement in the middle of this page that high numbers of BLM 

horses that exceed AML have an influence, ( adverse in our opinion ), on livestock numbers and

management. We would add a comment that excess horses also adversely impact wildlife and the health of 

rangelands and request that this fact be placed in the Final document.

Comment ID: 503

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Providing inaccurate estimates or no estimates at all skews the DEIS Chapter 4 analysis of the 

current wild horse situation. Without data and science-based estimates, it is impossible to determine the full

extent of the resource being managed and the full extent of the impacts on GRSG from that resource (i.e. 

wild horses). Unlike livestock, horses disparately impact the rangeland due to their year round presence and 

unique biological feeding habits. Supra at **. Horses “reduce grass, shrub, and forb cover” and increase 

“unpalatable forbs and exotic plants including cheatgrass” in sage grouse habitats. BLM, NTT at 18. This 

in turn impacts vegetation recovery, promotes habitat fragmentation, and facilitates the spread of invasive 

plant species. Assuming, as the BLM does, that horse populations will increase by 18% annually, these 

impacts compound in relation to the existing number of horses on HMAs. Without determining existing 

numbers, the DEIS assumptions provide little more than cursory conclusions unsupported by proper 

analysis for more than 1,488,260 acres of GRSG priority habitat.

Comment ID: 474

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The USFWS findings are corroborated by research in Wyoming. In 2002, the Wyoming 

conservation districts, including the Little Snake River Conservation District, demonstrated that about 20% 

of the wild horse diet consisted of sagebrush stems and leaves. This is even more true during drought or

winter when more palatable forage is less available. Studies show that wild horse diets vary throughout the 

year. K. Crane, Habitat selection patterns of feral horses in south-central Wyoming, J. Range Mgmt. 50:374-

380 (1997). Wild horses favor grasses in the spring and forbs and shrubs in winter. Thus, wild horse grazing 

can have disproportionate impacts on winter range, like the RSGA Checkerboard which is winter range.

Comment ID: 489

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The BLM Wild Horse Division Chief Joan Guilfoyle wrote six months ago that the wild horse 

program was suffering from “financial insolvency due to undesirable trends in every aspect of the program.”

Guilfoyle called for a shut down of all gathers, increased adoption and fertility research while admitting 

that there would be 48,000 wild horses on public lands by February 2014 and 58,000 in 2015. Significantly, 

Guilfoyle did not make the connection between wild horse numbers and impacts to rangeland resources or 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-980 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

sage grouse habitat. It is, thus, apparent that even within BLM, there is no communication among programs 

so the wild horse program is unaware of potential damage done when wild horse numbers are not tied to 

the capacity of the resources and the habitat needs of other species. The extended and severe drought in 

California and Nevada is killing wild horses through starvation and dehydration. Leaving the wild horses 

on rangelands only leads to long-term vegetation damage, because the horses will eat anything to stay alive. 

This violates the WHA principles by harming the wild horses and by harming the resources.

Comment ID: 472

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Wild horses are ungulates and will initially graze the forbs and grasses that provide the crucial

understory for healthy sagebrush. McInnis & Vavra, Dietary relationships among Feral horses, cattle and 

pronghorns in southeastern Oregon J. RANGE MGMT. 40:0 (1987) (88% overlap between cattle and horses 

for consumption of grasses and forbs). As noted above, wild horses clip most of the annual growth of a 

plant and, thus, excess numbers of wild horses will more significantly impact the sage brush ecosystem at 

key times of the year during nesting and rearing seasons through removal of the understory. These threats 

are identified by the USFWS. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: 

Final Report (COT) (USFWS 2013) at 7, 10, 44-45. Excess numbers of unmanaged wild horses 

disproportionately impact sage grouse habitat, because they remove more of the plant's annual growth, 

which limits vegetation recovery and shrub canopies, fragments habitat, and allows for the spread of 

invasive plant species. USFWS Conservation Objectives at 46. Horses "reduce grass, shrub, and forb cover" 

and increase "unpalatable forbs and exotic plants including cheatgrass" in sage grouse habitats. See also 

BLM, Sage Grouse National Technical Team, A Report on National Greater Sage grouse Conservation 

Measures, at 18 (Dec. 21, 2011) [hereinafter NTT Report]. Drought exacerbates the grazing impacts of 

excess numbers of wild horses. Id. Where excess numbers of wild horses graze year-round, there is greater 

pressure on range resources that may recover slowly and only after grazing use is removed or reduced.

Comment ID: 473

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Free-roaming equid grazing is presented separately from ungulate grazing due to the differing

impacts equids have on sagebrush ecosystems. On a per capita body mass, horses consume more forage 

than cattle or sheep and remove more of the plant which limits and/or delays vegetative recovery (Menard 

et al. 2002), and horses can range further between water sources than cattle, thereby making them more 

difficult to manage. Equid grazing results in a reduction of shrub cover and more fragmented shrub 

canopies, which can negatively affect sagegrouse habitat (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites 

grazed by free-roaming equids have a greater abundance of annual invasive grasses, reduced native plant 

diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and Aldridge 2011).

Comment ID: 531

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: These realities also distinguish wild horse grazing from livestock grazing. In its COT report, the 

USFWS explained why equid grazing was presented separately from ungulate grazing: Free-roaming equid 

grazing is presented separately from ungulate grazing due to the differing impacts equids have on sagebrush 

ecosystems. On a per capita body mass, horses consume more forage than cattle or sheep and remove more 

of the plant which limits and/or delays vegetative recovery (Menard et al. 2002), and horses can range 

further between water sources than cattle, thereby making them more difficult to manage. Equid grazing 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-981

results in a reduction of shrub cover and more fragmented shrub canopies, which can negatively affect sagegrouse habitat (Beever and Aldridge 2011). Additionally, sites grazed by free-roaming equids have a greater 

abundance of annual invasive grasses, reduced native plant diversity and reduced grass density (Beever and 

Aldridge 2011). Given the high mobility of free-roaming equids, the conservation measures below should 

be applied across all sage-grouse habitats. COT at 24. The USFWS findings are corroborated by other 

relevant research in Wyoming. In 2002, the Little Snake River Conservation District demonstrated that 

about 20% of the wild horse diet consisted of sagebrush stems and leaves. This is even more true during 

drought or winter when more palatable forage is less available. Studies show that wild horse diets vary 

throughout the year. K. Crane, Habitat selection patterns of feral horses in southcentral Wyoming, J. Range 

Mgmt. 50:374-380 (1997). Wild horses favor grasses in the spring and forbs and shrubs in winter.

Comment ID: 536

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: It appears that the wild horse program is unaware of potential damage done when wild horse

numbers are not tied to the capacity of the resources and the habitat needs of other species (i.e. GRSG). The 

extended and severe drought in California and Nevada is killing wild horses through starvation and 

dehydration. Leaving the wild horses on rangelands only leads to long-term vegetation damage, because 

the horses will eat anything to stay alive. This violates the WHA principles by harming the wild horses and 

by harming the resources.

Comment ID: 533

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: USFWS identified protecting sage-grouse from the negative influences of grazing by freeroaming equids as a primary conservation objective in its COT report. To accomplish this objective, 

USFWS suggested the following conservation measures and secondary options: (1) Develop, implement, 

and enforce adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect sage-grouse habitat from negative influences of

grazing by free-roaming equids. (2) Manage free-roaming equids at levels that allow native sagebrush 

vegetative communities to minimally achieve PFC (for riparian areas) or RHS (for uplands). Similar 

measures should be implemented on non-federal land surfaces.

Summary: Wild horses are ungulates and will initially graze the forbs and grasses that provide the crucial

understory for healthy sagebrush. Wild horses clip most of the annual growth of a plant and, thus, excess 

numbers of wild horses will more significantly impact the sagebrush ecosystem at key times of the year 

during nesting and rearing seasons through removal of the understory. Excess numbers of unmanaged wild 

horses disproportionately impact sage-grouse habitat, because they remove more of the plant's annual 

growth, which limits vegetation recovery and shrub canopies, fragments habitat, and allows for the spread 

of invasive plant species. Drought exacerbates the grazing impacts of excess numbers of wild horses. Where 

excess numbers of wild horses graze year-round, there is greater pressure on range resources that may 

recover slowly and only after grazing use is removed or reduced. Wild horse grazing can also have 

disproportionate impacts on winter range, including within the checkerboard areas. Leaving the wild horses 

on rangelands only leads to long-term vegetation damage, because the horses will eat anything to stay alive. 

This violates the WHA principles by harming the wild horses and by harming the resources. On page 3-75, 

a comment should be added that excess horses also adversely impact wildlife and the health of rangelands.

Unlike livestock, horses disparately impact the rangeland due to their year round presence and unique 

biological feeding habits. Supra at **. Horses “reduce grass, shrub, and forb cover” and increase 

“unpalatable forbs and exotic plants including cheatgrass” in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. BLM, NTT at 

18. This in turn impacts vegetation recovery, promotes habitat fragmentation, and facilitates the spread of 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-982 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

invasive plant species. Assuming, as the BLM does, that horse populations will increase by 18% annually, 

these impacts compound in relation to the existing number of horses on HMAs. Without determining 

existing numbers, the Draft EIS assumptions provide little more than cursory conclusions unsupported by 

proper analysis for more than 1,488,260 acres of Greater Sage- Grouse priority habitat.

Response: The information provided about wild horses and the range of management alternatives

appropriately address impacts to sage-grouse from the management actions for wild horses in the LUP 

Amendments.

Wild Horses

Monitoring

Monitoring program revisions

Comment ID: 509

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: DEIS 2-114, #111 It is correct that BLM rules require that wild horse management be tied to 

rangeland health standards. 43 C.F.R. §4180.2. RSGA recommends instead that the monitoring program be 

designed to capture wild horse use.

Summary: On page 2-114, #111, there should be a monitoring program designed to capture wild horse use.

Response: The suggested change to management is outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP

Amendments.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Alternative E language needs to be revised

Comment ID: 455

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: RSGA strongly recommends the following changes in the DEIS:(2) Revise Chapter 3 of DEIS 

to correctly state the current status of court decrees governing wild horse management on the Wyoming 

Checkerboard within the RSGA lands and to further include in the preferred alternative revision of HMAs 

to exclude lands within the Checkerboard and reduction in AMLs relating to those HMAs;

Comment ID: 2373

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Further, the Preferred Alternative E, the DEIS states: “analysis for wild horse and burro 

management activities, water developments or other rangeland improvements for wild horses in sagegrouse core habitat, the direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse populations and habitat would be 

addressed. Water developments or rangeland improvements would be implemented using the criteria 

identified for domestic livestock identified above in core habitats.” The AWHPC agrees that impacts to 

sage grouse should be considered when addressing range improvements to benefit wild horses, however,

such range improvements should not be evaluated using the same criteria as for domestic livestock. Instead 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-983

the final LUP must state that range improvements to benefit wild horses must be considered according to 

criteria that recognizes: 1) wild horses’ protected status under federal law; 2) their vastly smaller number 

than cattle and sheep in the planning area; and 3) the different ways in which wild horses vs. livestock 

utilize and impact the range. Any sections of the LUP that address range evaluations in HMAs should 

include the same criteria.

Comment ID: 2374

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Again, the BLM’s preferred alternative, E, includes no mandatory reductions in livestock 

grazing to address drought conditions in the planning area. Instead the BLM intends to address drought “in

cooperation with livestock grazing permittees/lessees.” The impacts to wild horses are unspecified in the 

DEIS, however, the plans to re-evaluate AMLs and Herd Management Area Plans to address drought 

conditions – when coupled with the BLM’s refusal to implement required reductions or elimination of 

livestock grazing in HMAs due to drought conditions – set the stage for reductions to wild horse 

populations. The final LUP amendments and DEIS should state clearly that, in the case of drought and to 

achieve sage grouse conservation goals, the grazing of privately-owned cattle and sheep within designated

HMAs should be severely curtailed or eliminated before any reductions to federally-protected wild horse 

populations can occur.

Summary: Issue 1: The Preferred Alternative must include revisions of HMAs to exclude lands within the

checkerboard and reduction in AMLs relating to those HMAs. Issue 2: The Preferred Alternative must 

state that range improvements to benefit wild horses must be considered according to criteria that 

recognizes: 1) wild horses protected status under federal law; 2) their vastly smaller number than cattle and 

sheep in the planning area; and 3) the different ways in which wild horses vs. livestock utilize and impact 

the range. Issue 3: The Preferred Alternative should clearly state that, in the case of drought and to achieve

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation goals, the grazing of privately-owned cattle and sheep within designated 

HMAs should be severely curtailed or eliminated before any reductions to wild horse populations can occur.

Issue 4: The Preferred Alternative should include importance of maintaining the genetic viability of the 

remaining free roaming wild horse populations in the planning area when re-evaluating AMLs and HMAPS. 

This is true for all HMAS, and particularly the Lost Creek HMA, in which a genetically rare population of 

mustangs with a relatively pure lineage descending from the Old World Iberian (Spanish Colonial) horses 

that were brought to this continent in the 1600’s.

Response: Issues 1-4: The requested change is outside of the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP

Amendments.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

BLM does not have funding for wild horse management

Comment ID: 535

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: At 4-3, the BLM states that “[s]ufficient funding and personnel will be available to implement 

the RMP and LRMP amendments.” The Coalition has difficulty accepting this assumption when the BLM

has repeatedly cited insufficient funding to remove horses from the Checkerboard in accordance with the 

Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burrow Act (Wild Horse Act). Thus, BLM must accept one of two 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-984 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

counterposed conclusions: (1) BLM does not have sufficient funding to comply with the Wild Horse Act 

and should not misrepresent this fact in the FEIS; or (2) BLM does have sufficient funding to comply with 

the Wild Horse Act and will remove wild horses from the Checkerboard pursuant to RSGA v. Salazar, 

related Consent Decrees and the Wild Horse Act to meet, at the very least, established AMLs.

Comment ID: 2721

Organization: Sweetwater County

Name: Mark Kot

Comment: Sweetwater County strongly encourages the BLM to address in the Draft LUPA and EIS the 

negative impacts that improperly managed wild horse gazing has on sage grouse habitat. To reduce this

impact, Sweetwater County strongly encourages the BLM to fully fund its staff, so that wild horses can be 

properly managed and the BLM's obligations under the Consent Decree can be fulfilled.

Summary: The BLM has repeatedly cited insufficient funding to remove horses from the checkerboard in

accordance with the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (Wild Horse Act). Therefore BLM must

accept one of two counterposed conclusions: (1) BLM does not have sufficient funding to comply with the 

Wild Horse Act and should not misrepresent this fact in the Final EIS; or (2) BLM does have sufficient 

funding to comply with the Wild Horse Act and will remove wild horses from the checkerboard pursuant 

to RSGA v. Salazar, related Consent Decrees and the Wild Horse Act to meet, at the very least, established 

AMLs. BLM is encouraged to fully fund its staff so that wild horses can be properly managed and the 

BLM's obligations under the Consent Decree can be fulfilled.

Response: The suggested management is outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Do not allow sage-grouse conservation measures that reduce wild horses

Comment ID: 876

Organization: Liasons USA

Name: Rosemary Graham-Gardner

Comment: The problem is not the wild horses but the heavily subsidized Ranching Industry whose Cattle 

graze free on Public Land and the corrupted BLM who is whoring itself to the Ranching Industry forgetting

that we ultimately are their employer and sign their paycheck, and that as Public Servants, they are supposed 

to serve the Public not BIG BUSINESS.. No need for expensive studies again paid by the Tax payers..Just 

use common sense and ban all Cattle from Public Land! Problem solved!

Comment ID: 878

Organization:

Name: Diane Vandermark

Comment: I think its a crime against the citizens of the US to remove wild horses from the prairies where 

they live in total harmony with the sage Grouse, when it is the cattle, who are not natural nor indiginous,

who are laying waste to the landscape. I’m sick of the roundups that harm horses, hurt horses and kill horses, 

and kill their spirits by stockpiling them until they can be quietly removed for slaughter. Wild horses should 

be forever free, the cattle should be restricted! The american public is waking up to the dangers of meat 

eating and when they finally stop eating meat altogether, it will be too late for the horses that you removed 

in a false flag operation. Restrict the cattle, leave the horses alone and the range will prosper.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-985

Comment ID: 1127

Organization:

Name: Jude Evans

Comment: There is NO PROOF that the Wild Horses are the ones destroying their habitats, therefore, until 

there is PROOF POSITIVE then I suggest REMOVING the cattle and sheep, NOT THE HORSES....

Comment ID: 717

Organization:

Name: Priscilla Lane

Comment: I am writing in regards to the Sage Grouse and Wyoming Wild Horse Herd. Your department

requested the opinion and advice from the National Academy of Science regarding the range management. 

Why is it you are ignoring everything they say? You have the means to protect the largest Sage Grouse and 

Wyoming Wild Horse Herds, but you refuse to listen to the very people you ask advise from. They 

recommend manage wild horses on the range, not, as mentioned in the DEIS. Because of this policy, there 

are 50,000 in captivity. Spending millions of tax payer's money when our country is in need for other 

important things. The horses have only 11% of the BLM managed lands. There should be an analysis 

available on the grazing allotments in the EIS process. Why isn't this available? Many others that have had 

an assessment conclude that the land is not in acceptable condition because of livestock grazing. Why the 

two herd management areas, LaBarge and Desert Wild, are "not managed for wild horses? I would think 

this is an important issue as well. If our mustangs were correctly listed as a returned native species, they 

too would be candidates for listing as threatened or endangered. A Preferred Alternative that land disruption 

be at least 4 miles from any Sage Grouse Lek and that livestock be removed in any critical core Sage Grouse 

habitats.

Comment ID: 867

Organization:

Name: Julia Smotherman

Comment: Sage Grouse and wild horses have existed side by side for centuries. The culprit to both horses 

and birds are the cattle and sheep destroying the habitat. Other factors to consider are fossil fuel extraction, 

fencing, road building and off road vehicles. So don't use the wild horses as scapegoats and adopt a 

conservation plan that protects both horse and bird from extinction, simply stop the welfare ranchers! The 

BLM needs to stop catering to special interest groups and start listening to the people who want to see a 

end to the ongoing roundups and slaughter of horses, burros. There is more than enough land if not for 

cattle and sheep.

Comment ID: 877

Organization:

Name: Jude Evans

Comment: Sage Grouse and Wild Horses have been co-habitating on the open ranges for hundreds of years

without any issues. Now that cattle and sheep have been introduced into the picture all of sudden there are 

problems. Don't blame it on the Wild Horses!!!!!!!

Comment ID: 752

Organization:

Name: Karla Boyd
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-986 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: The grouse and the wild horses have lived together for many years its when you keep increasing

more livestock to the that its becoming a problem. Please redirect your thoughts to saving both the wild 

animals that belong on the public land and decreasing the allowed livestock to the areas where change might 

be needed.

Comment ID: 831

Organization:

Name: Raelynn Miller

Comment: the Federally Protected wild horses belong on the public lands just as much as the sage grouse.

Comment ID: 1081

Organization:

Name: Ann Crawford

Comment: Your efforts at assisting your rancher constituents is thinly veiled. Your ‘reports’ as to the 

destruction to the environment caused solely by wild mustang herds is visibly biased. (No doubt the tax 

payer paid a pretty penny for such ill-contrived nonsense.) That livestock grazing isn’t considered to be a

surface disturbing activity is laughable...I strongly suggest you approach the mustang preservation groups 

for their assistance. They are- not only tax payers- but they have the welfare of the mustang as their top 

priority. Citizen-groups have a history of getting things done.

Comment ID: 915

Organization:

Name: dwgraymare@tampabay.rr.com

Comment: Get the cattle off the horses and burros land, get the sheep off the land, and the other animals 

you have put on there off and you will not have a problem...They have been on the land a very long time

and never had a problem before. Let the horses alone, stop the round ups, stop killing them in the pens you 

have, stop not giving them the amount of water they need to be healthy and give them shade from the 

boiling sun and the horrible snow storms, sleet and rain, don't for get the winds.... These horses and burros 

belong on their land, drinking their water ,not where you have put them

Comment ID: 1056

Organization:

Name: MaryAnn Brewer

Comment: Hi, I'm asking my friends and family to join me in speaking up for wild horses and burros in

Wyoming. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing plans to conserve sage grouse, a

severely threatened ground dwelling bird in the West. The agency is turning a blind eye to the harm caused 

by widespread livestock grazing while setting the stage to further reduce Wyoming's dwindling wild horse 

populations. Will you take one moment to tell the federal government to protect sage grouse by removing 

private, commercial cattle and sheep -- not wild horses -- from our public lands? Thank you very much! 

Please visit BLM Wyoming Needs to Hear From You! to speak up! Thank you.

Comment ID: 388

Organization:

Name: Janet Lynch

Comment: I also remind you that your agency has a very poor record of engaging in environmentally and 

fiscally unsustainable policies of inhumanely removing large numbers of wild horses from public lands at
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-987

taxpayer expense and placing them in government holding facilities, again at taxpayer expense, with the 

result that there are now more wild horses in government holding facilities than are roaming free on the 

nation's public lands as the Congress intended and the American Public demands. These same horses would 

cost the public virtually nothing if left on these public lands. Yet at the same time, your agency has 

stubbornly refused to curtail the vast, wasteful and unnecessary government subsidy program which is 

large-scale for-profit ranching on the public lands at heavily taxpayer-subsidized rates.

Comment ID: 387

Organization:

Name: Janet Lynch

Comment: Proposals to reduce numbers of wild horses and burros which do nothing to limit livestock 

grazing are not justifiable given the gross disparity in resource allocation and are ultimately doomed to

failure, as they do not address the most serious and fundamental threat to sage grouse and their habitat- i.e. 

massive, taxpayer-subsidized overgrazing by privately owned livestock. The tiny numbers of wild horses 

on the public lands under your jurisdiction are endemic and well-adapted to the region, and as such they 

coexist with Greater Sage Grouse as part of the local ecosystem, as do other native species. The same cannot 

be said of the huge numbers of domestic livestock- primarily cattle and sheep- which graze the same area. 

These latter domestic species, unlike wild horses, are poorly adapted to the semi-arid habitats of the 

American West, and are responsible for a great deal of environmental degradation of the public's lands in 

the form of trampling and degradation of riparian areas, over-consumption of water resources, and spread 

of invasive plant species, inter alia.

Comment ID: 17

Organization:

Name: Mary A Leon

Comment: Also REMEMBER to leave room for our wild horses and burros so ALL can share in the 

environment and thrive!

Comment ID: 1166

Organization:

Name:

Comment: I am writing to stop the BLM and any other entity from removing horses from Wyoming and 

using the Sage Grouse as an excuse.

Comment ID: 963

Organization:

Name: Arthur Berg

Comment: For every percentage of Wild Mustangs removed I would ask you to remove a like percentage 

of livestock.

Comment ID: 751

Organization:

Name: sally costello

Comment: It is imperative that the BLM change their policy of destroying and eliminating our wild 

mustangs from their native homeland before it is too late. The Sage Grouse plan is just another ploy. I am

horrified at the cruelty & devastating damage the wild horse roundups have caused the mustangs. Utterly 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-988 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

heartless! The overgrazing of livestock is the main cause for damaging the land & is what needs to be 

stopped.

Comment ID: 750

Organization:

Name: Kay Martin

Comment: Please do not remove any more of the wild horses from our (U.S. Citizens) public lands. They 

are such a national treasure and they should be able to run wild and free. There are viable birth controls to

keep herds manageable. Please remember their place in our freedom!!!

Comment ID: 749

Organization:

Name: Barbara Sundholm

Comment: In what universe does it make sense to ignore the element that is really damaging the sage grouse

habitat, and shift the blame to the wild roaming mustangs and burros - all without removing the livestock 

in the process? The concept is so difficult for a rational human being to grasp, it just seems like the goal is 

to completely eliminate the horses from public lands and continue to allow overgrazing by livestock. That 

will eventually wipe out the sage grouse population anyway - how can that possibly make sense? Please 

please give these comments your thoughtful consideration.

Comment ID: 748

Organization:

Name: Vivianne Mosca-Clark

Comment: Protect the wild horses and burro's. Stop protecting the ranchers that are being abusive. In some

places there are 30 herd animals to one wild horse/burro. That is a complete abuse of the wild lands. Stop 

allowing private ranchers to use public lands for their private herds.

Comment ID: 856

Organization:

Name: Kimberley Justice

Comment: Lets protect are lands by humanely managing the wild horse herds wild still allowing them to 

roam free. How about some birth control? Look at the East Coast herds. How about stopping the cruel

helicopter round-ups? How about severely limiting the use of OUR public lands, MY public lands by

ranchers that pay near nothing? Raise the fees and limit the use.

Comment ID: 1047

Organization:

Name: Norma Marino-Baca

Comment: Hi, I'm asking my friends and family to join me in speaking up for wild horses and burros in

Wyoming. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing plans to conserve sage grouse, a

severely threatened ground dwelling bird in the West. The agency is turning a blind eye to the harm caused 

by widespread livestock grazing while setting the stage to further reduce Wyoming's dwindling wild horse 

populations. Will you take one moment to tell the federal government to protect sage grouse by removing 

private, commercial cattle and sheep -- not wild horses -- from our public lands? Thank you very much! 

Please visit BLM Wyoming Needs to Hear From You! to speak up! Thank you.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-989

Comment ID: 888

Organization:

Name: Theressa

Comment: The best way to help the Sage Grouse bird is to take the cattle off the grazing land and put them 

on irrigated land give the public lands a break. The wild horses don't eat the sage and the provide no threat. 

Leave the horses alone when the horses disappear from the west our heritage disappears.

Comment ID: 912

Organization:

Name: cindy sheptow

Comment: Incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage wild horses on 

the range, not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses every 3-4 years. This disastrous policy has 

created a situation in which 50,000 wild horses are in captivity at taxpayer expense and are vulnerable to 

sale without limitation.

Comment ID: 2379

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros (WFRH&B) Act instructs the BLM to consider wild 

freeroaming horses and burros “in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system 

of the public lands.” The DEIS does not distinguish the BLM’s legal mandate to protect wild horses from 

the agency’s discretion under the Taylor Grazing Act, which states clearly that “the creation of a grazing 

district or the issuance of a [grazing] permit....shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to” 

the public lands. Attachments 2 and 3 address these issues and are incorporated with these comments by 

reference.

Comment ID: 461

Organization:

Name:

Comment: None of the alternatives analyzed adequately protects wild horses and burros. The alternatives

described would set the stage for BLM to reduce the already low wild horse Allowable Management Levels 

(AMLs) in the name of sage grouse conservation, while the BLM’s preferred alternative for livestock 

grazing perpetuates the status quo by making any reductions in stocking levels for cattle and sheep strictly 

VOLUNTARY. This is unacceptable, given the gross disparity in resource allocation. The BLM allocates 

47 times more forage to privately-owned livestock than to federally-protected wild horses in this planning

area. This equates to an annual equivalent of more than 100,000 cows vs. just 2,135 wild horses!

Comment ID: 3012

Organization:

Name: Joanne Wade

Comment: Please save our Nation's Wild Horse Population, especially in Wyoming! Do not use the excuse 

to save the sage grouse for your campaign to remove the Wild Horses! Wild Horses belong and are vital to 

the ecosystem in Wyoming and throughout the United States. I'm disappointed with your agency with the 

traumatic Helicopter Round Ups of Zeroing out the Wild Horse Herds. Your agency has done great harm 

to theses iconic creatures.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-990 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment ID: 2864

Organization:

Name: Michael Kelly

Comment: I have had the good fortune to have been horseback and viewed, followed, and counted the wild

horses in Nevada, and it is my observation that the animals themselves, if left alone, naturally graze over 

wide areas, without appreciable impact on vegetation or ground cover favorable to the grouse. The history 

of the grouse decline, assuming for the moment that is true, cannot be connected to the horse herds, for they 

do not prefer consumption of the ground cover that the grouse needs. Management needs to be grounded in 

common sense, not emotional reaction fanned by special interest assertions without scientific verification.

Comment ID: 2456

Organization:

Name: Carrie Munroe

Comment: To Whom It May Concern: Please....for once will you all listen to the citizens of the US and 

leave our icons..our heritage alone? Mustangs have just as much right to live as do any other wild animal, 

like the sage grouse. Trying to use the grouse is a poor excuse. Another lie to just let the ranchers to take

over. Another way for the Govt. to make a buck and the American people lose. Cattle can be grazed on 

ranchers land. If they haven't the land to support their cattle then I guess they need to downsize. It's no 

different than if you only have a 2 bedroom house you can't really have more than 2 children. Three to a 

tight squeeze and four might be against the law. Please, say yes to leaving our horses alone and telling 

ranchers to move their cattle.

Comment ID: 2754

Organization:

Name: Marilyn Warren

Comment: Come on -- wild horses hurt sagegrouse? I doubt it. The aliens on the plains are domestic grazing

animals, not wild horses. The owners of domestic grazing animals should be responsible for feeding them 

-- after all, they are making money on these animals. Let the wild stay wild, they've all been getting along 

fine without our interference for thousands of years!

Comment ID: 2780

Organization:

Name: ROSALYN BURKETT

Comment: PROTECT THE HORSES AND DONT WORRY ABOUT BIRDS ETC.

Comment ID: 2791

Organization:

Name: Nanci Crock

Comment: Please take into consideration that these descendants of the original wild horses of the plains 

were here long before man arrived. Now it comes to this sad battle. To keep eliminating their territory is

not humane. The wild mustangs do not decimate the sagebrush these fowl depend on. Please take this into 

a logical decision.

Comment ID: 2793

Organization:

Name: Joyce Crawford
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-991

Comment: I am, however, hearing that instead of reducing the amount of livestock grazing on their habitat, 

that some in the BLM are talking about removing federally protected wild horses. The federally protected 

horses trump the privately owned livestock. The livestock numbers should be reduced and allow the habitat 

to renew itself and support all wildlife. Restoring habitat would benefit all wildlife including the sage grouse 

and the wild horses. Even the scientist whom assessed the sage grouse situation did not make any connection 

between the wild horses and the grouse decline. Wild horses only inhabit 11 % of all BLM managed lands 

and on that 11% the horses are outnumbered by 100,000 cows to 2, 135 horses. Just that statistic alone is 

staggering and points to the cows and sheep as being the biggest impact on loss of habitat. No one is saying 

to completely removed livestock grazing, just lower the numbers. The federally protected horses should 

always trump the privately owned livestock. It is the law, the horses are to be protected.

Comment ID: 2801

Organization:

Name: Donna Lewallen

Comment: The horses belong there. Cattle and sheep do not. Leave the horses & grouse to nature as it 

should be. Remove the financial assets of companies/corporations that are taking a toll on the natural

habitat.

Comment ID: 2953

Organization:

Name: Mari Szabo

Comment: Please quit removing the horses.

Comment ID: 2396

Organization:

Name: Mindy Radford

Comment: You can LIMIT the grazing of cows and sheep allowed to graze. You DO NOT need to decrease 

the wild horse/burro population.

Summary: Leave room for wild horses so they are able to roam freely. None of the alternatives adequately

protect wild horses. Wild horses should be protected and managed on the range, not be rounded up and/or 

killed. Additionally, proposals to reduce numbers of wild horses which do nothing to limit livestock grazing 

(including cattle and sheep) are not justifiable given the gross disparity in resource allocation and will fail 

as they do not address livestock grazing. The cattle and sheep should be removed, not the wild horses to 

allow the habitat to thrive and support all wildlife. The Draft EIS should distinguish the BLM’s legal 

mandate to protect wild horses from the agency’s discretion under the Taylor Grazing Act. The federally 

protected horses trump the privately owned livestock. Also, other factors to consider are fossil fuel 

extraction, fencing, road building and off road vehicles.

Response: There is no management within the range of alternatives that proposes to remove wild horses or

takes away land from herd management areas (HMAs). The management provides additional protections 

for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within HMAs. Within the range of alternatives, there are limits to livestock 

grazing, including removal of livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat under Alternative C. All 

alternatives considered in the Draft EIS are reasonable alternatives that comply with all laws and policy 

and meet the multiple use mandate of FLPMA. Surface disturbing activities, such as energy development, 

ROWs, roads, and other development are considered within the management of the alternatives in Chapter 

2.
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-992 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Edits to all alternatives

Comment ID: 2814

Organization:

Name: Sandra Sell-Lee

Comment: (please add this option needs to the EIS, in all alternatives.) -ensure that native wild horse

populations remain genetically viable. Please add a provision in all alternatives to increase wild horse

populations.

Comment ID: 2380

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The impact of the proposed alternatives on wild horses is not adequately analyzed in the DEIS. 

All of the Alternatives presented (besides no action/Alternative A) -- including E, the BLM’s preferred

alternative -- set the stage for re-evaluation of AML and the conduct of land health assessments in GRSG 

habitat, without parameters set for considering the relative impacts of wild horses vs. livestock on GRSG 

habitat, the differences between wild horse impacts and livestock impacts on the land (Attachment 4), or 

the differing legal mandates in BLM’s management of wild horses vs. livestock on public lands. Therefore 

these alternatives and the DEIS assessing them must be revised to incorporate these factors.

Comment ID: 2383

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: The Proposed Alternatives are silent on the importance of maintaining the genetic viability of 

the remaining free roaming wild horse populations in the planning area when re-evaluating AMLs and

HMAPS. This is true for all HMAS, and particularly the Lost Creek HMA, in which a genetically rare

population of mustangs with a relatively pure lineage descending from the Old World Iberian (Spanish 

Colonial) horses that were brought to this continent in the 1600’s. The Wild Free Roaming Horses and 

Burros Act requires the BLM to maintain viable, healthy and freeroaming wild horses in designated habitat 

areas on western public lands. All alternatives for the LUP amendment must specify that: • Genetically 

viable populations of wild horses must be maintained in each HMA. • If a population becomes at risk of 

genetic loss, more AUMs must be allocated to wild horses to sustain larger populations. It should be noted 

that the current population of 200,000 Greater Sage Grouse has triggered this massive management 

document. The Bureau of Land Management estimates that 40,605 wild horses and burros (about 33,780 

horses and 6,825 burros) remain on BLM lands in the West, where they are greatly outnumbered by private 

livestock. Any and all alternatives must include mandates for maintaining the viability of wild horse 

populations within each HMA in the planning area.

Summary: Issue 1: Not one of the alternatives provide the remaining wild horses of Wyoming the 

appropriate protections necessary for their future survival. Issue 2: All of the alternatives presented (besides 

the No Action Alternative/Alternative A) set the stage for re-evaluation of AML and conducting of land 

health assessments in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat without parameters set for considering the relative 

impacts of wild horses vs. livestock on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the differences between wild horse 

impacts and livestock impacts on the land, or the differing legal mandates in BLM’s management of wild 

horses vs. livestock on public lands. Therefore, these alternatives and the Draft EIS assessing them must be 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-993

revised to incorporate these factors. Issue 3: All alternatives should incorporate the mandate that no 

reductions to wild horse AMLS should occur unless and until livestock grazing is severely reduced or 

eliminated from HMAs. Issue 4: All alternatives must specify that genetically viable populations of wild 

horses must be maintained in each HMA in the planning area. Issue 5: All alternatives must specify that if 

a population becomes at risk of genetic loss, more AUMs must be allocated to wild horses to sustain larger 

populations. Issue 6: All alternatives should contain the option to increase wild horse AMLs. Any reduction 

in wild horse numbers should be eliminated from consideration in wild horse HMAs.

Response: The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments are specifically for the management of sage-grouse, 

not wild horses. The suggested management is outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP

Amendments.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Revise AMLs in Draft EIS

Comment ID: 488

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The DEIS assumptions omit material facts: 1) that Checkerboard lands within Rock Springs 

Field Office are not available to wild horses; 2) that BLM cannot maintain AMLs and the WO lacks the

funding to do so in light of national policies; 3) that USFWS recommends adjusting AMLs to protect habitat 

and that wild horse impacts be treated separately from livestock grazing. When RSGA sued the Department 

of the Interior in 2011 it demonstrated conclusively that for the better part of 30 years BLM did not maintain 

AMLs. The State of Wyoming made a similar showing in State of Wyoming v. BLM filed and settled in 

2003. The DEIS needs to incorporate the fact that AMLs are not maintained, thus allowing wild horses to 

have disproportionate adverse impacts on sage grouse

Comment ID: 486

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The DEIS needs to include direction to reduce AMLs wherever wild horses overlap core sage 

grouse habitat, consistent with USFWS recommendations. Despite manual guidance directing BLM to 

adopt conservation measures to protect sage grouse and its habitat, BLM Manual 6840.02; IM 2010-71,

2012-43, the DEIS does not address the need to adjust the wild horse management to avoid the documented 

adverse impacts of excess numbers of wild horses on sage grouse habitat. Nor does the DEIS consider 

reducing the Wyoming AMLs to protect sage grouse habitat. BLM assumes the current AMLs, including 

those in the Rock Springs Field Area, are sufficient without addressing the fact that AMLs were determined 

without considering the impact of wild horse use on sage grouse habitat and long before sage grouse was 

the subject of a listing petition. The change in status for the sage grouse requires revision of the AMLs.

Comment ID: 527

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: The DEIS states that Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) are established for each Herd

Management Area (HMA) in order to “ensure a thriving ecological balance among all users and resources 

within the HMA (e.g., wildlife, livestock, wild horses, vegetation, water, and soil.)” DEIS at 3-443. AMLs 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-994 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

were based on the assumption that wild horses would continue to exist on the checkerboard. This 

assumption no longer applies since RSGA v. Salazar and the RSGA Consent Decree state that the BLM 

must remove all wild horses from the Checkerboard area. Put simply, the Checkerboard is effectively off 

limits to wild horses and cannot be considered as part of their available habitat. The result of the RSGA 

Consent Decree as it applies to the current DEIS is that the BLM must reduce AMLs since wild horse 

habitat has been reduced by approximately 50% and to protect core GRSG habitat and essential livestock 

grazing rangeland.

Comment ID: 475

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: As a priority, USFWS and BLM recommend that wild horse AML numbers be adjusted to ensure 

a thriving sagebrush habitat and to accommodate drought conditions. NTT Report at 18; USFWS

Conservation Objectives at 10, 38, 46-47, 75, 83-86. If the proposed considerations are not adopted and 

AMLs not reduced accordingly, excess numbers of wild horses will continue to modify sage grouse core 

habitat areas throughout the affected field offices. The DEIS does not consider this recommendation and 

needs to be revised to do so.

Comment ID: 490

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The DEIS states that Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) are established for each HMA 

in order to “ensure a thriving ecological balance among all users and resources within the HMA (e.g., 

wildlife, livestock, wild horses, vegetation, water, and soil.)” DEIS at 3-443. While this reflects BLM 

policy, it is not correct to say that AMLs are adjusted for sage grouse conservation. The Wyoming AMLs 

were adopted long before the sage grouse was the subject of a listing petition. They were not reassessed in 

the plan revisions on the basis that the numbers were part of the State of Wyoming v. BLM Consent Decree. 

Rawlins RMP FEIS, Appendix 12 at 1 (“The current AMLs were established in 1994 from a process that 

included 5 years of focused, intensive monitoring, evaluation of data, public input, and environmental 

analysis.”).

Comment ID: 491

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The Rock Springs Field Office AMLs were developed with the assumption that wild horses 

would continue to use the Checkerboard pursuant to the RSGA agreement to allow 1400 wild horses in the

entire Rock Springs District. This assumption is no longer true. The Consent Decree in RSGA v. Salazar

states that the BLM will remove all wild horses from RSGA lands in the Checkerboard. Because BLM

cannot lawfully fence individual sections, the Checkerboard is effectively off limits to wild horses and

cannot be considered as part of their available habitat or part of the HMAs. The DEIS must be revised to 

reflect the new Consent Decree terms.

Comment ID: 1060

Organization:

Name: Kat Hankinson
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-995

Comment: Please add a provision in all alternatives with the option to increase wild horse populations 

(AMLs). Management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing 

leases.

Comment ID: 505

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: At DEIS 4-3, the BLM states that “[s]ufficient funding and personnel will be available to 

implement the RMP and LRMP amendments.” This assumption conflicts with the fact that BLM routinely 

cites insufficient funding to support its decision not to remove horses from the Checkerboard in accordance 

with the WHA. Indeed, conclusory assurances, without support, are no substitute for the analysis to be 

provided by an EIS. Sierra Club v. Bosworth, 352 F. Supp. 2d 909, 927 (D. Minn. 2005); Neighbors of 

Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir.1998) (reasoning that if Forest 

Service does not present quantified or detailed information, courts and public cannot be assured that it 

provided requisite “hard look”); see League of Wilderness Defenders–Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project 

v. Zielinski, 187 F. Supp.2d 1263, 1271 (D. Or. 2002). The DEIS must disclose and analyze the impacts of 

wild horses above AMLs and the impacts of wild horses in general on sage grouse habitat. In the case of 

the RSGA lands, the AMLs are entirely too high.

Comment ID: 526

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: The DEIS incorrectly describes the status of wild horses on the checkerboard. DEIS at 3- 143. 

The Consent Decree in RSGA v. Salazar supersedes previous agreements and revises the number of horses 

allowed on the Checkerboard. The DEIS does not addressed in the FEIS.

Comment ID: 1812

Organization:

Name: Marybeth Devlin

Comment: Because the presence of wild horses is not a major factor in the decline of the Sage-Grouse's 

habitat, there should be no reduction in the mustang population. The seven HMAs in the Planning Area

encompass 3,868,810 total acres -- 6,045 square miles. The combined-appropriate management level 

(AML) allows a maximum of 2,422 wild horses, which reflects a stocking-rate of 1,597 acres -- 21⁄2 square 

miles -- per horse. This unacceptably-low population-density must be rectified. The AMLs need to be 

increased to comply with the state-of-the-science regarding minimum viable population (MVP).

Comment ID: 1992

Organization: Wyoming Stock Growers Association

Name: Jim Magagna

Comment: the section on wild horses (3.19) should be updated to reflect the current consent decree between

the Rock Springs Grazing Association and the BLM.

Comment ID: 933

Organization:

Name: Sasha Shapiro
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-996 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Add a provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs). 

Management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases. If 

livestock grazing is reduced or eliminated, wild horse populations can increase to truly genetically viable

numbers in all seven herds. Incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage 

wild horses on the range, not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses every 3-4 years. Ask why 

the two herd management areas mentioned, LaBarge and Desert Wild, are "not managed for wild horses."

Comment ID: 910

Organization:

Name: cindy sheptow

Comment: Add a provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs). 

Management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases. If 

livestock grazing is reduced or eliminated, wild horse populations can increase to truly genetically viable

numbers in all seven herds.

Comment ID: 1010

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: Chapter 3 should detail that past management of wild horses in Wyoming was largely conducted

according to the Consent Decree reached between the State and the BLM, which provided for regular

gathers. Chapter 4 should describe the impacts of not having the Consent Decree or the budget to

appropriately manage wild horses. The Draft LUP Amendment should also mention that the BLM is

currently operating under the Rock Springs Grazing Association Consent Decree for the next 10 years.

Further, Chapter 4 should discuss the impacts on wild horses if Management Action 3 is implemented.

Comment ID: 499

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: These numbers appear to be in conflict with other BLM administered actions. For example, in 

its scoping statement for the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse Management Area, Population Management 

Action: 4700 (WYD04), BLM estimated that there were 504 horses in 2012 and RSGA estimates that 

number is now 622. In the DEIS, BLM does not offer an estimate of the current population. As RSGA 

stated in its comments to Divide Basin scoping statement, however, when adjusting for undercounting and 

an 18% reproduction rate, the Great Divide Basin wild horse population number is more likely 622 horses. 

Similar adjustments need to be made for each HMA based on the last count and reproduction rates of 18% 

a year. This comment illustrates two issues with the current DEIS. First, the BLM must estimate the current 

population of horses in order to also determine the current level of impacts from horses to GRSG habitat in 

HMAs. Secondly, BLM offers estimates for Adobe Town, Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek HMAs but does 

not disclose how it calculated the numbers used nor when BLM will be gathering the excess wild horses. 

For example, BLM gathered the Adobe-Town Salt Wells HMAs in November of 2013 but left a significant 

number in the HMA on the Checkerboard. RSGA members report that there are several hundred above 

AML even though BLM gathered only six months ago.

Comment ID: 495

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-997

Comment: The SG9 RMP DEIS fails to adjust the wild horse numbers in light of the clear evidence and 

policy that the current numbers will have adverse impacts to sage grouse habitat. This conflicts with the 

efforts of Wyoming and the USFWS to prevent listing the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Greater Sage- Grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report at 10, 38, 47, 75, 

83-86 (Feb. 2013). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has every reason to be concerned as horses

disproportionately impact sage grouse forage by consuming more of the plant and inhibiting vegetation 

recovery. Id.

Comment ID: 494

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The BLM must also revise the Rock Springs AMLs to ensure that the number of wild horses is 

in proportion to the decreased size of the Rock Springs HMAs. BLM developed AMLs for the Rock Springs 

HMAs when the Checkerboard was considered part of the HMAs. Following the Consent Decree in RSGA 

v. Salazar, the RSGA portion of the Checkerboard is no longer part of the HMAs and this reduces the land 

area within the HMAs by half. Thus AMLs need to be reduced to reflect the reduction in land, or otherwise 

BLM is doubling the number of wild horses on the remaining public land HMAs without any data or 

analysis of the impacts of putting double the wild horses on sage grouse habitat or rangeland health. The 

AMLs currently found in the RMPs assumed that wild horses would continue to live on the Checkerboard 

and that RSGA consented to the trespass. These assumptions are no longer true. BLM must now remove 

all wild horses from the Checkerboard area, which cannot be considered as part of their available habitat.

Comment ID: 493

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The omission of the 2013 Consent Decree and reliance on agreements no longer in effect 

illustrate the need for the EIS to revise HMA boundaries and lower AMLs. Otherwise, as explained below 

BLM will be doubling the number of wild horses on a smaller base of public land to the detriment of sage

grouse habitat and contrary to USFWS recommendations.

Comment ID: 492

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The current RMPs did not make changes in wild horse AMLs in the recent revision process. The 

wild horse numbers in previous RMPs were incorporated into the Consent Decree of 2003 in State of

Wyoming v. BLM. See e.g. Rawlins RMP at 2-51; Lander RMP at 84. BLM declined to extend the

Wyoming Consent Decree and, as documented below, BLM is not continuing to follow the 2003 gather 

schedule to maintain AMLs. The RMP revisions also did not address the Wyoming Conservation Strategy 

because the Wyoming Executive Order was issued in 2008 just as the RMPs were being finished. The 

current SG9 RMP revision is intended to address these issues and should, therefore, consider reducing 

AMLs to protect sage grouse habitat and, in the Rock Springs District, implement the terms of the Consent 

Decree in RSGA v. Salazar.

Comment ID: 2384

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-998 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: When creating a final agency action all available data must be evaluated. Currently the 

management practices employed by the BLM wild horse and burro program have received severe criticism 

in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report released in June of 2013. (Attachment 5). It is notable

that the BLM itself commissioned the study, set the scope of review and paid for it with over $1 million in 

tax dollars. More than nine months after its release, the BLM is still “reviewing” its contents. The public 

and Congress’ expectation is that changes will be made within the program based on the findings that 

indicate a severe deficit in the data used to manage wild horses. Any alternative adopted must allow 

provisions for increasing habitat (repatriation of HA) and increasing AUMs/AML where genetic threat is 

shown to be encroaching. Presently, the LUP Amendments/DEIS envisions reliance on the same “business 

as usual approach” for wild horse management that the NAS concluded was “unproductive for the BLM 

and the public it serves.” Yet this DEIS omits entirely any mention, let alone consideration of the NAS 

report. This must be rectified in the final LUP amendments/DEIS, and any designated alternatives must 

allow for the full implementation of the NAS’ recommendations.

Comment ID: 2157

Organization: The Cloud Foundation

Name: Ginger Kathrens

Comment: we request that all alternatives contain the option to increase Wild Horse AMLs. We are unaware 

of any scientific studies determining a correlation between sage grouse population declines and wild horse 

use. If there is no serious research on this topic, we request that any reduction in wild horse numbers be 

eliminated from consideration in Wild Horse Herd Management Areas (HMAs). These wild horse HMAs 

represent a relatively small percentage of the total study area acres.

Comment ID: 2391

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Provisions to allow for increases in wild horse and burro Appropriate Management Levels and 

for restoration of zeroed out (Herd Area) habitat. Data on HA territory in the planning area and the mapped 

GRSG habitat zone must be included in the final LUP Amendments/EIS.

Comment ID: 2390

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Any alternative adopted must include language that provides guidance to all districts that wild 

horses must be preserved above a level that allows appropriate genetic diversity. Genetic diversity must be

specifically defined. Provisions must be made to allow increases of AML/AUMs if data becomes available 

that demonstrates genetic viability of wild horses is threatened.

Summary: Issue 1: There should be no reduction in the wild horse population. The AMLs need to be 

increased to comply with the state-of-the-science regarding minimum viable population (MVP). Issue 2: 

Wild horse AML numbers should be adjusted to ensure a thriving sagebrush habitat and to accommodate 

drought conditions. If the proposed considerations are not adopted and AMLs not reduced accordingly, 

excess numbers of wild horses will continue to modify Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas throughout 

the affected field offices. The Draft EIS should be revised to include these recommendations. Issue 3: The 

Draft EIS should also include direction to reduce AMLs wherever wild horses overlap core sage-grouse 

habitat, consistent with USFWS recommendations. Despite manual guidance directing BLM to adopt 

conservation measures to protect sage-grouse and its habitat, BLM Manual 6840.02; IM 2010-71, 2012-43, 

the Draft EIS does not address the need to adjust the wild horse management to avoid the documented 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-999

adverse impacts of excess numbers of wild horses on sagegrouse habitat. Nor does the Draft EIS consider 

reducing the Wyoming AMLs to protect sage-grouse habitat. BLM assumes the current AMLs, including 

those in the Rock Springs Field Office, are sufficient without addressing the fact that AMLs were 

determined without considering the impact of wild horse use on sage-grouse habitat and long before sagegrouse was the subject of a listing petition. The change in status for the sage-grouse requires revision of the 

AMLs. Issue 4: The Draft EIS needs to incorporate the fact that AMLs are not maintained, thus allowing 

wild horses to have disproportionate adverse impacts on sage-grouse habitat. Issue 5: As the BLM cannot 

lawfully fence individual sections, the checkerboard is effectively off limits to wild horses and cannot be 

considered as part of their available habitat or part of the HMAs, and therefore the Draft EIS must be revised 

to reflect this. Issue 6: The wild horse numbers in previous RMPs were incorporated into the Consent 

Decree of 2003 in State of Wyoming v. BLM. See e.g. Rawlins RMP at 2-51; Lander RMP at 84. BLM 

declined to extend the Wyoming Consent Decree and, as documented below, BLM is not continuing to 

follow the 2003 gather schedule to maintain AMLs. The RMP revisions also did not address the Wyoming

Conservation Strategy because the Wyoming Executive Order was issued in 2008 just as the RMPs were 

being finished. The Proposed LUP Amendments/Final EIS is intended to address these issues and should 

therefore reduce AMLs to protect sage-grouse habitat and implement the terms of the Consent Decree in 

RSGA v. Salazar. Issue 7: The omission of the 2013 Consent Decree and reliance on agreements no longer 

in effect illustrate the need for the Proposed LUP to revise HMA boundaries and lower AMLs. Issue 8: The 

BLM must also revise the Rock Springs AMLs to ensure that the number of wild horses is in proportion to 

the decreased size of the Rock Springs HMAs. The AMLs need to be reduced to reflect the reduction in 

land, or otherwise BLM is doubling the number of wild horses on the remaining public land HMAs without 

any data or analysis of the impacts of putting double the wild horses on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat or 

impacts to rangeland health. Issue 9: BLM must now remove all wild horses from the checkerboard area, 

which cannot be considered as part of their available habitat. Issue 10: Chapter 3 should detail that past 

management of wild horses in Wyoming was largely conducted according to the Consent Decree reached 

between the state and the BLM, which provided for regular gathers. Issue 11: Chapter 4 should describe 

the impacts of not having the Consent Decree or the budget to appropriately manage wild horses. The Draft 

LUP Amendments should also mention that the BLM is currently operating under the Rock Springs Grazing 

Association Consent Decree for the next 10 years. Further, Chapter 4 should discuss the impacts on wild 

horses if Management Action 3 is implemented. Issue 12: Reductions of AMLs would further threaten the 

genetic viability of these wild herds. Issue 13: Provisions to allow for increases in wild horse AMLs and 

for restoration of zeroed out (Herd Area [HA]) habitat must be included.

Response: Issues 1-9, 11-13: The suggested changes to management are outside the scope of the Greater 

Sage- Grouse LUP Amendments. Management regarding the Consent Decree and specific management for

wild horses will be addressed in the Rock Springs RMP/EIS. BLM feels the information provided about

wild horses and the range of management alternatives appropriately address impacts to sage-grouse from 

the management actions for wild horses in the LUP Amendments. Issue 10: The information provided in 

Chapter 3 sufficiently describes the current conditions and trends in the affected environment broadly, 

appropriate to program-level land use planning actions. The requisite level of information necessary to 

make a reasoned choice among the alternatives in an EIS is based on the scope and nature of the proposed 

decision. The affected environment provided in Chapter 3 and various appendices in the EIS is sufficient 

to support, at the general land use planninglevel of analysis, the environmental impact analysis resulting 

from management actions presented in the LUP Amendments to address the purpose and need.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Revise wild horse conservation measures

Comment ID: 476
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-1000 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: USFWS recommends that BLM revise wild horse management as follows: Conservation 

Objective: Protect sage-grouse from the negative influences of grazing by free-roaming equids.

Conservation Measures 1. Develop, implement, and enforce adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect 

sage-grouse habitat from negative influences of grazing by free-roaming equids. 2. Manage free-roaming 

equids at levels that allow native sagebrush vegetative communities to minimally achieve PFC (for riparian 

areas) or RHS (for uplands). Similar measures should be implemented on non-federal land surfaces.

Comment ID: 477

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Conservation Options 1. Determine if the current appropriate management levels (AMLs) 

maintain suitable sage-grouse habitat parameters. Support additional research to quantitatively determine 

impacts of wild horses and burros on sage-grouse habitat parameters. 2. Until research on AMLs is 

completed, manage for AMLs within horse management areas on federal lands. Current AMLs should be 

adjusted for drought conditions. 3. Develop scientific procedures that can be replicated to count horses so 

that proper management actions can be implemented when numbers exceed AMLs. 4. Develop a sound 

monitoring program with prescriptive management "triggers" to make adjustments in horse and burro 

numbers or their distribution, as necessary. USFWS COT at 46-47.

Comment ID: 1924

Organization: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Name: Alex Schubert

Comment: Two conservation measures were identified for free-roaming equid management in the COT 

Report. The first is to "develop, implement, and enforce adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect 

sagegrouse habitat from negative influences of grazing by free-roaming equids." The second conservation

measure is to "manage free-roaming equids at levels that allow native sagebrush vegetative communities to 

minimally achieve PFC (for riparian areas) or RHS (for uplands)." The preferred alternative lacked 

specificity on how either of these conservation measures will be achieved, but did indicate that the BLM 

would consider changes to Herd Management Area Plans and Appropriate Management Levels. Although 

the preferred alternative does adequately address impacts from grazing overall, we encourage the BLM to 

develop conservation actions specifically directed towards ameliorating the threat of free-roaming equids 

in the planning area.

Comment ID: 534

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: (1) Determine if the current appropriate management levels (AMLs) maintain suitable sagegrouse habitat parameters. Support additional research to quantitatively determine impacts of wild horses 

and burros on sagegrouse habitat parameters. (2) Until research on AMLs is completed, manage for AMLs 

within horse management areas on federal lands. Current AMLs should be adjusted for drought conditions.

(3) Develop scientific procedures that can be replicated to count horses so that proper management actions 

can be implemented when numbers exceed AMLs. (4) Develop a sound monitoring program with 

prescriptive management "triggers" to make adjustments in horse and burro numbers or their distribution, 

as necessary. COT at 46-47. The force of the COT report is significant. The USFWS repeatedly suggests 

adjusting wild horse AMLs to ensure a thriving sagebrush habitat and to accommodate drought conditions 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-1001

on public lands. See also NTT Report at 18; COT at 10, 38, 46-47, 75, 83-86. If the proposed measures are 

not adopted and AMLs are not reduced accordingly, excess numbers of wild horses will continue to degrade 

sage-grouse core habitat areas throughout the affected field offices.

Summary: Issue 1: Develop, implement, and enforce adequate regulatory mechanisms to protect sagegrouse habitat from negative influences of grazing by free-roaming equids. Issue 2: Manage free-roaming 

equids at levels that allow native sagebrush vegetative communities to minimally achieve PFC (for riparian 

areas) or RHS (for uplands). Similar measures should be implemented on non-federal land surfaces. Issue 

3: Determine if the current AMLs maintain suitable sage-grouse habitat parameters. Support additional 

research to quantitatively determine impacts of wild horses on sage-grouse habitat parameters. Issue 4: 

Until research on AMLs is completed, manage for AMLs within horse management areas on federal lands. 

Current AMLs should be adjusted for drought conditions. Issue 5: Develop scientific procedures that can 

be replicated to count horses so that proper management actions can be implemented when numbers exceed 

AMLs. Issue 6: Develop a sound monitoring program with prescriptive management "triggers" to make

adjustments in horse numbers or their distribution, as necessary. Issue 7: The Preferred Alternative lacked 

specificity on how these conservation measures will be achieved. BLM should develop conservation actions 

specifically directed towards ameliorating the threat of free-roaming equids in the planning area.

Response: Issue 1: An adequate range of alternatives is provided, please see Draft EIS Management Action 

3, 10, 55, and 112. Issue 2-5: The requested change is outside of the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

LUP Amendments. Issue 6: Please see Management Action 3 page 2-15 of the Draft EIS. An additional 

adaptive management section which discusses hard and soft triggers as well as responses is included in the

Final EIS. Issue 7: An adequate range of alternatives is provided, please see Draft EIS Management Action 

3, 10, 55, and 112.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Select amended Alternative C as the Proposed LUP Amendments

Comment ID: 715

Organization:

Name: pat doherty

Comment: I endorse the comments of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign on the BLM 

Wyoming's Greater Sage Grouse Proposed Land Use Plan but the draft LUP Amendments do not adequately

protect wild horses in accordance with federal laws and regulations , Nor does it properly disclose or analyze 

the impacts that widespread livestock grazing in the planning area is having on the sage grouse. None of 

the alternatives analyzed adequately protects wild horses and burros. Making ranchers conform voluntarily 

WONT WORK . You must make these stipulations mandatory . Please Use the Designation of Alternative 

C as the Preferred Alternative. This would eliminate livestock grazing in sage grouse habitat. Alternative 

C should be amended to allow for increases in wild horse AML and restoration of HA territory, where 

appropriate, once livestock grazing is removed.

Comment ID: 466

Organization:

Name:

Comment: In summary, the final EIS must include the following: Designation of Alternative C as the 

Preferred Alternative. This would eliminate livestock grazing in sage grouse habitat. Alternative C should 

be amended to allow for increases in wild horse AML and restoration of HA territory, where appropriate, 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-1002 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

once livestock grazing is removed. Alternative C should also require mitigations to any impacts on wild 

horses caused by removal of livestock grazing, including closure of water sources.

Comment ID: 2711

Organization:

Name: Nanette Schieron

Comment: The draft LUP does not protect wild horses according to the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro 

Protection Act. The amendment wrongly excludes cattle and sheep from removal of greater sage grouse 

habitat and allows only for "voluntary" removal to improve the range land for the sage grouse. Livestock

grazing is the unsustainable practice here and this can be easily remedied by closing Sage Grouse habitat 

to livestock grazing while allowing horses to continue grazing and then studying the difference. I urge the 

BLM to implement Alternative C of the amendment which would eliminate "livestock", not wild horses 

from the Greater Sage Grouse Habitat area. Alternative C should be amended to allow an increase of wild 

horse AML and restoration of HA territory. Water sources should remain open and available to wild horses 

even after the areas have been closed to livestock. Lastly,I urge the BLM to implement the NAS report that 

was made public in May 2013, a report using the BLM's own data, recommending that our wild horses 

should remain on their designated HAs and be managed more humanely and pragmatically.

Comment ID: 2388

Organization: American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC)

Name: Suzanne Roy

Comment: Alternative C that reduces grazing and protects sage grouse habitat areas from other destructive 

uses should be designated as the proposed action. C must be amended to clearly distinguish discretionary

livestock grazing from wild horse and burro use, which is protected under federal law. Alternative C should 

allow for increases in wild horse AML and restoration of HA territory, where appropriate, once livestock 

grazing is removed. Alternative C should also require mitigations to any impacts to wild horses caused by 

removal of livestock grazing, including closure of water sources.

Summary: In the Final EIS, designate Alternative C as the Proposed LUP Amendments. Amend Alternative 

C to allow for increases in wild horse AML and restoration of herd area territory, where appropriate, once

livestock grazing is removed. Amend Alternative C to clearly distinguish discretionary livestock grazing 

from wild horse use, which is protected under federal law. Amend Alternative C to require mitigations to 

any impacts to wild horses caused by removal of livestock grazing, including closure of water sources.

Response: The final decision for these actions will be included in the Record of Decision after completion 

of the public involvement process.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Wild horse population growth and management edits

Comment ID: 530

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Without determining existing [wild horse] numbers, BLMs assumptions provide little more than

cursory conclusions unsupported by proper analysis for more than 1,488,260 acres of GRSG priority

habitat.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-1003

Comment ID: 537

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: BLM states that wild horses will be managed and maintained used removals and “selected

application” of “population control practices.” DEIS at 4-386. BLM has not defined “selected application” 

and has not identified what “population control practices” it anticipates. Without this information, the 

Coalition and other interested parties cannot properly review the depth of the BLM’s analysis nor its 

conclusions.

Comment ID: 538

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: An alternative BLM should also consider is using SpayVAC TM, which was developed and 

patented by Dr. Robert Brown and Mark Fraker of Terramar Environmental Research Ltd., Vancouver, 

B.C. The Trademark Registration Number in Canada is TMA573960 and in the U.S. is 2886949 by

Immunovaccine Technologies, Inc., 1819 Granville Street, Suite 303, Halifax, B3J 3R1, Nova Scotia. If

that fails, the BLM needs to consider spaying the mares and/or gelding the stallions.

Comment ID: 529

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Providing inaccurate estimates or no estimates at all will significantly impact BLM’s Chapter 4

analysis of the current wild horse situation. Without science based estimates, it is impossible to determine 

the full extent of the resource being managed. Conversely, it is also impossible to determine the full extent 

of the impacts on GRSG from that resource (i.e. wild horses). It is well established that unlike livestock, 

horses disparately impact the rangeland due to their year-round presence and unique biological feeding 

habits.

Comment ID: 209

Organization:

Name: jean public

Comment: 4-386 18% RATE OF POPULATION GROWTH FOR WILD HORSES IS IRREATIONALLY 

OPTIMISTIC. IT BEARS NO RELATIONSHIP TO TRUTH OR FACT. THE PUBLIC SAYS NO TO 

BLM PLANS TO KILL WILD HORSES.

Comment ID: 528

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: These numbers (See 3-443 – 449) appear to be in conflict with other BLM administered actions. 

For example, in its scoping statement for the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse Management Area, Population 

Management Action: 4700 (WYD04), BLM estimated that there were 504 horses in 2012. In the DEIS, 

BLM does not offer an estimate of the current population. As stated in the Coalition’s comments regarding 

the Divide Basin scoping statement, however, when considering undercount approximations and an 18% 

reproduction rate, the more accurate wild horse population number is 622 horses in Divide Basin alone. 

Our comment here illustrates two issues with the current DEIS. First, the BLM must estimate the current 

population of horses in order to also determine the current level of impacts from horses to GRSG habitat in 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-1004 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

HMAs. Secondly, BLM offers estimates for Adobe Town, Stewart Creek, and Lost Creek HMAs but does 

not disclose the method by which it calculated those numbers.

Comment ID: 507

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: Therefore, in order to be effective, the gather program must first remove wild horse populations

from private lands and areas outside of the HMAs, then remove wild horses to a revised low AML range 

for the HMAs (which accounts for the reduced size of the HMA land areas), and only then apply fertility 

control to all of the mares prior to releasing the mares back into the HMA. An alternative BLM should also 

consider is using SpayVACTM, which was developed and patented by Dr. Robert Brown and Mark Fraker 

of Terramar Environmental Research Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. The Trademark Registration Number in 

Canada is TMA573960 and in the U.S. is 2886949 by Immunovaccine Technologies, Inc., 1819 Granville 

Street, Suite 303, Halifax, B3J 3R1, Nova Scotia. If that fails, the BLM needs to consider spaying the mares 

and/or gelding the stallions.

Comment ID: 506

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: The DEIS states that wild horses will be managed and maintained used removals and “selected

application” of “population control practices.” DEIS at 4-386. BLM has not defined “selected application” 

and has not identified what “population control practices” it anticipates. Without this information, RSGA 

and other interested parties cannot properly review the depth of the BLM’s analysis nor its conclusions. 

The DEIS omits the fact that fertility control has not been effective. Thus, these measures are unlikely to 

address the exponential reproductive rates of wild horses.

Comment ID: 2720

Organization: Coalition of Local Governments

Name: Kent Connelly

Comment: Pg 4-386 Text: • Wild horse removals (gathers) would occur about every three to four years in 

each herd management area (HMA). • Maintenance of wild horse populations at appropriate management 

levels (AMLs) within existing HMAs would be accomplished through removals and selected application 

of other population control practices. Comment: Here, the second assumption contradicts the first. Wild 

horse numbers already exceed AMLs within existing HMAs and gathers every 3 or 4 years will not 

compensate for reproductive rates of already overpopulated horses. Further, the BLM may not make 

assumptions that directly contradict the mandates of FLPMA, court decrees, and settlement agreements. 

Also, as mentioned earlier, BLM must analyze and disclose BLM’s ability to acquire traditionally absent

funding and personnel to fully carry out this management action.

Comment ID: 1009

Organization: State of Wyoming, Governor

Name: Matthew H. Mead

Comment: The Management Actions in Chapter 2 increase awareness of wild horse impacts on GSG 

habitat, but they do not provide a framework to ensure populations are properly managed. In areas where 

wild horse populations exceed appropriate management levels and GSG objectives are not being achieved, 

the BLM must manage wild horses and not displace this burden to livestock producers or wildlife 

management agencies.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-1005

Comment ID: 968

Organization:

Name: Molly Schleicher

Comment: Incorporate the National Academies of Science recommendations to manage wild horses. The

recommendation included in the EIS includes the removal of wild horses every 3-4 years, and the NAS 

report indicates that such roundups are actually facilitating high rates of population growth in the wild horse 

herds. Other options for the management of wild horses should be included as part of the EIS.

Comment ID: 2798

Organization:

Name: marla bosworth

Comment: 4. Incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage wild horses 

on the range, not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses every 3-4 years. This disastrous policy

has created a situation in which 50,000 wild horses are in captivity at taxpayer expense and are vulnerable 

to sale without limitation.

Comment ID: 2528

Organization:

Name: Patrica Burge

Comment: You must do an analysis of all grazing allotments. NAS has made an accurate analysis of cattle

destruction to land, and that the percentage of cattle verses wild horses is is extremely over the top. Why 

are two herd areas, LaBarge and Desert Wild not managed for the wild horses? They are the animals the 

areas are for? Please consider the remaining wild horse areas to be managed for that species.

Comment ID: 2976

Organization: Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA)

Name: Doug Thompson

Comment: The BLM must keep wild horse population levels at the appropriate management level (AML). 

If there is a suspected or identified improper grazing situation in a targeted area, and if the AML is exceeded, 

there must be no livestock or wildlife reductions or adjustments until the AML is brought into compliance.

We also believe the Agencies should describe the management constraints relating to the wild horses that 

exist in the absence of Wyoming's Consent Decree and current budgetary environment. Simply put, the 

inability to manage wild horses must be highlighted not ignored.

Comment ID: 2979

Organization:

Name: Margaret

Comment: Add a provision in all alternatives to increase wild horse populations (AMLs). Management of

federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases. Why are not the two 

herd management areas mentioned, LaBarge and Desert Wild, are “not managed for wild horses.” Did you 

forget these for some reason?

Comment ID: 2774

Organization:

Name: Sasha Shapiro
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-1006 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Comment: Add a provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs). 

Management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases. If 

livestock grazing is reduced or eliminated, wild horse populations can increase to truly genetically viable

numbers in all seven herds. Incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage 

wild horses on the range, not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses every 3-4 years. This 

disastrous policy has created a situation in which 50,000 wild horses are in captivity at taxpayer expense 

and are vulnerable to sale without limitation. Ask why the two herd management areas mentioned, LaBarge 

and Desert Wild, are "not managed for wild horses."

Comment ID: 2397

Organization:

Name: Linda Crawfis

Comment: Please examine the real culprit destroying our public lands - the cattle of ranchers on 

unbelievable government handouts/welfare. Please examine the scientific study done regarding the wild 

horse last year. Please look logically at reproductive control methods not requiring removal and stockpiling 

of wild horses.

Comment ID: 2796

Organization:

Name: marla bosworth

Comment: 2. Add a provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs).

Management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases. If 

livestock grazing is reduced or eliminated, wild horse populations can increase to truly genetically viable 

numbers in all seven herds.

Comment ID: 2932

Organization:

Name: Shyla Tailor

Comment: Please incorporate NAS recommendations to manage wild horses on the range, and not remove 

and pen them as is the current practice. Why are the LaBarge and Desert Wild herd management areas NOT 

managed for wild horses?

Comment ID: 2990

Organization:

Name: elizabeth fahy

Comment: Add a provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs).

Incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage wild horses on the range, 

not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses every 3-4 years.

Comment ID: 2955

Organization:

Name: Kristine Jusko

Comment: Add a provision in all alternatives the option to increase wild horse populations (AMLs). 

Management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases. 

Incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage wild horses on the range, 
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-1007

not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses every 3-4 years. I would like to know why the two 

herd management areas mentioned, LaBarge and Desert Wild, are “not managed for wild horses.”

Comment ID: 2161

Organization: The Cloud Foundation

Name: Ginger Kathrens

Comment: We request that all alternatives incorporate National Academies of Science (NAS) 

recommendationsto manage wild horses on the range, not, as mentioned in the DEIS, to remove wild horses 

every 3-4 years. This disastrous policy has created situation in which nearly 50,000 wild horses are 

incarcerated at taxpayer expense and are vulnerable to sale without limitation.

Comment ID: 2936

Organization:

Name: Kristina Shankel

Comment: Also, add a provision, in all alternatives, the option to increase wild horse populations. The

management of federally protected wild horses should trump optional/discretionary grazing leases.

Incorporating NAS recommendations to manage these herds on the range is also important. While I am on 

the subject of management I would like to ask why the two herd management areas, LaBarge and Desert 

Wild, are "not managed for wild horses"? Is this not what they were set aside for?

Comment ID: 2974

Organization:

Name: patricia Hayes

Comment: Please reconsider the zeroing out many of our herds. The damage that will do to the land will 

take years to reverse.

Comment ID: 2930

Organization:

Name: Karen Hethcote

Comment: I also support adding a provision to increase wild horse populations (AMLs) in Alternative C as 

well as the other alternatives. I support incorporating National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

recommendations to manage wild horses on the range rather than to round up and remove them every three 

to four years, as mentioned in the DEIS. I am appalled that BLM plans to zero out the wild horse populations 

from the Great Divide Basin and Salt Wells Creek HMAs, to reduce by half the Adobe Town HMA, and to 

render the wild horse population in the White Mountain HMA nonproducing.

Comment ID: 2794

Organization:

Name: Joyce Crawford

Comment: There are many options to add to the Environmental Impact Statement which could help the 

grouse and the wild horses. One option is decrease the number of livestock in the area and add a provision

to increase wild horse populations so they are genetically viable numbers in all seven herds. An analysis of 

all grazing allotments in the EIS should be required/ updated to help determine if the unacceptable 

conditions of the land are a result of livestock grazing. Also, don't forget about the National Academies of 

Science whom you hired to research the wild horses. Their recommendations were to "manage" the horses 

on the range, not to do roundups and put in pens. Somehow these recommendations are completely ignored 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-1008 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and the Dept of the Interior okays business as usual, completely ignoring scientific research and knowledge. 

The policy of roundups is a disaster. It is a policy that brutalizes the mustangs and reeks of inhumane 

treatment and often tremendous pain endured by the horses.

Summary: Issue 1: On page 4-386, the 18% population growth rate for wild horses seems high and should 

be revised. Issue 2: The estimates in Chapter 4 are inaccurate or are not provided at all. Without science 

based estimates, it is impossible to determine the full extent of the resource being managed. The National

Academies of Science (NAS) recommendations to manage wild horses should be incorporated into the 

alternatives. Issue 3: The numbers in 3-443 – 449 appear to be in conflict with other BLM administered 

actions. For example, in its scoping statement for the Great Divide Basin Wild Horse Management Area,

Population Management Action: 4700 (WYD04), BLM estimated that there were 504 horses in 2012. In 

the Draft EIS, BLM does not offer an estimate of the current population. The BLM must estimate the current 

population of horses in order to also determine the current level of impacts from horses to Greater SageGrouse habitat in HMAs. Issue 4: On page 4-386 the Draft EIS states that wild horses will be managed and 

maintained using removals and “selected application” of “population control practices.” but has not defined 

“selected application” nor what “population control practices” it anticipates. The Draft EIS omits the fact 

that fertility control has not been effective. Thus, these measures are unlikely to address the exponential

reproductive rates of wild horses. Issue 5: The gather program must first remove wild horse populations 

from private lands and areas outside of the HMAs, then remove wild horses to a revised low AML range 

for the HMAs, and only then apply fertility control to all of the mares prior to releasing the mares back into 

the HMA. An alternative BLM should also consider is using SpayVACTM. If that fails, the BLM needs to 

consider spaying the mares and/or gelding the stallions. Issue 6: In areas where wild horse populations 

exceed appropriate management levels and Greater Sage-Grouse objectives are not being achieved, the 

BLM must manage wild horses and not displace this burden to livestock producers or wildlife management 

agencies. Issue 7: Wild horse numbers already exceed AMLs within existing HMAs and gathers every 3 

or 4 years will not compensate for reproductive rates of already overpopulated horses. Further, the BLM

may not make assumptions that directly contradict the mandates of FLPMA, court decrees, and settlement 

agreements.

Response: Issue 1: This is a fair estimate, and may even be a little low based on BLM studies and the NRC

(2013) review of the BLM Wild Horse Program. Issue 2: The analysis is appropriate and is based on sound 

information and science. Issue 3: The HMA population estimate for the Great Divide Basin has been added 

to the document. Issue 4: The bullet point referenced on page 4-386 is not proposed management; it is an 

assumption upon which the analysis of the management alternatives from Chapter 2 is based. Issue 5, 6, 

and 7: The management and issues raised are out of the scope of the Greater Sage- Grouse LUP 

Amendments.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Wild horses should be discussed in the plan

Comment ID: 450

Organization: Rock Springs Grazing Association

Name: John Hay III

Comment: RSGA strongly recommends the following changes in the DEIS: (1) Revise chapters 2, 3, and 4 

to separately address the conflicts between wild horse management and sage grouse conservation goals.

Summary: Revise chapters 2, 3, and 4 to separately address the conflicts between wild horse management 

and Greater Sage-Grouse conservation goals.
Final EIS Appendix O

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment O-1009

Response: The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments are specifically for the management of sage-grouse, 

not wild horses. The suggested revisions are outside the scope of the Greater Sage-Grouse LUP

Amendments. The Greater Sage-Grouse LUP Amendments is not analyzing the impacts directly from

horses or livestock, but rather impacts from the management actions in Chapter 2.

Wild Horses

Range of alternatives

Wild horses should not be discussed in this Draft EIS

Comment ID: 2857

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

Name: Ken Hamilton

Comment: Apparently the document wishes to discuss wild horses. However, recent pronouncements by

Interior officials seem to negate this entire section. We certainly support actions by the Agencies to manage 

horse numbers at appropriate levels to lessen impacts to the resource similar to that outlined in Alternative 

D. Alternatives B, C and E indicate that the Agencies could consider amendments to HMAPs, however

given the recent announcement that Interior is halting wild horse roundups and that is the only realistic 

mechanism currently available to limit horse numbers we do feel this discussion has be circumvented by 

this action

Summary: Recent pronouncements by BLM officials negate the entire Wild Horse section. Although 

managing horse numbers at appropriate levels to lessen impacts to the resource similar to that outlined in

Alternative D is supported, Alternatives B, C and E indicate that the agencies could consider amendments 

to HMAPs; however, given the recent announcement that BLM is halting wild horse roundups, which is 

the only realistic mechanism currently available to limit horse numbers, this discussion has been 

circumvented by this decision.

Response: Reasonable alternatives have been analyzed. Wild horses will continue to be managed according 

to Herd Management Plans and RMP allocations.

Other 

Range of alternatives 

Pest control action should be removed 

Comment ID: 2855 

Organization: Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

Name: Ken Hamilton 

Comment: Item 108 in Table 2-1 addresses grasshopper and Mormon cricket control. Alternative B 

establishes a process that will require the Agencies to spend more time analyzing whether it would be 

beneficial than time would allow, which could result in a significant damage to forage and sage-grouse 

before an effective treatment could occur. Since cricket and grasshopper treatment actions are analyzed in 

separate EIS actions, we do not feel it should be addressed in this plan. 

Summary: Item 108 in Table 2-1 addresses grasshopper and Mormon cricket control. Alternative B 

establishes a process that will require the agencies to spend more time analyzing whether it would be 

beneficial than time would allow, which could result in a significant damage to forage and sage-grouse 
Appendix O Final EIS 

O-1010 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

before an effective treatment could occur. Since cricket and grasshopper treatment actions are analyzed in 

separate EIS actions, we do not feel it should be addressed in this plan. 

Response: Management action #108 under Alternative B of the Draft LUP Amendments/Draft EIS states 

the following: "Grasshopper or cricket control would not occur in sage-grouse priority habitat areas unless 

it can be demonstrated that it is beneficial to sage-grouse." This is a viable management action that will 

serve to address potential impacts on sage-grouse habitat from grasshopper and cricket control. Grasshopper 

and cricket control should be addressed in the LUP Amendments because outbreaks of grasshoppers and 

crickets can adversely affect sage-grouse habitat.