Draft EIS Chapter 4—Analysis Methods 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-1 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The purpose of this chapter is to determine the potential for significant impact of the “federal action” on 

the “human environment.” The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) states that the “human environment” shall be 

interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of 

people with that environment (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1508.14). The “federal action” is 

the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) or the U.S. Forest Service’s (Forest Service) selection of a 

resource management plan (RMP) and Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendment on 

which future land use actions will be based. 

This chapter objectively evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing each management 

alternative described in Chapter 2. This chapter forms the analytic basis for the comparative summary of 

impacts presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the existing conditions of the resources and resource 

uses that would be affected by the management alternatives. The organization of this chapter parallels that 

of Chapter 3, in that the resource programs are presented in the same order. Because resources and 

resource uses are often interrelated, one section may refer to another. 

4.1 ANALYSIS METHODS

The BLM manages public lands for multiple uses in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). 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. To ensure that the BLM meets its 

mandate of multiple use in land management actions, the impacts of the alternatives on resources and 

resource uses are identified and assessed as part of the planning process. The Forest Service is required by 

the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), to prepare LRMPs to ensure that National Forest 

Service Lands are managed under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. 

The analysis of the alternatives is focused on identifying the types of impacts anticipated to occur and 

estimating their potential intensity. The analysis is organized by resource program and discloses the 

potential impacts on each resource program from implementing each of the proposed alternatives. The 

impact analysis for Alternative A was prepared first to serve as the baseline for alternative comparison. It 

is important to note that management prescriptions for each resource or resource use directly or indirectly 

relate to each other; therefore, impacts on one particular resource program may also apply to other 

programs. It is therefore recommended that the reader review all impact analyses to attain a 

comprehensive description of the impacts on the resource or resource use in question. 

Potential impacts of certain land use activities can be compared visually among the alternatives by using 

geographic information system (GIS) data. The locations of resources and management thereof are shown 

in Maps 2-1 through 2-35. The geographic implications associated with each management alternative are 

presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-4 in Chapter 2. These maps and tables should be reviewed in 

conjunction with the impact analyses. 

Acreage calculations used in this analysis are approximate values for alternative comparison and analytic 

purposes only and do not reflect exact measurements of on-the-ground resources and actions. These 

acreage values were calculated using Esri ArcGIS Desktop 9.3.1 software. The projection of GIS data that 

was analyzed to provide the acreage calculations is USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, based on 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). 
Chapter 4—Analysis Methods Draft EIS 

4-2 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.1.1 Types of Impacts 

Throughout this chapter, the terms “impact” and “effect” are used interchangeably. Impacts can be direct, 

indirect or cumulative. Impacts may be perceived as positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse). Some 

impacts would be positive for some individuals and negative for others; for example, restrictions on road 

development could benefit hikers but be a detriment to off-highway vehicle (OHV) users. For this reason, 

impacts are generally not labeled as beneficial or adverse, unless directed by law, regulation or policy. 

The analysis of impacts compares the types and intensity of impacts among the alternatives. In some 

cases, adverse impacts that occur to resource values or uses under a particular alternative are of a lower 

intensity as compared to other alternatives. In these cases, the reduction of an impact is considered a 

positive effect on the affected resource values or uses. Table 4-1 provides an overview of the general 

types of impacts discussed in this chapter. 

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts 

Type Description

Direct Impacts

Direct impacts occur at the same time and place as the action responsible for the 

impact. For example, removal of vegetative cover caused by facility construction would 

be considered a direct impact on vegetation resources.

Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are temporally and spatially removed from the action responsible for 

the impact, but are related to the action through a process of cause and effect. For 

example, removal of vegetative cover caused by facility construction that consequently 

results in increased surface runoff and sedimentation of nearby streams would be 

considered an indirect impact on water resources.

Indirect impacts may reach beyond the natural and physical environment (i.e., 

environmental impact) to include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to 

induced changes to resource uses (i.e., non-environmental impact).

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts result from the incremental impact of an action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of which 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take 

place over time.

4.1.2 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information 

The best available information pertinent to the management decisions was used in the development of the 

RMP and LRMP amendments. Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and convert resource data 

into a digital format for use in the plan. 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 brood-rearing 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 sitespecific 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. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Analysis Methods 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-3 

4.1.3 Analysis Assumptions 

Assumptions for analysis are made to assist in determining the potential environmental, social, and 

economic impacts of the alternatives (Chapter 2) on the affected environment (Chapter 3). They are based 

on expected trends (e.g., population growth or decline within the planning area), expected demands (e.g., 

increases in certain kinds of recreational use), and the likelihood of resource development (e.g., the 

reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario for oil and gas). 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. Assumptions are generally made for the expected life of the RMPs and LRMPs, unless 

otherwise stated. General assumptions applicable to all resources and resource uses are described below. 

Resource-specific assumptions are described under each resource program in the sections that follow. 

The following general assumptions were used in the environmental effects analysis: 

• The decisions proposed in the alternatives apply to public lands and areas that require federal 

permitting or authorization. However, cumulative impact analyses also consider decisions made 

for resources managed by other entities or individuals. 

• The planning criteria described in Chapter 1 apply to all alternatives. 

• The alternatives will be implemented as described in Chapter 2 and associated appendices. 

• Implementation actions will comply with valid existing rights and all federal laws, regulations, 

and policies. 

• Sufficient funding and personnel will be available to implement the RMP and LRMP 

amendments. 
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-4 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.2 AIR QUALITY

This section presents potential impacts on air quality implementing management actions presented in 

Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning air quality are described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.2).

4.2.1 Introduction 

The impact of the proposed amendments to air quality resources is evaluated by addressing potential 

changes to ambient air quality and air quality related values (AQRV) (e.g., visibility or a specific scenic, 

cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource identified by the Federal Land Manager 

for a particular area) for each field office area. Since the air quality impact assessments previously 

performed occurred at different times with sometimes differing technical approaches, this analysis will be 

primarily qualitative. Potential impacts on air quality from implementing the action alternatives (i.e., 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E) is qualitatively compared to the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) to 

determine what changes, if any, can be expected to air resources in each of the field offices. In addition, 

for oil and gas activities, emission change estimates for Alternatives B, C, D, and E from Alternative A 

were calculated in order to determine potential changes in air emissions. 

It is important to mention that portions of the analysis area (Sublette and parts of Lincoln and Sweetwater 

Counties) are designated as non-attainment for ozone. As a result of the non-attainment designation, the 

BLM and other federal agencies within the area must comply with the General Conformity regulations in 

40 CFR 93 Subpart B and Chapter 8, Section 3 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

(WAQSR). Per these regulations, the federal agencies must demonstrate that new actions occurring within 

the non-attainment area will conform with the Wyoming State Implementation Plan, either through an 

applicability analysis to demonstrate that the total of direct and indirect emissions from the proposed 

Federal action do not exceed the de minimis emission levels specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b) or through a 

conformity determination if approval of the federal action will exceed the de minimis emission levels of 

100 tons/year of nitrogen oxide (NOx) or volatile organic compounds (VOC), which are the precursor 

pollutants that form ozone in the atmosphere. Federal actions estimated to have an annual net emissions 

increase less than the de minimis levels are not required to demonstrate conformity under the General 

Conformity regulations. In addition, any portion of the project or action that requires a permit under the 

State of Wyoming’s New Source Review (NSR) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs is also excluded from the federal agency’s general conformity analysis per 40 CFR 93.153(d). 

Since this analysis is a programmatic (planning level) document and no specific emission generating 

activities will be authorized, a Conformity analysis is not required at this time. Future activities with the 

potential to generate NOx or VOC within the designated non-attainment area will be addressed at the 

project level stage, and the Conformity analysis or determination will be completed during that time. 

4.2.2 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on air quality are as follows: 

• Attainment status of air quality in a given area 

• Number and types of wells constructed and operated in a given area 

• Amount of road traffic from construction, daily operation, inspections, and road maintenance. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-5 

4.2.3 Air Quality Assessments for Alternative A 

Casper Field Office 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the Casper 

Field Office. Because new or expanded individual development projects are likely to be widely separated 

throughout the planning area and current measured air quality concentrations are well below federal and 

Wyoming standards, it is unlikely that the increased emissions will contribute to an exceedance of a 

national or state ambient air quality standard. In addition, since emissions increases will be spread over 

relatively large distances, this alternative is not expected to cause adverse impacts to AQRVs in the 

nearby sensitive Class I air quality areas. 

Kemmerer Field Office 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the 

Kemmerer Field Office. Because new or expanded individual development projects are likely to be 

widely separated throughout the planning area and current measured air quality concentrations are well 

below federal and Wyoming standards, it is unlikely that the increased emissions will contribute to an 

exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. However, parts of Kemmerer Field Office 

are in a non-attainment area for ozone. AQRVs in adjacent and nearby wilderness areas are already being 

significantly impacted. 

Newcastle Field Office 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the 

Newcastle Field Office. The emissions from the new oil wells could cause the increased emissions which 

could contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. 

Pinedale Field Office 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the Pinedale 

Field Office. Parts of the Pinedale Field Office are in a non-attainment area for ozone. AQRVs in adjacent 

and nearby wilderness areas are already being significantly impacted. The emissions from the new natural 

gas, coalbed natural gas (CBNG) and oil wells could cause the increased emissions to contribute to an 

exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. 

Rawlins Field Office 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the Rawlins 

Field Office. The emissions from the new natural gas, CBNG, and oil wells could cause the increased 

emissions to contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. 

Rock Springs Office 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the Rock 

Springs Field Office. The emissions from the new natural gas, CBNG, and oil wells could cause the 

increased emissions to contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. In 

addition, under this alternative, impacts to AQRVs from proposed activities within the planning area 

could be significant since parts of the Rock Spring Field Office are in non-attainment for ozone. 

Bridger-Teton National Forest 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the BridgerTeton National Forest (BTNF). The most significant increase would be from NOx. It is likely that the 
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-6 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

increased emissions will contribute to an exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. 

Impacts to AQRVs are already occurring within the Bridger Wilderness, additional development in the 

area will likely increase these impacts. Parts of the BTNF are in an ozone non-attainment area. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland 

The implementation of Alternative A could result in the emission of all air pollutants within the Thunder 

Basin National Grassland (TBNG). In addition, under this alternative, impacts to AQRVs from proposed 

activities within the planning area are not anticipated to be significant. 

Medicine Bow National Forest 

The implementation of Alternative A is not likely to result in the emission of air pollutants within the 

Medicine Bow National Forest (MBNF), since no new wells are projected to be installed. 

4.2.4 Air Quality Impacts Associated with Oil and Gas Development 

The oil and gas activities anticipated in the planning area under Alternative A will cause emissions of 

criteria air pollutants plus hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and greenhouse gases (GHG). Because the oil 

and gas activities identified for each of the other alternatives will be less than those anticipated for 

Alternative A, emissions will be reduced under all the action alternatives compared to those estimated 

under Alternative A.

Assumptions 

In this section, the emission reductions are quantified using the best available engineering data and 

assumptions, air emissions inventory processes, as well as professional and scientific judgment. However, 

assumptions were used where specific data or procedures were not available. The air emissions for oil and 

gas development were calculated using the latest emissions data estimated for the Buffalo and Lander 

Environment Impact Statements (EIS) (BLM 2010). There can be limitations associated with a qualitative 

approach, but given the uncertainties regarding the number, nature, and specific location of future sources 

and activities, this emissions analysis provides a sound basis to compare alternatives. The estimated 

emissions were determined using the following assumptions: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State of Wyoming approved emission factors 

recognized by state and federal agencies are appropriate for all activities (BLM 2010). 

• The Buffalo and Lander RMP assumptions for oil and gas field development and operations 

(BLM 2010) are the basis for calculating typical criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions 

per well for both CBNG and conventional natural gas wells. (See Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 for 

total emissions for each alternative). 

• Emissions from BLM-administered activities for both construction and operations are calculated 

for year 2020 and year 2031. Year 2020 was chosen because construction emissions would be at 

its peak during that year due to peak well construction at each location. Year 2031 was chosen 

because operational emissions would be at the highest level, while construction emissions would 

be at the lowest. 

The well numbers used for each alternative are shown in Table 4-2. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-7 

Table 4-2. Total Number of Wells 

Analysis Area

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Oil Gas Horiz. 

(Oil)

Horiz. 

(Gas) CBNG Oil Gas Horiz. (Oil)

Horiz. 

(Gas) CBNG Oil Gas Horiz. (Oil)

Horiz. 

(Gas) CBNG

Casper 638 146 275 0 508 385 88 166 0 415 311 71 134 0 380

Kemmerer 28 664 0 10 285 24 563 0 8 210 20 477 0 7 116

Newcastle 281 13 10 0 23 231 10 8 0 14 154 7 5 0 0

Pinedale 376 4,287 0 31 372 355 4,057 0 30 343 321 3,661 0 27 242

Rawlins 203 1,628 0 10 1,331 184 1,477 0 10 973 113 910 0 6 764

Rock Springs 524 4,132 0 105 149 407 3,213 0 82 117 358 2,821 0 72 64

Bridger-Teton 13 145 0 0 8 13 146 0 0 10 2 23 0 0 0

Thunder Basin 87 1 47 0 81 8 90 34 0 74 21 0 12 0 28

Medicine Bow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Wells 2,148 11,017 333 157 2,757 1,607 9,644 209 130 2,156 1,300 7,971 152 112 1,594

Analysis Area Alternative D Alternative E 

Casper 597 137 258 0 496 502 115 217 0 458

Kemmerer 28 654 0 10 279 26 607 0 9 255

Newcastle 265 12 9 0 21 256 11 9 0 17

Pinedale 355 4,053 0 30 364 353 4,034 0 30 351

Rawlins 201 1,613 0 10 1,291 190 1,525 0 10 1,167

Rock Springs 502 3,960 0 101 144 460 3,630 0 92 125

Bridger-Teton 13 145 0 0 8 13 145 0 0 8

Thunder Basin 85 1 46 0 82 77 1 42 0 80

Medicine Bow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Wells 2,045 10,576 314 151 2,685 1,877 10,071 268 141 2,461

The total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions for each well type for each alternative in year 2020 and 2031 are provided in Table 4-3

through Table 4-4. Since the well counts for each year were not linear, only emissions during 2020 and 2031 were analyzed. Those years were 
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-8 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

chosen because they represented the peak construction emissions and the peak production emission. When comparing emissions between 2020 and 

2031, emissions in 2031 are less than in 2020. This is due in part to the majority of the well construction activities, which generate a significant 

portion of the emissions, decreasing in 2020. 

Table 4-3. Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Each Well Type for all Field Offices by Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 740 751 200 202 3,588 4,110 57 9 1,640 2,078 6,713 9,294 962 1,339

CBNG 522 411 137 112 2,664 2,532 13 6 1,289 1,266 1,416 1,497 372 398

Oil 237 180 181 35 1,689 421 231 50 408 104 72 18 9 2

H. NG 46 54 14 17 230 301 3 1 120 173 121 180 30 46

H. Oil 3 26 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

B

NG 694 519 188 135 3,384 2,333 52 16 1,553 1,060 6,379 4,124 915 591

CBNG 322 249 84 68 1,624 1,543 8 4 785 771 860 912 226 242

Oil 190 141 144 28 1,360 340 186 40 328 84 58 14 7 1

H. NG 26 39 8 12 128 214 2 1 64 123 63 127 15 32

H. Oil 169 18 93 2 1,822 0 220 0 432 1 73 0 7 0

C

NG 527 536 143 144 2,594 2,936 39 6 1,198 1,484 4,961 6,640 712 957

CBNG 184 140 49 38 938 865 5 2 453 432 495 511 130 136

Oil 128 107 99 22 870 267 119 32 210 66 37 11 4 1

H. NG 24 6 8 1 121 0 2 0 63 0 63 0 15 0

H. Oil 26 11 10 1 173 0 22 0 41 0 7 0 1 0

D

NG 711 725 192 195 3,456 3,971 54 9 1,583 2,007 6,495 8,979 931 1,294

CBNG 500 389 130 106 2,534 2,403 13 6 1,226 1,201 1,344 1,420 353 378

Oil 239 171 180 34 1,785 400 240 48 430 99 76 17 9 2

H. NG 38 51 12 16 189 286 3 1 98 165 98 171 24 44

H. Oil 53 27 21 3 376 1 47 0 89 1 15 0 2 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-9 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

E

NG 783 578 209 152 3,632 2,776 58 14 1,623 1,311 6,410 5,391 918 775

CBNG 429 327 111 89 2,151 2,023 11 5 1,038 1,011 1,134 1,196 298 318

Oil 194 149 148 29 1,367 344 189 41 330 85 59 14 7 1

H. NG 37 23 11 5 183 38 3 1 95 11 95 5 23 0

H. Oil 48 22 19 2 334 1 41 0 79 1 13 0 1 0

Table 4-4. Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Well type for all Field Offices by Alternative (tons per year)

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 1,241,601 1,646,344 47,728 67,221 11 15 2,247,360 3,062,567 2,128,963 2,905,607

CBNG 952,936 1,000,826 50,640 54,601 8 9 2,018,969 2,150,226 1,832,095 1,951,204

Oil 77,670 21,035 2,915 1 1 0 78,005 21,129 73,483 19,109

H. NG 71,108 104,816 140 219 1 1 74,246 109,713 67,464 99,719

H. Oil 93 212 0 0 0 0 94 213 85 192

B

NG 1,178,004 781,437 45,414 29,335 11 7 2,134,995 1,399,663 2,022,664 1,325,140

CBNG 578,693 609,707 30,713 33,256 5 5 1,225,233 1,309,763 1,111,827 1,188,533

Oil 62,516 16,933 2,384 1 1 0 62,786 17,009 59,184 15,383

H. NG 37,385 74,086 71 154 0 1 38,984 77,533 35,418 70,469

H. Oil 84,665 145 4 0 1 0 85,030 147 76,912 132

C

NG 912,266 1,175,951 35,344 48,025 8 11 1,657,051 2,187,743 1,570,060 2,075,630

CBNG 333,423 341,816 17,678 18,635 3 3 705,563 734,091 640,257 666,144

Oil 39,959 13,255 1,559 1 0 0 40,132 13,315 37,865 12,042

H. NG 36,981 0 72 0 0 0 38,603 0 35,076 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-10 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. Oil 8,203 87 0 0 0 0 8,238 88 7,451 79

D

NG 1,199,804 1,590,496 46,193 64,942 11 14 2,173,214 2,958,706 2,058,803 2,807,070

CBNG 904,723 949,698 48,048 51,811 8 8 1,916,188 2,040,360 1,738,828 1,851,507

Oil 82,137 19,990 2,708 1 1 0 82,492 20,080 77,333 18,160

H. NG 57,552 99,539 112 208 1 1 60,071 104,189 54,583 94,698

H. Oil 17,760 222 1 0 0 0 17,837 224 16,134 202

E

NG 1,206,581 994,147 45,393 38,615 11 9 2,163,220 1,807,840 2,048,154 1,713,044

CBNG 763,613 799,328 40,503 43,604 7 7 1,616,257 1,717,234 1,466,658 1,558,288

Oil 62,862 17,226 2,526 1 1 0 63,133 17,303 59,641 15,649

H. NG 56,034 4,481 110 0 1 0 58,496 4,496 53,152 4,067

H. Oil 15,806 177 1 0 0 0 15,874 178 14,358 161

Casper Field Office 

Table 4-5 and Table 4-6 show the total emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and horizontal oil wells in the Casper Field 

Office for each alternative. Table 4-7 and Table 4-8 show the criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the Casper Field 

Office compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in criteria pollutant emissions would occur under Alternative C, and the least reduction 

in emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also less under all alternatives with Alternative C having 

the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Table 4-5. Casper Field Office Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions for Year 2020 and 2031 

for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 12 13 3 3 61 71 1 0 28 36 116 160 17 23

CBNG 101 81 27 22 522 500 3 1 253 250 279 296 73 79

Oil 86 42 66 4 621 1 85 0 150 2 27 0 3 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-11

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 30 25 8 8 140 149 2 0 75 87 77 92 19 23

H. Oil 3 19 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

B

NG 8 8 2 2 39 43 1 0 18 22 73 97 10 14

CBNG 66 52 17 14 335 319 2 1 162 160 178 189 47 50

Oil 58 25 43 3 437 1 59 0 105 1 19 0 2 0

H. NG 17 15 5 5 76 90 1 0 39 53 40 55 10 14

H. Oil 153 12 86 1 1,693 0 204 0 401 0 67 0 7 0

C

NG 6 6 2 2 31 35 0 0 14 17 58 78 8 11

CBNG 46 35 13 10 239 216 1 1 115 108 124 128 33 34

Oil 43 20 32 2 317 1 42 0 76 1 13 0 2 0

H. NG 15 3 4 0 68 0 1 0 37 0 37 0 9 0

H. Oil 24 9 10 1 172 0 21 0 41 0 7 0 1 0

D

NG 12 12 3 3 57 66 1 0 26 33 109 150 16 22

CBNG 97 77 25 21 498 476 2 1 241 238 266 281 70 75

Oil 80 39 61 4 571 1 78 0 138 2 24 0 3 0

H. NG 28 23 8 8 130 140 2 0 70 82 72 86 18 22

H. Oil 38 15 15 2 270 0 33 0 64 1 11 0 1 0

E

NG 10 10 3 3 49 56 1 0 23 28 93 126 13 18

CBNG 84 65 22 18 426 403 2 1 206 201 226 238 59 63

Oil 66 31 50 3 481 1 66 0 116 1 21 0 2 0

H. NG 23 11 6 2 108 18 1 0 57 5 59 2 15 0

H. Oil 39 15 16 2 286 0 35 0 68 1 11 0 1 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-12 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-6. Casper Field Office Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 21,343 28,331 826 1,157 0 0 38,738 52,703 36,703 50,002

CBNG 187,945 197,652 10,001 10,783 2 2 398,475 424,645 361,592 385,341

Oil 28,537 490 1,050 0 0 0 28,660 494 26,978 445

H. NG 45,035 53,186 91 112 0 0 47,064 55,696 42,769 50,625

H. Oil 79 153 0 0 0 0 79 155 72 139

B

NG 13,440 17,093 517 698 0 0 24,340 31,798 23,059 30,169

CBNG 119,788 126,280 6,361 6,888 1 1 253,698 271,274 230,216 246,165

Oil 20,093 301 668 0 0 0 20,180 303 18,923 274

H. NG 23,409 32,097 46 68 0 0 24,444 33,612 22,212 30,551

H. Oil 78,574 100 4 0 1 0 78,914 101 71,380 91

C

NG 10,744 13,828 416 565 0 0 19,500 25,726 18,476 24,408

CBNG 83,708 85,527 4,423 4,663 1 1 176,822 183,680 160,456 166,679

Oil 14,599 242 461 0 0 0 14,662 243 13,724 220

H. NG 21,854 0 44 0 0 0 22,835 0 20,751 0

H. Oil 8,123 72 0 0 0 0 8,158 72 7,379 65

D

NG 19,998 26,538 775 1,084 0 0 36,325 49,368 34,418 46,838

CBNG 178,823 187,947 9,509 10,253 2 2 378,993 403,790 343,914 366,416

Oil 26,252 459 978 0 0 0 26,365 462 24,829 417

H. NG 41,954 49,821 85 105 0 0 43,847 52,172 39,846 47,422

97,960 12,745 125 1 0 0 0 12,800 126 11,578 113

E

NG 17,123 22,310 662 911 0 0 31,071 41,503 29,438 39,376

CBNG 151,828 159,081 8,061 8,678 1 1 321,519 341,760 291,760 310,127

Oil 22,112 371 820 0 0 0 22,208 373 20,910 337
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-13

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 34,287 2,158 69 0 0 0 35,826 2,165 32,556 1,959

H. Oil 13,496 124 1 0 0 0 13,555 125 12,260 113

Table 4-7. Casper Field Office Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant Emission Reductions 

Compared to Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 4 5 1 1 22 28 0 0 10 14 43 63 6 9

CBNG 35 30 9 8 187 181 1 0 91 90 101 107 27 28

Oil 29 16 23 2 184 0 26 0 44 1 8 0 1 0

H. NG 13 10 4 3 65 59 1 0 36 35 37 36 9 9

H. Oil -151 6 -85 1 -1,692 0 -204 0 -401 0 -67 0 -7 0

C

NG 6 7 2 2 30 36 0 0 14 18 58 82 8 12

CBNG 55 46 14 13 283 284 1 1 138 142 155 168 41 45

Oil 44 21 34 2 303 1 42 0 73 1 13 0 2 0

H. NG 15 22 4 8 72 149 1 0 39 87 40 92 10 23

H. Oil -21 10 -10 1 -171 0 -21 0 -41 0 -7 0 -1 0

D

NG 1 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 2 7 10 1 1

CBNG 4 4 1 1 24 24 0 0 12 12 14 15 4 4

Oil 6 3 5 0 50 0 7 0 12 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 2 2 1 1 10 9 0 0 5 6 5 6 1 1

H. Oil -35 3 -15 0 -269 0 -33 0 -64 0 -11 0 -1 0

E

NG 2 3 1 1 12 15 0 0 6 8 23 34 3 5

CBNG 17 16 5 4 96 97 0 0 47 49 54 58 14 15
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-14 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 21 10 16 1 140 0 19 0 34 0 6 0 1 0

H. NG 7 13 2 6 33 131 0 0 18 82 18 90 5 23

H. Oil -37 3 -16 0 -285 0 -35 0 -67 0 -11 0 -1 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Table 4-8. Casper Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions 

Compared to Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 7,903 11,239 308 459 0 0 14,398 20,904 13,644 19,833

CBNG 68,157 71,371 3,640 3,895 1 1 144,777 153,371 131,377 139,176

Oil 8,444 189 383 0 0 0 8,481 190 8,055 172

H. NG 21,627 21,089 44 45 0 0 22,619 22,084 20,557 20,073

H. Oil -78,495 54 -4 0 -1 0 -78,834 54 -71,308 49

C

NG 10,599 14,503 410 592 0 0 19,238 26,976 18,227 25,594

CBNG 104,238 112,125 5,578 6,120 1 1 221,652 240,966 201,137 218,662

Oil 13,938 249 590 0 0 0 13,998 250 13,254 226

H. NG 23,181 53,186 47 112 0 0 24,228 55,696 22,018 50,625

H. Oil -8,044 82 0 0 0 0 -8,078 82 -7,307 74

D

NG 1,345 1,793 51 73 0 0 2,413 3,335 2,285 3,164

CBNG 9,122 9,705 492 530 0 0 19,481 20,855 17,678 18,925

Oil 2,285 31 73 0 0 0 2,295 31 2,149 28

H. NG 3,081 3,365 6 7 0 0 3,217 3,524 2,923 3,203

H. Oil -12,666 29 -1 0 0 0 -12,721 29 -11,506 26
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-15

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

E

NG 4,220 6,022 164 246 0 0 7,667 11,200 7,265 10,626

CBNG 36,118 38,571 1,940 2,105 0 0 76,955 82,885 69,833 75,213

Oil 6,425 119 230 0 0 0 6,453 120 6,068 108

H. NG 10,748 51,028 22 112 0 0 11,238 53,530 10,213 48,666

H. Oil -13,417 29 -1 0 0 0 -13,475 30 -12,189 27

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Kemmerer Field Office 

Table 4-9 and Table 4-10 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the Kemmerer Field Office for each alternative. Table 4-11 and Table 4-12 show the estimated criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the Kemmerer Field Office compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur 

under Alternative C and the least reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also less under 

all of the alternatives compared to Alternative A. 

Table 4-9. Kemmerer Field Office Total Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 60 59 16 16 286 321 5 1 130 162 528 727 76 105

CBNG 61 46 16 12 300 281 2 1 145 140 157 166 41 44

Oil 4 2 3 0 34 0 5 0 8 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 1 1 1 0 9 6 0 0 4 3 3 3 1 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 51 50 14 13 248 272 4 1 114 138 464 616 67 89

CBNG 36 26 9 7 174 162 1 0 84 81 90 96 24 25

Oil 4 2 3 0 28 0 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-16 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 1 0 1 0 7 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 43 42 12 11 207 231 3 1 95 117 390 522 56 75

CBNG 15 11 4 3 74 66 0 0 35 33 38 39 10 10

Oil 3 1 2 0 22 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 59 58 16 16 282 316 4 1 128 160 521 715 75 103

CBNG 58 43 15 12 286 267 2 1 138 134 150 158 39 42

Oil 20 2 12 0 242 0 29 0 58 0 10 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 1 0 9 6 0 0 4 3 3 3 1 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 144 54 36 14 514 294 10 1 191 149 523 665 74 96

CBNG 50 36 13 10 243 224 1 1 117 112 126 132 33 35

Oil 4 2 3 0 30 0 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 1 0 1 0 8 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-10. Kemmerer Field Office Total Oil and Gas Well Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 98,053 128,742 3,751 5,257 1 1 177,103 239,489 167,753 227,215

CBNG 105,899 110,887 5,611 6,050 1 1 224,011 238,236 203,277 216,185
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-17

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 1,556 22 46 0 0 0 1,563 22 1,460 20

H. NG 2,069 1,993 3 4 0 0 2,143 2,083 1,945 1,893

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 85,911 109,104 3,302 4,455 1 1 155,489 202,970 147,296 192,569

CBNG 60,886 63,901 3,219 3,485 1 1 128,647 137,271 116,740 124,565

Oil 1,278 19 41 0 0 0 1,284 19 1,203 17

H. NG 1,575 186 2 0 0 0 1,628 186 1,478 169

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 72,075 92,411 2,777 3,774 1 1 130,592 171,921 123,719 163,111

CBNG 25,579 26,108 1,350 1,423 0 0 54,004 56,071 49,005 50,881

Oil 1,024 16 30 0 0 0 1,028 16 960 14

H. NG 1,470 0 2 0 0 0 1,523 0 1,382 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 96,648 126,722 3,700 5,174 1 1 174,614 235,734 165,398 223,653

CBNG 100,971 105,720 5,349 5,768 1 1 213,567 227,132 193,800 206,109

Oil 11,215 21 1 0 0 0 11,264 21 10,188 19

H. NG 2,018 1,962 3 4 0 0 2,090 2,051 1,898 1,864

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 120,275 117,726 3,493 4,807 1 1 193,979 219,008 182,500 207,784

CBNG 84,884 88,571 4,488 4,832 1 1 179,363 190,281 162,761 172,669

Oil 1,373 19 42 0 0 0 1,379 19 1,289 17

H. NG 1,841 89 3 0 0 0 1,906 90 1,730 81

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-18 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-11. Kemmerer Field Office Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant Emission Reductions 

Compared to Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 8 9 2 2 38 49 1 0 17 25 64 111 9 16

CBNG 25 35 6 9 126 214 1 1 61 107 67 127 18 34

Oil 1 0 1 -1 6 -2 1 -2 1 -2 0 -2 0 -2

H. NG 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 17 17 5 4 79 91 1 0 35 46 138 205 20 30

CBNG 46 2 12 1 227 13 1 0 109 7 119 8 31 2

Oil 1 1 1 -1 12 -1 2 -1 3 -1 0 -1 0 -1

H. NG 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 1 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 2 3 7 11 1 2

CBNG 3 9 1 3 14 56 0 0 7 28 7 33 2 9

Oil -16 0 -9 -2 -209 -2 -25 -2 -49 -2 -8 -2 -1 -2

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG -84 5 -20 1 -228 27 -5 0 -61 14 5 62 2 9

CBNG 11 0 3 0 58 0 0 0 28 0 31 0 8 0

Oil 1 0 0 -1 4 -2 1 -2 1 -2 0 -2 0 -2

H. NG 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-19

Table 4-12. Kemmerer Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions 

Compared to Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 12,142 19,638 449 801 0 0 21,615 36,519 20,457 34,646

CBNG 45,013 84,779 2,392 4,626 0 1 95,364 182,165 86,537 165,304

Oil 278 20 5 -2 0 -2 279 20 257 18

H. NG 494 0 1 0 0 0 515 0 468 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 25,978 36,331 974 1,483 0 0 46,511 67,568 44,034 64,104

CBNG 80,319 5,167 4,260 282 1 0 170,007 11,104 154,271 10,076

Oil 532 20 16 -1 0 -1 534 20 500 18

H. NG 599 1 1 1 0 1 620 1 563 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 1,405 2,020 51 82 0 0 2,489 3,755 2,355 3,563

CBNG 4,927 22,316 262 1,218 0 0 10,444 47,955 9,477 43,516

Oil -9,659 20 46 -2 0 -2 -9,701 20 -8,728 18

H. NG 51 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 48 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG -22,222 11,016 258 449 0 0 -16,875 20,481 -14,747 19,431

CBNG 21,015 0 1,123 0 0 0 44,648 0 40,516 0

Oil 183 20 4 -2 0 -2 184 20 171 18

H. NG 228 0 0 0 0 0 237 0 215 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-20 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Newcastle Field Office 

Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the Newcastle Field Office for each alternative. Table 4-15 and Table 4-16 show the estimated range of criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the Newcastle Field Office compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur 

under Alternative C and the least reduction in emissions would occur under Alternatives D and E. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also 

less under all alternatives with Alternative C showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Table 4-13. Newcastle Field Office Total Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 1 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 3 10 14 1 2

CBNG 5 4 1 1 25 23 0 0 12 11 13 13 3 4

Oil 30 18 24 2 174 0 25 0 42 1 8 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1

H. Oil 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 1 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 2 3 9 11 1 2

CBNG 3 2 1 0 13 11 0 0 6 5 6 6 2 2

Oil 25 15 20 2 151 0 22 0 37 1 7 0 1 0

H. NG 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1

H. Oil 8 1 5 0 93 0 11 0 22 0 4 0 0 0

C

NG 0 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 2 6 8 1 1

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 9 10 9 1 14 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 1 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 3 9 13 1 2

CBNG 6 3 1 1 24 20 0 0 11 10 11 12 3 3
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-21

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 28 17 23 2 160 0 23 0 39 1 7 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 5 5 0 0 2 3 3 3 1 1

H. Oil 1 1 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 1 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 2 3 9 13 1 2

CBNG 4 2 1 1 17 15 0 0 8 7 8 9 2 2

Oil 25 16 20 2 137 0 21 0 34 1 6 0 1 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 1 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-14. Newcastle Field Office Total Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 1,805 2,438 71 100 0 0 3,302 4,535 3,130 4,302

CBNG 8,585 8,949 453 488 0 0 18,116 19,226 16,440 17,447

Oil 7,962 216 462 0 0 0 7,997 217 7,697 196

H. NG 1,591 1,908 3 4 0 0 1,663 1,998 1,512 1,816

H. Oil 2 6 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 5

B

NG 1,546 2,011 61 82 0 0 2,829 3,741 2,681 3,549

CBNG 4,143 4,260 215 232 0 0 8,661 9,151 7,859 8,304

Oil 6,904 181 402 0 0 0 6,934 183 6,675 165

H. NG 39 1,575 0 3 0 0 39 1,649 35 1,499

H. Oil 4,306 5 0 0 0 0 4,325 5 3,912 4

C NG 993 1,335 40 55 0 0 1,838 2,484 1,744 2,357
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-22 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 624 119 227 0 0 0 626 120 795 108

H. NG 843 0 2 0 0 0 883 0 802 0

H. Oil 39 3 0 0 0 0 40 3 36 3

D

NG 1,705 2,301 67 94 0 0 3,120 4,280 2,958 4,061

CBNG 7,732 7,957 403 434 0 0 16,207 17,096 14,706 15,514

Oil 7,323 204 433 0 0 0 7,355 205 7,088 185

H. NG 1,494 1,801 3 4 0 0 1,562 1,886 1,420 1,714

H. Oil 297 5 0 0 0 0 298 5 269 4

E

NG 1,669 2,220 66 91 0 0 3,057 4,130 2,898 3,919

CBNG 5,713 5,905 299 322 0 0 12,012 12,685 10,900 11,511

Oil 6,278 189 417 0 0 0 6,305 190 6,122 172

H. NG 36 90 0 0 0 0 36 90 33 81

H. Oil 322 5 0 0 0 0 323 5 292 5

Table 4-15. Newcastle Field Office Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant Emission Reductions 

Compared to Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0

CBNG 2 4 1 1 12 23 0 0 6 11 7 13 2 4

Oil 4 3 4 -13 23 -15 3 -15 6 -15 1 -15 0 -15

H. NG 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 3 1 3 1 1 0

H. Oil -8 0 -5 0 -93 0 -11 0 -22 0 -4 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-23

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

C

NG 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 1 4 6 1 1

CBNG 5 0 1 0 25 3 0 0 12 1 13 1 3 0

Oil 21 5 15 -8 159 -10 21 -10 38 -9 7 -10 1 -10

H. NG 1 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 1 3 1 3 0 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

CBNG 0 1 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 4 1 5 0 1

Oil 2 -7 2 -16 14 -17 2 -17 3 -17 1 -17 0 -17

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil -1 0 0 0 -6 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

CBNG 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 1 0

Oil 5 1 4 -14 37 -15 5 -16 9 -15 2 -16 0 -16

H. NG 1 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1

H. Oil -1 0 0 0 -7 0 -1 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Table 4-16. Newcastle Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions 

Compared to Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 259 427 10 17 0 0 473 793 448 753

CBNG 4,442 8,949 238 488 0 0 9,456 19,226 8,581 17,447

Oil 1,058 200 60 -15 0 -15 1,063 202 1,022 181
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-24 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 1,552 334 3 1 0 0 1,625 349 1,477 317

H. Oil -4,304 1 0 0 0 0 -4,323 1 -3,910 1

C

NG 812 1,102 31 45 0 0 1,464 2,051 1,386 1,946

CBNG 8,585 991 453 54 0 0 18,116 2,130 16,440 1,933

Oil 7,339 171 235 -10 0 -10 7,370 173 6,902 155

H. NG 747 1,908 1 4 0 0 781 1,998 710 1,816

H. Oil -38 3 0 0 0 0 -38 3 -34 2

D

NG 100 137 4 6 0 0 181 254 172 241

CBNG 853 3,044 50 166 0 0 1,910 6,541 1,733 5,935

Oil 639 102 29 -17 0 -17 642 103 609 91

H. NG 97 107 0 0 0 0 101 112 92 102

H. Oil -295 1 0 0 0 0 -296 1 -268 1

E

NG 137 217 5 9 0 0 245 404 232 384

CBNG 2,871 0 154 0 0 0 6,105 0 5,540 0

Oil 1,685 188 45 -16 0 -16 1,692 189 1,576 169

H. NG 1,554 1,818 3 4 0 0 1,627 1,908 1,479 1,735

H. Oil -320 0 0 0 0 0 -322 0 -291 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Pinedale Field Office 

Table 4-17 and Table 4-18 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the Pinedale Field Office for each alternative. Table 4-19 and Table 4-20 show the estimated emissions reductions for the 

Pinedale Field Office compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the least reduction in 

emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also less under all alternatives with Alternative C showing 

the greatest reduction in emissions. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-25

Table 4-17. Pinedale Field Office Total Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 359 379 98 102 1,774 2,075 28 5 819 1,049 3,400 4,692 488 676

CBNG 83 59 21 16 398 366 2 1 191 183 206 216 54 58

Oil 49 25 38 2 346 1 48 0 84 1 15 0 2 0

H. NG 3 3 1 1 16 17 0 0 9 10 9 11 2 3

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 347 192 94 47 1,726 540 26 12 800 153 3,337 68 479 7

CBNG 60 43 15 12 287 264 2 1 138 132 148 156 39 42

Oil 46 24 36 2 320 1 44 0 77 1 14 0 2 0

H. NG 1 4 0 1 2 22 0 0 0 13 0 14 0 3

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 308 323 84 87 1,538 1,772 23 4 715 896 2,990 4,007 429 577

CBNG 32 22 8 6 152 138 1 0 73 69 79 81 21 22

Oil 40 21 31 2 276 1 38 0 67 1 12 0 1 0

H. NG 3 1 1 0 13 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 2 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 336 358 91 96 1,669 1,962 26 4 773 992 3,219 4,436 462 639

CBNG 80 57 20 15 380 349 2 1 182 174 196 206 51 55

Oil 46 23 35 2 316 1 44 0 76 1 14 0 2 0

H. NG 3 3 1 1 15 16 0 0 8 9 8 10 2 3

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 339 357 92 96 1,684 1,952 26 4 781 987 3,255 4,415 467 636

CBNG 72 50 18 14 339 309 2 1 162 154 174 182 45 48

Oil 43 22 33 2 295 1 41 0 71 1 13 0 2 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-26 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 3 2 1 0 14 3 0 0 8 1 8 0 2 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-18. Pinedale Field Office Total Greenhouse Gas Oil and Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 624,515 831,092 24,216 33,934 6 7 1,134,793 1,546,017 1,075,242 1,466,782

CBNG 138,573 144,737 7,323 7,896 1 1 292,741 310,961 265,645 282,179

Oil 15,901 289 619 0 0 0 15,970 291 15,066 262

H. NG 5,132 6,075 10 13 0 0 5,364 6,362 4,875 5,782

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 611,740 63,102 23,797 1 6 1 1,113,198 63,313 1,054,866 57,275

CBNG 99,605 104,372 5,258 5,693 1 1 210,282 224,209 190,818 203,457

Oil 14,714 278 617 0 0 0 14,778 280 13,986 253

H. NG 196 7,899 0 17 0 0 197 8,272 178 7,518

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 547,316 709,661 21,325 28,982 5 6 996,676 1,320,255 944,487 1,252,597

CBNG 53,293 54,467 2,817 2,969 0 0 112,592 116,975 102,171 106,148

Oil 12,691 249 474 0 0 0 12,746 251 12,005 226

H. NG 4,336 0 9 0 0 0 4,532 0 4,118 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 590,251 785,751 22,941 32,083 5 7 1,073,654 1,461,685 1,017,371 1,386,773

CBNG 132,125 137,928 6,978 7,525 1 1 279,024 296,330 253,198 268,902
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-27

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 14,519 273 581 0 0 0 14,582 275 13,773 248

H. NG 4,823 5,744 10 12 0 0 5,041 6,015 4,581 5,467

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 596,556 781,967 23,201 31,932 5 7 1,085,440 1,454,703 1,028,555 1,380,151

CBNG 117,113 121,916 6,178 6,651 1 1 247,160 261,917 224,283 237,674

Oil 13,575 261 577 0 0 0 13,633 263 12,911 237

H. NG 4,652 295 9 0 0 0 4,862 296 4,418 267

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-19. Pinedale Field Office Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant Emission 

Reductions from Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 12 187 3 55 48 1,535 1 -8 19 896 63 4,623 9 669

CBNG 23 17 6 5 111 102 1 0 53 51 58 60 15 16

Oil 3 1 2 0 26 0 3 0 6 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 3 -1 1 0 14 -5 0 0 8 -3 9 -3 2 -1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 51 55 14 15 236 303 5 1 104 153 410 685 59 99

CBNG 51 37 13 10 246 228 1 1 118 114 127 135 33 36

Oil 10 4 7 0 70 0 10 0 17 0 3 0 0 0

H. NG 1 2 0 1 3 17 0 0 1 10 1 11 0 3

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D NG 23 21 6 6 105 113 2 0 46 57 181 256 26 37
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-28 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

CBNG 3 3 1 1 18 17 0 0 9 9 10 10 3 3

Oil 4 1 3 0 30 0 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 20 22 5 6 90 122 2 0 38 62 146 277 21 40

CBNG 11 10 3 3 59 58 0 0 29 29 32 34 8 9

Oil 6 3 5 0 51 0 6 0 12 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 0 1 0 1 1 15 0 0 1 9 1 10 0 3

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Table 4-20. Pinedale Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Reductions from Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 12,774 767,990 418 33,933 0 7 21,595 1,482,704 20,377 1,409,507

CBNG 38,969 40,366 2,066 2,204 0 0 82,459 86,751 74,827 78,722

Oil 1,187 10 2 0 0 0 1,192 10 1,080 9

H. NG 4,936 -1,824 10 -4 0 0 5,167 -1,910 4,697 -1,736

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 77,199 121,431 2,891 4,952 1 1 138,118 225,762 130,755 214,185

CBNG 85,281 90,270 4,507 4,927 1 1 180,149 193,986 163,474 176,031

Oil 3,210 40 144 0 0 0 3,224 40 3,061 36

H. NG 796 6,075 2 13 0 0 832 6,362 756 5,782
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-29

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 34,264 45,341 1,275 1,851 0 0 61,139 84,332 57,871 80,009

CBNG 6,449 6,809 345 372 0 0 13,717 14,631 12,447 13,277

Oil 1,382 16 38 0 0 0 1,388 16 1,293 14

H. NG 309 331 1 1 0 0 323 347 293 315

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 27,959 49,125 1,015 2,003 0 0 49,353 91,314 46,687 86,631

CBNG 21,461 22,822 1,146 1,246 0 0 45,580 49,044 41,362 44,504

Oil 2,326 28 42 0 0 0 2,336 28 2,155 25

H. NG 480 5,780 1 13 0 0 502 6,066 456 5,515

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Rawlins Field Office 

Table 4-21 and Table 4-22 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the Rawlins Field Office for each alternative. Table 4-23 and Table 4-24 show the estimated criteria pollutant and greenhouse 

gas emissions reductions for the Rawlins Field Office compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions occurs under Alternative C 

and the least reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also less under all alternatives with 

Alternative C showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Table 4-21. Rawlins Field Office Total Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 151 144 41 39 714 788 11 2 323 398 1,296 1,782 186 257

CBNG 262 213 69 58 1,365 1,310 7 3 662 655 732 775 192 206
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-30 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 34 13 25 1 271 0 36 0 65 1 11 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 6 6 0 0 3 3 3 4 1 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 141 130 38 35 669 715 11 2 303 361 1,220 1,616 175 233

CBNG 149 121 39 33 776 749 4 2 377 374 416 443 109 118

Oil 31 12 23 1 252 0 33 0 61 0 11 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 4 7 0 0 2 4 2 4 1 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 83 80 23 22 402 440 6 1 183 223 745 996 107 144

CBNG 89 71 24 19 463 435 2 1 225 217 248 257 65 68

Oil 17 7 13 1 138 0 18 0 33 0 6 0 1 0

H. NG 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 149 143 40 38 706 781 11 2 320 395 1,287 1,765 184 254

CBNG 249 201 66 55 1,291 1,238 6 3 626 619 691 732 182 195

Oil 33 13 24 1 268 0 35 0 64 1 11 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 142 74 38 18 675 208 11 5 306 59 1,236 26 177 3

CBNG 210 166 55 45 1,078 1,026 5 3 522 513 574 606 151 161

Oil 29 12 22 1 235 0 31 0 56 0 10 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-31

Table 4-22. Rawlins Field Office Total Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 241,915 315,607 9,196 12,886 2 3 435,709 587,099 412,639 557,009

CBNG 492,279 517,863 26,203 28,253 4 5 1,043,882 1,112,604 947,261 1,009,623

Oil 12,491 156 334 0 0 0 12,545 157 11,682 142

H. NG 1,744 2,027 3 4 0 0 1,821 2,123 1,655 1,929

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 227,485 286,251 8,663 11,689 2 3 410,041 532,526 388,348 505,235

CBNG 280,271 296,074 14,914 16,149 2 3 594,232 636,023 539,230 577,153

Oil 11,600 144 319 0 0 0 11,650 145 10,858 131

H. NG 1,358 2,526 3 5 0 0 1,417 2,646 1,288 2,405

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 138,264 176,367 5,300 7,203 1 2 249,947 328,113 236,763 311,298

CBNG 167,179 171,955 8,893 9,374 1 2 354,387 369,293 321,586 335,112

Oil 6,336 88 168 0 0 0 6,363 88 5,923 80

H. NG 962 0 2 0 0 0 1,005 0 913 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 239,849 312,686 9,129 12,767 2 3 432,233 581,671 409,361 551,860

CBNG 465,168 489,191 24,750 26,688 4 4 986,175 1,050,994 894,896 953,715

Oil 12,351 154 329 0 0 0 12,404 155 11,549 140

H. NG 1,719 2,008 3 4 0 0 1,795 2,103 1,631 1,912

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 230,086 24,262 8,773 0 2 0 414,965 24,343 393,024 22,022

CBNG 386,486 405,343 20,539 22,112 3 4 818,866 870,817 743,073 790,215

Oil 10,818 140 310 0 0 0 10,865 141 10,139 127
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-32 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 1,741 98 4 0 0 0 1,822 98 1,656 89

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-23. Rawlins Field Office Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant Emission 

Reductions Compared to Alternative A (in tons per year)

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 10 13 3 4 45 73 1 0 20 37 77 166 11 24

CBNG 114 92 30 25 589 561 3 1 285 280 315 332 83 88

Oil 2 1 2 0 19 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 1 -1 1 -1 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 67 64 18 17 313 348 5 1 139 176 551 786 79 113

CBNG 173 142 46 39 902 875 4 2 438 437 483 518 127 138

Oil 16 6 12 1 134 0 18 0 32 0 6 0 1 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 3 6 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 2 1 1 0 8 7 0 0 3 4 10 16 1 2

CBNG 13 12 4 3 74 72 0 0 36 36 40 43 11 11

Oil 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 9 70 2 21 39 580 1 -3 16 339 61 1,755 9 254

CBNG 52 47 14 13 287 284 1 1 140 142 157 168 42 45
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-33

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 4 1 3 0 36 0 5 0 9 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Table 4-24. Rawlins Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Reductions Compared to Alternative A (in tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 14,430 29,355 533 1,197 0 0 25,668 54,573 24,292 51,774

CBNG 212,008 221,789 11,289 12,104 2 2 449,650 476,581 408,031 432,470

Oil 890 12 15 0 0 0 894 12 824 11

H. NG 386 -499 1 -1 0 0 404 -523 367 -475

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 103,651 139,240 3,896 5,684 1 1 185,761 258,986 175,877 245,711

CBNG 325,100 345,909 17,310 18,878 3 3 689,494 743,311 625,676 674,511

Oil 6,155 68 166 0 0 0 6,182 68 5,758 62

H. NG 782 2,027 2 4 0 0 816 2,123 742 1,929

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 2,067 2,921 67 119 0 0 3,475 5,428 3,278 5,149

CBNG 27,111 28,672 1,453 1,565 0 0 57,707 61,610 52,366 55,908

Oil 140 1 5 0 0 0 141 1 132 1

H. NG 25 19 0 0 0 0 26 20 24 18

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-34 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

E

NG 11,829 291,345 423 12,886 0 3 20,744 562,756 19,615 534,988

CBNG 105,792 112,520 5,664 6,141 1 1 225,016 241,787 204,189 219,407

Oil 1,672 16 24 0 0 0 1,680 16 1,543 14

H. NG 3 1,929 0 4 0 0 -1 2,024 -2 1,841

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Rock Springs Field Office 

Table 4-25 and Table 4-26 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the Rock Springs Field Office for each alternative. Table 4-27 and Table 4-28 show the estimated criteria pollutant and 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the Rock Springs Field Office compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions would 

occur under Alternative C and the least reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also less 

under all alternatives with Alternative D showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Table 4-25. Rock Springs Field Office Total Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 94 384 25 103 446 2,051 7 6 202 1,025 816 4,529 117 652

CBNG 2 1 0 0 7 7 0 0 4 3 4 4 1 1

Oil 21 69 15 24 166 419 22 50 40 100 7 17 1 2

H. NG 3 15 2 4 24 66 0 0 10 36 9 36 2 9

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 72 297 19 80 345 1,593 5 4 157 797 639 3,521 92 507

CBNG 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

Oil 16 55 12 19 123 338 16 40 30 81 5 14 1 1
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-35

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 2 12 1 3 17 52 0 0 7 28 6 28 1 7

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 64 259 17 70 311 1,394 5 4 142 698 583 3,090 84 445

CBNG 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

Oil 13 45 10 15 102 265 14 32 25 63 4 11 0 1

H. NG 2 2 1 0 16 0 0 0 7 0 6 0 1 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 90 367 24 98 432 1,965 7 5 196 982 794 4,340 114 625

CBNG 2 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 3 3 4 4 1 1

Oil 20 66 15 23 160 398 21 48 38 95 7 16 1 2

H. NG 3 14 2 4 23 63 0 0 10 34 8 35 2 9

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 84 336 23 90 404 1,799 6 5 184 900 747 3,978 107 573

CBNG 2 1 0 0 7 6 0 0 3 3 3 3 1 1

Oil 17 57 13 20 134 342 18 41 32 82 6 14 1 1

H. NG 3 5 2 1 21 8 0 0 9 2 8 1 2 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-26. Rock Springs Field Office Total Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e (Metric Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 151,968 807,068 5,794 32,708 1 7 274,060 1,496,172 259,569 1,419,225

CBNG 2,495 2,583 131 141 0 0 5,247 5,549 4,761 5,036
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-36 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e (Metric Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 7,646 19,728 214 1 0 0 7,679 19,814 7,161 17,921

H. NG 5,498 21,342 9 43 0 0 5,694 22,305 5,170 20,269

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 4,541 25,432 1 6 214,324 1,163,009 203,012 1,103,212 4,541 25,432

CBNG 910 913 46 50 0 0 1,878 1,961 1,704 1,780

Oil 5,663 15,911 170 1 0 0 5,688 15,980 5,316 14,454

H. NG 3,727 16,718 5 33 0 0 3,853 17,467 3,497 15,873

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 107,730 550,091 4,145 22,327 1 5 195,078 1,020,491 184,805 968,045

CBNG 690 675 35 37 0 0 1,425 1,450 1,293 1,316

Oil 4,705 12,509 133 1 0 0 4,726 12,563 4,408 11,363

H. NG 3,776 0 6 0 0 0 3,911 0 3,550 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 147,631 773,367 5,638 31,347 1 7 266,445 1,433,812 252,367 1,360,078

CBNG 2,431 2,516 127 137 0 0 5,111 5,404 4,638 4,904

Oil 7,347 18,748 207 1 0 0 7,379 18,830 6,882 17,031

H. NG 5,291 20,456 8 41 0 0 5,481 21,378 4,976 19,428

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 138,650 708,589 5,310 28,737 1 6 250,546 1,314,032 237,324 1,246,474

CBNG 2,235 2,306 117 126 0 0 4,694 4,954 4,260 4,495

Oil 6,185 16,132 191 1 0 0 6,212 16,202 5,811 14,654

H. NG 4,815 920 7 0 0 0 4,986 923 4,526 835

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-37

Table 4-27. Rock Springs Field Office Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emission Reductions from Alternative A (in tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 22 86 6 23 101 459 2 1 45 229 177 1,008 25 145

CBNG 1 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 2 2 2 3 1 1

Oil 5 14 4 5 43 81 6 10 10 19 2 3 0 0

H. NG 1 3 0 1 7 14 0 0 3 8 3 8 1 2

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 30 124 8 33 136 657 2 2 60 327 234 1,438 33 207

CBNG 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 0

Oil 8 24 6 9 64 154 8 18 15 37 3 6 0 1

H. NG 1 13 1 4 7 66 0 0 3 36 3 36 1 9

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 3 16 1 4 14 86 0 0 6 43 22 188 3 27

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 1 3 1 1 6 21 1 2 2 5 0 1 0 0

H. NG 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 10 48 3 13 43 253 1 1 18 126 69 550 10 79

CBNG 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 4 12 3 4 32 77 4 9 8 18 1 3 0 0

H. NG 0 10 0 3 3 58 0 0 1 34 1 35 0 9

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-38 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-28. Rock Springs Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Reductions from Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e (Metric Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 33,343 179,883 1,252 7,275 0 2 59,737 333,163 56,557 316,013

CBNG 1,586 1,908 85 104 0 0 3,369 4,099 3,057 3,720

Oil 1,983 3,817 44 0 0 0 1,991 3,833 1,845 3,467

H. NG 1,771 4,624 3 10 0 0 1,842 4,838 1,673 4,397

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 44,238 256,977 1,649 10,380 0 2 78,983 475,681 74,764 451,180

CBNG 1,805 67 96 4 0 0 3,821 145 3,468 131

Oil 2,941 7,219 81 0 0 0 2,954 7,251 2,753 6,558

H. NG 1,722 21,342 3 43 0 0 1,784 22,305 1,619 20,269

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 4,337 33,701 155 1,360 0 0 7,615 62,360 7,201 59,147

CBNG 64 277 3 15 0 0 136 596 124 540

Oil 299 980 8 0 0 0 301 984 280 890

H. NG 207 886 0 2 0 0 213 926 194 842

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 13,318 98,479 484 3,971 0 1 23,515 182,140 22,244 172,751

CBNG 261 0 14 0 0 0 552 0 501 0

Oil 1,461 3,596 23 0 0 0 1,467 3,612 1,350 3,267

H. NG 682 20,422 1 43 0 0 708 21,381 643 19,434

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-39

Bridger-Teton National Forest 

Table 4-29 and Table 4-30 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the BTNF for each alternative. Table 4-31 and Table 4-32 show the estimated criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions 

reductions for the BTNF compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the least reduction 

in emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would also be less under all alternatives with Alternative C 

showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Table 4-29. Bridger-Teton National Forest Total Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

CBNG 4 4 1 1 23 23 0 0 11 11 13 14 3 4

Oil 6 6 5 1 39 0 6 0 9 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 3 4 1 1 15 26 0 0 8 15 9 16 2 4

H. Oil 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

CBNG 3 3 1 1 18 18 0 0 9 9 10 10 3 3

Oil 5 4 4 0 25 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 2 3 1 1 11 18 0 0 6 11 6 11 2 3

H. Oil 4 3 1 0 18 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0

C

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 1 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1

Oil 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0

H. Oil 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

CBNG 4 4 1 1 24 23 0 0 12 12 13 14 3 4
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-40 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 6 6 5 1 34 0 5 0 8 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 0 4 0 1 1 25 0 0 0 15 0 15 0 4

H. Oil 7 6 3 1 50 0 6 0 12 0 2 0 0 0

E

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 4 3 1 1 21 21 0 0 10 10 11 12 3 3

Oil 5 5 4 0 28 0 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 3 2 1 0 13 4 0 0 7 1 7 0 2 0

H. Oil 4 3 1 0 21 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 0

Table 4-30. Bridger-Teton National Forest Total Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 222 271 8 11 0 0 391 505 370 479

CBNG 8,580 9,077 459 495 0 0 18,249 19,502 16,560 17,697

Oil 1,788 67 95 0 0 0 1,796 68 1,720 61

H. NG 5,020 9,142 10 19 0 0 5,248 9,574 4,770 8,702

H. Oil 6 26 0 0 0 0 6 27 6 24

B

NG 225 271 8 11 0 0 398 505 377 479

CBNG 6,545 6,953 350 379 0 0 13,918 14,937 12,630 13,554

Oil 1,132 49 83 0 0 0 1,136 49 1,112 45

H. NG 3,542 6,542 7 14 0 0 3,703 6,851 3,365 6,227

H. Oil 892 20 0 0 0 0 896 21 810 18

C NG 39 43 1 2 0 0 66 80 62 76
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-41

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

CBNG 1,487 1,542 80 84 0 0 3,166 3,311 2,873 3,005

Oil -10 17 33 0 0 0 -10 17 24 15

H. NG 1,870 0 4 0 0 0 1,958 0 1,779 0

H. Oil 20 6 0 0 0 0 20 6 18 6

D

NG 217 270 8 11 0 0 383 502 362 476

CBNG 8,737 9,219 466 503 0 0 18,556 19,807 16,838 17,974

Oil 1,565 65 90 0 0 0 1,572 66 1,512 59

H. NG 127 8,873 0 19 0 0 128 9,292 115 8,446

H. Oil 2,359 46 0 0 0 0 2,370 47 2,143 42

E

NG 23 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 21 0

CBNG 7,677 8,104 411 442 0 0 16,321 17,409 14,811 15,798

Oil 1,260 57 84 0 0 0 1,266 57 1,230 52

H. NG 4,330 416 9 0 0 0 4,529 417 4,116 377

H. Oil 994 24 0 0 0 0 998 24 903 22

Table 4-31. Bridger-Teton National Forest Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emission Reductions from Alternative A (in tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 1 3 0 1 5 19 0 0 3 10 3 11 1 3

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 4 7 0 0 2 4 2 4 1 1

H. Oil 23 1 19 0 139 0 20 0 34 0 6 0 1 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-42 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

C

NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

CBNG 3 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 9 0 11 0 3 0

Oil 2 2 1 0 14 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 2 4 1 1 10 26 0 0 5 15 5 16 1 4

H. Oil 20 2 18 0 121 0 18 0 30 0 5 0 1 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 -1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Oil 5 4 4 0 39 0 5 0 9 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 3 0 1 0 14 1 0 0 8 0 9 0 2 0

H. Oil 22 -2 19 0 139 0 20 0 34 0 6 0 1 0

E

NG 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Oil 1 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 2 0 1 2 22 0 0 1 14 1 15 0 4

H. Oil 16 0 16 0 89 0 14 0 22 0 4 0 1 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Table 4-32. Bridger-Teton Field Office Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Reductions from Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG -9 -2 0 0 0 0 -16 -3 -15 -3

CBNG 2,035 7,535 109 411 0 0 4,330 16,191 3,930 14,692

Oil 6 1 5 0 0 0 6 1 11 1
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-43

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 1,478 2,600 3 5 0 0 1,545 2,722 1,404 2,475

H. Oil 6,381 6 356 0 0 0 6,409 6 6,154 5

C

NG 178 227 7 9 0 0 316 422 299 400

CBNG 7,093 -142 380 -8 0 0 15,083 -305 13,687 -277

Oil 663 20 17 0 0 0 666 20 619 18

H. NG 3,150 9,142 6 19 0 0 3,291 9,574 2,990 8,702

H. Oil 5,495 20 355 0 0 0 5,519 20 5,349 18

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0

CBNG -157 974 -7 53 0 0 -307 2,093 -279 1,899

Oil 1,804 52 67 0 0 0 1,812 52 1,706 47

H. NG 4,892 269 10 1 0 0 5,121 282 4,654 256

H. Oil 6,367 -20 356 0 0 0 6,395 -20 6,141 -18

E

NG 194 270 8 11 0 0 359 501 341 476

CBNG 903 0 49 0 0 0 1,927 0 1,749 0

Oil 229 3 10 0 0 0 230 3 218 3

H. NG 689 8,726 1 19 0 0 720 9,156 654 8,325

H. Oil 4,028 2 355 0 0 0 4,046 3 4,016 2

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Thunder Basin National Grassland 

Table 4-33 and Table 4-34 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the TBNG for each alternative. Table 4-35 and Table 4-36 show the estimated criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions 

reductions for the TBNG compared to Alternative A. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the least reduction 

in emissions would occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would also be less under all alternatives with Alternative C 

showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-44 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-33. Thunder Basin National Grassland Total Oil and Gas Criteria 

Pollutant Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 6 11 2 3 33 61 1 0 15 31 65 137 9 20

CBNG 4 4 1 1 23 23 0 0 11 11 13 14 3 4

Oil 6 6 5 1 39 0 6 0 9 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 3 4 1 1 15 26 0 0 8 15 9 16 2 4

H. Oil 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 5 8 1 2 28 43 0 0 13 22 56 98 8 14

CBNG 3 3 1 1 18 18 0 0 9 9 10 10 3 3

Oil 5 4 4 0 25 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 2 3 1 1 11 18 0 0 6 11 6 11 2 3

H. Oil 4 3 1 0 18 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0

C

NG 2 3 1 1 12 15 0 0 6 7 26 34 4 5

CBNG 1 1 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 1

Oil 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0

H. Oil 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 6 11 2 3 31 59 0 0 15 30 62 133 9 19

CBNG 4 4 1 1 24 23 0 0 12 12 13 14 3 4

Oil 6 6 5 1 34 0 5 0 8 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 0 4 0 1 1 25 0 0 0 15 0 15 0 4

H. Oil 7 6 3 1 50 0 6 0 12 0 2 0 0 0

E

NG 6 10 2 3 29 53 0 0 14 27 59 121 9 17

CBNG 4 3 1 1 21 21 0 0 10 10 11 12 3 3

Oil 5 5 4 0 28 0 4 0 7 0 1 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-45

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 3 2 1 0 13 4 0 0 7 1 7 0 2 0

H. Oil 4 3 1 0 21 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 0 0

Table 4-34. Thunder Basin National Grassland Total Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 11,833 24,256 464 990 0 0 21,615 45,122 20,487 42,809

CBNG 8,580 9,077 459 495 0 0 18,249 19,502 16,560 17,697

Oil 1,788 67 95 0 0 0 1,796 68 1,720 61

H. NG 5,020 9,142 10 19 0 0 5,248 9,574 4,770 8,702

H. Oil 6 26 0 0 0 0 6 27 6 24

B

NG 10,172 17,353 403 709 0 0 18,660 32,283 17,690 30,629

CBNG 6,545 6,953 350 379 0 0 13,918 14,937 12,630 13,554

Oil 1,132 49 83 0 0 0 1,136 49 1,112 45

H. NG 3,542 6,542 7 14 0 0 3,703 6,851 3,365 6,227

H. Oil 892 20 0 0 0 0 896 21 810 18

C

NG 4,573 5,940 186 243 0 0 8,484 11,050 8,048 10,484

CBNG 1,487 1,542 80 84 0 0 3,166 3,311 2,873 3,005

Oil -10 17 33 0 0 0 -10 17 24 15

H. NG 1,870 0 4 0 0 0 1,958 0 1,779 0

H. Oil 20 6 0 0 0 0 20 6 18 6

D

NG 11,288 23,542 444 961 0 0 20,650 43,794 19,574 41,550

CBNG 8,737 9,219 466 503 0 0 18,556 19,807 16,838 17,974
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-46 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 1,565 65 90 0 0 0 1,572 66 1,512 59

H. NG 127 8,873 0 19 0 0 128 9,292 115 8,446

H. Oil 2,359 46 0 0 0 0 2,370 47 2,143 42

E

NG 10,765 21,400 425 874 0 0 19,721 39,811 18,694 37,771

CBNG 7,677 8,104 411 442 0 0 16,321 17,409 14,811 15,798

Oil 1,260 57 84 0 0 0 1,266 57 1,230 52

H. NG 4,330 416 9 0 0 0 4,529 417 4,116 377

H. Oil 994 24 0 0 0 0 998 24 903 22

Table 4-35. Thunder Basin National Grassland Oil and Gas Criteria Pollutant 

Emission Reductions from Alternative A (in tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 1 3 0 1 5 17 0 0 2 9 9 39 1 6

CBNG 1 3 0 1 5 19 0 0 3 10 3 11 1 3

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 1 1 0 0 4 7 0 0 2 4 2 4 1 1

H. Oil -3 1 -1 0 -18 0 -2 0 -4 0 -1 0 0 0

C

NG 4 8 1 2 21 46 0 0 10 23 39 103 6 15

CBNG 3 0 1 0 19 0 0 0 9 0 11 0 3 0

Oil 2 2 1 0 14 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0

H. NG 2 4 1 1 10 26 0 0 5 15 5 16 1 4

H. Oil -1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D NG 1 3 0 1 5 17 0 0 2 9 9 39 1 6
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-47

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

CBNG 0 0 0 0 -1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Oil 5 4 4 0 39 0 5 0 9 0 2 0 0 0

H. NG 3 0 1 0 14 1 0 0 8 0 9 0 2 0

H. Oil -7 -2 -3 0 -50 0 -6 0 -12 0 -2 0 0 0

E

NG 1 1 0 0 3 7 0 0 1 4 6 16 1 2

CBNG 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Oil 1 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 2 0 1 2 22 0 0 1 14 1 15 0 4

H. Oil -4 0 -1 0 -21 0 -3 0 -5 0 -1 0 0 0

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Table 4-36. Thunder Basin National Grassland Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Reductions from Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 1,661 6,903 61 282 0 0 2,955 12,839 2,797 12,181

CBNG 2,035 7,535 109 411 0 0 4,330 16,191 3,930 14,692

Oil 6 1 5 0 0 0 6 1 11 1

H. NG 1,478 2,600 3 5 0 0 1,545 2,722 1,404 2,475

H. Oil -886 6 0 0 0 0 -890 6 -805 5

C

NG 7,261 18,316 279 748 0 0 13,132 34,071 12,439 32,325

CBNG 7,093 -142 380 -8 0 0 15,083 -305 13,687 -277

Oil 663 20 17 0 0 0 666 20 619 18

H. NG 3,150 9,142 6 19 0 0 3,291 9,574 2,990 8,702
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-48 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. Oil -14 20 0 0 0 0 -14 20 -13 18

D

NG 1,661 6,903 61 282 0 0 2,955 12,839 2,797 12,181

CBNG -157 974 -7 53 0 0 -307 2,093 -279 1,899

Oil 1,804 52 67 0 0 0 1,812 52 1,706 47

H. NG 4,892 269 10 1 0 0 5,121 282 4,654 256

H. Oil -2,353 -20 0 0 0 0 -2,363 -20 -2,138 -18

E

NG 1,069 2,856 39 117 0 0 1,894 5,311 1,793 5,038

CBNG 903 0 49 0 0 0 1,927 0 1,749 0

Oil 229 3 10 0 0 0 230 3 218 3

H. NG 689 8,726 1 19 0 0 720 9,156 654 8,325

H. Oil -988 2 0 0 0 0 -992 3 -897 2

*Negative numbers indicate that the selected alterative would produce emissions greater than Alterative A.

Medicine Bow National Forest 

Table 4-37 and Table 4-38 show the total criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, CBNG, oil, horizontal natural gas, and 

horizontal wells in the MBNF for each alternative. Table 4-39 and Table 4-40 show the estimated criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions 

reductions for the MBNF compared to Alternative A. Since no wells would be installed near the MBNF, there are no emissions to estimate. 

Table 4-37. Medicine Bow National Forest Total Oil and Gas Criteria 

Pollutant Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-49

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-50 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-38. Medicine Bow National Forest Total Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions for Each Alternative (tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

A

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

B

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-51

Alternative Well 

Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-39. Medicine Bow National Forest Oil and Gas Criteria 

Pollutant Emission Reductions from Alternative A (in tons per year) 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-52 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative Well 

Type PM10 PM2.5 NOx SO2 CO VOC HAPs

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-40. Medicine Bow National Forest Oil and Gas Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Reductions from Alternative A (tons per year) 

Alternative Well Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

B

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-53

Alternative Well Type CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

CO2e (Metric 

Tonnes)

Date 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031 2020 2031

E

NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CBNG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. NG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Oil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-54 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Summary of Oil and Gas Emissions 

Oil and gas activities proposed for each field office were evaluated to determine the air quality impacts. 

The oil and gas activities anticipated under Alternatives B, C, D, and E would reduce the emissions of air 

pollutants compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would have the largest reduction in criteria air 

pollutant emissions and Alternative D would have the smallest reduction. Table 4-41 shows the 

reductions in the number of oil and gas wells from those in Alternative A. 

Table 4-41. Total Reductions in Numbers of Oil and Gas Wells from Alternative A 

Field Office/Planning Unit Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Casper Field Office 513 670 79 275

Kemmerer Field Office 182 367 17 90

Newcastle Field Office 62 160 19 33

Pinedale Field Office 281 815 264 298

Rawlins Field Office 529 1,379 57 280

Rock Springs Field Office 1,091 1,596 203 602

Bridger Teton National Forest -3 141 0 0

Thunder Basin National 

Grassland 12 156 3 17

Medicine Bow National Forest 0 0 0 0

Total Wells 2,667 5,284 642 1,595

4.2.5 Air Quality Impacts Associated with Non-Oil and Gas 

Development Activities 

The action alternatives have air quality impact consequences for non-oil and gas activities within the 

planning area. The qualitative impact of each action alternative is discussed in the following sections. 

Surface Disturbing Activities 

Activities related to surface disturbances (e.g., construction of facilities, roads, and transmission lines) can 

result in particulate emissions from fugitive dust and/or other criteria pollutant emissions from soil 

disturbances, construction-related travel, and use of heavy equipment. 

A number of the proposed actions within the alternatives address surface disturbances pertaining to sagegrouse core and connectivity habitat areas, nesting/early brood-rearing habitats, winter habitats and winter 

concentration areas. In addition, some of the action alternatives restrict activities by date, density, and any 

reclamation activities proposed. 

All proposed actions associated with restricting or prohibiting surface disturbing activity for sage-grouse 

core and connectivity habitat areas, nesting/early brood-rearing habitats, and winter habitats and 

concentration areas specified by Alternatives B, C, D, and E, could reduce non-oil and gas emissions by 

limiting travel and activity compared to Alternative A. However, the restrictions on travel could result in 

creating longer trips by redirecting travel around sensitive areas, and thereby increasing travel-related 

emissions. In addition, some of the actions that restrict activities in March through May could redirect 

emissions toward the other months (such as winter), thereby increasing ozone formation potential. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Air Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-55

Overall, compared to Alternative A, it is expected that air emissions will be reduced by implementing the 

actions in Alternatives B, C, D, and E with the greatest emission reduction expected for Alternative C. 

Wind Energy Development 

Activities related to the construction of wind energy facilities could cause emissions from surface 

disturbances and equipment usage. In addition, emissions related to travel to the wind sites to operate and 

maintain the wind systems can occur from fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust from the use of heavy 

equipment and maintenance vehicles. 

The prohibition of wind energy development in core sage-grouse habitat areas could reduce emissions 

compared to Alternative A. Emissions associated with construction and operations could be reduced for 

Alternatives C through E. However, the restrictions on travel could result in creating longer trips by 

redirecting travel for construction machinery and wind farm maintenance operations around sensitive 

areas, thereby increasing travel-related emissions from engine exhaust and fugitive dust. Overall, 

compared to Alternative A, it is expected that air emissions will be reduced under Alternatives C-E, with 

the greatest reduction in emissions anticipated for Alternative C. 

Vegetation Treatments 

Activities related to vegetation treatments can result in air emissions from equipment and travel. Trucks 

and heavy equipment (e.g., fire engines and bulldozers) used for vegetation management and 

manipulation efforts would cause dust from traveling over unpaved roads. Areas receiving vegetation 

treatment would also contribute to particulate matter (PM) emissions in the short term until the vegetation 

recovers sufficiently to stabilize exposed soil that is susceptible to wind erosion. Actions regarding 

vegetation treatments under Alternatives B, C, D, and E would reduce air emissions equally compared to 

Alternative A.

OHV Restrictions 

Activities related to off-highway vehicles (OHV) use can result in criteria pollutant emissions of carbon 

monoxide (CO), NOx and hydrocarbons from tailpipe exhaust. Use of equipment such as all-terrain 

vehicles and motorcycles would also cause fugitive particulate emissions from traffic on unpaved roads. 

The impact from these vehicular emissions is expected to peak during weekends and holidays. 

All actions associated with limiting cross-country OHV travel could reduce non-oil and gas emissions by 

limiting travel compared to Alternative A in the Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices. 

Compared to Alternative A, it is expected that air emissions will be reduced under Alternatives C and D, 

E, with the greatest emission reduction expected for Alternative C and the smallest reduction expected for 

Alternative D. 

Solid Minerals Exploration, Leasing, and Development 

Activities related to mineral leasing and development can result in emissions produced during all phases 

of solid mineral leasing and development—from exploration, construction, and operational phases of the 

mining project to well closure, reclamation, and abandonment. Mining activities generate fugitive dust 

particles and gaseous tailpipe emissions from large mining equipment. Activities such as blasting, 

excavating, loading and hauling of overburden and mineral resources, wind erosion of disturbed and unreclaimed mine areas, produce fugitive dust. Crushing, storage and handling facilities are common 

stationary point sources for particulate matter. Other air pollutant emissions that could be expected to 

occur from solid mineral development are CO, NOx, particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

etc. All proposed actions associated with restricting leasing for mining of coal, other solid leasable 

minerals, and mineral materials within sage-grouse key habitat areas under Alternatives B, C, D, and E 
Chapter 4—Air Quality Draft EIS 

4-56 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

could reduce non-oil and gas emissions by limiting exploration, construction, and operations associated 

with mining compared to Alternative A. However, the restrictions on any travel associated with mining 

could result in creating longer trips by redirecting travel around sensitive areas, and thereby increasing 

travel-related emissions. Overall, compared to Alternative A, it is expected that air emissions will be 

reduced under Alternatives B, C, D and E, with the greatest emission reduction expected for Alternative C 

and the smallest reduction expected for Alternative D. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-57

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section presents potential impacts on cultural resources from management actions for sage-grouse 

habitat, as presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning cultural and other heritage resources are 

described in Chapter 3.

The analysis of environmental impacts is based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the 

project area, review of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies and institutions. 

Effects are quantified where possible. In cases where quantitative data are not readily available, best 

professional judgment or qualitative assessments are used to describe impacts. 

4.3.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on cultural resources are as follows: 

• Changes in acres where surface disturbance activities are restricted or prohibited 

• Extent of allowable development (e.g., minerals, ROWs) 

• Changes in human presence in areas where cultural resources occur. 

4.3.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The overall density of cultural properties in the planning area is extremely variable, given the size 

of the planning area and the diversity of landscapes, vegetation types, distance from water, etc. 

While some areas are known to have a high density of cultural sites per section, other areas have 

a very low density, while the density of sites in most of the planning area is unknown due to the 

lack of inventories. Regardless of site densities at specific portions of the planning area, and 

given the size and scope of the planning area, it is assumed that cultural resources will continue to 

be found throughout the planning area as a result of proactive (National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 110) and required (National Historic Preservation Act Section 106) cultural resource 

inventories. 

• Protection for all cultural resources will occur in accordance with federal laws, BLM regulations, 

and Forest Service regulations regardless of whether the resources are specifically identified in 

planning documents. 

• Adverse impacts to cultural resources from surface-disturbing activities occur primarily at the 

time the initial surface disturbance occurs. Therefore, the projected numbers for short-term 

surface disturbance are used to quantify impacts to cultural resources. 

• There is a direct correlation between the number of sites that could be impacted by various 

actions and the degree, nature, and quantity of surface-disturbing activities allowed within the 

planning area, coupled with the degree of increased human presence. 

• In general, surface disturbing activities (e.g., construction within new or existing ROWs, SUAs, 

leasable, mineral materials, or locatable mineral development activities; wind energy 

development;) could result in damage to cultural resources in the absence of mitigation; however, 

these impacts would be mitigated through implementation of existing laws and policy, such as 

Section 106 of NHPA and FLPMA. Cultural values would be protected (i.e., data recovery or 

preserved in place) through compliance with these laws, regulations, and policies. Federal 

undertakings typically require cultural resource inventories that would result in the identification 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Draft EIS 

4-58 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

of cultural resource sites and determination of eligibility for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). The cultural resource data acquired through inventories and evaluations would 

increase knowledge of cultural resources in the region. 

The primary impact to cultural resources is the disturbance of artifacts, sites, and features of sites that 

reduces their scientific integrity, alters their association with traditional values, reduces their public use 

values, and reduces the potential to provide significant data. This can occur from activities or processes 

that disturb the surface, remove vegetation, increase soil erosion, or otherwise lead to cultural artifacts 

being damaged or moved from their original positions (in situ) prior to scientific documentation. Cultural 

resource information and values can also be damaged or lost if the soil matrix at a site is lost or removed 

without the potential for scientific study. Although deterioration of cultural sites and their artifacts may be 

slowed or halted, physical damage to objects and sites cannot typically be reversed. Cultural values can 

also be affected if the physical setting associated with a site is altered in a way that changes the 

relationship between the site and its physical surroundings. Short-term impacts on these cultural resource 

values from visual or auditory disturbance generally affect public or traditional uses of cultural sites or 

areas. These impacts can diminish the site’s traditional use values, but can often be ameliorated or 

accommodated through activity planning. 

4.3.3 Alternative A 

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 the 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. 

Land tenure adjustments could have effects on cultural resources located on the affected parcels. Transfer 

or disposal of lands from federal ownership could remove cultural properties from BLM and Forest 

Service jurisdiction and control, and could allow these properties to be impacted by private or statesponsored activities. Cultural resource inventories and evaluations would be required prior to transferring 

lands from federal jurisdiction, ensuring that identified sites are adequately documented, evaluated, and 

mitigated prior to ownership changes. Sites that are not identified prior to transfer from public ownership 

would be subject to the effects of management by future landowners. Cultural properties on lands 

transferred to federal ownership would be subject to greater protection from surface-disturbing actions. 

The BLM and Forest Service could retain or obtain lands containing important cultural and historic 

resources, providing protection under federal management policies. 

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 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-59

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. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas (Map 2-4) would create surface 

disturbance that could impact cultural resources in those areas, although the impact would not occur until 

a fluid mineral project has begun development. Oil and gas leasing would be closed on 871,780 acres; no 

surface occupancy (NSO) stipulations would be in place on 40,980 acres; and controlled surface use 

(CSU) on 5,015,210 acres. Based on the RFD scenario, cultural resources could be impacted by the 

development of 13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells. Total surface disturbance for these wells 

would be 130,330 acres for oil and gas and 39,050 acres for CBNG wells. Although surface disturbance 

does not automatically infer damage to cultural resources for all of these areas and acres, it is anticipated 

that damage would occur on land where cultural resources exist. While damage will occur, it will only 

happen in the context of mitigation of cultural resources. Mitigated damage, or damage to a site that does 

not meet the eligibility criteria, such as a non-significant site, is not necessarily considered an adverse 

effect for the purposes of natural resource’s management. 

Establishing mitigation measures as a condition of approval for an Application for Permit to Drill (APD), 

such as offsite placement of facilities, remote control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use, 

including road construction and multiple wells from a single pad, would help to protect cultural resources 

from surface disturbance. Also, working with project proponents to site their projects in locations that 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could protect cultural resources from potential damage. 

Areas within the planning area open to mineral materials, locatable and solid leasable minerals 

development could have an impact on cultural resources in those areas, depending on the extent of 

development and surface disturbance. Impacts from developing these minerals would be the same as 

those described for fluid minerals, but would vary somewhat in size and intensity. Areas closed to mineral 

materials (Map 2-14) at 274,860 acres, locatable minerals (Map 2-19) at 1,677,420 acres and solid 

leasable minerals (Map 2-24) at 234,230 acres, could protect cultural resources from surface and subsurface disturbance by not allowing development in these areas. 

Allowing dispersed recreation in the planning area would not result in significant impacts on cultural 

resources. The uninformed and/or willful collection of significant and therefore protected cultural 

resources could result in damage to or the complete removal of significant cultural resources from the 

public lands. 

Transportation planning that provides access to achieve multiple-use goals, while protecting resources, 

could impact cultural resources through surface disturbing activities related to the construction of roads 

that provide access to new mineral, wind or ROW developments for construction and/or maintenance 

purposes. This would also increase access to areas of public lands. 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. 

Seasonal stipulations and restrictions on disruptive activities to protect sage-grouse habitat or 

nesting/early brood-rearing habitat would not provide indirect protection to cultural resources, as the 

damage to or loss of cultural resources does not differ based on when the surface disturbance occurs. 

Impacts associated with mineral development and surface disturbance would continue in these areas. 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Draft EIS 

4-60 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Working with project proponents, partners, and stakeholders to implement direct mitigation actions (e.g., 

relocation, timing restrictions) would not generally affect the level of impacts from surface disturbing 

activities on cultural resources, as the surface disturbance will usually still take place in a different 

location or season. If direct mitigation actions reduce the amount of anticipated surface disturbance, there 

would be an associated reduction in the potential to identify new cultural sites (from reduced acreage 

required for Section 106 inventory), as well as a reduced potential to damage cultural sites, either from 

excavation (with associated data recovery) or from disturbing cultural sites that were not identified and 

avoided prior to the surface disturbance. 

Because there is little difference between short-term and long-term impacts to cultural resources from 

surface disturbance, implementing reclamation of surface disturbances in accordance with the Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy will have no direct impact on cultural resources. Once a disturbance occurs to a 

cultural resource, the alteration is permanent. However, reclamation actions would decrease impacts from 

continued soil erosion, which could indirectly protect cultural sites on lands directly adjacent to the initial 

disturbance. Adjacent sites would have avoided direct impacts from the initial surface disturbance, but 

could be at risk of indirect impacts from increased erosion from areas lacking vegetation cover and having 

compacted soils, increasing erosive effects on adjacent lands. Therefore, reclamation of existing 

disturbance will reduce the potential for indirect impacts from surface disturbances. However, 

reclamation can damage cultural resources if new disturbance is created by "excessive" reclamation 

efforts. It should also be noted that successful reclamation can mitigate visual impacts to the setting of 

cultural resources by returning the disturbance to the natural landscape and vegetation. 

Fire management actions would have direct and indirect impacts on cultural resources. Direct damage to 

cultural resources could occur as a result of the wildland fires and through surface disturbances caused by 

fire suppression activities such as construction of fire lines, bulldozing access roads, and general 

movement of heavy equipment. Restrictions on wildland fire and prescribed fire to protect Greater SageGrouse habitat would protect historic sites and at the same time result in higher site and artifact visibility. 

The increased visibility of historic properties would result in vandalism through artifact extraction and 

collection. The result would be the loss of scientifically important information. Ground disturbing and 

post-fire rehabilitation activities could also have a direct impact on cultural resources. Fire management 

actions that minimize the potential for devastating wildland fires would have the added benefit of 

protecting flammable cultural resources such as historic and prehistoric wooden structures, rock art, and 

aspen carvings. Fire, either wildland or prescribed, can damage surficial cultural materials such as wood 

and ceramic artifacts. Surficial lithic materials can also be affected by fire. Fire retardants and other 

chemicals could affect soil chemistry, which would in turn impact the analysis of subsurface 

archeological deposits. Rock art, either Native American or Euro-American, could be damaged by smoke 

and soot, as well as by rock exfoliation or spalling caused by extreme heat. 

4.3.4 Alternative B 

Management actions under this alternative that prohibit or restrict surface disturbance within the planning 

area could protect cultural resources within those areas. Unmitigated surface-disturbing activities could 

damage or destroy cultural resources that were unknown before that activity. Inventories performed prior 

to surface disturbance will not always locate all cultural material; therefore, surface disturbances in 

surveyed areas may still damage undiscovered cultural resources. 

Not authorizing new transmission corridors would have the same impact to cultural resources as not 

allowing new ROW corridors in Alternative A. Managing priority sage-grouse habitat areas as exclusion 

areas for new BLM ROW or Forest Service Special Use Authorization permits (SUA) would also have 

the same impact as managing ROW exclusion areas in Alternative A, however, the number of acres 

protected would be greatly expanded (Map 2-10). Under this alternative, 5,141,340 acres would be 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-61

designated as exclusion areas for ROWs while 6,390,010 acres would be designated as avoidance areas 

for ROWs (Map 2-10). Impacts from managing areas as ROW avoidance would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A; however, the number of acres would be greatly expanded. 

Evaluating and taking advantage of opportunities to bury existing power lines within priority sage-grouse 

habitat could potentially impact cultural resources through surface and sub-surface disturbance that could 

damage or destroy these resources. However, burying power lines can help mitigate visual impacts to the 

setting of cultural resources. 

Impacts from closing 5,402,000 acres in the planning area to wind energy development would be similar 

to those identified under Alternative A, except the extent of the closed areas is significantly greater than 

under Alternative A (437,120 acres). This would provide protection to cultural resources from surface 

disturbing activities associated with wind energy development in a much larger area when compared to 

Alternative A.

Retaining public ownership of, acquiring, and seeking easements of sage-grouse priority habitat, as 

opposed to identifying some areas for disposal in Alternative A, could indirectly protect known and 

unknown cultural resources in these areas. Removing lands from uses that cause surface disturbance, such 

as retiring livestock allotments, could indirectly protect cultural resources in these areas from further 

damage. Prohibiting transmission corridors in sage-grouse priority habitat areas would result in no need to 

perform cultural inventories associated with the development of transmission corridors. That would 

reduce the potential for identifying new cultural sites, but it would also reduce the potential for incidental 

damage to cultural sites during the construction of transmission lines within designated corridors. 

Identifying areas where acquisitions or conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse would have the 

same impact on cultural resources as acquisitions in Alternative A.

Closing priority sage-grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, as opposed to allowing leasing in 

Alternative A, could protect cultural resources that may be found in those areas from potential surface and 

sub-surface disturbance (Map-2-5). 

Finding all surface mining of coal unsuitable in sage-grouse priority habitat could protect cultural 

resources from potential surface disturbing activities that would damage or destroy these resources 

(Map 2-26). 

Allowing geophysical exploration within sage-grouse priority habitat could impact cultural resources in 

these areas through surface and sub-surface disturbing activities associated with geophysical exploration. 

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails in areas that are currently open to cross-country OHV 

would decrease impacts compared to Alternative A. Vegetation loss would be eliminated as the areas of 

existing disturbance continue to be used, with no additional loss from riding on undisturbed areas. 

Impacts from OHV use to vegetation and soils would be concentrated to areas that have already been 

disturbed and hardened, reducing the potential to impact cultural resources. 

Management actions for wildland fire management would have the same impacts as those in 

Alternative A.

Developing and implementing sage-grouse monitoring plans would have the same impact as those in 

Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Draft EIS 

4-62 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Managing priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of 

the total sage-grouse habitat would help to protect cultural resources from the same disturbance in these 

areas. 

4.3.5 Alternative C 

Relocating existing designated ROW corridors crossing sage-grouse priority habitat would have the same 

impact as described in Alternative B for this same action. 

Managing sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA 

permits would have the same impact as Alternative B; however, the area of potential impact would be 

greatly expanded to 11,531,340 acres in Alternative C (Map 2-11). 

Prohibiting wind energy development in sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas would reduce 

surface disturbance and visual impacts to the setting, potentially protecting cultural resources in those 

areas. Siting wind energy development at least five miles from active sage-grouse leks could also protect 

cultural resources in those buffer areas. 

Avoiding new meteorological towers within one mile of occupied, sagebrush obligate habitats would have 

the same impacts as those described in Alternative A for the same action. 

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) and occupied sagegrouse habitats could reduce surface disturbance, potentially protecting cultural resources in those areas 

from damage. 

Retaining public ownership of sage-grouse priority habitat would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative B for the same action. 

Identifying areas where acquisitions or conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse habitat would 

have the same impacts as those described in Alternative B.

Acquiring important private lands in BLM-designated ACECs and Forest Service Sage-Grouse Special 

Areas could help protect these areas from potential surface disturbance that could cause damage to 

cultural resources. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat could protect cultural resources in these 

areas from damage by livestock trampling. 

Closing sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing would have the same 

impacts as those described in Alternative B for the same action; however, the number of acres closed 

would be expanded to 16,878,220 acres (Map 2-6), allowing for protection of cultural resources over a 

much larger area. 

Not issuing new geophysical permits within priority and general sage-grouse habitat could reduce 

potential surface and sub-surface disturbance that would result from these activities. This, in turn, could 

protect cultural resources from damage within those areas. 

Prohibiting construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater 

could help protect cultural resources from activities that could damage or destroy these resources. 

Finding all surface mining of coal unsuitable in sage-grouse priority habitat would have the same impact 

on cultural resources as Alternative B.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-63

Closing priority habitat to non-energy leasable mineral leasing would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative B for the same action. 

Recommending withdrawal from mineral entry in priority habitat would have the same impact on cultural 

resources as Alternative B (Map 2-21). 

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat areas to mineral material exploration would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative B (Map 2-16). 

Designating all sage-grouse priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas as sage-grouse 

conservation ACECs and as special interest areas (SIA), as well as designating large ACECs, could 

indirectly protect cultural resources in these areas that might otherwise be open to surface disturbing 

activities. 

Designating all OHV open areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to designated roads and 

trails would have the same impacts as those in Alternative B.

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative B.

Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse priority and general habitat could protect cultural resources from damage that 

could potentially result from such activities within these buffer areas. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitats would have the same 

impacts as those in Alternative B for the same action. 

4.3.6 Alternative D 

Allowing new transmission projects in existing (and outside existing, if activity does not cause declines in 

sage-grouse populations) designated utility corridors within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat 

areas could impact cultural resources through potential surface disturbance, if developed. 

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits would 

have similar impacts to those described in Alternative A, although the area impacted would vary, based 

on differences in acres. Under this alternative, 5,141,340 acres would be designated as exclusion areas 

and 1,211,030 acres would be avoidance areas. 

Prohibiting wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impact to cultural 

resources as those described in Alternative C (Map 2-32), with the exception that, if it can be 

demonstrated that development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat 

populations, the activity would not be prohibited. In these cases, the impacts would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A.

Avoiding new meteorological towers within one mile of occupied, sagebrush obligate habitats would have 

the same impacts as those described in Alternative A under the same action. 

Retaining ownership of sage-grouse core habitats, unless other economic or other benefits are determined, 

would have the same impacts as those in Alternative B.

Acquiring lands based on a variety of economic resources criteria could help to protect cultural resources 

that might be found in those areas by placing them under federal land management policies and practices. 
Chapter 4—Cultural Resources Draft EIS 

4-64 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to cultural resources associated with Livestock Grazing would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A.

Prohibiting fluid mineral leasing on 964,860 acres (Map 2-7) would help protect cultural resources from 

potential surface and sub-surface disturbance in these areas that would result from oil and gas 

development. Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative A with the exception that, upon receipt of 

an application, unsuitability Criterion 15 (State High Sensitive Species) will be applied. This would help 

to protect cultural resources in areas found unsuitable for further coal leasing consideration. Solid mineral 

leasing would be prohibited on 234,230 acres (Map 2-27), which is the same as Alternative A. Impacts 

from solid mineral leasing would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Considering leasing of 

non-energy leasable minerals within sage-grouse core habitat, except in areas where sensitive resources 

are located would also have similar impacts to those described in Alternative A. 

Withdrawing portions of sage-grouse core habitat from mineral entry would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative A for the same action (Map 2-22). 

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as open to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use 

permits would have the same impacts as those described in Alternative A.

Impacts to cultural resources associated with dispersed recreation would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A.

Impacts to cultural resources associated with travel management would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A.

Prohibiting or restricting surface occupancy within 0.25-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks would help to protect cultural resources from surface disturbing activities within these buffer 

areas. 

4.3.7 Alternative E 

Allowing new transmission projects within the two-mile wide transmission line corridor through sagegrouse core habitat would have similar impacts to those described in Alternatives A under the same 

action. The additional stipulations presented in this alternative would not necessarily reduce the impacts 

to cultural resources, other than reducing some of the areas where surface disturbance would be allowed 

from ROW or SUA activities. 

Managing sage-grouse core and general habitat areas as avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits 

would have similar impacts to cultural resources as those described in Alternative A. Total ROW 

avoidance area acres would be the same as in Alternative A at 6,065,960 acres (Map 2-13). 

Prohibiting wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative D. Total acres closed to wind development would be nearly the same as 

Alternatives B and D (Map 2-33). Total acres where wind development would be restricted would be the 

same as Alternative B, with similar impacts to cultural resources. 

Retaining public ownership of sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impacts as those described 

in Alternative D.

Impacts to cultural resources from Livestock Grazing would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cultural Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-65

Impacts to cultural resources from allowing fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas would 

be the same as those described in Alternative A under the same action (Map 2-8). 

Impacts from coal surface mining methods would be the same as those described in Alternative D. In 

general, impacts from solid leasable minerals would be the same as those in A and D, with the same 

amount of acres closed (Map 2-28). As compared with Alternatives B and C, Alternative E would protect 

fewer acres (234,230 acres as opposed to 5,000,400 acres) from surface and sub-surface disturbance that 

would result from solid leasable mineral development. 

Evaluating and considering withdrawal from mineral entry, based on risk to the sage-grouse and its 

habitat in core habitat areas, from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development, could protect 

cultural resources from damage that might occur from such development in these areas. 

Areas open to mineral material exploration, sales and free use permits (Map 2-18) would have the same 

impacts as those described in Alternative A, D, and E, with some additional stipulations that could 

provide additional protection to cultural resources from surface disturbing activities related to mineral 

material development. 

Management of dispersed recreation under this alternative would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative A.

Designating all OHV open areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to existing roads and 

trails would have the same impacts as those described in Alternatives B and C. 

Prohibiting surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks in core and connectivity habitat areas could help protect cultural 

resources from damage within those buffer areas. 
Chapter 4—Forestry Draft EIS 

4-66 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.4 FORESTRY

This section presents potential impacts on forestry from implementing management actions presented in 

Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning forestry are described in Chapter 3.

4.4.1 Impact Indicators 

Indictors of impacts on forestry management are as follows: 

• Management actions that prohibit or restrict the use of timber-harvest equipment 

• Management actions that affect the maintenance or construction of vehicle routes that are used to 

access forested areas 

• The extent of surface-disturbing activities (and restrictions thereof) that degrade or remove forest 

cover. 

4.4.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The long-term sustained yield capacity of the forestlands is based on management restrictions. 

• The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) will provide the direction for identifying and 

managing designated old-growth stands, both within forested stands and woodlands. 

• Forest health, forest restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction objectives will be the major 

determining factors in forest management. 

• 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. 

• Minor wood product sales would have no appreciable effect on woodlands because the demand is 

small compared to the large number of acres. 

• Woodland character would be maintained for other uses. Except for aspen, most of the woodland 

would maintain its present state. 

• Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat does not occur in areas of forest products. 

• Greater Sage-Grouse do not use forest vegetation for any phase of their life cycle. 

4.4.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, where ROW exclusion or avoidance areas intersect forestry resources, up to 

285,930 acres of exclusion areas and 2,460,340 acres of avoidance areas could be protected from 

vegetation removal or damage from activities associated with ROW development, most of which would 

be outside areas used for timber harvest. These exclusion and avoidance management actions could 

displace ROWs to forested areas. If ROWs were developed within forests or woodlands, areas of timber 

could be temporarily lost during the development activities and habitat may be altered, preventing new 

forest growth or the developed area could be maintained for access and the timber resource could be 

permanently lost. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Forestry 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-67

Oil, gas, and CBNG lease development could disturb up to 130,330 acres over the short-term and 39,050

acres over the long term, most of which would be outside timber harvest areas. If leases were developed 

within forest or woodland areas, timber could be lost temporarily from surface disturbing activities, but 

access would be improved in these areas. Disturbed forestry resources could return to pre-disturbance 

levels within these areas over the long-term where reclamation efforts encourage timber growth. Although 

most of the oil, gas, and CBNG development would take place outside of forest and woodland areas, the 

Wyoming Range does have areas of high potential for CBNG and impacts to forestry resources could be 

increased within those areas if they are developed. 

Livestock grazing management could impact forestry resources through response to the evaluation of land 

health standards and the implementation of grazing management practices designed to protect natural 

resources. Rangeland management would be evaluated for rangeland health standards within and outside 

of sage-grouse habitat. This management could impact forestry by improving the productivity and health 

of woodland and forest habitats. Improvements to the ecological health of vegetation, wildlife habitat 

improvements, and some rangeland improvement projects could increase the quality of forest products. 

To meet rangeland standards, appropriate actions would be taken (e.g. season or timing use, numbers of 

livestock, distribution, intensity of use, kind of livestock, class, and sage-grouse grazing guidance) which 

could reduce impacts from livestock and maintain or increase vegetation health and timber habitat. 

Fuel treatments to reduce the potential fire hazards could reduce the amount of woody material and alter 

the structure of both the understory and overstory of shrubs/trees, changing the composition of the treated 

area. Fire management could affect forestry activities by reducing not only fuel loads but also timber 

products. Fuel treatments would be focused within the wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, in addition 

to meeting specific non-forestry-related objectives such as fuels reduction and habitat management, some 

of which could contain forestry/woodland habitat. Using wildland fire to restore forest stands could 

reduce timber products in the short-term, but overall health and timber production could improve in the 

long term, as structural diversity would be enhanced. 

Impacts from travel and transportation management on forestry resources would be minimal. Limiting 

motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads and trails until a travel management plan is completed 

could limit access to existing or new resources, which could limit access to timber production areas and 

impact timber sales. 

Impacts from recreation management to forestry management under Alternative A would be minimal. 

Reducing access to recreation areas within sage-grouse habitat could increase recreational use within 

forested areas. This could preclude timber harvest, thereby reducing the range of forest management 

options available to maintain forest health and public safety. 

4.4.4 Alternative B 

Impacts from ROW management actions would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, but 

ROW exclusion and avoidance areas would be increased to 5,141,340 acres and 6,390,010 acres, 

respectively. This increase in exclusion and avoidance areas could result in increased ROW development 

and associated vegetation removal and access road construction within forestry areas. Overall reduction in 

ROW activities could reduce new road construction and could limit access to resources, which could 

impact timber sales. Reduced road access could also mean more difficult access for wood cutters and 

others who use forest products. However, if timber resources occurred within the ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas, they would be protected from damage or loss from ROW development activities. 

Fluid mineral leasing could impact forestry resources less than under Alternative A, due to fewer acres 

being disturbed by vegetation removal, road construction soil compaction, soil erosion, and plant 
Chapter 4—Forestry Draft EIS 

4-68 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

community health degradation, with 104,050 acres of short-term disturbance and 33,540 acres of longterm disturbance. Impacts on forestry could increase if closing sage-grouse priority habitat to new oil, gas 

and CBNG leases would redistribute development into forestry habitat, which could cause an immediate 

reduction in timber harvest from direct removal of trees and woodlands, as well as a reduction in timber 

habitat quality due to habitat fragmentation, soil compaction, soil erosion, invasive species establishment 

and change in the vegetation canopy. 

Impacts to forestry management from livestock grazing would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, impacts from recreation management to forestry could increase compared to 

Alternative A. Recreation could increase in forested areas as restrictions on recreation activities in sagegrouse priority habitat would increase. Increasing recreational use within forested areas could preclude 

timber harvest and thereby reduce the range of forest management options available to maintain forest 

health and public safety. 

4.4.5 Alternative C 

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to Alternative A, but could increase as ROW use could 

be displaced into forest habitat due to exclusion and avoidance areas expanding. Exclusion areas would 

increase to 11,531,340 acres. 

Fluid mineral leasing could have fewer impacts to forestry resources compared to Alternative A, as less 

surface area would be disturbed overall for fluid mineral development. Under Alternative C, there would 

be 85,140 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 27,030 acres of long-term surface disturbance. This 

could reduce impacts to forestry associated with the removal of forest cover and development of localized 

barriers or impediments to travel that could limit access to potential harvest areas. 

Impacts from livestock grazing would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, except livestock 

grazing would be prohibited in sage-grouse priority habitat which could force grazing into forested areas 

and would reduce the regeneration of aspen and other deciduous trees and shrubs in forested and riparian 

areas, as grazing impacts would increase in these areas. 

Impacts to forestry resources from the use of wildland fire would be the same as Alternative B, but would 

apply to a larger area. 

Impacts to forestry resources from travel management and recreation management would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

4.4.6 Alternative D 

Impacts from ROW management would be similar to Alternative A, except ROW exclusion and 

avoidance areas would increase to 5,141,340 acres and 1,211,030 acres, respectively. This could increase 

the potential for forest stands to be disturbed as ROW development could be displaced from sage-grouse 

habitat into forested areas. 

Impacts to forestry resources from fluid mineral development overall would be reduced by 6% for shortterm surface disturbance (122,910 acres), and reduced 3% for long-term surface disturbance (37,720

acres), compared to Alternative A. There is a potential that fluid mineral development could be displaced 

into forested areas as many of the restrictions occur in sage-grouse habitat. In areas where fluid mineral 

development and surface disturbing activities would occur, forest cover could be lost and lease 

development could limit access to potential harvest areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Forestry 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-69

Impacts to forestry resources from livestock grazing and fire management would be the same as those 

under Alternative A.

Impacts to forestry resources from travel management would be the same as those under Alternative A. 

Impacts to forestry resources from recreation management would be the same as those under 

Alternative A. 

4.4.7 Alternative E 

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. 

Impacts to forestry resources from fluid mineral leasing would affect a slightly larger area as compared to 

Alternative A, with 112,330 acres of short-term disturbance and 35,430 acres of long-term disturbance. 

The impacts to forestry would same as those discussed under Alternative A, but more development could 

expand into forest habitat. 

Impacts to forestry resources from livestock grazing, wildland fire, travel management, and recreation 

would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A. 

Impacts to forestry resources from travel management would be the same as those under Alternative A. 

Impacts to forestry resources from recreation management would be the same as those under 

Alternative A. 
Chapter 4—Lands and Realty Draft EIS 

4-70 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.5 LANDS AND REALTY

This section presents potential impacts on lands and realty management from implementing management 

actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning lands and realty management are described 

in Chapter 3.

The lands and realty program is a support program rather than an environmental component. The program 

responds to requests for authorizations, permits, leases, land tenure adjustments, and landownership 

adjustments from other programs or outside entities. The following discussion of the effects on lands and 

realty focuses on the constraints and opportunities for ROW authorizations (e.g., pipelines, power lines, 

transmission lines, roads, and communication sites), land tenure adjustments (disposals and acquisitions), 

and landownership adjustments (purchases, exchanges, and donations). 

4.5.1 Impact Indicators 

Indictors of impacts on lands and realty management are as follows: 

• Acres of ROW avoidance and exclusion areas 

• Acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited or restricted 

• Restrictions on land tenure/land ownership adjustments (i.e., areas in which acquisitions, 

disposals, purchases, or exchanges are prohibited or restricted). 

4.5.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• ROWs for energy-related facilities (e.g., roads, pipelines, transmission lines) are anticipated to 

increase. 

• The installation of power lines, telephone lines, fiber-optic cable, and communication sites is 

anticipated to increase. 

• Existing withdrawals would continue and would be reviewed to determine the need for 

continuation, modification, revocation or termination. 

• The effects of designation and development of transportation and utility ROW corridors would be 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis. 

• The federal agency would continue land tenure adjustments that are in the interest of the public 

and facilitate resource management objectives. 

4.5.3 Alternative A 

Requiring that utility structures be placed near existing facilities and limiting the designation of new 

corridors within sage-grouse core habitat areas throughout the planning area (excluding the TBNG and 

MBNF Planning Units) would serve to consolidate utility ROWs and structures. This would place 

additional requirements on ROW applicants and would increase management efforts and costs related to 

proposals submitted by ROW applicants. This impact would be further increased if these restrictions 

resulted in relocation or redesign of ROW facilities, especially if it resulted in longer linear routes and/or 

placement of ROWs in areas that are difficult to develop. 

Managing 285,930 acres as ROW exclusion areas (Map 2-9) within sage-grouse core habitat areas would 

preclude ROW development within these areas. This would result in the relocation of proposed ROW 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands and Realty 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-71

facilities outside of these exclusion areas or preclude development of some ROW facilities that could not 

be effectively located in other areas. Relocation of ROW facilities could also occur within the 2,460,340 

acres managed as ROW avoidance areas within sage-grouse general habitat areas (Map 2-9). If avoidance 

of these areas were not possible, other mitigation measures could be required, such as application of 

height and other specifications that serve to redesign ROWs to mitigate impacts on sage-grouse. Land-use 

restrictions that result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs would increase management 

efforts and costs related to proposals submitted by ROW applicants, which are administered by the lands 

and realty program. This impact would be further increased if relocation resulted in longer linear routes 

and/or placement of ROWs in areas that are difficult to develop. 

Allowing wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in select areas that are 

currently unavailable for such development (Map 2-29) would increase the number of ROW applications 

associated with wind energy development that are processed through the lands and realty program. 

Managing 437,120 acres as closed to wind energy development and 3,888,930 acres as restricted to wind 

energy development throughout the planning area would reduce the amount of development associated 

with wind energy development, and thereby the number of ROW applications. The number of 

applications and extent of related development would be commensurate with the level of anticipated wind 

energy development. Up to 1,254 wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the planning area 

through 2020. 

Land tenure/landownership adjustments would benefit the overall management of public lands through 

disposal of isolated parcels and acquisition of parcels that serve to consolidate surface ownership. The 

ability to sell, exchange or purchase land would allow for the disposal of lands that are difficult to manage 

and the acquisition of desired land parcels, which would consolidate management and reduce fragmented 

surface ownership, thereby improving the overall manageability of public lands within the planning area. 

Pursuing acquisition of lands in the Bolton Creek Drainage and Bates Creek areas within the Casper Field 

Office could further increase these effects on public land management, if such acquisitions resulted in 

exchanges that served to reduce fragmented surface ownership. 

Existing and future mineral leasing, exploration, and development would preclude the ability to sell or 

exchange subsurface public land parcels. The duration of the impact would be directly related to whether 

the federal leases are held by mineral production and for how long the production continues. The number 

of ROWs associated with oil and gas development activities is directly related to the oil and gas potential 

of an area. In areas with high oil and gas potential, there would be a greater number of ROWs because 

more production facilities would be required to extract the resource. 

Allowing oil and gas leasing and development in sage-grouse core, connectivity, and general habitat 

areas, except in the 871,780 acres that are currently unavailable for leasing (Map 2-4), would increase the 

number of ROW applications associated with oil and gas development that are processed through the 

lands and realty program. The number of ROW applications and extent of related development would be 

commensurate with the level of anticipated oil and gas development. Managing 871,780 acres as 

unavailable for oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres as NSO areas, and 5,015,210 acres as CSU areas would 

reduce the amount of development and therefore the number of ROW applications. Given these 

restrictions on oil and gas development, a total of 16,411 oil and gas and coalbed natural gas wells are 

projected to be drilled within sage-grouse core, connectivity, and general habitat areas through 2020. This 

would disturb approximately 39,049 acres over the long term, much of which would be associated with 

the development of ROW facilities. 

Similar to oil and gas development, allowing exploration and development of solid leasable minerals, 

locatable minerals, and mineral materials would increase the number of ROW applications associated 

with such development that are processed through the lands and realty program. The number of ROW 
Chapter 4—Lands and Realty Draft EIS 

4-72 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

applications and the extent of related development would be commensurate with the level of anticipated 

mineral development. Under this alternative, 234,230 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

development, 1,677,420 acres would be closed to locatable mineral development, and 274,860 acres 

would be closed to mineral material sales and permits (Maps 2-24, 2-19, and 2-14), which would reduce 

the demand for ROW applications associated with mineral development and thereby decrease the degree 

of impact on the lands and realty program. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within the 

Pinedale Field Office, Rawlins Field Office, and the Jack Morrow Hills area of the Rock Springs Field 

Office (68,550 total acres; Map 2-1) and avoiding surface disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within the Casper (and within 4 miles of leks within the Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek area), Kemmerer, Newcastle, and Rock Springs field offices (437,680 total acres; 

Map 2-1) would restrict ROW authorizations in these areas. ROW actions would not be authorized within 

the 68,550 acres in which surface disturbing activities are prohibited. This would result in the relocation 

of proposed ROW facilities outside of these restricted areas or, in some cases, could preclude the 

development of certain ROW facilities. Relocation of ROW facilities could also occur within the 

437,680-acre avoidance area. If avoidance of these areas was not possible, other mitigation measures 

could be required, such as application of height and other specifications that serve to redesign ROWs to 

mitigate impacts on sage-grouse. Land use restrictions that result in the relocation or redesign of proposed 

ROWs would increase management efforts and costs related to proposals submitted by ROW applicants, 

which are administered by the lands and realty program. This impact would be further increased if 

relocation resulted in longer linear routes and/or placement of ROWs in areas that are difficult to develop. 

Avoiding surface disturbing and disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing 

habitat in the Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale, and Newcastle field offices from March 15 (March 1 in the 

Rawlins and Rock Springs field offices) through July 15 within 2 miles of sage-grouse leks, prohibiting 

construction activities within 2 miles of sage-grouse active display grounds in the TBNG Planning Unit 

from March 1 through June 15, and prohibiting construction activities within 2 miles of sage-grouse 

breeding complexes in the MBNF Planning Unit from March 1 through June 30 would restrict or prohibit 

ROW authorizations in these areas during these time periods. Such restrictions could result in the 

relocation or redesign of proposed ROW facilities, but would most likely result in project construction 

delays in order to meet the requirements of the seasonal restrictions. This would increase management 

efforts and costs related to proposals submitted by ROW applicants. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and disruptive activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas 

within the Casper, Newcastle Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs (Jack Morrow Hills planning area 

only) field offices from November 15 through March 14 (and February 1 through July 31 in the Newcastle 

Field Office) would restrict or prohibit ROW authorizations in these areas during these time periods. Such 

restrictions could result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROW facilities, but would most likely 

result in project construction delays in order to meet the requirements of the seasonal restrictions. This 

would increase management efforts and costs related to proposals submitted by ROW applicants. 

4.5.4 Alternative B 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting ROWs within sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except all sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs and SUAs (5,141,340 acres; Map 2-10) and all 

sage-grouse general habitat areas would be managed as avoidance areas for ROWs and SUAs (6,390,010 

acres; Map 2-10). This would increase the acres in which ROWs are precluded or avoided, which would 

potentially increase the number of ROW facilities that would be located outside of sage-grouse habitat or 

precluded from development. Existing designated ROW corridors crossing sage-grouse priority habitat 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands and Realty 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-73

that are void of any authorized ROWs would be relocated outside of the priority habitat area. If relocation 

is not possible, the entire corridor would be undesignated during the planning process. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from wind energy development would be similar 

to those identified in Alternative A, except the projected level of wind energy development would 

decrease. Closing sage-grouse priority habitat to wind energy (5,000,400 acres) and limiting wind energy 

in general habitat areas (6,530,940 acres) would reduce projected development to 127 turbines (Map 2-

30), which represents a 90% decrease as compared to Alternative A. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from processing land tenure/landownership 

adjustments would be similar to Alternative A, except the BLM and Forest Service would retain public 

ownership of sage-grouse priority habitat. This might reduce the ability to dispose of or acquire (through 

exchange) land parcels in an effort to reduce fragmented surface ownership and improve the 

manageability of public lands. Exceptions would be considered in cases of where land exchanges would 

allow for more contiguous federal ownership patterns. In addition, acquiring lands that would enhance 

management of sage‐grouse habitat could result in further consolidation and improved manageability of 

public lands. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from oil and gas exploration and development 

within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, and general habitat areas would be similar to those identified in 

Alternative A, except the projected level of well development would decrease. Fewer areas would be 

available for leasing and development of oil and gas facilities because oil and gas leasing would be 

administratively unavailable on 6,809,580 acres and 2,082,140 acres would be managed as NSO areas 

(Map 2-5). As a result, 13,709 wells are projected to be drilled within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, 

and general habitat areas through 2020, which represents a 16% decrease compared to Alternative A. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from development of solid leasable minerals, 

locatable minerals, and mineral materials would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except the 

level of development would likely decrease because all sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be closed 

to such development. Because the number of ROW applications/authorizations and extent of related 

development would be commensurate with the level of anticipated mineral development, a decrease in 

ROW applications and authorizations would be realized. Under this alternative, 5,000,400 acres would be 

closed to solid leasable development, locatable mineral development and mineral material sales and 

permits (Maps 2-25, 2-20, and 2-15), which represents a 1,418%, 198%, and 1,719% increase, 

respectively, compared to Alternative A.

Managing the level of density of disturbance on the landscape within sage-grouse priority habitats so that 

discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of the total sage‐grouse habitat would limit 

surface disturbing activities within these areas. Placing a limit on allowable surface disturbance could 

result in the relocation or redesign of new ROW development projects or, in some cases, preclude such 

projects to ensure they do not contribute to the exceedance of the density restrictions. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing 

activities within sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat could be reduced compared to 

Alternative A. Under this alternative, the seasonal restriction on surface disturbing activities within 

nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would only apply to exploratory drilling and only within sagegrouse priority habitat. This could reduce the level of restrictions on ROW authorizations within sagegrouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats that occur outside of sage-grouse priority habitat areas 

compared to Alternative A, and thereby result in increased ROW applications and authorizations within 

these areas. 
Chapter 4—Lands and Realty Draft EIS 

4-74 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing 

activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas could be reduced compared to Alternative A. 

Under this alternative, the restriction on surface disturbing activities within winter concentration areas 

would apply year-round, but would only apply to federal leases and within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

This could reduce the level of restrictions on ROW authorizations within sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas that occur outside of sage-grouse priority habitat areas, compared to Alternative A, 

and thereby result in increased ROW applications and authorizations within these areas. 

4.5.5 Alternative C 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting ROWs within sage-grouse habitat 

areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except all sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat areas would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs and SUAs (11,531,340 acres; Map 2-11) 

and no areas would be managed as avoidance areas for ROWs and SUAs. This represents the highest 

level of ROW/SUA restrictions among all the alternatives (3,932% increase compared to Alternative A) 

and would significantly increase the extent of area in which ROWs/SUAs are precluded, which would 

reduce the number of ROW applications and increase the number of related facilities that would be 

relocated outside of sage-grouse priority and general habitat or precluded from development. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from wind energy development would be similar 

to those identified in Alternative A, except the projected level of development would decrease. Because 

wind energy development would be prohibited on 11,531,340 acres (Map 2-31), a total of 127 2-MW 

wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which represents a 90% decrease compared to 

Alternative A. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from processing land tenure/landownership 

adjustments would be similar to Alternative A, except the BLM and Forest Service would retain public 

ownership of sage-grouse priority habitat. This might reduce the ability to dispose of or acquire (through 

exchange) land parcels in an effort to reduce fragmented surface ownership and improve the 

manageability of public lands. However, acquiring lands that would enhance management of sage‐grouse 

habitat could result in further consolidation of public land and improved manageability of public lands. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from oil and gas exploration and development 

within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, and general habitat areas would be similar to those identified in 

Alternative A, except the projected level of well development would decrease. Fewer areas would be 

available for leasing and development of oil and gas facilities because oil and gas leasing would be 

administratively unavailable on 16,878,220 acres and 2,082,140 acres would be managed as NSO areas 

(Map 2-6). As a result, 11,127 wells are projected to be drilled within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, 

and general habitat areas through 2020 (32% decrease compared to Alternative A). Although this would 

increase the number of ROW applications associated with oil and gas development, the level of increase 

would be 32% less than under Alternative A. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from development of solid leasable minerals, 

locatable minerals, and mineral materials would be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 

Compared to Alternative A, the level of development would likely decrease because all sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas would be closed to the development of solid leasable minerals, locatable minerals, 

and mineral materials. Under this alternative, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to solid leasable 

development, locatable mineral development and mineral material sales and permits (Maps 2-26, 2-21, 

and 2-16), which represents a 1,418%, 198%, and 1,719% increase, respectively, compared to 

Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands and Realty 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-75

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing 

activities within sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would likely increase compared to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative C, the seasonal restriction on surface disturbing activities within nesting 

and early brood-rearing habitat would prohibit all activities that are disruptive to sage-grouse, whereas 

such activities are either prohibited or restricted under Alternative A. This would increase the level of 

restrictions on ROW authorizations within sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing habitats. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing 

activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be the same as those identified in 

Alternative B. Under Alternative C, the restriction on surface disturbing activities within winter 

concentration areas would apply year-round, but would only apply to federal leases and within sagegrouse priority habitat. This could reduce the level of restrictions on ROW authorizations within sagegrouse winter concentration areas that occur outside of sage-grouse priority habitat areas and thereby 

further reduce ROW applications and authorizations in these habitats compared to Alternative A.

4.5.6 Alternative D 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting ROWs within sage-grouse habitat 

areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except all sage-grouse core habitat areas 

would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs and SUAs (5,141,340 acres; Map 2-12) and no new 

acres would be managed as avoidance areas for ROWs and SUAs. This would increase the extent of area 

in which ROWs/SUAs are precluded, which would potentially increase the number of new ROW or SUA 

facilities that would be located outside of sage-grouse core habitat or precluded from development. 

General sage-grouse habitat areas would be available for new ROWs or SUAs, subject to best 

management practices (BMP). 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from wind energy development would be similar 

to those identified in Alternative A, except the projected level of development would decrease because 

wind energy development would be prohibited within sage-grouse core habitat areas (5,000,400 acres; 

Map 2-32) 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. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from processing land tenure/landownership 

adjustments would be similar to Alternative A, except the BLM and Forest Service would retain public 

ownership of sage-grouse core habitat unless economic or other benefits are determined. Although this 

might reduce the ability to dispose of or acquire (through exchange) land parcels in an effort to reduce 

fragmented surface ownership and improve the manageability of public lands, exceptions would be 

considered if economic or other benefits are determined. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from oil and gas exploration and development 

within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, and general habitat areas would be similar to those identified in 

Alternative A, except the projected level of well development would decrease slightly because oil and gas 

leasing would be unavailable on 964,860 acres (Map 2-7); therefore, oil and gas leasing and development 

would be precluded on a greater number of acres than under Alternative A. As a result, 15,769 wells are 

projected to be drilled within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, and general habitat areas through 2020 

(4% decrease compared to Alternative A). Similar to Alternative A, this would increase the number of 

ROW applications associated with oil and gas development; however, because the number of ROW 

applications and extent of related development would be commensurate with the level of anticipated well 

development, the impacts would be less extensive. 
Chapter 4—Lands and Realty Draft EIS 

4-76 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from the development of solid leasable minerals, 

locatable minerals, and mineral materials would be the same as those identified in Alternative A.

Managing the existing level of density of disturbance on the landscape to not exceed an average of three 

energy production locations and/or transmission structures per 640 acres and to not exceed 9% loss of 

sagebrush habitat within sage-grouse core habitat areas would limit surface disturbing activities within 

these areas. Placing a limit on the average amount of allowable surface disturbance could result in the 

relocation or redesign of new ROW development projects or, in some cases, preclude such projects to 

ensure they do not contribute to the exceedance of the density restrictions. As compared to Alternative B,

the density restrictions are less restrictive; therefore, the related impacts to lands and realty management 

would be less intensive. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing 

activities would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except the restricted area would be 

decreased. Surface disturbing activities and surface occupancy would be prohibited or restricted 

(depending on the activity and potential effects) within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks across the 

planning area (75,870 total acres; Map 2-2). Compared to Alternative A, in which surface disturbance 

would be prohibited on 68,548 acres and avoided on 437,675 acres, these actions would allow for greater 

surface disturbance and therefore fewer restrictions on lands and realty actions. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting/prohibiting surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats would be similar to those 

identified in Alternative A, except the restriction would be less intensive. Under this alternative, the 

seasonal restriction on surface disturbing activities within nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would 

prohibit or restrict (depending on the activity and potential effects) such activities across the planning area 

in comparison to Alternative A which strictly prohibits these activities in the TBNG and MBNF Planning 

Units and avoids these activities in the remaining portions of the planning area. The seasonal restriction 

would be applied from March 15 through June 30, which is 15-30 fewer days (depending on the Field 

Office), compared to Alternative A. Although this would affect the ability to develop ROW facilities as 

described above under Alternative A, the effects would be slightly lessened due to the less intensive 

restriction and shorter seasonal time frame. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be similar to those identified in 

Alternative A, except the restrictions would apply only in sage-grouse core habitat and in areas that 

support connectivity populations, but would apply across the entire planning area in comparison to only 

in select field offices under Alternative A. As a result, ROW and SUA proposals would not be authorized 

within winter concentration areas November 15 through March 14. Such restrictions could result in 

facility relocation or redesign or, in some cases, could preclude development of proposed ROW and SUA 

facilities within these areas. Compared to Alternative A, these impacts would likely be more intensive 

because the restrictions would be applied over a larger extent of the planning area; however, they would 

be in effect for a shorter period of time (2 fewer weeks). 

4.5.7 Alternative E 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting ROWs within sage-grouse habitat 

areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except ROW avoidance areas would increase 

to 6,065,960 acres (Map 2-13). This would increase the acres in which ROWs are avoided, which would 

potentially increase the number of ROW facilities that would be located outside of sage-grouse habitat or 

precluded from development. New transmission projects would be allowed within a designated 2-mile 

wide transmission corridor through sage-grouse core habitat and within 0.5 miles on either side of 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands and Realty 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-77

existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines. Projects in designated corridors and along these routes will 

not be counted against the 5% disturbance cap. New transmission projects proposed outside of the 

corridors specified above would be considered where it can be demonstrated that declines in sage-grouse 

populations could be avoided through project design and/or mitigation. In addition, new ROWs/SUAs 

would be co-located within existing ROWs/SUAs where technically feasible and appropriate sage-grouse 

seasonal timing constraints would be applied, subject to BMPs. This would place further requirements on 

ROW applicants and could potentially increase processing time and costs. If relocation of corridors 

resulted in longer linear routes and/or placement of ROWs in areas that are difficult to develop, costs and 

completion time would likely increase. 

Closing sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat to wind energy (5,027,680 acres) and limiting wind 

energy in sage-grouse general habitat areas (6,528,810 acres) would reduce projected development to 127

turbines (Map 2-33), similar to Alternative B, but with slightly fewer closed areas. The impacts on lands 

and realty management resulting from processing land tenure/landownership adjustments would be 

similar as those identified in Alternative B; however, sage-grouse core habitat requirements would be 

used to prioritize parcels for land tenure adjustments. Non-mineral withdrawals would be evaluated to 

determine if the action is consistent with sage-grouse conservation within core habitat. The impacts on 

lands and realty management resulting from oil and gas exploration and development within sage-grouse 

priority, connectivity, and general habitat areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, 

except the projected level of well development would decrease. Fewer areas would be available for 

leasing and development of oil and gas facilities because oil and gas leasing would be administratively 

unavailable on 892,090 acres, and 689,300 acres would be managed as NSO areas (Map 2-8). As a result, 

14,817 wells are projected to be drilled within sage-grouse priority, connectivity, and general habitat 

areas through 2020 (10% decrease compared to Alternative A). Although this would increase the number 

of ROW applications associated with oil and gas development, the level of increase would be 10% less 

than under Alternative A. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from development of solid leasable minerals and 

mineral materials would be the same as those identified in Alternative A, as the areas closed to solid 

leasable mineral development and mineral material sales and permits would be the same as those 

identified in Alternative A (Maps 2-28 and 2-18). The impacts on lands and realty management resulting 

from development of locatable minerals would be the same as those identified in Alternative A, as the 

areas closed to locatable mineral development would be the same as those identified in Alternative A 

(Maps 2-23). 

Managing the level of density of disturbance on the landscape to not exceed an average of one disruptive 

activity per 640 acres and 5% loss of sagebrush habitat within sage-grouse core habitat areas would limit 

surface disturbing activities within these areas similar to Alternative B. Placing a limit on the average 

amount of allowable surface disturbance could result in the relocation or redesign of new ROW 

development projects or, in some cases, preclude such projects to ensure they do not contribute to the 

exceedance of the density restrictions. However, because the density restrictions are less restrictive than 

those under Alternative B, which has a 3% disturbance cap, the related impacts to lands and realty 

management would be less intensive. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing 

activities would be similar to Alternative A, except the restricted area would be increased. Surface 

disturbing activities and surface occupancy would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied sage-grouse 

leks inside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas (304,970 acres; Map 2-3), and restricted within 

0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks outside sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas (21,950 

acres; Map 2-3). This could result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROW facilities or, in some 

cases, could preclude the development of certain ROW facilities. Compared to Alternative A, in which 
Chapter 4—Lands and Realty Draft EIS 

4-78 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

surface disturbance and surface occupancy would be prohibited on 68,550 acres, these actions would 

greatly increase the total number of acres on which ROW development activities are prohibited and 

thereby increase the impact on lands and realty management. 

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting/prohibiting surface disturbing and 

disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would be similar to those 

identified in Alternative A, except the restriction would be more intensive. Under this alternative, the 

seasonal restriction (March 1-June 30) on surface disturbing activities within breeding, nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat would prohibit such activities within 2 miles of active leks in general sage-grouse 

habitat and 4 miles of active leks within sage-grouse connectivity habitats in the entire planning area. 

Similar to Alternative A, such restrictions could result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROW 

facilities, but would most likely result in project construction delays in order to meet the requirements of 

the seasonal restrictions. This would increase management efforts and costs related to proposals submitted 

by ROW applicants, which are administered by the lands and realty program. However, because the 

restrictions are more intensive and would be applied to a larger area, the impacts would be greater 

compared to Alternative A.

The impacts on lands and realty management resulting from restricting surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities within sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be similar to those identified in 

Alternative A, except the restrictions would apply only in sage-grouse core habitat and over a shorter time 

period (December 1 through March 14 [15 fewer days]), but would apply across the entire planning area 

(versus only in select field offices). As a result, ROW proposals would not be authorized within winter 

concentration areas during this time period. Such restrictions could result in facility relocation or redesign 

or, in some cases, could preclude development of proposed ROW facilities within these areas. Compared 

to Alternative A, these impacts would likely be more intensive because the restrictions would be applied 

over a larger extent of the planning area. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-79

4.6 LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

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. 

4.6.1 Impact Indicators

Indicators of impacts on lands with wilderness characteristics are as follows: 

• The amount and type of access to lands with wilderness characteristics 

• The amount of land use conflicts 

• The amount of surface disturbing and disruptive activities occurring within or near lands with 

wilderness characteristics 

• The ambient noise level within or near lands with wilderness characteristics. 

4.6.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The BLM would continue to manage natural areas to protect their wilderness characteristics. 

• Management to protect sage-grouse under the various alternatives could provide additional 

protections for natural areas. 

• It is unlikely that implementation of the management actions for sage-grouse will impair the size, 

naturalness, solitude, or primitive recreation opportunities within inventoried lands with 

wilderness characteristics. A site specific NEPA analysis will be conducted for implementation 

actions and the inventory units will be re-evaluated. 

4.6.3 Alternative A 

Wilderness characteristics are primarily influenced by actions that impact the undeveloped nature of the 

area, or by activities that increase the presence of other visitors. 

Surface disturbing activities and disruptive activities occurring within lands with wilderness 

characteristics would increase the potential for impacts on these lands. Examples of these activities 

include increased human presence, use of heavy equipment, development, and facilities associated with 

development such as compressors, power lines, pipelines, and generators. These impacts include 

degradation of undisturbed natural places and would likely be short-term in duration because mitigation 

measures would be applied that would designed to remove evidence of development. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 68,550 acres and restricting surface disturbance on 437,680 

acres (Map 2-1) would reduce the occurrence of surface disturbance within lands with wilderness 

characteristics from new permitted activities. This would provide additional protections for lands with 

wilderness characteristics by preserving the natural settings that provide opportunities for solitude and 

primitive recreation, thus improving the quality and experience of the visitor. 

Seasonal timing limitations on occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, winter 

habitat, and winter concentration areas and seasonal restrictions on disruptive activities would reduce the 

level of development and human visitation on lands with wilderness characteristics areas during the time 
Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Draft EIS 

4-80 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

periods listed in Chapter 2. However, any exception to seasonal restrictions could potentially result in 

indirect impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics by allowing surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities to proceed. 

Managing ROW exclusion (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (2,460,340 acres) (Map 2-9) within core 

and general habitat and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas 

(Map 2-36) would serve to consolidate utility ROWs and structures. This would reduce the overall 

potential of surface disturbance in these areas and the associated impacts to lands with wilderness 

characteristics. However, if no alternative location is available and utility structures were placed within 

sage-grouse core habitat, potential impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics could occur. The 

likelihood of such impacts would be minimal because of site specific environmental analysis for each 

proposed ROW and mitigation measures that would be applied to prevent or limit impacts. Impacts from 

the development of any ROW granted would be short-term in duration and would primarily occur from 

surface disturbance during the construction phase and any associated maintenance. Lands with wilderness 

characteristics would be affected by above and below ground ROW infrastructure projects. Such impacts 

could be reduced and localized through measures to consolidate ROW corridors and through exclusion 

and avoidance. 

Pursuing land acquisitions would increase the acreage of federal lands. New land acquisitions could be 

added for the purpose of protecting lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed in portions of core and general sage-grouse habitat (Map 2-4) with 

13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells projected during the planning period. This would cause 

an estimated 130,330 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of long-term disturbance. 

This could also increase the potential for impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics, including 

impacts such as increased human presence and the use the heavy equipment in areas that could otherwise 

provide solitude and wilderness-like recreation opportunities. Exceptions to lease stipulations in regards 

to the NSO or CSU restrictions considered on a case-by-case basis could also result in increased surface 

disturbing activities and human presence in these areas. However, most impacts from exceptions may 

only change the timing of when impacts occur because most lease exceptions only modify the timing 

limitation stipulations. Additionally, reclamation efforts of surface disturbing activities in sage-grouse 

habitats and efforts to work with proponents to identify appropriate site locations would minimize 

impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics and provide additional protections to the values and uses 

of these areas. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would help to maintain the condition of lands with wilderness characteristics by 

improving the overall health and function of vegetation in previously disturbed areas. This would also 

indirectly assist in providing protections to preserving the naturalness and limited access of these areas. 

Minimizing noise levels by applying BMPs to noise generating activities, such as oil and gas 

development and production, and implementing other noise reducing stipulations would impact lands 

with wilderness characteristics by restricting noise levels caused by development and facilities. These 

practices would assist in maintaining the natural primitive and semi-primitive conditions and settings and 

the experiences of solitude that such areas provide. 

Allowing wind energy development in sage-grouse core and general habitat areas, except in areas that are 

currently unavailable for such development (Map 2-39), would increase the potential for impacts to lands 

with wilderness characteristics where such activities are allowed. Through the year 2020, an estimated 

1,254 wind turbines will be constructed in the planning area. It is uncertain how many, if any, wind 

turbines could be constructed in or within sight of areas with wilderness characteristics, but the presence 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-81

of these tall structures could decrease wilderness values and impact the settings of naturalness and 

solitude that contribute to wilderness characteristics. 

Finding coal leasing unsuitable, closing non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-24), withdrawing locatable 

minerals from entry (Map 2-19), and closing mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-14) in core habitat areas could result in decreased development in lands with wilderness 

characteristics. These types of mineral development activities can reduce the naturalness and solitude of 

wilderness settings; thus these closures and withdrawals could help preserve primitive recreation settings, 

roadless areas, and solitude in areas that have wilderness characteristics. 

4.6.4 Alternative B 

Designating all priority habitat areas as a sage-grouse conservation ACEC could help preserve wilderness 

characteristics where these areas overlap. Approximately 5,000,400 acres would be designated as special 

designations/management areas (SD/MA) under this alternative, which would be a significant increase 

over Alternative A. Any overlap between these special areas and lands with wilderness characteristics 

could help maintain wilderness settings and values in those areas. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas, would 

have similar impacts as prohibiting or restricting surface disturbance under Alternative A, except fourmile buffers with a cap on surface disturbance of one disturbance per section, and no more than 3% total 

surface disturbance, would protect more total area from surface disturbance, which would reduce the 

impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics from surface disturbance described above. 

NSO restrictions on existing leases within priority habitat would reduce the total amount of surface 

disturbance allowed in these areas compared to the density limitations discussed under Alternative A. 

Placing a limit on the average amount of allowable surface disturbance could result in the relocation or 

redesign of new development projects or, in some cases, preclude such projects to ensure they do not 

contribute to the exceedance of the density restrictions. The overall extent of surface disturbances would 

be reduced, compared to Alternative A, which would provide additional protection to lands with 

wilderness characteristics. This would assist in reducing impacts that could occur to the naturalness and 

solitude of wilderness settings. In addition, this could indirectly provide assistance in maintaining 

primitive and semi-primitive recreational opportunities on lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would have similar impacts as under 

Alternative A, except to a greater extent due to increased areas where surface disturbance is seasonally 

limited and surface disturbing activities are prohibited. 

Expanding ROW exclusion areas to include all priority sage-grouse habitat (5,141,340 acres), expanding 

ROW avoidance areas to all general habitat (6,390,010 acres), and limiting ROWs and transmission 

projects to designated corridors throughout the planning area (Map 2-10 and Map 2-36) would reduce the 

impacts discussed under Alternative A because less area would be available for ROWs and new corridors 

would be prevented, which could otherwise cross or run adjacent to lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have a similar impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as under Alternative A, except that more acquisitions would be pursued. 

Oil and gas leasing would be unavailable on 6,683,790 acres and managed with NSO stipulations on 

2,082,140 acres. This would reduce the short-term surface disturbance by 20% from Alternative A to 

104,050 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 14% to 33,530 acres. Overall, 11,555 oil and gas 
Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Draft EIS 

4-82 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

wells (15% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,154 CBNG wells (22% fewer than Alternative A) are 

projected over the life of the plan under Alternative B. This would reduce the overall impacts discussed 

under Alternative A by decreasing the level of human presence and the use of heavy equipment in these 

areas and by reducing the potential for impacts to natural and primitive settings on lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Not allowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs in priority habitat would restrict and, in 

some cases, preclude development related to oil and gas. In turn, this would reduce surface disturbance 

within lands with wilderness characteristics, indirectly providing additional protections to natural settings 

and primitive or unconfined recreational uses in these areas. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to lands with wilderness characteristics as 

Alternative A.

Limiting noise to 10 dBA at active lek perimeters would be similar to impacts identified under 

Alternative A. This would result in additional protections to primitive to semi-primitive recreational 

settings within lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Wind energy development as discussed under Alternative A would be eliminated within priority habitat 

and limited within general habitat (Map 2-30). For the entire planning area, the number of wind turbines 

would be reduced from 1,254 under Alternative A to 127 (a 90% reduction). The removal and reduction 

of potential wind energy development would be significantly less that those identified in Alternative A. 

This would indirectly provide additional protections to lands with wilderness characteristics where wind 

development might be allowed. 

Finding coal leasing unsuitable, closing non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-24), withdrawing locatable 

mineral from entry (Map 2-19), and closing mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-14) in priority habitat areas would reduce the occurrence of these types of mineral development 

compared with Alternative A, which would prevent impacts from related surface disturbance on lands 

with wilderness characteristics. 

4.6.5 Alternative C 

The effects of designating ACECs and SIAs would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as under Alternative B, except Audubon Important Bird Areas would also be designated. 

This could further increase areas for which wilderness characteristics could be protected if such areas 

overlap. Approximately 6,423,374 acres would be managed as SD/MAs under this alternative, which 

represents an increase of 1,397,821 acres compared to Alternative B, some of which could overlap lands 

with wilderness characteristics and contribute to the protection of wilderness values in those areas. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas (timing 

and distance stipulations) would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would have the same impact to lands 

with wilderness characteristics as Alternative B, except that requirements would be extended to disruptive 

activities as well, which could reduce noise, traffic, and human presence. This would be an indirect 

benefit to wilderness values such as solitude and primitive recreational experiences. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-83

Expanding ROW exclusion areas to include all priority and general sage-grouse habitat (11,531,340 acres, 

expanded from Alternative B) (Map 2-11) and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated 

corridors (same as Alternative B) (Map 2-36) would reduce the impacts from ROWs discussed under 

Alternative A, more than under Alternative B.

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Alternative B.

Oil and gas leasing would not be open on any areas within core and general sage-grouse habitat under 

Alternative C (Map 2-6). This would remove impacts discussed under Alternative A for all oil and gas 

development, except for that associated with valid existing leases. This would reduce the short-term 

surface disturbance by 35% from Alternative A to 85,140 acres, and reduce the long-term disturbance by 

31% to 27,030 acres. Overall, 9,533 oil and gas wells (30% fewer than Alternative A) and 1,594 CBNG 

wells (42% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative C. Lease 

buy-outs in priority and general habitat would prevent development of some oil and gas leases, which 

could indirectly prevent more of the impacts discussed under Alternative A.

Not allowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs in both priority and general habitat would 

expand the protection of lands with wilderness characteristics from mineral development to these areas. 

This would increase the areas protected over both Alternatives A and B. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to lands with wilderness characteristics as 

Alternative A.

Impacts from minimizing noise levels would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Alternative B.

Siting wind turbines at least five miles from active leks could reduce impacts to lands with wilderness 

characteristics from wind turbines in some areas, but could increase them in areas where there are no 

active leks (Map 2-31). For the entire planning area, the number of wind turbines would be reduced from 

1,254, under Alternative A, to 127 (a 90% reduction and the same as Alternative B). The removal and 

reduction of potential wind energy would decrease visual, noise, and traffic impacts to primitive and 

semi-primitive recreation opportunities discussed under Alternative A. These actions would indirectly 

provide additional protections to the natural settings of lands with wilderness characteristics by reducing 

the potential of surface disturbing activities. 

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied habitat would reduce potential renewable 

energy development in those areas. This could indirectly help protect lands with wilderness characteristics 

if these areas overlap. 

Impacts from coal leasing, non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-25), locatable mineral entry (Map 2-20), 

and mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-15) would have the same impact to 

lands with wilderness characteristics as under Alternative B.

4.6.6 Alternative D 

Not designating sage-grouse conservation ACEC/SIAs would have the same impact as Alternative A.

Impacts from restricting surface disturbance (Map 2-2) would have similar impacts as described in 

Alternative A, except 75,870 acres would be restricted and none would be prohibited. This could allow 
Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Draft EIS 

4-84 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

for impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics to occur in some areas otherwise protected under 

Alternative A, but areas within sage-grouse core habitat would be more protected from activities that 

would degrade wilderness settings and values. 

Density limitations of 3 locations per 640 acres and a 9% disturbance cap within core habitat would limit 

noise, visual impacts, user conflict, and traffic congestion impacts from development activities, but less so 

than NSO restrictions under Alternatives B and C. 

Seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas 

would expand the seasonal timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A in some areas and 

remove them in others. The overall impact of seasonal restrictions would be similar to those impacts 

discussed under Alternative A.

Managing core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas (5,141,340 acres) (Map 2-12), with 1,211,030 acres 

as avoidance outside core areas would increase the effects described under Alternative A. Inside core 

areas, impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as Alternatives B and C. In 

general habitat areas, impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics would be the same as Alternative A. 

The management of ROW corridors (Map 2-36) would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Alternative A.

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Alternative A.

Areas closed to oil and gas leasing would be expanded to include Raven Creek in the Newcastle Field 

Office and three areas in the Pinedale Field Office, which would increase the total area to 964,860 acres 

(Map 2-7). This would reduce impacts from minerals management on lands with wilderness 

characteristics from Alternative A, but not by nearly as much as Alternatives B and C. Estimated shortterm surface disturbance would be reduced by 6% from Alternative A to 122,910 acres, and long-term 

disturbance would be reduced by about 3% to 37,720 acres. Overall, 13,083 oil and gas wells (only 4% 

fewer than Alternative A) and 2,686 CBNG wells (only 3% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over 

the life of the plan under Alternative D.

Impacts from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impact to lands 

with wilderness characteristics as under Alternative A.

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to lands with wilderness characteristics as 

Alternative A.

Impacts from minimizing noise levels would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Alternative A.

Limiting wind turbines in core habitat unless it can be shown that sage-grouse would not decline would 

reduce the total number of wind turbines in the planning area (Map 2-32) to 980 (a 22% reduction from 

Alternative A). This would reduce the amount of surface disturbance and would provide indirect 

protections to lands with wilderness characteristics and natural settings and values. 

Impacts from coal leasing would be of the same type as described under Alternative A, but on less area. 

Coal leasing would occur on more area than Alternatives B and C, thus the impacts on lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be greater than those alternatives. Non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-

26) would be allowed on approximately the same area as Alternative A, but with more mitigation aimed 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-85

at protecting sagebrush habitat, which would reduce impacts to lands with wilderness characteristics as 

well. Locatable mineral entry (Map 2-21), mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-16) would have the same impact to lands with wilderness characteristics as under Alternative A.

4.6.7 Alternative E 

The effects of designating SD/MAs would have the same impact to lands with wilderness characteristics 

as under Alternative D.

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 304,970 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impacts as 

described in Alternative A, except 236,420 more acres (over 3 times as many) would be prohibited. 

Restricting surface disturbance on 21,950 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impact as described in 

Alternative A, except impacts would occur on 415,730 fewer acres, mainly from prohibiting surface 

disturbance on lands that only have restrictions under Alternative A.

Density limitations of 1 location per 640 acres and a 5% disturbance cap within core habitat would have 

impacts similar to those described under Alternative D, but to a larger area. Less surface disturbance 

would be allowed, which would protect natural settings and values within lands with wilderness 

characteristics. 

Seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas 

would expand the seasonal timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A. Timing and 

distance impacts would be greater than Alternative D, but less than Alternatives B and C. 

The management of ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (6,065,960 acres) (Map 2-

13) within core and general habitat would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, except 

avoidance areas would be expanded by 3,605,620 acres. This would increase the amount of area in which 

ROWs would be restricted and possibly precluded, which would reduce related effects on lands with 

wilderness characteristics. The management of ROW corridors (Map 2-36) would have the same impact 

to lands with wilderness characteristics as Alternative A.

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have the same impact to lands with wilderness 

characteristics as Alternative A.

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 16,068,160 acres under Alternative E (Map 2-8), the same as 

Alternative A. Although areas where oil and gas would be allowed would be the same, other restrictions, 

such as NSO and CSU, would be greatly increased, which would further protect natural settings and 

values within lands with wilderness characteristics. Estimated short-term surface disturbance would be 

reduced by 14% from Alternative A to 112,327 acres, and long-term disturbance would be reduced by 

about 9% to 35,432 acres. Overall, 12,355 oil and gas wells (10% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,462 

CBNG wells (11% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative E. 

This would mean more protection than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternatives B and C. 

Impacts from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impact to lands 

with wilderness characteristics as under Alternative A.

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to lands with wilderness characteristics as 

Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Draft EIS 

4-86 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts from minimizing noise levels on a case-by-case basis would have the same impact to lands with 

wilderness characteristics as Alternative A, except at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek, which would have 

similar impacts to Alternative B due to similar noise restrictions from March 1 to May 15. 

The development of wind energy (Map 2-33) would have a similar impact as Alternative B, except there 

would be 5,027,675 acres closed to wind development (compared to 5,025,533 acres under Alternative B 

and 437,119 acres under Alternative A). There would be 127 wind turbines developed across the planning 

area through 2020. Compared to Alternative A, there would be 1,127 fewer wind turbines (or 90% fewer). 

This would significantly reduce the amount of surface disturbance and would provide indirect protections 

to managing natural settings and primitive recreation values within lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Impacts from coal leasing and non-energy leasable minerals would have the same impact to lands with 

wilderness characteristics as Alternative D. Pursuing some withdrawals for locatable mineral entry and 

requiring stipulations for mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would reduce impacts 

to lands with wilderness characteristics, compared to and as described under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-87

4.7 LIVESTOCK GRAZING

This section presents potential impacts on livestock grazing management from implementing 

management actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning livestock grazing are 

described in Chapter 3.

4.7.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on livestock grazing are as follows: 

• Management actions that prohibit or limit the construction or maintenance of structural and nonstructural range improvements 

• Management actions that result in the modification or removal of structural range improvements 

• Management actions that close areas to livestock grazing 

• Management actions that change the timing, duration, or frequency of permitted use, including 

temporary closures 

• Management actions that lead to a change in oil and gas development activities, coal and other 

solid leasable mineral development, and locatable mineral entry in areas open to livestock grazing 

• Management actions that change the quantity of vegetation production, the structure of the overall 

plant community, or the forage conditions in areas open to livestock grazing. 

4.7.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Livestock grazing would be managed to meet the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health on 

BLM-administered lands (BLM 1997a).

• The type of grazing use would remain about the same. 

• Range improvement projects would continue to be used to achieve rangeland management goals. 

• Range improvements would include the following types of projects: spring/seep development and 

protection, reservoirs and pits, wells, new or modified fencing, vegetation treatments, and 

pipelines. 

• Livestock grazing is not considered a surface-disturbing activity. 

• Restrictions on the construction of range improvements for the protection of sage-grouse habitats. 

• Impacts on livestock grazing activities are generally the result of activities that affect forage 

levels and of human disturbance/harassment of livestock within grazing allotments. 

4.7.3 Alternative A 

Surface disturbing activities involve land clearing, grading, and construction of roads, well pads, and 

other facilities that can result in soil disturbance, removal of vegetative cover, and an increase in the 

potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds, thereby causing a loss of livestock 

forage from direct removal of vegetation, and from degradation of vegetation communities that reduce 

forage production (even if the area is still vegetated). 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-88 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Surface disturbance and disruptive activity restrictions apply to activities related to oil and gas activities 

on new leases (including development of associated infrastructure), development associated with linear 

and non-linear ROWs (some of which are related to oil and gas and wind energy development, and some 

of which are not), wind energy development, development of other leasable minerals and mineral 

materials, some range improvement projects, and disruptive activities that require a Special Recreation 

Use Permit. 

Requiring that utility structures be placed near existing facilities and limiting the designation of new 

transmission corridors within sage-grouse core habitat areas (excluding the Newcastle Field Office) may 

result in reduced surface disturbance loss. However, development out of core and into other habitats 

might increase the impacts there, including loss of vegetation and forage resources, and an increase in the 

potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds. However, these restrictions would 

concentrate the locations of surface disturbance within designated ROWs in the long-term, which would 

decrease widespread forage loss. Additionally, livestock grazing management should benefit in several 

ways. First, surface disturbance is not spread out over a large area but instead is consolidated, which 

should reduce forage removal by surface disturbance. Second, if surface disturbance is consolidated, 

patterns of livestock movement will not be as disrupted. Third, it is less likely that existing range 

improvement projects will be removed or damaged. 

Under Alternative A, 285,930 acres of sage-grouse core habitat areas would be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas (Map 2-9), which would prevent surface disturbing activities related to ROW 

development from occurring within the exclusion area and would prevent forage loss from ROW 

development in these areas. General sage-grouse habitat would be managed as a ROW avoidance area 

(2,460,340 acres; Map 2-9), which would reduce surface disturbing activities related to ROW 

development from occurring within the avoidance areas and would reduce forage loss from ROW 

development in these areas. 

Allowing wind energy development activities in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that would 

be closed in order to protect sensitive resources, would increase vegetation removal and forage loss. All 

sage-grouse core habitat areas would be available for wind energy development activities, except for 

437,120 acres within specific areas that would be closed for the protection of sensitive resources (Map 2-

29). Approximately 1,254 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the entire planning 

area. Wind energy development activities involve land-clearing and surface disturbances. These actions 

would remove and disturb vegetation and result in a short-term loss of forage resources, as well as an 

increase in the potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds and subsequent decline in 

the health of vegetative communities, until these areas are stabilized and revegetated. Within the areas 

closed to wind energy development, the amount of land-clearing and surface disturbance associated with 

the development of new wind turbines would be eliminated, which would in turn reduce the amount of 

soil disturbance, vegetation disturbance, and subsequent forage loss. Land-clearing to construct new 

meteorological (MET) towers would be avoided within one mile of sage-grouse habitat (3,888,930 total 

acres avoided), which would reduce surface disturbing activities and subsequent forage loss within these 

areas. 

Adjustments to livestock grazing management would impact livestock grazing permittees/lessees on 

allotments managed by the BLM not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health due to 

existing livestock grazing management. The TBNG and MBNF have not identified areas that are not 

meeting plan objectives for vegetation health. Such adjustments could include season-of-use changes, 

changes in stocking rates, implementation of improved grazing management practices (e.g., growing 

season deferment, riparian pastures, and exclosures), forage utilization limits, and conversions in kind or 

type of livestock. Such management changes could result in increased operating costs to the livestock 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-89

operator. There are 186 out of 574 allotments within core habitat not meeting the standards due to 

livestock grazing. 

Adjusting grazing practices during times of drought would occur across the National Forest and BLM 

Field Offices. Although these actions would help to enhance rangeland conditions and increase long-term 

forage production, animal unit months (AUMs) use could also decrease for some operators. 

Structural range improvements (including but not limited to: cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or 

other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc.) would potentially 

alter grazing management practices and increase surface disturbing activities in the short-term. However, 

the distribution of livestock, ability to manage livestock, and achievement of long-term livestock and 

resource management goals would generally improve. Construction of range improvements would serve 

to alter livestock distribution and allow livestock to utilize a greater area of the rangeland, and allow 

livestock use to be more evenly distributed across the rangeland. Such improvements could potentially 

occur across portions of the planning area. Prohibiting the placement of salt, mineral, or forage 

supplements for livestock within 500 feet in the Rock Springs Field Office (and within 0.25 miles in the 

Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale field offices and MBNF) to 0.25 miles in the TBNG, from streams, creeks, 

wetlands, and riparian areas would draw livestock away from sensitive riparian areas and result in 

maintaining or improving riparian conditions and water quality. This would enhance forage conditions 

and stabilize water sources for livestock. Appropriate site placement of range improvement projects can 

improve the achievement of long-term livestock resource and management goals in some areas. 

Projects designed to improve watershed conditions would enhance vegetation resources by reducing 

erosion and improving water quality, thereby increasing forage levels for livestock. However, in some 

cases adjustments in livestock management may be needed to meet or maintain riparian habitat 

requirements, PFC, and water quality objectives. These adjustments could include grazing deferments, 

season-long rest, exclosures, livestock conversions, and fencing of riparian areas, or other adjustments 

determined appropriate for the specific area in question. These activities would reduce management 

flexibility and increase costs in areas where streams are not properly functioning or where water quality 

objectives are not being met until these goals are obtained. The potential long-term effect of meeting 

these goals would be an increase or maintenance of forage and water availability. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas throughout the planning area, except in 

unavailable areas (Map 2-4), would result in increased forage loss and decreased vegetative health. Under 

Alternative A, 871,780 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres would be managed as 

NSO areas, and 5,015,210 acres would be managed as CSU areas. Under this alternative, 13,653 oil and 

gas wells and 2,758 coalbed natural gas (CBNG) wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat, 

resulting in 130,332 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before reclamation), and 39,049 

acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). Oil and gas development activities 

would involve land-clearing and surface disturbances, such as the construction of well pads, roads, and 

pipelines in sage-grouse core habitat areas. These actions remove and disturb vegetation and increase the 

potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds, subsequently decreasing the overall 

health of available forage both in the short term during construction activities and in the long term as 

permanent structures (e.g., well pads, pits, and roads) are maintained. In addition, fluid mineral 

development activities could increase the potential for livestock harassment and loss from vehicle 

collisions; however, the improvement of roads associated with oil and gas leasing activities could also 

facilitate livestock management operations by improving access to remote locations within allotments. 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas under this alternative may result 

in a greater number of smaller leases, thus causing increased surface disturbances, vegetation removal, 

and subsequent forage loss. 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-90 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Withdrawing areas from locatable mineral entry (1,677,420 acres; Map 2-19) would decrease the amount 

of surface disturbing activities associated with mineral entry, thereby helping to maintain vegetation for 

livestock grazing. 

Allowing non-energy, solid leasable mineral leasing within sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas 

that are closed to such activities (334,230 acres), would result in land-clearing and surface disturbances 

from mineral extraction and excavation, associated road construction, and construction of surface mining 

facilities, which remove and disturb vegetation and result in subsequent short-term and long-term loss of 

forage available for grazing. The magnitude of long-term vegetation removal and reduction in available 

forage from mining activities and mineral exploration would depend on the duration of activity, as well as 

the type of reclamation efforts implemented and how long it would take for disturbed areas to become 

stabilized and vegetated. 

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permit operations in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

(except areas that are unavailable) would also lead to surface disturbances that would result in short-term 

and long-term loss of forage (Map 2-14). Under Alternative A, 274,860 acres of sage-grouse habitat areas 

would be closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits, and saleable mineral pits no 

longer in use would continue to be available for other resources. 

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area within the Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices, 

respectively, as OHV “open” areas would result in short-term and long-term impacts to vegetation and 

forage conditions. A one-time disturbance resulting from OHV use could cause physical damage to 

vegetation by breaking stems and branches. Usually, with a one-time disturbance, plants and disturbed 

areas would recover. However, with repeated use, soil compaction occurs and new trails would be 

established, resulting in long-term loss of vegetation and forage available for grazing. Under 

Alternative A, motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails until such 

travel management planning is complete. Because recreational OHV users would remain on designated 

roads, vegetation would reestablish in the formerly open areas, and forage availability for livestock 

grazing would increase. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities (which could include the construction of new roads) within 0.25 

miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within the Pinedale Field Office, Rawlins Field Office, and the Jack 

Morrow Hills planning area within the Rock Springs Field Office (68,550 acres) and restricting surface 

disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks in the Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, 

and Rock Springs field offices (437,680 acres) would reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities 

resulting from newly permitted activities, such as blading and grading, and therefore reduce the amount of 

vegetation removal and forage loss. However, these avoidances may result in increased road construction 

outside of the avoided areas, as longer roads may be constructed to circumvent the lek buffers, which 

could cause increased surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation removal and loss of forage in these 

areas. 

Vegetation management actions designed to enhance vegetation production, age class, structural diversity, 

and plant community vigor would benefit livestock grazing by increasing forage availability and 

improving livestock distribution and animal performance. Vegetation management could also result in 

short-term grazing management adjustments to the season and duration of use, affecting the operators’ 

overall grazing operation. Applying vegetation treatment measures in the TBNG where shrub canopy 

cover of sagebrush is less than 15%, and in areas less than 80 acres and no more than 20% of the 

sagebrush stands in wintering habitat for TBNG, could result in short-term vegetation loss and subsequent 

grazing impacts during treatment activities, but would improve vegetation health and available forage for 

livestock over the long-term. Additionally, vegetation treatment areas within the Pinedale and Rock 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-91

Springs/Green River Field Offices would be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full 

growing season after treatment, and one full year prior to treatment in the Rock Springs Field Office, 

which would result in short-term limitations in livestock management options and temporary reductions 

of livestock grazing in treated areas. However, vegetation community and production recovery in treated 

areas would be enhanced as a result of vegetative treatments, increasing the post-treatment grazing 

capacity of treated lands in the long-term. 

Wildland fire would have varying effects on livestock grazing depending on fire size and intensity, the 

time of year the fire occurs, and fuel moisture content. Wildland fire would initially displace livestock, 

and depending on the proximity of livestock to the wildland fire, livestock could be stressed, injured, or 

killed. Wildland fire would remove vegetation and decrease forage levels over the short term. However, 

over the long term, fire would generally improve forage production, especially when effective post-fire

management efforts are implemented. Wildland fire could also damage livestock improvements, such as 

fences and corrals, which would necessitate short-term management changes. Under Alternative A, after 

firefighter safety, prioritization of suppression would be considered for multiple resources. This would 

result in little change in forage availability in the short term; while in the long term, forage would 

decrease the most due to an overall increase in later seral stage sagebrush communities, with resulting 

decreases in herbaceous species used for forage. Prescribed fire would be used in areas having greater 

than 10-inch precipitation zones to reduce shrub cover and increase the herbaceous forage available for 

grazing animals. Over the long-term, this action would increase management flexibility and improve 

grazing distribution. For a period of time after a fire, enhanced forage availability and production would 

be realized as herbaceous vegetation would temporarily replace woody shrub species.

While livestock grazing is not considered a surface disturbing activity in itself, management actions to 

limit surface disturbing activities inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity areas 

would maintain the health and function of vegetative communities, and subsequently maintain forage 

availability for livestock. Prohibiting surface occupancy and disturbance within 0.25 miles of occupied 

sage-grouse leks within the Pinedale Field Office, Rawlins Field Office, and the Jack Morrow Hills 

planning area within the Rock Springs Field Office (68,550 acres), and restricting surface disturbing 

activities within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within the Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, and 

Rock Springs field offices (437,680 acres) would reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities 

resulting from newly permitted activities. A reduction in surface occupancy and disturbances would 

decrease the amount of vegetation removal and potential for noxious weed proliferation in these areas, 

and subsequently maintain the health and function of vegetation in both the short-term and long-term. 

Prohibiting the construction of new oil and gas facilities is prohibited within a quarter mile of active sagegrouse display grounds at any time on the TBNG. There is a timing restriction for both the TBNG (from 

March 1 through June 15) and the MBNF (from March 1 through June 30), and permitting short-term 

disturbances to improve habitat within two miles of sage-grouse breeding habitat within both the TBNG 

and MBNF would decrease the amount of surface disturbance occurring. 

4.7.4 Alternative B 

No new transmission corridors or above-ground transmission structures would be authorized within sagegrouse priority and connectivity habitat areas, both inside and outside existing corridors. Prohibiting new 

transmission corridors and transmission structures would prevent associated surface disturbances from 

taking place. This would benefit livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat areas, as surface 

disturbances, and resulting forage loss, from utility corridor development would not occur. 

Under Alternative B, 5,141,340 acres of priority sage-grouse habitat would be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas compared to 285,930 acres excluded in Alternative A. This would increase the area in 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-92 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

which ROWs would be prohibited, which would result in less surface disturbance in these areas and 

therefore help to maintain forage levels. General sage-grouse habitat areas would be managed as 

avoidance areas for new ROWs, 6,390,010 acres, except for areas currently managed as ROW exclusion 

areas, thus restricting the amount of surface disturbing activities and resulting forage loss from occurring 

compared to Alternative A in which 2,460,340 acres would be avoided. Where existing leases or ROWs 

have had some level of development and are no longer in use, the site would be reclaimed. Restoring the 

habitat would provide additional forage for livestock over the long-term compared to Alternative A.

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat (5,000,400 

acres) and restricted (avoidance area) in sage-grouse general habitat areas (6,530,940 acres). This would 

result in less development inside sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would decrease surface 

disturbance in the short-term and long-term, relative to Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the 

amount of vegetation removal and forage loss associated with wind energy development activities, 

compared to Alternative A in which only 437,120 acres are closed to development. Approximately 127 2-

MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the entire planning area, which would be 90% 

fewer turbines than under Alternative A. MET towers would be prohibited in sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas, therefore surface disturbing activities associated with MET towers would not occur under this 

alternative, compared to MET tower disturbances in Alternative A.

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. Within 

priority habitat there are 574 total allotments. Of those, 186 are not meeting standards and would be 

subject to these forage allocation reductions. Retiring specific allotments and/or permits could occur 

under this alternative, thus reducing the number of acres available for livestock grazing. Refer to the 

socioeconomic analysis in section 4.11 for a discussion of impacts from retirement of grazing allotments. 

Preparing drought contingency plans will benefit livestock grazing management by helping grazing 

permittees/lessees plan for drought, determine management options during drought, and support 

sustainable forage production and grazing operations. Post-drought management has the potential to 

negatively impact livestock grazing and management in priority sage-grouse habitat areas in the shortterm due to possible changes in management and AUMs. Post-drought management might be a negative 

impact in the short-term, but would be positive in the long-term as plant communities are able to better 

recover from drought, maintaining their stability and flexibility. 

Impacts associated with new structural range improvements, such as cattle guards, fences, exclosures, 

corrals or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc., would be 

the same as those described in Alternative A, except they would only occur across priority sage-grouse 

habitat and thereby reduce the extent of associated impacts, as structural range improvements are more 

restricted under Alternative B.

Under this alternative, additional water developments would only be authorized when priority sagegrouse 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. 

Priority sage-grouse habitat areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing, unless there is an opportunity for 

the BLM and Forest Service to influence conservation measures where surface and/or mineral ownership 

is not entirely federally owned (Map 2-5). Under Alternative B, 6,809,580 acres would be closed to oil 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-93

and gas leasing and 2,082,140 acres would be managed as NSO areas. Under this alternative, 11,555 

BLM/Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas, resulting in 104,050 acres that would experience short-term disturbance, and 33,534 

acres that would be disturbed over the long term. The number of wells anticipated would be 16% less than 

under Alternative A. This would reduce the amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for 

livestock grazing, compared to Alternative A. Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas would have the same impacts to livestock grazing as under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative B, oil and gas leasing would be prohibited within priority habitat (with the exception that if 

the lease is entirely within priority habitat, a four-mile NSO would be applied around the lek), which 

would maintain vegetation for livestock grazing because no new vegetative disturbances would occur as a 

result of oil and gas development on new leases. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (3,442,120 acres) based on risk to the sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development would result in impacts to 

livestock grazing similar to Alternative A, if those areas considered for withdrawal are in fact withdrawn 

(Map 2-20). If they are not withdrawn, there would be an increase in surface disturbing activities, which 

would result in an increase in vegetation removal and subsequent loss of forage in the short-term. In the 

long-term, these areas would be mitigated, and the impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Vegetation removal and loss of forage availability from non-energy solid leasable mineral development 

would be reduced, relative to Alternative A. In this area 5,000,400 acres would be closed to solid mineral 

development compared to 234,230 acres closed in Alternative A. New coal leases and coal exploration 

licenses within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be prohibited, and additional screening processes 

would be implemented outside sage-grouse priority habitat areas. No new leases for other solid leasable 

minerals or mineral exploration by prospecting permits or licenses would be allowed inside sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas, and mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would also be closed in 

sage-grouse priority habitat areas, subject to valid existing rights. A reduction in these operations would 

reduce the amount of associated surface disturbance, and subsequently reduce the amount of vegetation 

removal and loss of forage availability. 

All sage-grouse priority habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) would be closed to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits, compared to 274,860 acres closed in Alternative A (Map 2-15). Reclamation 

of mineral pits no longer in use would return the grazing lands to the production levels found prior to 

development. 

Managing the OHV use in the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the Greater 

Sand Dunes Recreation Area as “open” would result in surface disturbance and forage loss similar to 

Alternative A, except the non-sand dune portions of these areas would be managed as “limited to 

designated roads and trails.” Because recreational OHV users would remain on designated roads within 

these areas, vegetation would reestablish in the formerly open areas and forage availability for livestock 

grazing would increase in the long term. Impacts due to collisions or disturbance from the presence of 

OHV users would be the same as Alternative A. 

Prohibiting new road construction within all priority sage-grouse habitat (5,000,400 acres), unless valid 

existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, would further reduce the amount of surface 

disturbing activities associated with road development compared to Alternative A, in which surface 

disturbing activities are prohibited within 68,550 acres and restricted within 437,680 acres. The 

restoration of roads and trails would include reseeding and transplanting sagebrush, which over the longterm could increase available forage for livestock grazing. 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-94 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to livestock grazing from not reducing sagebrush shrub canopy cover to less than 15% and 

resting all vegetation treatment areas for two full growing seasons, except for the offices that don’t rest 

vegetation treatments (the only offices that rest are the ones mentioned in Alternative A), would be 

similar to Alternative A, except they would occur within all priority sage-grouse habitat, thereby 

increasing the extent of the impacts. Under this alternative, prioritization of suppression in sage-grouse 

priority habitat would result in little change in forage availability in the short term, while in the long term, 

forage would decrease due to an overall increase in later seral stage sagebrush communities, with 

resulting decreases in herbaceous species used for forage.

The long-term enhancements in forage availability and production produced by wildland fire would have 

similar impacts to livestock grazing as Alternative A, but would be realized over more acres. Post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native 

plants which could cause temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management. Prescribed 

fire would be used in areas having greater (>12-inch) precipitation zones compared to Alternative A in 

which a 10-inch or greater precipitation zone is required. 

Managing the existing levels of density of disturbance on the landscape within sage-grouse priority 

habitat and connectivity habitat areas would increase protection to forage levels within these areas over 

the long-term. Density of disturbance on the landscape would not cover more than 3% of the total sagegrouse priority habitat regardless of ownership (and would not exceed 3% habitat disturbance per 640 

acres inside sage-grouse connectivity areas). In priority habitat where the 3% disturbance threshold is 

already realized, no further disturbances would be permitted and an additional designation would ensure 

that no more than 3% of the total priority habitat is disturbed within 10 years. These limits would reduce 

vegetation disturbance and removal, and subsequently maintain the overall health and function of forage 

available for livestock grazing, compared to Alternative A in which surface occupancy and disturbance 

activities would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and restricted on 437,680 acres, with no threshold values. 

4.7.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 11,531,340 acres of priority and general sage-grouse habitat areas would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas which would provide 95% of additional forage areas for livestock 

compared to Alternative A. Site reclamation to restore the habitat would be the same as the impacts 

described in Alternative B.

Wind energy development activities (including industrial solar projects) would not be allowed both inside 

and within five miles of sage-grouse priority habitat areas (11,531,340 acres). This would result in less 

development inside sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would decrease surface disturbance in the 

short-term and long-term, relative to Alternative A in which only 437,119 acres are closed from 

development. Approximately 127 2 MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the entire 

planning area, which would be 90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A. However, impacts to 

livestock grazing from the construction of new MET towers would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss 

associated with wind energy development activities, compared to Alternative A.

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. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-95

Additional measures to ensure that soil cover and native herbaceous plants are at their ESD/LRMP 

vegetative potential to help protect against invasive plants, would improve vegetative resources for 

livestock grazing under this alternative. These impacts would not be realized under any of the other 

alternatives. Retiring specific allotments and/or permits could occur under this alternative, thus reducing 

the number of acres available for livestock grazing compared to Alternative A. 

Post-drought management would ensure vegetation recovery occurs in all priority and general sagegrouse habitat areas, which could further reduce AUM use compared to Alternative A. Preparing drought 

contingency plans will benefit livestock grazing management by helping grazing permittees/lessees plan 

for drought, determine management options during drought and supporting sustainable forage production 

and grazing operations. Post-drought management has the potential to negatively impact livestock grazing 

and management in priority sage-grouse habitat areas in the short-term due to possible changes in 

management and AUMs. Post-drought management might be a negative impact in the short term, but 

would be positive in the long term as plant communities are able to better recover from drought, 

maintaining their stability and flexibility. 

All new structural range improvements, such as cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc., would be avoided in sagegrouse priority and general habitat unless beneficial to the species, thus potentially reducing the amount 

of surface disturbing activities that would occur and resulting impacts to livestock grazing in the short 

term compared to Alternative A. However, this could potentially impact the achievement of long-term 

livestock and resource management goals compared to Alternative A. These impacts would only be 

realized in general habitat as priority habitat is prohibited from livestock grazing. 

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 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. 

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. 

Closing priority and general sage-grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing (which will prevent the 

construction of new oil and gas wells), unless there is an opportunity for the BLM/Forest Service to 

influence conservation measures where surface and/or mineral ownership is not entirely federally owned, 

would reduce the amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for livestock grazing, 

compared to Alternative A (Map 2-6). Approximately 16,878,220 acres would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing and 2,082,140 acres would be managed as NSO areas. Under this alternative, 9,533 BLM/Forest 

Service oil and gas wells and 1,594 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas, resulting in 85,140 acres that would experience short-term disturbance, and 27,030 acres that would 

be disturbed over the long-term. The number of wells anticipated would be 32% less than Alternative A, 

thus reducing the amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for grazing compared to 

Alternative A. These impacts will only occur in general habitat because priority habitat is prohibited from 

livestock grazing. Under Alternative C, agencies would explore options to amend, cancel, or buy out 

leases in ACECs and sage-grouse priority and general habitat, which would reduce oil and gas drilling 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-96 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and thus reducing forage loss for livestock. These impacts would only occur in general habitat as priority 

habitat is prohibited from livestock grazing. 

The withdrawal of 3,442,120 acres from locatable mineral entry, based on the risk to the sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development (Map 2-21), would result in the 

same impacts to livestock grazing as discussed in Alternative B.

Vegetation removal and loss of forage availability from non-energy, solid leasable mineral development 

would be reduced, relative to Alternative A. Under Alternative C, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to 

solid mineral development compared to 234,230 acres closed in Alternative A. New coal leases and coal 

exploration licenses within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be prohibited, and additional 

screening processes would be implemented outside sage-grouse priority habitat areas. No new leases for 

other solid leasable minerals or mineral exploration by prospecting permits or licenses would be allowed 

inside sage-grouse priority habitat areas, and mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits 

would also be closed in sage-grouse priority habitat areas, subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-16). A 

reduction in these operations would reduce the amount of associated surface disturbance, and 

subsequently reduce the amount of vegetation removal and loss of forage availability. These impacts 

would only be realized in general habitat as priority habitat is prohibited from livestock grazing. 

All sage-grouse priority habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) would be closed to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits, compared to 274,860 acres closed in Alternative A (Map 2-16). Reclamation 

of mineral pits no longer in use would return the grazing lands to the production levels found prior to 

development. 

OHV use in the Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices would result in the same impacts to 

livestock grazing as Alternative B.

Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse priority and general habitat would reduce impacts to livestock grazing 

compared to Alternative A, in which prohibitions occur within one-quarter mile of occupied sage-grouse 

leks within specific parts of the planning area. A larger buffer zone around sage-grouse leks under this 

Alternative would reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities from new road construction and 

therefore reduce the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss compared to Alternative A. Route 

construction would be limited to realignments of existing routes and mitigating efforts would be required 

if these efforts had impacts, thus reducing additional surface disturbing activities compared to 

Alternative A. Impacts associated with restoring roads and trails would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B. These impacts would only be realized in general habitat as priority habitat is prohibited 

from livestock grazing. 

Impacts to livestock grazing from not reducing sagebrush shrub canopy cover to less than 15% would be 

similar to Alternative A, except they would occur within all priority and general sage-grouse habitat, 

thereby increasing the extent of the impacts. Vegetation treatment plans would establish non-grazing 

exclosures, thus placing short-term limitations in livestock management and temporary reductions of 

livestock grazing in treated areas compared to Alternative A. Vegetation community and production 

recovery in treated areas would be enhanced, increasing the post-treatment grazing capacity of treated 

lands in the long-term. 

Impacts resulting from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under 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 a stable forage source for livestock. Post fire 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-97

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. 

Impacts to livestock grazing from managing the density of disturbance on the landscape inside sagegrouse connectivity areas would be the same as those described under Alternative B.

Surface occupancy and disturbance activity prohibitions around sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas would be the same as those described under Alternative B. All of the impacts 

described under Alternative A would not be realized for activities related to oil and gas activities. 

4.7.6 Alternative D 

Allowing new transmission projects in existing utility corridors within a designated two-mile wide 

corridor through sage-grouse core habitat areas and within 0.5 miles on either side of existing 115 kV or 

larger transmission lines, between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and November 30 in winter 

concentration areas) (Map 2-12), would exclude a larger area from surface disturbing activities (5,141,340 

acres), relative to Alternative A, in which 285,930 acres would be excluded. This could result in 

decreased vegetation removal and loss of forage available for livestock grazing compared to 

Alternative A. However, 1,211,030 acres of general sage-grouse habitat areas would be managed as 

avoidance areas for new ROWs, compared to 2,460,340 acres avoided in Alternative A, which could 

potentially increase the amount of surface disturbing activities and resulting forage loss that could occur 

compared to Alternative A.

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within sage-grouse core habitat areas, 

(5,000,400 acres) and restricted within 501,830 acres but would need to demonstrate that declines in sagegrouse populations could be avoided through project design and/or mitigation. These restrictions would 

reduce the amount of surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and loss of available forage associated with 

wind energy development activities, compared to Alternative A in which only 437,120 acres would be 

closed. However, fewer development activities would be restricted compared to Alternative A (3,888,930 

acres), potentially increasing the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss associated with the 

decrease in restrictions compared to Alternative A. Approximately 980 2-MW wind turbines are projected 

to be constructed across the entire planning area, which would be 22% fewer turbines than under 

Alternative A. Impacts to livestock grazing from the construction of new MET towers would be the same 

as those described in Alternative A. 

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. Post-drought management impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts associated with structural range improvements, such as cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals 

or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc., would be similar 

to Alternative A, except modifications would be made to existing range improvements. These 

modifications would help to benefit livestock management and distribution. 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. 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-98 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Authorizing water developments as needed within sage-grouse core habitats would further increase 

vegetative resources available for livestock grazing compared to Alternative A.

Oil and gas leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas would be administratively unavailable in the Raven 

Creek, Beaver Ridge, Fontenelle Creek, and East Anticline areas (119,500 total acres) (Map 2-7). 

Approximately 964,860 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing and 2,117,990 acres would be 

managed as CSU areas. Under Alternative D, 13,083 BLM/Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,686 

CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat areas, resulting in 44,050 acres that would 

experience short-term disturbance, and 9,160 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term. The 

number of wells anticipated would be 4% less than Alternative A. Not applying minimum lease sizes 

within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to livestock grazing as under 

Alternative A.

Withdrawing core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (1,677,420 acres) (Map 2-22), opening sagegrouse core habitat areas to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-17), and 

continuing to have saleable mineral pits not in use available for other uses would all result in the same 

impacts to livestock grazing as discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts to livestock grazing from non-energy, solid leasable mineral development, as well as non-energy 

leasable mineral leasing, would be the same as those described under Alternative A, except impacts 

would also occur in the areas that were previously unavailable for leasing. Thus, an increase in surface 

disturbing activities and subsequent forage loss for livestock would occur. 

OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, part of the hill climb area in Section 33, Dune Pond 

Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation area would result in 

the same impacts to livestock grazing as Alternative A.

Avoiding new road construction within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within all sage-grouse 

core habitat areas would reduce impacts to livestock grazing compared to Alternative A, in which 

prohibitions only occur within one-quarter mile of occupied sage-grouse leks within specific parts of the 

planning area. The 0.25 mile restriction within all sage-grouse core habitat areas (an additional 129,510 

total acres) would result in less surface disturbance and subsequent forage loss, but to a lesser extent than 

Alternatives B or C. 

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. 

The effects on livestock grazing resulting from fire management actions would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A.

Managing the density of energy production (excluding coal mining) and/or transmission structures 

(excluding buried pipelines or power lines) on the landscape inside sage-grouse core habitat would 

increase impacts to livestock grazing within the planning area long-term, compared to Alternative B. A 

limit of three energy production locations and/or transmission structures per 640 acres within the project 

impact analysis area could occur, and an additional 9% of total sagebrush habitat loss would be allowed 

under this alternative, compared to the 3% total permitted in Alternative B.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-99

Restricting disruptive activity within a quarter mile radius of all occupied sage-grouse leks inside core 

habitat and connectivity habitat areas would not be applied as long as restrictions in Alternative A (14 

days less), resulting in forage losses sooner. The amount of acres in which surface disturbing activities are 

restricted would decrease by 68% (75,870 acres in Alternative D versus 437,680 acres in Alternative A), 

thus increasing the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss resulting from surface disturbing 

activities compared to Alternative A.

4.7.7 Alternative E 

Restricting utility structures within sage-grouse core habitat areas would result in impacts to livestock 

grazing similar to Alternative A, except new transmission projects proposed outside of corridors would 

only be considered where it can be proven that sage-grouse populations could be avoided through project 

design and/or mitigation. Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities for livestock grazing 

management would be prohibited on or within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and forage loss would likely decrease further, relative to 

Alternative A, due to these requirements. However, reclamation activities similar to Alternative B would 

provide an increase in available forage for livestock over the long-term. 

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within 5,002,520 acres of sage-grouse core 

habitat and restricted within 6,528,810 acres of sage-grouse general habitat. Less development would 

occur within sage-grouse core habitat areas, resulting in fewer surface disturbances and subsequent forage 

loss compared to Alternative A, in which only 437,120 acres would be closed and 3,888,930 acres would 

be restricted. Approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the entire 

planning area, which would be 90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A (Map 2-33). Land-clearing 

to construct new MET towers would be avoided within two miles of sage-grouse habitat, which would 

provide an additional acreage buffer compared to Alternative A, in which MET towers would only be 

avoided within one mile of sage-grouse habitat. 

Impacts from livestock grazing management would be the same as those described under Alternative A, 

however, additional requirements (e.g., incorporating site-specific sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management objectives into all BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments, evaluating land health 

standards achievement in sage-grouse core habitat 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 

achieve the standards) would be placed on livestock operators, as appropriate, when renewing grazing 

permits compared to Alternative A. Post-drought management impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

Continuing to evaluate and modify when necessary, existing range improvements (e.g., fences, watering 

facilities) for impacts on sage-grouse and its habitat within sage-grouse general and core habitat, would 

have reduced impacts to livestock grazing compared to Alternative A. Continuing to authorize 

supplements and supplemental feeding where appropriate would result in impacts to grazing as discussed 

under Alternative A. 

Impacts to livestock grazing from fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas 

that are unavailable, would be similar to those described in Alternative A, except less wells are 

anticipated (Map 2-8). Under Alternative E, 892,090 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 

689,300 acres would be managed as NSO areas, and 6,146,570 acres would be managed as CSU areas. 

Under this alternative, 12,355 BLM/Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,462 CBNG wells would be 

anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat areas, resulting in 37,380 acres that would experience short-term 

disturbance, and 8,290 acres that would be disturbed over the long term. The number of wells anticipated 

would be 10% less than Alternative A, thus reducing the amount of vegetation removal and loss of 

available forage for livestock grazing, compared to Alternative A. Application of a minimum lease size of 
Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing Draft EIS 

4-100 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

640 acres within sage-grouse core habitat areas would help to prevent fragmentation and increased 

numbers of smaller-sized leases by reducing the potential for increased surface disturbance and 

subsequent forage loss, relative to Alternative A. There are exceptions for leases smaller than 640 acres, 

such as for regulatory compliance, but these exceptions would likely not be numerous enough to outweigh 

the reduction in vegetation removal and forage loss from minimum lease sizes. 

Impacts to livestock grazing from withdrawal of core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry 

(1,677,420 acres) (Map 2-23) would be similar to Alternative A, if those areas proposed for withdrawal 

(3,442,120 acres versus 117,370 acres in Alternative A) are in fact withdrawn. If they are not withdrawn, 

there would be an increase in surface disturbing activities, which would result in an increase of vegetation 

removal and subsequent forage loss in the short-term. In the long-term, these areas would be mitigated, 

and the impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts to livestock grazing from coal operations would be similar to Alternative A, except operations in 

sage-grouse core habitat areas (except in unavailable areas) would implement measures where possible to 

protect habitat, which would decrease vegetative disturbance and loss of forage from associated surface 

disturbances (Map 2-28). Also, exploration licenses and on-lease would not be considered until after 

NEPA analysis. These procedures may reduce vegetation removal and subsequent forage loss, if the 

analyses and potential mitigation measures result in revegetation and soil stabilization. 

Impacts to livestock grazing from non-energy, solid leasable mineral operations could be less than 

Alternative A (Map 2-28). Short-term disturbance to vegetation from solid leasable mineral operations 

would still occur inside sage-grouse core habitat areas (except in unavailable areas), but if revegetation 

efforts from mitigating measures were successful, long-term forage loss would be reduced. 

Impacts associated with mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would be the same as 

described in Alternative A, except in sage-grouse core habitat areas where restrictions to surface 

disturbance and disruptive activity may result in less surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

subsequent forage loss inside these areas (Map 2-18). However, these operations may be sited outside of 

the sage-grouse core habitat areas, in which case the impacts to grazing would be the same as 

Alternative A. 

Managing the OHV use as “open” would result in surface disturbance and forage loss similar to 

Alternative A, except the non-sand dune portions of Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area and a 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be managed as “limited to existing roads and 

trails.” If recreational riders remain on existing roads and trails, vegetation would return off-trail, and 

forage availability for livestock grazing would increase. However, if recreational riders did not follow 

these designations, vegetation removal and forage loss would be equal to Alternative A.

Avoiding primary and secondary road construction within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks, and within 0.6 miles of the same perimeter for all other new roads would reduce the amount 

of surface disturbance associated with these activities compared to Alternative A, except the avoidance 

would only be applicable within the core habitat areas. Alternatively, these avoidances could potentially 

lengthen roads to avoid leks which would increase surface disturbing activities, increasing vegetation 

removal and the loss of forage where lengthened. Total surface disturbing activities would not exceed a 

5% total for the core habitat area under this alternative. These restrictions would lessen the amount of 

surface disturbance and resulting vegetation removal and forage loss, but not to the same extent as 

Alternative B or C. 

ESR or burned area emergency response following a wildland fire would be focused on restoring habitat 

consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse habitat needs, to the extent practicable. This includes use of locally 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Livestock Grazing 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-101

selected native seeds and of sagebrush where available, as well as temporary restrictions on grazing, 

motorized travel, and other uses. Impacts from ESR or burned area emergency response on the range 

program are expected to be the same or similar to those discussed under Impacts from Management of 

Fuels on Range Management but vary in scale, duration, and intensity.

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, and a 5% loss of sagebrush habitat would be allowed under this alternative, compared to 

the 3% total permitted in Alternative B. These limits would reduce the amount of surface disturbance in 

these areas, which would reduce vegetation disturbance and removal, and subsequently maintain the 

overall health and function of forage available for livestock grazing compared to Alternative B.

Restricting surface occupancy and disturbance would result in impacts to livestock grazing similar to 

Alternative A, except the restrictions would cover a greater area. Surface disturbing activity and surface 

occupancy would be prohibited or restricted (depending on the activity and potential effects) within 0.6 

miles of occupied sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity areas, and within 0.25 

miles of occupied sage-grouse leks outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas 

(Map 2-3). Under Alternative E, 304,970 acres would be prohibited from surface occupancy and 

disturbance, compared to 68,550 acres in Alternative A, an increase of 78%. These restrictions would 

decrease the amount of surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation removal and forage loss, relative to 

Alternative A. 
Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy Draft EIS 

4-102 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.8 MINERALS AND ENERGY

This section presents potential impacts on mineral and energy resources, including renewable energy 

resources, from implementing management actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions 

concerning mineral and energy resources are described in Chapter 3. Coal has its own set of planning 

regulations which includes the application of unsuitability criterion #15, protecting State High Sensitive 

Species, including sage-grouse. This analysis assumes areas identified as sage-grouse 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. 

4.8.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on fluid minerals are as follows: 

• The number of oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas wells projected over the life of the plan 

• The amount of land identified as closed to fluid mineral exploration and development 

• The amount of land open to leasing subject to NSO stipulations 

• The amount of land open to leasing subject to CSU stipulations 

• The amount of land open to leasing subject to timing limitations 

• Application of COAs on fluid mineral development activities on leased parcels for the protection 

of Greater Sage-Grouse 

• Restrictions on geophysical exploration in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

• The amount of land managed as ROW avoidance and exclusion areas. 

Indicators of impacts on coal resources are as follows: 

• The amount of land surface identified as unacceptable for coal leasing 

• The amount of land surface identified as unsuitable for surface coal mining 

• Application of siting, surface disturbance, and timing limitations on both surface and 

underground coal mining 

• Application of surface disturbance and timing limitations and reclamation requirements for coal 

exploration.

Indicators of impacts on oil shale are as follows: 

• The amount of land closed to oil shale leasing 

• Acres subject to timing limitations 

• Application of siting, surface disturbance, and timing limitations on oil shale mining 

• Restrictions on geophysical exploration in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Indicators of impacts on non-energy solid minerals are as follows: 

• The amount of land closed to non-energy solid mineral leasing 

• Acres subject to timing limitations. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-103

Indicators of impacts on locatable minerals are as follows: 

• The amount of land withdrawn from locatable mineral entry 

• The amount of land petitioned for withdrawal. 

Indicators of impacts on mineral materials are as follows: 

• The amount of land closed to mineral material disposal 

• The amount of land subject to timing limitations. 

Indicators of impacts on renewable energy are as follows: 

• The number of wind turbines projected over the life of the plan 

• The amount of land closed to wind energy development 

• The amount of land with restrictions placed on wind energy development 

• The amount of land managed as ROW avoidance and exclusion areas. 

4.8.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• 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. 

• Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development will continue to occur in the planning area 

during the planning period. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Surface use restrictions, including timing limitation stipulations, NSO stipulations, CSU 

stipulations, and unavailable for leasing designations, cannot be retroactively applied to valid, 

existing oil and gas leases or to valid, existing use authorizations (e.g., APD). Post-lease 

actions/authorizations (e.g., APDs, road/pipeline ROWs), however, could be encumbered by 

timing limitations and CSU restrictions on a case-by-case basis, as required through projectspecific NEPA analysis or other environmental review. 

• 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. 
Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy Draft EIS 

4-104 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.8.3 Alternative A 

Alternative A identifies 871,780 acres, or 4% of federal surface and mineral estate in sage-grouse core 

and general habitat areas (Figure 4-1), as unavailable for new oil and gas leasing (Map 2-4 and Table 

4-42). These areas of unavailable BLM federal mineral estate would impact oil and gas development by 

making fewer acres of land available for new oil and gas leasing. Applying NSO stipulations on 40,980 

acres and CSU stipulations on 5,015,210 acres within sage-grouse core and general habitat would increase 

the complexity of mineral operations, slow down the production of fluid minerals, and ultimately reduce 

the number of mineral operations. Outside of core and general habitat, oil and gas leasing would likely 

not change significantly under any alternative as a result of these plan amendments. 

Table 4-42. Acres Unavailable for Oil and Gas Leasing in Core and General Sage-grouse 

Habitat Areas 

Restriction Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Acres unavailable for 

new oil and gas leasing 871,780 6,809,580 16,878,220 964,860 892,090

Percent of federal 

surface and mineral 

estate

3.75% 40% 100% 4.16% 3.75%

Projected number of oil 

and gas wells 13,653 11,555 9,533 13,083 12,355

Figure 4-1. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories as a Percent of Core and General Habitat 

0 %

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Open with Standard

Stipulations

Open with CSU

Stipulations

Open with NSO

Stipulations

Closed

Note: For Alternatives B and C, NSO overlaps closed areas, applying only to valid existing leases. 

Based on the restrictions to surface disturbing and disruptive activities under this alternative, the RFD 

projection for fluid mineral development is 13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells during the 

planning period. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-105

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 68,550 acres (Map 2-1) would not allow for the construction 

of well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. Development in these areas would require 

the use of offsite methods, such as directional drilling to access oil and gas resources. In some cases, an 

operator could place a well pad, access road or production facility in a less-sensitive area and drill to the 

well directionally to recover reserves underlying the area prohibited from surface disturbing activities. 

Directional drilling increases the risk of drilling problems such as stuck casing and diminished well 

production. Prohibiting and restricting surface disturbance (via lease/permit terms or withdrawal) 

ultimately decrease the number of oil and gas wells drilled during the planning period. Surface disturbing 

activity prohibitions would also limit the development of wind energy sites. The ability to develop wind 

energy sites would be dependent on the classification of the wind energy potential. For example, 

restrictions occurring in high wind energy potential areas would result in fewer opportunities for the 

development of wind energy. 

Restricting surface disturbance on 437,680 acres (Map 2-1) could lead to the relocation of well pads, 

access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. Relocation of these proposed facilities could cause 

temporary delays in developing oil and gas resources and could limit oil and gas activities in these areas. 

Restrictions could also lead to the relocation of wind energy development sites. These measures could 

cause temporary delays in developing wind energy. If suitable adjacent sites are not available, wind 

energy development would likely not occur. 

Prohibiting geophysical exploration in some areas would limit the ability of mineral development 

companies to scout for and explore mineral potential in those areas. This could cause delays in mineral 

leasing applications and decrease or eliminate oil and gas development in these areas. Allowing 

geophysical exploration in some areas would avoid these impacts. 

Timing and distance limitations, including seasonal closures, within sage-grouse core and general habitat 

on occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter 

concentration areas would shorten the season for development of oil and gas resources. These seasonal 

timing limitations could limit the operator’s and/or leaseholder’s ability to secure drilling and completion 

equipment during the peak drilling season. For deep wells that may require six months to drill, complete 

and install production facilities, phased operations would be necessary. Normal depth wells may require 

drilling and completion operations to be interrupted, and these activities would need to be completed in 

phases to accommodate the seasonal restrictions. Phased development would potentially decrease 

efficiency. In addition, timing limitations for human activity could preclude future leasing mineral 

activities, such as maintenance activities during this time period. Distance stipulations, such as sagegrouse lek buffers could lead to the relocation of well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary 

facilities. Relocation of these proposed facilities could cause temporary delays in developing oil and gas 

resources and could limit oil and gas activities in these areas. These restrictions would also shorten the 

season for development of wind energy. Some projects could require phased development which could 

delay project completion. 

Exceptions to seasonal timing limitations could increase the operator’s and/or leaseholder’s ability to 

drill, complete, and install production facilities and to avoid phased development. Exceptions to lease 

stipulations, conditions of approval (COAs) and terms of conditions (T&Cs) considered on a case-by-case 

basis could allow oil and gas development to occur in areas or timeframes previously restricted. 

ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (2,460,340) (Map 2-9) and limiting ROWs and 

transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas (Map 2-36) could limit oil and gas and wind 

development within sage-grouse core and general habitat areas. ROWs are needed to provide access 

roads, transmission lines, and pipelines to well pads; as well as access roads and transmission lines to 
Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy Draft EIS 

4-106 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

wind development sites. With this limited access to transportation and infrastructure, oil and gas projects 

could face delays and complications or be prevented from efficient use of mineral and energy resources. 

Considering wind energy development in the planning area and within the sage-grouse core and general 

habitat areas, except in areas unavailable due to the protection of sensitive resources (Map 2-29), would 

allow wind energy development to occur without specific restrictions. In areas of sensitive resources, 

including SD/MAs, wilderness areas, wilderness study areas (WSAs), Visual resource Management 

(VRM) Class I and II areas, high and very high Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) areas, and Visual Quality 

Objective (VQO) Retention areas, wind energy development would continue to be limited or precluded. 

Across the planning area, 437,120 acres would be closed to wind development and 3,888,930 acres would 

have restrictions on wind development. A total of 1,254 wind turbines are projected to be developed 

through 2020. 

Minimizing noise levels by applying BMPs to noise generating activities such as oil and gas development 

and production in some field offices would have minimal impact on mineral development. Given the 

availability of noise reduction equipment and the latitude provided to an operator to implement noise 

reduction restrictions, the impact on mineral development could be minimal. If, however, noise reduction 

equipment is not available and an operator cannot commence operations without it, field development 

delays could occur. 

Consideration of coal leasing within sage-grouse core and general habitat areas would allow for future 

development of these resources. Areas available for coal leasing would be dependent on the results of the 

coal screening process and the application of appropriate mitigation measures. Allowing coal exploration 

would enhance the development of these resources. Consideration of oil shale development would allow 

for future development of oil shale in the planning area. Closing 338,533 acres would restrict the ability 

to develop these minerals over 3% of core and general habitat areas. 

Consideration of new leases in areas open to other solid leasable minerals (other than coal and oil shale) 

(Map 2-24) would allow for future development of these resources. Examples of solid leasable minerals 

include sodium (trona), phosphates and tar sands. Closing 234,230 acres would restrict the ability to 

develop these minerals over 3% of core and general habitat areas. 

Existing withdrawals (1,560,050 acres) and proposed withdrawals (117,370 acres) from locatable mineral 

entry in portions of sage-grouse core and general habitat areas to protect sensitive resources would restrict 

the ability to develop such resources over 15% of federal lands in those areas. 

Allowing saleable mineral development (e.g. mineral material exploration, sales and free use permits) 

(Map 2-14) in sage-grouse core and general habitat areas would allow for the continued use and 

development of these resources. Closing 274,860 acres would eliminate these types of mineral resource 

uses over 8% of federal lands in core and general habitat areas. 

4.8.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, 6,809,580 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing (Map 2-5 and Table 4-42), 

which would be nearly eight times more closed area than Alternative A, and 40% of the total federal 

surface and mineral ownership area of sage-grouse priority and general habitat (Figure 4-1). The increase 

in areas unavailable for leasing would reduce the number of projected oil, gas, and CBNG wells. NSO 

applied to valid existing leases on 2,082,140 acres would increase the complexity of mineral operations 

and slow down production. In total, 11,555 oil and gas wells (15% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,154 

CBNG wells (22% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative B. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-107

Allowing or prohibiting geophysical exploration would have the same impact to mineral resources as 

described under Alternative A.

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would restrict nearly all mineral 

development in these areas. Exceptions for existing leases entirely within protected perimeters would 

allow some development to proceed. Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, 

including winter concentration areas, would increase the complexity of mineral operations, requiring 

techniques such as directional drilling. This would restrict mineral and energy development to a greater 

extent than surface disturbance restrictions under Alternative A. New mineral leasing and energy 

development would be completely halted and existing leases would have to work around four-mile 

buffers with a cap on surface disturbance of 1 disturbance per section and no more than 3% total surface 

disturbance. This would ultimately place a limit on the pace of mineral development, as expressed by the 

number of well projections above. 

Not considering exceptions to lease stipulations for sage-grouse within priority habitat could limit the 

development of new oil and gas projects. These management actions could result in the relocation and/or 

delay of new minerals development and renewable energy projects. 

Applying required design features as mandatory stipulations and conservation objectives such as 

consolidation of infrastructure on existing leases could place additional restrictions on proponents holding 

valid existing leases. Additional restrictions could include consolidation of infrastructure and effective 

conservation of seasonal habitats. These restrictions could result in project delays and require directional 

drilling to recover potential reserves. However, the indirect effects of consolidating infrastructure over the 

life of multiple oil and gas reserves could reduce the need for ancillary infrastructure over the larger 

region as infrastructure becomes more centralized, and less infrastructure would be necessary to deliver 

products downstream. 

Applying BMPs to federal mineral estate where the surface ownership is nonfederal could restrict the 

ability of mineral operators to efficiently develop mineral resources. Depending on the stipulations 

required, these requirements could increase delays in mineral development. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority sage-grouse habitat (5,141,340 acres), expanding 

avoidance to all general habitat (6,390,010 acres), and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to 

designated corridors throughout the planning area (Map 2-10 and Map 2-36) would expand the impacts 

discussed under Alternative A to these larger areas. Not authorizing new transmission corridors could 

result in longer transmission routes and project delays. 

Wind energy development would be eliminated within priority habitat and limited within general habitat 

(Map 2-30). The removal and reduction of potential wind energy development would be a significant 

impact compared to Alternative A. The increase in areas unavailable for wind energy development 

(5,000,400 acres closed compared to 437,120 acres under Alternative A, and 6,530,940 acres restricted 

compared to 3,888,930 acres under Alternative A) reduces the number of projected wind turbines 

especially in areas of high potential for wind development. Based on these restrictions, 127 wind turbines 

(2 MW) could be developed across the planning area through 2020. Compared to Alternative A, 1,127 

fewer wind turbines (or 90% fewer) would be a significant decrease. As a result, less power would be 

generated and many development and construction activities would not occur. 

Limiting noise levels to 10 dB at active lek perimeters within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would 

have more impact on oil and gas and wind energy developments by requiring additional equipment and 

infrastructure at development sites. Compared to Alternative A, this management action applies to the 
Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy Draft EIS 

4-108 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

entire sage-grouse priority habitat areas and not just areas in the some field offices. Impacts would be the 

same, but expanded to these larger areas. 

Not considering coal leasing and closing priority habitat areas to coal exploration within sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas would prohibit future development of coal resources in those areas, decreasing the 

amount of area available for coal development in the planning area compared to Alternative A. In sagegrouse general habitat, a minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities would be applied 

(including operations and maintenance) where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on 

important seasonal sage-grouse habitats. These measures would be applied during activity level planning, 

in addition, effective mitigation to offset impacts as appropriate (determined by local options/needs). 

These measures would maintain intact sagebrush habitats throughout priority and general habitats. 

Closing priority habitat to oil shale would prohibit future development of oil shale resources in those 

areas. 

Not considering new leases for other solid leasable minerals (other than coal and oil shale) within sagegrouse priority habitat areas (Map 2-25) would prohibit future development of these resources. Closures 

would increase to 5,000,400 acres (43% of priority and general habitat) compared to Alternative A, which 

would be 15 times more closures. 

Existing withdrawals and pursuing withdrawals from locatable mineral entry within sage-grouse priority 

and general habitat (Map 2-20, 5,002,170 acres) could prevent future development of these resources over 

57% of these areas. Compared to Alterative A, in which potential withdrawals included only portions of 

priority habitat, this could comprise nearly four times as many acres withdrawn. 

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) to saleable minerals (e.g. mineral material 

exploration, sales and free use permits) (Map 2-15) would prohibit the use and development of these 

resources. Compared to Alternative A, this would be nearly six times as much area or 43% of priority and 

general habitat. 

4.8.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C,16,878,220 acres of priority and general habitat would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing (Map 2-6 and Table 4-42), which would be 19 times more closed area than Alternative A and 

100% of the total federal surface and mineral ownership area of sage-grouse priority and general habitat 

(Figure 4-1). NSO stipulations applied to valid existing leases on 2,082,140 acres would be the same as 

Alternative B. Compared to Alternatives A and B, the increase in areas unavailable for leasing would 

reduce the number of projected oil, gas, and CBNG wells. In total, 9,533 oil and gas wells (30% fewer 

than Alternative A) and 1,594 CBNG wells (42% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of 

the plan under Alternative C. New mineral leasing and energy development would be completely halted 

and existing leases would have to work around four-mile buffers with a cap on surface disturbance of 1 

disturbance per section and no more than 3% total surface disturbance. This would ultimately place a 

limit on the pace of mineral development, as expressed by the number of well projections above. 

Prohibiting geophysical exploration (except valid existing rights) in priority and general sage-grouse 

habitat would increase the impacts to mineral resources as described under Alternative A. Delays in 

mineral leasing applications and oil and gas development would be expanded and some development 

could be precluded entirely. 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would have the same impact to 

minerals as Alternative B, except that requirements would be extended to disruptive activities as well, 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-109

which would further limit the ability of mineral operators to access operations during restricted seasons. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas (timing 

and distance stipulations) would be the same as under Alternative B.

Not considering exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have a similar impact to 

minerals as under Alternative B, except impacts would be expanded to include both priority and general 

habitat. 

Applying required design features as mandatory stipulations and conservation objectives would have the 

same impact to minerals as under Alternative B.

Prohibiting the construction of evaporation reservoirs to hold CBNG wastewater would increase the 

complexity and decrease efficiency of waste disposal for CBNG operations by requiring alternative 

means of wastewater disposal. 

Applying BMPs to federal mineral estate where the surface ownership is nonfederal would have the same 

impact to minerals as under Alternative B.

Amending, cancelling, or buying out leases in ACECs and sage-grouse priority and general habitat would 

remove potential mineral development off the market. Buy-out of federal mineral leases requires approval 

and appropriation from Congress. Such minerals could never be developed, if mineral lease buy-outs were 

approved. Including conditions that require relinquishment of leases/authorizations for mitigation could 

preclude potential mineral development and/or infringe upon valid existing rights where 

leases/authorizations have been issued. 

Prohibiting new roads within four miles of active sage-grouse leks and avoiding new road construction in 

priority and general habitat would limit access to mineral and wind energy development sites. Roads are 

required for development, operations, and maintenance associated with oil, gas, and wind energy 

infrastructure. These restrictions could result in longer routes, limited access, and less oil and gas and 

wind energy development. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority and general sage-grouse habitat (11,531,340 acres, 

expanded from Alternative B) (Map 2-11) and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated 

corridors (same as Alternative B) (Map 2-36) would expand the impacts discussed under Alternative A, to 

larger areas than Alternative B.

Wind energy development would also be eliminated within priority habitat and general habitat (expanded 

from Alternative B with 11,531,340 acres closed compared to 437,120 acres under Alternative A) 

(Map 2-31). Based on these restrictions, 127 wind turbines could be developed across the planning area 

through 2020, resulting in impacts similar to those discussed under Alternative B. 

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied habitat would reduce potential renewable 

energy development in those areas. Solar projects could be reduced in size, extent or number, or forced to 

change locations, possibly to areas with less solar potential. 

Restrictions regarding noise levels would have the same impact to minerals as under Alternative B.

Impacts to coal leasing, oil shale leasing, and other solid minerals (Map 2-26) would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Consideration of impacts to locatable mineral entry (Map 2-21) would be the same as Alternative B.
Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy Draft EIS 

4-110 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat area to saleable minerals (e.g. mineral material exploration, sales, and 

free use permits) (Map 2-16) would be the same as Alternative B.

4.8.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, 964,860 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing (Map 2-7 and Table 4-42), 

which would be 15% more closed area than Alternative A and about 6% of the total federal surface and 

mineral ownership area of sage-grouse priority and general habitat (Figure 4-1). This alternative would 

have a similar impact to minerals as under Alternative A, with a slight increase in areas unavailable for 

leasing and CSU stipulations on 2,117,990 acres within sage-grouse core and general habitat, which 

would reduce the number of projected oil, gas, and CBNG wells. Closed areas would be expanded to 

include Raven Creek in the Newcastle Field Office and three areas in the Pinedale Field Office. In total, 

13,083 oil and gas wells (4% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,686 CBNG wells (3% fewer than 

Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative D. 

Allowing or prohibiting geophysical exploration would have the same impact to mineral resources as 

described under Alternative A.

Restricting surface disturbance on 75,870 acres (Map 2-2) would have a similar impact as described under 

Alternative A, except on fewer acres. However, prohibiting surface occupancy and disruptive activities 

within one-quarter mile of occupied leks and implementing seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse 

nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas would expand the seasonal timing and 

distance impacts described under Alternative A in some areas and remove them in others. Overall, there 

would be more area with these limitations. Density limitations of three locations per 640 acres and a 9% 

disturbance cap within core habitat would displace mineral development, since the restrictions would 

apply to all surface-disturbing activities. This would slow mineral development and could also lead to the 

relocation of well pads, access roads, pipelines and ancillary facilities. Relocation of these proposed 

facilities could cause temporary delays in developing oil and gas resources and limit oil and gas activities 

in these areas. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impact to minerals as 

Alternative A.

Applying required design features as mandatory stipulations and conservation objectives would have the 

same impact to minerals as under Alternative B.

Avoiding occupied sage-grouse leks with a quarter-mile buffer (Map 2-12) would reduce access to 

mineral development on a smaller scale than Alternative C. Restrictions such as longer routes, limitations 

to access, and less oil and gas and wind energy development would be minimal compared to 

Alternative C.

Managing core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas (5,141,340 acres) (Map 2-12) with 1,211,030 acres 

as avoidance outside core areas would increase the impacts described under Alternative A. Inside core 

areas, impacts to minerals would be the same as Alternatives B and C. In general habitat areas, impacts to 

minerals would be the same as Alternative A. The management of ROW corridors (Map 2-36) would 

have the same impact to minerals as Alternative A.

Limiting wind turbines in core habitat, unless it can be shown that sage-grouse would not decline, would 

reduce the total number of wind turbines in the planning area (Map 2-32). Compared to Alternative A, the 

increase in areas unavailable for wind energy development (5,000,400 acres) would reduce the number of 

projected wind turbines, especially in areas of high potential for wind development. Based on these 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-111

restrictions, 980 wind turbines could be developed across the planning area through 2020. Compared to 

Alternative A, this is 274 or 22% fewer wind turbines. However, compared to Alternatives B and C, this 

would be nearly 8 times as many turbines allowed, mainly because disturbance restrictions that would be 

applied to wind energy development. 

Restrictions regarding noise levels would have the same impact to minerals as under Alternative A.

Impacts to coal leasing, oil shale leasing, and other solid minerals (Map 2-27) would be the same as 

Alternative A. Withdrawing lands from locatable mineral entry (Map 2-22) would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts from closing areas to saleable minerals would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A.

4.8.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, 892,090 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing (Map 2-8 and Table 4-42),

which would be the same as under Alternative A. Although closed areas would be the same, other 

restrictions, such as NSO on 689,300 acres and CSU on 6,146,570 acres within sage-grouse core and 

general habitat would reduce the number of projected oil, gas, and CBNG wells projected under 

Alternative E, but less than the decreases that would occur under Alternatives B and C. In total, 12,355 oil 

and gas wells (10% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,462 CBNG wells (11% fewer than Alternative A) are 

projected over the life of the plan under Alternative E. 

Allowing or prohibiting geophysical exploration would have the same impact to mineral resources as 

described under Alternative A.

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. Density 

limitations of one location per 640 acres and a 5% disturbance cap within core habitat would have 

impacts similar to those described under Alternative D, but on a larger area. Less mineral development 

would be allowed to occur under this Alternative than Alternatives A and D. Prohibiting surface 

occupancy and disruptive activities within 0.6 miles of occupied leks and seasonal restrictions in sagegrouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas would expand the seasonal 

timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A. Timing and distance impacts would be greater 

than Alternative D, but less than Alternatives B and C.

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impact to minerals as 

Alternative A.

Applying required design features as mandatory stipulations and conservation objectives would have the 

same impact to minerals as under Alternative B.

Applying BMPs to federal mineral estate where the surface ownership is nonfederal would have the same 

impact as under Alternative B.

Avoiding primary and secondary roads within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks and 

other new roads within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within core habitat would 
Chapter 4—Minerals and Energy Draft EIS 

4-112 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

have similar impacts as Alternative A, except impacts would be increased because there would be fewer 

places where new roads needed for mineral development could be built. Loss of access to mineral 

development under this alternative would be greater than Alternative D, but less than Alternatives B 

and C.

The management of ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) (Map 2-13) within core and general habitat 

(Map 2-13) would be the same as under Alternative A. The management of ROW corridors (Map 2-36) 

would have the same impact to minerals as Alternative A.

The development of wind energy would have a similar impact as Alternative B (Map 2-33), except there 

would be 5,002,520 acres closed to wind development (compared to 5,000,400 acres under Alternative B 

and 437,120 acres under Alternative A). Approximately 127 wind turbines would be developed across the 

planning area through 2020 (the same as Alternatives B and D). Compared to Alternative A, there would 

be 1,127 fewer wind turbines (or 90% fewer). 

Limiting noise levels case-by-case would have similar impacts as Alternative A, except at the 0.6 mile 

perimeter of the lek, which would have similar impacts to Alternative B due to similar noise restrictions 

from March 1 to May 15. 

Impacts to coal leasing, oil shale leasing, and other solid minerals would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to locatable mineral entry (Map 2-22) would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to saleable minerals (e.g. mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits) (Map 2-18) 

would be the same as under Alternative D. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-113

4.9 PALEONTOLOGY

This section presents potential impacts on paleontological resources from management actions for sagegrouse habitat, as presented in Chapter 2. Because public lands within the planning area often have more 

bedrock exposures than adjacent private lands that have historically been homesteaded for ranching 

purposes, there may actually be more potential for vertebrate or scientifically significant paleontological 

resources on public land than adjacent private lands. 

The analysis of environmental impacts is based on interdisciplinary team knowledge of resources and the 

project area, review of existing literature, and information provided by other agencies and institutions. 

Effects are quantified where possible. In cases where quantitative data are not readily available, best 

professional judgment or qualitative assessments are used to describe impacts. 

4.9.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on paleontological resources are as follows: 

• Changes in acres where surface disturbance activities are restricted or prohibited 

• Extent of allowable development (e.g., minerals, ROWs) 

• Changes in human presence in areas where paleontological resources occur. 

4.9.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Scientifically significant fossils will continue to be found within the planning area throughout 

several geologic formations exposed at the surface. 

• Inventories required prior to surface disturbance in high-probability areas would result in the 

identification and evaluation of previously undiscovered resources, which the BLM and Forest 

Service would then manage accordingly. 

• Surface disturbing and other disruptive activities could dislocate or damage paleontological 

resources that were not discovered prior to surface disturbance (i.e., unanticipated discoveries). 

Destruction of these resources would result in a loss of scientific information and preclude 

interpretation of the resource values to the public. 

• In some cases, surface-disturbing activities, such as mineral development, can have the effect of 

exposing fossils that would have otherwise remained undiscovered. 

4.9.3 Alternative A 

Management actions under this alternative which prohibit or restrict surface disturbance within the 

planning area could protect paleontological resources within those areas (Map 2-1). Unmitigated surfacedisturbing activities could damage or destroy paleontological resources that were unknown before that 

activity. Surveys performed prior to surface disturbance will not always locate all fossil material; 

therefore, surface disturbances in surveyed areas may still damage undiscovered paleontological 

resources. Under Alternative A, surface disturbing activities would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and 

restricted on 437,680 acres. 

Not allowing new ROW corridors within sage-grouse core and general habitat areas would protect those 

areas from potential surface disturbance and sub-surface disturbance from ROWs in those corridors that 
Chapter 4—Paleontology Draft EIS 

4-114 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

could damage or destroy paleontological resources as a result of developing or using those corridors. 

Designating corridors would not directly impact paleontological resources; the impact is derived from the 

use of those corridors. Using existing ROW corridors and restricting the width of those corridors would 

limit disturbance to those areas but still impact paleontological resources within the corridor. For 

management actions that allow the width of the corridor to expand, additional damage to paleontological 

resources could occur. Under this alternative, 285,930 acres would be designated as exclusion areas for 

ROWs while 2,460,340 acres would be designated as avoidance areas for ROWs. Excluding ROWs from 

specific areas would protect paleontological resources in those areas from surface disturbances that could 

be caused by potential development. Avoiding surface disturbance could also protect paleontological 

resources if the avoidance restrictions dissuade surface disturbing activities in these areas. If the 

avoidance stipulations result in fewer surface disturbing activities, the paleontological resources in these 

areas would be protected from incidental disturbance. However, because the stipulation is merely to 

“avoid” surface disturbance, such activities could still take place under certain conditions. Therefore, 

these avoidance areas would not provide complete protection on paleontological resources in these areas. 

Related to the protection associated with the avoidance stipulations, there may also be fewer 

paleontological inventories in these areas associated with surface disturbing activities. 

Allowing wind energy development within sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that are 

currently unavailable to protect sensitive resources, could impact paleontological resources in those areas 

that are not protected (Map 2-29). The primary impact from wind energy development would be surface 

disturbance during construction and maintenance of the turbines that could damage or destroy 

paleontological resources in those areas. Under this alternative, 437,120 acres would be closed to wind 

development and 3,888,930 acres would be restricted from wind energy development. MET towers would 

cause similar impacts to those of wind energy turbines with respect to surface disturbance and damage to 

paleontological resources. Because wind turbine and MET sites are ROW actions, the locations and acres 

in which these could occur are the same as those described above for ROWs. 

Since fossils are considered part of the surface estate, disposal of public surface containing known or 

previously undocumented paleontological resources results in an adverse impact to paleontological 

resources due to the loss of fossils and the lack of protective measures for paleontological resources when 

under private ownership. Conversely, any management action that allows acquisition of lands within the 

planning area containing paleontological resources results in a beneficial impact to paleontological 

resources due to the protective measures offered under federal ownership and the gain of public fossils. 

Areas containing active livestock grazing allotments could impact the paleontological resources in those 

areas. Removing livestock, creating seasonal stipulations and other methods to restrict use, but still allow 

grazing, could reduce the level of damage to paleontological resources. Damage from livestock grazing to 

paleontological resources could occur from trampling and increased erosion of soil. Monitoring of the 

range and vegetation to ensure land health standards are being met could assist in protecting 

paleontological resources if livestock grazing is reduced. Considering livestock water developments and 

range improvements to maintain or improve resource conditions, enhance livestock distribution, or both, 

could create surface disturbance that could damage paleontological resources. However, improving range 

conditions to reduce erosion could indirectly benefit paleontological resources. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas (Map 2-4) would create surface 

disturbance that could impact paleontological resources in those areas. However, the impact would not 

occur until a fluid mineral project has begun development. Oil and gas leasing would be closed on 

871,780 acres while NSO stipulations would be in place on 40,980 acres and CSU stipulations on 

5,015,210 acres. Paleontological resources could be impacted by the development of 13,653 oil and gas 

wells and 2,758 CBNG wells. Total surface disturbance for these wells would be 130,330 acres for oil and 

gas and 39,050 acres for CBNG wells. Although surface disturbance does not automatically infer damage 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-115

to paleontological resources for all of these areas and acres, it is anticipated that damage would occur on 

land where paleontological resources exist. 

Establishing mitigation measures as a condition of approval for an APD, such as offsite placement of 

facilities, remote control monitoring, restricted or prohibited surface use, and constructing multiple wells 

from a single pad, would help to protect paleontological resources from surface disturbance. Also, 

working with project proponents to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive 

resources could protect paleontological resources from potential damage. 

Areas within the planning area that are open to mineral materials, locatable and solid leasable minerals 

development could have an impact on paleontological resources found in those areas, depending on the 

extent of development and surface disturbance. Impacts from developing these minerals would be the 

same as those described for fluid minerals, but would vary somewhat in size and intensity. Areas closed 

to mineral materials (Map 2-14) on 274,860 acres, locatable minerals (Map 2-19) on 1,677,420 acres and 

non-energy, solid leasable minerals (Map 2-24) on 234,230 acres, would indirectly protect 

paleontological resources from surface and sub-surface disturbance by not allowing development in these 

areas. 

Allowing dispersed recreation in the planning area would not require paleontological authorization and 

would not result in significant impacts on paleontological resources. While the recreational collecting of 

common invertebrate fossils is permissible, the uninformed and/or willful collection of significant and 

therefore protected paleontological resources could result in the damage to or complete removal of 

significant fossil resources from the public lands. 

Transportation planning that provides for access to achieve multiple-use goals while providing for 

protection of resources could impact paleontological resources through surface disturbing activities 

related to the construction of new roads (to provide access to new mineral, wind or ROW developments 

for construction and/or maintenance purposes). This would also increase access to areas of public lands. 

Without sufficient law enforcement associated with recreational activities, actions such as off-road travel, 

inadvertent vandalism and unpermitted collecting could result in a loss of paleontological resources and 

information. 

The range of alternatives allows for limited treatment of vegetation, including mechanical, wildland or 

prescribed fire use, and chemical methods. Wildland fire use and prescribed fire could result in direct and 

indirect impacts on paleontological resources. Fire could cause the direct destruction of organic fossil 

remains. The removal of vegetative cover by fire would accelerate erosion in the short-term, thereby 

creating indirect impacts, although these impacts are negligible compared to similar impacts that occur by 

natural processes. The restrictions on fuels management, wildland fire management, and ESR would limit 

the adverse impacts of exposed ground surface and actions taken for fire suppression in Greater SageGrouse habitat that could expose fossils, limiting the potential for collecting scientifically important 

paleontological resources. Indirect impacts, such as soil or wind erosion, could expose more fossils. 

Fewer restrictions on core habitat would have greater impacts on protection of paleontological resources 

with greater fire suppression actions. Restrictions on fuels management, wildland fire management, and 

ESR designed to protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would decrease paleontological scientific 

knowledge due to fewer paleontological surveys and incidental excavations. Fire could cause the direct 

destruction of organic fossil remains. Existing sites within core habitat would have greater protections, 

preserving known discovery sites for future scientific study. The fewest restrictions on core habitat would 

have greater impacts on protection of paleontological resources in Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Paleontology Draft EIS 

4-116 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Damage to paleontological resources could occur as a result of surface disturbances caused by wildland 

fire suppression activities (e.g., construction of fire lines, bulldozing access roads, and general movement 

of heavy equipment) and indirect instances of increased erosion, although fire itself has nearly no effect. 

Because of the unplanned nature of wildland fires, the impacts on paleontological resources from 

wildland fire suppression activities would generally be unmitigated. Ground-disturbing activities during 

firefighting actions and post fire rehabilitation activities could damage or destroy known and unknown 

significant paleontological resources. 

Utilizing an integrated management technique approach with the goal of minimizing the potential for 

unplanned wildland fires or that lessen suppression activities would indirectly protect paleontological 

resources. Increased erosion from loss of vegetation following wildland fires could accelerate exposure 

and deterioration of paleontological resources. Identification of known localities and sensitive areas 

during fire planning efforts would allow for possible avoidance or modification of fire suppression 

activities, such as reducing the use of heavy equipment in paleontological sensitive areas. 

4.9.4 Alternative B 

Management actions under this alternative which prohibit or restrict surface disturbance within the 

planning area could protect paleontological resources within those areas. Unmitigated surface-disturbing 

activities could damage or destroy paleontological resources that were unknown before that activity. 

Surveys performed prior to surface disturbance will not always locate all fossil material; therefore, 

surface disturbances in surveyed areas may still damage undiscovered paleontological resources. 

Not authorizing new transmission corridors would have the same impact to paleontological resources as 

not allowing new ROWs in newly designated corridors under Alternative A. Managing priority sagegrouse habitat areas as exclusion areas for new BLM ROWs or Forest Service SUAs would also have the 

same impact as managing ROW exclusion areas in Alternative A; however, the number of acres protected 

would be greatly expanded (Map 2-10). Under this alternative, 5,141,340 acres would be designated as 

exclusion areas for ROWs, while 6,390,010 acres would be designated as avoidance areas for ROWs 

(Map 2-10). Impacts from managing areas as ROW avoidance would be the same as those described in 

Alternative A; however, the number of acres would be greatly expanded. 

Evaluating and taking advantage of opportunities to bury existing power lines within priority sage-grouse 

habitat could potentially impact paleontological resources through surface and sub-surface disturbance 

that could damage or destroy these resources. 

Retaining public ownership of sage-grouse priority habitat could provide greater protection to 

paleontological resources from potential disturbance as opposed to identifying acres of public lands for 

disposal within sage-grouse habitat in Alternative A.

Identifying areas where acquisitions or conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse would have the 

same impact on paleontological resources as acquisitions in Alternative A.

Closing priority sage-grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, as opposed to allowing leasing in 

Alternative A, could protect paleontological resources that may be found in those areas from potential 

surface and sub-surface disturbance (Map-2-5). 

Allowing geophysical exploration within sage-grouse priority habitat could impact paleontological 

resources in these areas through surface and sub-surface disturbing activities associated with geophysical 

exploration. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-117

Limiting OHV use to designated roads and trails in areas that are currently open to cross-country OHV 

would decrease impacts compared to Alternative A. Vegetation loss would be eliminated as the areas of 

existing disturbance would continue to be used, with no additional loss from riding on undisturbed areas. 

Impacts from OHV use to vegetation and soils would be concentrated to areas that have already been 

disturbed and hardened, reducing the potential to impact paleontological resources. 

Increased restrictions on sage-grouse priority habitat would have fewer impacts on paleontological 

resources. Prescribed fire would not be allowed in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Management actions for 

wildland fire management would have the same impacts as those in Alternative A.

Developing and implementing sage-grouse monitoring plans would have the same impact as those in 

Alternative A.

Managing priority sage-grouse habitats so that discrete anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3% of 

the total sage-grouse habitat would help to protect paleontological resources from the same disturbance in 

these areas. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitats would help to protect 

paleontological resources from impacts associated with surface disturbance. 

4.9.5 Alternative C 

Relocating existing designated ROW corridors crossing sage-grouse priority habitat would have the same 

impact as described in Alternative B for this same action. 

Managing sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA 

permits would have the same impact as Alternative B; however, the area of potential impact would be 

greatly expanded from 5,141,340 acres in Alternative B to 11,531,340 acres in Alternative C (Map 2-11). 

Prohibiting wind energy development in sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas would reduce 

surface disturbance, potentially protecting paleontological resources in those areas. Siting wind energy 

development at least five miles from active sage-grouse leks could also protect paleontological resources 

in those buffer areas. 

Avoiding new meteorological towers within one mile of occupied sagebrush obligate habitats would have 

the same impacts as those described in Alternative A for the same action. 

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied sage-grouse habitats could reduce surface 

disturbance, potentially protecting paleontological resources in those areas from damage. 

Retaining public ownership of sage-grouse priority habitat would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative B for the same action. 

Identifying areas where acquisitions or conservation easements would benefit sage-grouse habitat would 

have the same impacts as those described in Alternative B.

Acquiring important private lands in BLM-designated ACECs and Forest Service Sage-Grouse Special 

Areas could help protect these areas from potential surface disturbance that could cause damage to 

paleontological resources. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat could protect paleontological resources 

in these areas from potential damage by livestock trampling. 
Chapter 4—Paleontology Draft EIS 

4-118 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Closing sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing would have the same 

impacts as those described in Alternative B for the same action. However, the number of closed acres 

would be expanded to 16,878,220 acres (Map 2-6), allowing for protection of paleontological resources 

over a much larger area. 

Not issuing new geophysical permits within priority and general sage-grouse habitat could reduce 

potential surface and sub-surface disturbance that would result from these activities. This, in turn, could 

protect paleontological resources from damage within those areas. 

Prohibiting construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater 

could help protect paleontological resources from activities that could damage or destroy these resources. 

Finding all surface mining of coal unsuitable in sage-grouse priority habitat could protect paleontological 

resources in these areas from potential surface disturbing activities that would damage or destroy these 

resources (Map 2-26). 

Closing priority habitat to non-energy leasable mineral leasing would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative B for the same action. 

Recommending withdrawal from mineral entry in priority habitat would have the same impact on 

paleontological resources as Alternative B (Map 2-21). 

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat areas to mineral material exploration would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative B (Map 2-16). 

Designating all sage-grouse priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas as sage-grouse 

conservation ACECs/SIAs, as well as designating large ACECs, could indirectly protect paleontological 

resources in these areas that might otherwise be open to surface disturbing activities. 

Designating all OHV open areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to designated roads and 

trails would have the same impacts as those in Alternative B.

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative B.

Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse priority and general habitat could protect paleontological resources from 

damage that could potentially result from such activities within these buffer areas. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitats would have the same 

impacts as those in Alternative B for the same action. 

4.9.6 Alternative D 

Allowing new transmission projects in existing designated utility corridors (and outside existing corridors 

if activity will not cause declines in sage-grouse populations) within sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitat areas could impact paleontological resources through potential surface disturbance, if developed. 

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits would 

have similar impacts to those described in Alternatives A, B and C, however the area impacted would be 

more similar to Alternative B when comparing number of acres (Map 2-12). Under this alternative, 

5,141,340 acres would be designated as exclusion areas and 1,211,030 acres would be avoidance areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Paleontology 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-119

Prohibiting wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impact to 

paleontological resources as those described in Alternative C (Map 2-32), with the exception that if it can 

be demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat 

populations, the activity would not be prohibited. In these cases, the impacts would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A.

Avoiding new meteorological towers within one mile of occupied sagebrush obligate habitats would have 

the same impacts as those described in Alternative A under the same action. 

Retaining ownership of sage-grouse core habitats would have the same impacts as those in Alternative B 

under the same action. 

Acquiring lands based on a variety of economic resources criteria could help to protect paleontological 

resources that might be found in those areas by placing them under federal land management policies and 

practices. 

Prohibiting fluid gas leasing on 964,860 acres (Map 2-7) would help protect paleontological resources 

from potential surface and sub-surface disturbance in these areas that would result from oil and gas 

development. Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative A and E with respect to the amount of 

acres closed. Solid mineral leasing would be prohibited on 234,230 acres (Map 2-27), which is the same 

as Alternatives A and E. Impacts from solid mineral leasing would be similar to those described in 

Alternative A. Considering leasing of non-energy leasable minerals within sage-grouse core habitat, 

except in areas where sensitive resources are located would also have similar impacts to those described 

in Alternative A. 

Withdrawing portions of sage-grouse core habitat from mineral entry would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative A for the same action (Map 2-22). 

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as open to mineral material exploration, sales and free use 

permits would have the same impacts as those described in Alternative A.

Impacts to paleontological resources associated with dispersed recreation would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A.

Impacts to paleontological resources associated with travel management would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A.

Prohibiting or restricting surface occupancy within one-quarter mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks would help to protect paleontological resources from surface disturbing activities within 

these buffer areas. 

4.9.7 Alternative E 

Allowing new transmission projects within the two-mile wide transmission line corridor through sagegrouse core habitat would have similar impacts to those described in Alternatives A and D under the same 

action. The additional stipulations presented in this alternative would not necessarily reduce the impacts 

to paleontological resources, other than reducing some of the areas where surface disturbance would be 

allowed from ROW or SUA activities. However, total acres that would be excluded from ROW activities 

(285,930 acres) would be much less than in Alternatives B, C and D (Map 2-13). 
Chapter 4—Paleontology Draft EIS 

4-120 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Managing sage-grouse core and general habitat areas as avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits 

would have similar impacts to paleontological resources as those described in Alternative A, except the 

area in which ROWs/SUA permits are avoided would be increased to 6,065,960 acres (Map 2-13). 

Prohibiting wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts as 

those described in Alternative D. Total acres closed to wind development would be nearly the same as 

Alternatives B and D (Map 2-33). Total acres where wind development would be restricted would be 

approximately the same as Alternative B, with similar impacts. 

Retaining public ownership of sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impacts as those described 

in Alternative D.

Impacts to paleontological resources from allowing fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

would be the same as those described in Alternative A under the same action (Map 2-8). 

Impacts from coal surface mining methods would be the same as those described in Alternative D. 

Impacts from non-energy, solid leasable minerals would be the same as those in A and D, with the same 

amount of acres closed (Map 2-28). When compared with Alternatives B and C, Alternative E would 

protect fewer acres (234,230 acres as opposed to 5,000,400 acres) from surface and sub-surface 

disturbance that would result from solid leasable mineral development. 

Areas open to mineral material exploration, sales and free use permits (Map 2-18) would have the same 

impacts as those described in Alternative A, D and E, with some additional stipulations that could provide 

additional protection to paleontological resources from surface disturbing activities related to mineral 

material development. 

Management of dispersed recreation under this alternative would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative A.

Designating all OHV open areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to existing roads and 

trails would have the same impacts as those described in Alternatives B and C. 

Prohibiting surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks in core and connectivity habitat areas could help protect 

paleontological resources from damage within those buffer areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Recreation Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-121

4.10 RECREATION RESOURCES

This section presents potential impacts on recreational activities and the recreation program from 

implementing management actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning recreation are 

described in Chapter 3.

The BLM and the Forest Service provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism 

under the concept of multiple-use management. Recreation activities include casual public recreation on 

both developed and undeveloped sites, permitted recreation activities and events through the use of 

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs), and the management of Special Recreation Management Areas 

(SRMAs) within the BLM. Impacts to recreation stem from the removal or restriction of recreation 

activities or from conflicting activities that result in a decline in the recreational experience. 

Although OHV use is a recreational activity, impacts to OHV use is closely associated with impacts to 

transportation road networks. Because of this, impacts to OHV use are discussed in the Transportation 

and Access section of this document. 

4.10.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on recreation are as follows: 

• The number of special recreation permits (BLM) and special use authorizations (Forest Service) 

issued 

• The amount of access to recreation areas 

• The number and acreage of OHV “open” areas 

• The mileage of designated routes and trails 

• The amount of surface disturbing and disruptive activities, non-recreation buildings and facilities, 

and human presence 

• The amount of use conflicts 

• The level of visitor satisfaction/recreation user benefits. 

4.10.2 Assumptions 

This impact analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The demand for most recreation activities will continue to increase (Wyoming State Office of 

Travel and Tourism 2006; Haas 2002; Cole 1996; Mueller et al. 2002). 

• Most recreation use in the planning area is casual use. 

• Most recreation use in the planning area is dispersed (i.e. undeveloped) recreation. 

4.10.3 Alternative A 

Allowing recreation through special recreation permits (BLM) and special use authorizations (Forest 

Service) allows the continued use of public lands for recreation purposes. Recreation uses, such as 

hunting, camping, driving recreational OHVs, and many other specialized uses of public lands are 

common within all of the field offices of the planning area. In some field offices, limitations may be 

placed on recreation permitting in order to protect some sage-grouse habitat areas, which could limit the 

use of certain lands for recreation purposes. 
Chapter 4—Recreation Resources Draft EIS 

4-122 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Limiting travel to designated routes would close most of the planning area to cross-country travel. Most 

recreational activities would take place on routes that would be designated, once route designation 

planning has occurred, but some areas would be affected. Impacts to OHV use are discussed in more 

detail in the Transportation and Access section of this document. 

“Open” OHV areas (i.e. Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area) would increase the availability of motorized recreation 

opportunities. Other recreation opportunities in these areas would be diminished because some 

recreational uses conflict with the noise, speed, and dust of motorized vehicles, such as hunting, hiking, 

biking, and backpacking. 

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 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. Development may also reduce populations of game species, which could reduce 

hunting success levels and the overall quality of hunting experiences. Hunting and fishing account for the 

most visitor use days of any other recreational activity in the planning area. Visual impacts of surface 

disturbance reduce the naturalness of back-country recreation and reduce opportunities for solitude. 

Traffic congestion from mineral development also reduces the quality of recreation experiences to the 

point where displacement may occur. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 68,550 acres and restricting surface disturbance on 437,680

acres would reduce the overall level of surface disturbance resulting from permitted activities. Most 

recreation uses would be enhanced from such actions, especially primitive and undeveloped types of 

recreation, which rely on quiet solitude for user satisfaction. For example, reducing surface disturbance, 

primarily from oil, gas, and wind development, would also reduce the impacts of increased traffic, higher 

noise levels, visual intrusions, and public health and safety concerns. 

Density and disturbance restrictions, which vary by field office, could further restrict the development of 

recreation infrastructure in some areas. Trailheads and camping areas that contain access roads, parking 

lots, and/or buildings such as restrooms would be held to the same restrictions. Future recreation 

infrastructure development such as this could be limited in some areas; however, there is often some 

latitude on the location of such infrastructure. Impacts could be avoided by relocating recreation facilities 

away from sage-grouse leks. However, density restrictions would also prevent surface disturbance and 

disruption from development activities and would enhance recreation opportunities such as hunting, 

fishing, motorized OHV use, camping, and hiking by removing use conflicts such as unsightly facilities 

and structures, fences, additional road traffic and congestion, and noise. 

Seasonal timing limitations on occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, winter 

habitat, and winter concentration areas and seasonal restrictions on disruptive activities would reduce the 

level of development in these areas during the time periods listed in Chapter 2. Reducing development 

activities allows for fewer conflicts with recreational activities. Although these restrictions would not 

impact the casual use of most recreational activities, they could impact SRPs/SUAs. Hunting outfitting 

and guiding services make up the bulk of SRPs/SUAs issued across the planning area. This could place a 

temporal or seasonal restriction on SRPs/SUAs, if the area of interest and hunting season coincided with 

sage-grouse leks, nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, and winter habitat during closures. However, the 

impact could be low because typical hunting seasons for big game and other species occur in the fall, 

which would not coincide with the winter and spring restrictions required for sage-grouse. For casual use 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Recreation Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-123

recreation, a reduction in development and traffic during these times and seasons would create more 

opportunities for solitude and pristine and undeveloped recreation. 

Applying ROW exclusion (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (2,460,340 acres) (Map 2-9) within core 

and general habitat and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas 

(Map 2-36) would serve to consolidate utility ROWs and structures. This would reduce the extent of 

disturbed areas, which would reduce visual impacts to recreation opportunities and enhance user 

experience where solitude and a pristine setting are part of the expectation. 

Allowing mineral development such as oil and gas leasing; coal leasing, non-energy leasable minerals 

(Map 2-24), withdrawing locatable mineral from entry (Map 2-19), and closing mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-14) would increase human presence and the use the heavy 

equipment in sage-grouse core habitat areas, which would decrease the pristine nature of some 

recreational activities. User conflicts between mineral development activities and recreation could occur, 

such as traffic congestion, visual impacts, and dust and noise. Oil and gas leasing allowances would result 

in the development of 13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells during the planning period. This 

would cause an estimated 130,330 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of long-term 

disturbance. 

Allowing wind energy development in the planning area (Map 2-39) would reduce the visual qualities of 

the landscape, which reduces many visitor recreational experiences, especially activities where quiet 

solitude and natural settings are a part of the experience. Construction of wind turbines could also 

noticeably increase traffic and congestion in some areas, which would further reduce the quiet and 

solitude of many recreation experiences. A total of 1,254 wind turbines are projected to be constructed 

across the planning area through 2020. 

4.10.4 Alternative B 

Allowing recreation through SRPs (BLM) and SUAs (Forest Service) that only have beneficial or neutral 

effects to priority habitat areas could reduce recreational uses of public lands discussed under 

Alternative A.

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads and trails could make some otherwise 

available travel routes unavailable. Recreation areas could be harder to access and motorized recreation 

could see closure of routes that might eventually continue to be open once the designation process has 

completed. 

Designating all but the sand portion of OHV “open” areas as limited to designated roads and trails would 

delete much of the cross-country motorized recreation opportunities within the planning area. There 

would be considerably fewer opportunities than under Alternative A.

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas, would 

have similar impacts as prohibiting or restricting surface disturbance under Alternative A.

NSO restrictions on new leases within priority habitat and limiting permitted disturbances to one per 

section with no more than 3% surface disturbance would reduce the total amount of surface disturbance 

allowed in priority habitat, compared to density limitations discussed under Alternative A. Recreation 

taking place in these areas would have fewer impacts from development activities, more quiet and 

solitude, and better opportunities for hunting large game. The disturbance limitations could affect 

recreation facilities, if any were needed within priority habitat areas. 
Chapter 4—Recreation Resources Draft EIS 

4-124 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on core habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early broodrearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would have similar impacts as under 

Alternative A, except to a greater extent due to increased areas where surface disturbance is seasonally 

limited and surface disturbing activities are prohibited. This could further limit access for permitted 

recreational opportunities. Casual recreation would not be impacted. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority sage-grouse habitat (5,141,340 acres), expanding 

avoidance to all general habitat (6,390,010 acres), and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to 

designated corridors throughout the planning area (Map 2-10 and Map 2-36) would reduce the impacts to 

recreation discussed in Alternative A, as more area would be left natural for solitary and undisturbed 

recreation opportunities. 

Applying oil and gas lease stipulations (Map 2-5) would reduce the short-term surface disturbance by 

20% from Alternative A to 104,050 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 14% to 33,530 acres. 

Overall, 11,555 oil and gas wells (15% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,154 CBNG wells (22% fewer 

than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative B. This would reduce use 

conflicts with recreation discussed under Alternative A. Finding coal leasing unsuitable; closing nonenergy leasable minerals (Map 2-24); withdrawing locatable mineral from entry (Map 2-19); and closing 

mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-14) in priority habitat areas would reduce 

the occurrence of these types of mineral development compared with Alternative A, which would reduce 

conflicts with recreation activities, such as dust, noise, and traffic congestion. 

Wind energy development as discussed under Alternative A would be eliminated within priority habitat 

and limited within general habitat (Map 2-30). For the entire planning area, the number of wind turbines 

would be reduced from 1,254 under Alternative A to 127 (a 90% reduction). The removal and reduction 

of potential wind energy development would reduce visual impacts from remote and back-country 

recreation opportunities. 

4.10.5 Alternative C 

Allowing recreation through SRPs (BLM) and SUAs (Forest Service) would be the same as under 

Alternative B, except seasonally prohibiting non-motorized recreation within 4 miles of active leks would 

eliminate recreation in those areas during closed seasons. 

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts from OHV use, particularly in areas designated as “open” under Alternative A would be the same 

as described under Alternative B.

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas (timing 

and distance stipulations) would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would be the same as Alternative B, 

except that requirements would be extended to disruptive activities as well, which could displace more 

types of permitted special recreation uses, such as large group activities. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority and general sage-grouse habitat (11,531,340 acres, 

expanded from Alternative B) (Map 2-11) and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Recreation Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-125

corridors (same as Alternative B) (Map 2-36) would reduce the impacts discussed under Alternative A, 

more so than under Alternative B.

Oil and gas leasing would not be open on any areas within core and general sage-grouse habitat under 

Alternative C (Map 2-6). This would remove impacts discussed under Alternative A for all, except valid 

existing leases. This would reduce the short-term surface disturbance by 35% from Alternative A to 

85,140 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 31% to 27,030 acres. Overall, 9,533 oil and gas 

wells (30% fewer than Alternative A) and 1,594 CBNG wells (42% fewer than Alternative A) are 

projected over the life of the plan under Alternative C. Impacts discussed above from minerals 

management on recreation would be the least under this alternative. Impacts from coal leasing; nonenergy leasable minerals (Map 2-25); locatable mineral entry (Map 2-20); and mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-15) would have the same impact on recreation as under 

Alternative B.

Siting wind turbines at least five miles from active leks could reduce visual impacts to recreation from 

wind turbines in some areas, but could increase them in areas where there are no active leks (Map 2-31). 

For the entire planning area, the number of wind turbines would be reduced from 1,254 under 

Alternative A to 127 (a 90% reduction and the same as Alternative B). The removal and reduction of 

potential wind energy would significantly decrease visual, noise, and traffic impacts to recreation 

discussed under Alternative A.

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied habitat would decrease impacts to recreation 

in these areas. Solar projects create visual impacts to back-country recreational areas. Limiting them in 

natural areas would reduce conflict with recreation uses. 

4.10.6 Alternative D 

Allowing recreation through SRPs (BLM) and SUAs (Forest Service) on a case-by-case basis would be 

effectively the same impact as under Alternative A. Some types of recreation, specifically where large 

groups are involved could be eliminated in sage-grouse core habitat areas. 

Limiting motorized travel to designated routes would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV use would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from restricting surface disturbance (Map 2-2) would have similar impacts as described in 

Alternative A, except 75,870 acres would be restricted and none would be prohibited. This could allow 

the impacts described under Alternative A to increase in some areas, however restrictions would be 

increased within sage-grouse core habitat areas, which would reduce recreation conflicts with 

development activities. 

Density limitations of three locations per 640 acres and a 9% disturbance cap within core habitat would 

limit noise, visual intrusions, user conflict, and traffic congestion impacts from development activities, 

but less so than NSO restrictions under Alternatives B and C. 

Seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas 

would expand the seasonal timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A in some areas and 

remove them in others. Overall, there would be more area with these limitations, but the types of impacts 

would be the same. 
Chapter 4—Recreation Resources Draft EIS 

4-126 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Managing 5,141,340 acres of core habitat as ROW exclusion areas, with 1,211,030 acres as avoidance 

(Map 2-12) outside core areas would increase the effects described under Alternative A for the planning 

area. Inside core areas, impacts to recreation would be the same as Alternatives B and C, but in general 

habitat areas, impacts would be the same as Alternative A. The management of ROW corridors (Map 2-

36) would be the same as Alternative A.

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 15,974,241 acres under Alternative D (Map 2-7), which would 

be about 1% less than under Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, areas closed to oil and gas leasing 

would be expanded to include Raven Creek in the Newcastle Field Office and three areas in the Pinedale 

Field Office. This would reduce impacts from minerals management on recreation compared to 

Alternative A, but less so than Alternatives B and C. Estimated short-term surface disturbance would be 

reduced by 6% from Alternative A to 122,910 acres and long-term disturbance would be reduced by 

about 3% to 37,720 acres. Overall, 13,083 oil and gas wells (only 4% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,686 

CBNG wells (only 3% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under 

Alternative D. Impacts from coal leasing would be of the same type as described under Alternative A, but 

on less area. Coal leasing would occur on more area than Alternatives B and C, thus the impacts on 

recreation would be greater than those alternatives. Non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-26) would be 

allowed on approximately the same area as Alternative A, but with more mitigation aimed at protecting 

sagebrush habitat, which would reduce impacts to recreation as well. Locatable mineral entry (Map 2-21), 

mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-16) would have the same impact to 

recreation as under Alternative A.

Limiting wind turbines in core habitat, unless it can be shown that sage-grouse would not decline, would 

reduce the total number of wind turbines in the planning area (Map 2-32) to 980 (a 22% reduction from 

Alternative A). This would reduce recreation conflicts and visual impacts, specifically in core sage-grouse 

habitat areas. 

4.10.7 Alternative E 

Allowing recreation through special recreation permits (BLM) and special use authorizations (Forest 

Service) except where negative impacts to core habitat couldn’t be mitigated would have similar impact 

as under Alternative D.

Limiting motorized travel to designated routes would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV use would be the same as Alternative A, except in non-sand dune portions of “open” 

areas within sage-grouse core habitat, which would become limited to existing roads and trails. Such 

areas could see fewer visual impacts from OHV use, but would also experience a decrease in the amount 

of area open for motorized recreation. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 304,970 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impacts as 

described in Alternative A, except 236,420 more acres (over three times as many) would be prohibited. 

Restricting surface disturbance on 21,950 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impact as described in 

Alternative A, except impacts would occur on 415,730 fewer acres, mainly from prohibiting surface 

disturbance on lands that only have restrictions under Alternative A.

Density limitations of one location per 640 acres and a 5% disturbance cap within core habitat would 

have impacts similar to those described under Alternative D, but limitations to noise, visual intrusions, 

user conflicts, and traffic congestion would be expanded to a larger area. Less surface disturbance would 

be allowed, which would reduce conflicts with recreation activities. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Recreation Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-127

Seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas 

would expand the seasonal timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A. Timing and 

distance impacts would be greater than Alternative D, but less than Alternatives B and C. 

The management of ROW exclusion and avoidance areas within core and general habitat would be 

similar to the impacts described under Alternative A, except that there would be more avoidance areas, 

which could reduce impacts to recreation from ROWs. The management of ROW corridors would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Compared to Alternative A, oil and gas leasing restrictions, such as NSO and CSU would be greatly 

increased (Map 2-8), which would further reduce conflict with recreation activities as discussed under 

Alternative A. Estimated short-term surface disturbance associated with the development of oil and gas 

wells would be reduced by 14% from Alternative A to 112,330 acres and long-term disturbance would be 

reduced by about 9% to 35,430 acres. Overall, 12,355 oil and gas wells (10% fewer than Alternative A) 

and 2,462 CBNG wells (11% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under 

Alternative E. This would provide more protection than Alternatives A and D, but less than Alternatives 

B and C. 

The development of wind energy (Map 2-33) would have a similar impact as Alternative B, except there 

would be 5,002,520 acres closed to wind development (compared to 5,000,400 acres under Alternative B 

and 437,120 acres under Alternative A). Approximately 127 wind turbines would be developed across the 

planning area through 2020 (the same as Alternatives B and C). Compared to Alternative A, there would 

be 1,127 fewer wind turbines (or 90% fewer). This would significantly reduce the amount of surface 

disturbance associated with wind energy development, which would reduce visual impacts to recreation 

opportunities. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-128 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.11 SOCIOECONOMICS

This section presents potential economic and social impacts from management actions for sage-grouse 

habitat as presented in Chapter 2. Existing social and economic conditions and trends are summarized in 

Chapter 3 and detailed in the Socioeconomic Baseline Report (BLM 2012a).

Note that in an economic and social analysis, the term “impact” may construe either positive or negative 

outcomes. The “direction” of the impact should be clear from the context, but may also vary depending 

on the perspective of the reader. For instance, the generation of jobs and income is considered by most 

people to be a positive effect. Where jobs or income are lost (for instance, under one alternative compared 

to another), this will be explicitly indicated in the text below. Social impacts may be judged differently by 

different stakeholders. For example, stakeholders who tend to view natural resource development as 

essential to their communities may view rapid oil and gas development as aligned with their personal and 

community interests, while others who tend to favor conservation may feel it is contrary to their or their 

community’s interests. 

Some socioeconomic impacts are addressed quantitatively below. Many impacts, including both 

economic and social impacts, can only be addressed qualitatively, given available information and 

resources. 

4.11.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts to socioeconomics are as follows: 

• The number of new oil and gas wells drilled on federal mineral estate within sage-grouse habitat, 

as estimated in the RFD based on the constraints on future well drilling activity resulting from all 

management decisions. 

• The level of wind energy development activity (megawatts of new capacity developed) across the 

planning area, based on the relative availability of land for wind energy development given the 

constraints on such development resulting from all management decisions. 

• The estimated number of AUMs used within sage-grouse habitat, based on billed AUMs in recent 

years and management decisions that clearly and quantifiably affect permitted AUMs. 

• The number of recreation visits on BLM or Forest Service land within each field office or 

planning unit, based on estimates from the BLM Recreational Management Information System 

(RMIS) and the Forest Service National Visitors Use Monitoring (NVUM) program. 

• Management decisions that affect the costs of utility projects. 

• Management decisions regarding land tenure that affect the availability of land for economic 

activities (e.g., land disposals that allow for land development), or that affect the generation of 

property taxes or Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). 

• Management decisions that affect the costs of livestock grazing operations. 

• Management decisions that affect the practices of grazing operators in ways that may affect levels 

of grazing use (e.g., decisions regarding grazing in riparian areas). 

• Management decisions affecting voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits or grazing 

preference, to the extent that permits or AUMs are actually retired. 

• Management decisions affecting levels of geophysical exploration activity. 

• Management decisions that affect the costs of oil and gas development. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-129

• Management decisions that affect levels or costs of other mineral exploration and development, 

such as coal exploration, locatable mineral development, etc. 

• Management decisions that affect the costs of wind energy development. 

• Management decisions affecting recreational access and services provided for recreational users. 

• Management decisions that may result in BLM or operator expenditures (e.g., for reclamation of 

closed travel routes, reclamation of surface disturbances, fencing, vegetation treatments, wildland 

fire fuels management, etc.).

• Management decisions that may affect levels of non-market values, such as recreational use 

(consumer surplus), maintenance of open space and iconic values associated with ranching, 

preservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, and natural environmental functions that provide ecosystem 

service values to humans. 

• Levels of oil and gas development or wind energy development that could affect local population 

growth or the influx of temporary workers, and thus affect provision of public services, changes 

to community cohesiveness, and other social impacts. 

• Management decisions that affect quality of life, attitudes and beliefs, cultural values associated 

with certain land uses, and other social and cultural impacts of uses of BLM-administered lands 

and National Forest System Lands. 

4.11.2 Assumptions 

The analyses in this section are based on the following assumptions: 

• 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. 

• Employment and income (especially labor earnings) would continue to be a driver of economic 

and population growth in the socioeconomic study area. 

• Housing supply and costs and community infrastructure and services may be constraints on 

population growth in some locations within the planning area. 

• Tax and royalty revenues derived from activities on BLM-administered lands and National Forest 

System Lands would continue to have fiscal implications for communities within the 

socioeconomic study area, the state, and the Federal Government. 

• Activities and resources available in and around the planning area would continue to be important 

to the quality of life of current and future residents. 

• The pace and timing of mineral development activities is dependent on a variety of factors 

outside the management decisions of the BLM and Forest Service. These include national and 

international energy demand and prices, production factors within the planning area and business 

strategies of operators. The RFD projects expected rates of well drilling and the BLM Reservoir 

Management Group (RMG) has also estimated completion rates and production decline curves. 

Together these parameters allow for projection of future oil and gas production volumes for use 

in the economic impact analysis. Actual economic impacts could vary if actual development or 

production varies from the projections, or if prices change. 

• The pace and timing of wind energy development activities are also dependent on a variety of 

factors outside the management decisions of the BLM and Forest Service. These include demand 

for electricity, availability of transmission infrastructure capacity, prices for other energy sources 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-130 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

such as coal for electricity generation, costs of wind energy generation technologies, production 

factors within the planning area, and business strategies of operators. The analysis below uses a 

wind deployment scenario developed from multiple sources. Actual impacts could vary if the rate 

of development over the study period is different. 

• Demand for use of BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands for livestock 

grazing will continue through the study period. 

• Demand for use of BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands for recreational 

activities, including OHV use, throughout the planning area will remain steady or increase 

through the study period. 

Additional assumptions for the analysis are discussed in Appendix N, Technical Report: Social and 

Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. 

4.11.3 Methods of Analysis 

Economic Impact Analysis 

The analysis below of economic impacts that are reflected in market transactions uses two general 

approaches (see the later subsection regarding non-market values). These are quantitative and qualitative 

analyses. 

The quantitative analysis approach is used when possible given adequate available information and 

resources. In this study, adequate data was available for four resource uses: oil and gas, wind energy, 

livestock grazing, and recreation. The basic strategy used is to first identify the primary impacts of an 

economic activity affected by management decisions. For instance, primary impacts include expenditures 

made by oil and gas companies to drill a well, and to complete the well for production. Primary impacts 

also include the value of the oil and gas that is produced and sold. Next, where primary impacts can be 

quantified, they can generally also be run through an economic model to estimate the economic activity 

that is generated as the primary impact ripples through the economy; “upstream” to providers of goods 

and services necessary for production; and “downstream”, as income generated from production is spent 

by the households that receive the income. 

The upstream, downstream, and total effects are estimated in this study through use of the IMPLAN 

(IMPact analysis for PLANning) model. The IMPLAN model was originally developed by the Forest 

Service and is commonly used by the BLM and many other government and private sector organizations 

to estimate the total economic impacts of various activities, actions, and policies. The model tracks interindustry and consumer spending in a local (or regional) economy, allowing estimation of indirect and 

induced economic impacts in the local economy that result from the original economic activity or a 

change in economic activity. Indirect impacts result from local inter-industry purchases caused by the 

direct impact, and induced impacts results from re-spending of labor income (i.e., local purchases by 

households of employees and proprietors of the affected industries). The re-spending represented by 

indirect and induced impacts is often referred to as the “multiplier effect.” Outputs of the IMPLAN model 

include employment, labor income, and gross regional economic output. It is important to note that 

IMPLAN, based on some of its data sources, does not distinguish between full-time and part-time jobs. 

Sectors with higher labor earnings per job are likely to reflect a high proportion of full-time jobs, while 

sectors with low labor earnings per job often reflect a significant number of part-time jobs. 

The IMPLAN model uses data specific to the local economy wherever possible, but also uses some data 

based on national-level economic relationships. Therefore, the model benefits from “calibration” of some 

of its data to better reflect the local economy. For this study, IMPLAN was calibrated based on work the 

University of Wyoming has done with the model in Wyoming over many years and with data specific to 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-131

this study. The specific IMPLAN impact analysis methodology and assumptions for each resource use are 

described in Appendix N, Technical Report: Social and Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. 

In the other approach, where primary impacts cannot be readily quantified, often the economic impacts 

can still be described qualitatively. In such cases, the focus of the analysis is to describe the type of 

impact in a base scenario (here, Alternative A) and then assess the relative changes (qualitative 

indications of increases or decreases in costs or the value of production) that would be likely under other 

alternatives. 

Some of the management decisions under this planning action would result in increased costs to operators 

– the firms or individuals who undertake the activities – or to project proponents. The economic impacts 

of decisions that increase costs for operators and/or project proponents are many and can be complex. 

Cost increases may cut into profitability and drive delays to, reductions in, or cessation of operations or 

projects. However, where operations or projects are not delayed, reduced, or terminated, increased costs 

also represent increased economic activity. For instance, if restrictions under an Alternative result in a 

new power line having to take a longer route, additional expenditures for materials, equipment, and labor 

would be made. These increased expenditures would support some amount of additional income and 

employment. However, increased costs may also represent opportunity costs; that is, the project 

proponent or society may have benefited more if the additional funds were used in another way. In the 

analysis below, where management actions would potentially increase costs to operators or project 

proponents, these increased costs are pointed out and discussed qualitatively. Readers should keep in 

mind that these increased costs may negatively impact operators, may benefit others in society, and may 

incur opportunity costs. 

Base Year Dollars and Discounting 

All dollar figures throughout the economic analysis are in constant 2011 dollars. This is the base year 

used in the IMPLAN model. 

All dollar figures in the summary results tables below represent the total value across the period 2013 to 

2020. This is the only period within the larger planning period for which the necessary quantitative input 

data was available for all four resource uses. Values for future years are discounted to adjust for the “time 

value of money.” This is an economic concept that refers to the value of a given amount of money being 

less in the future. Most people, presented with a choice, would rather have a dollar now than a dollar ten 

years later, or even one year from now because the dollar can be put to productive use at the moment. 

When monetary costs and benefits of an action vary over time (e.g., for a capital project, the costs are upfront but the benefits occur over many years), economists adjust for the time value of money by applying 

an annual discount rate to the amounts in future years. This is different than adjusting for inflation, which 

is a loss in money’s value in the future due to a rise over time in prices for given products and services 

across the economy. The result of adjusting for the time value of money is known as the “present value.” 

Providing present values for 2013-2000 for all the economic impact analyses allows for comparison – 

based on a reasonably lengthy period, and subject to some differences in approach noted in each resource 

use summary section – of the relative economic impacts of each resource use for each of the field offices 

and planning units. 

The choice of a discount rate is a key analytical decision because, as the discount rate increases, the value 

of future dollars when “brought back to the present” decreases. Often economists use the discount rates 

recommended by the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the OMB Circular A-94, 

“Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.” The OMB periodically 

updates the discount rates for the Circular in “Appendix C: Discount Rates for Cost-Effectiveness, LeasePurchase, and Related Analyses for OMB Circular No. A-94.” The OMB pegs discount rates to interest 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-132 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

rates on Treasury notes and bonds of specific maturities corresponding to the planning period for a 

particular economic analysis. As of the December 2012 edition of Circular A-94 Appendix C, the 

recommended annual real discount rate (a rate from which any inflation premium has been removed) for a 

10-year planning period is 0.1%. This is a very low discount rate compared to discount rates economists 

have typically used over recent decades. It reflects the fact that interest rates on Treasury notes and bonds 

are at present extremely low, historically speaking. Therefore, the BLM has chosen to use a more 

historically typical annual discount rate for this economic impact analysis. The rate used is 3.0%.

Social Impact Analysis 

Social impacts may be driven by economic impacts, such as when changes in employment due to 

management decisions lead to impacts on population, housing, and community services. Other impacts 

may be more purely social and cultural in nature and can include impacts on quality of life, recreation and 

amenity values, and traditional land uses and associated cultural values. Social impacts may be marginal 

or substantial, depending on the degree to which new and revised management actions alter the course set 

in previous BLM and Forest Service decisions. 

Sometimes social impacts can be quantified; however, in this analysis social impacts are described 

qualitatively. This is because social impacts of BLM and Forest Service management decisions may vary 

considerably depending on the nature of the community(ies) involved. For a planning effort that covers as 

large a geographic area as this effort, analysis of social impacts must necessarily use a broad brush. 

A key aspect of the social impacts analysis approach is to address impacts based on the varying points of 

view of key types of stakeholders. The Socioeconomic Baseline Report identifies several broad categories 

of stakeholders to sage-grouse management decisions in Wyoming. These categories reflect different 

linkages people have to public lands. They also reflect distinct sets of attitudes, beliefs, values, opinions, 

and perceptions about public resources and the effects of various management policies and actions. 

Categorization of stakeholders is not meant to imply that all individuals and social groups fit neatly into a 

single category; many specific individuals or organizations may have multiple interests and would see 

themselves reflected in more than one stakeholder category. The point of categorization is to allow 

differentiation of social impacts based on broad differences in points of view. The social impacts analysis 

below assesses the alternatives against the different points of view in the broad stakeholder categories. 

Environmental Justice Impact Analysis 

Definitions and methods for analysis of potential environmental justice (EJ) issues are described in the 

Socioeconomic Baseline Report. In short, the socioeconomic study area was screened in the report to 

identify counties with minority and low-income populations that qualify as potential EJ populations based 

on guidance for EJ analysis from the Council on Environmental Quality. These counties and their 

potential EJ populations are noted in Chapter 3. Further assessment of the likelihood of impacts to these 

populations is presented in Section 4.11.7 below. 

Non-market Value Impact Analysis 

This approach may be used with impacts to market values and is often used with impacts to non-market 

values. The term non-market values refers to the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the 

environment or uses of natural and cultural resources that do not involve market transactions and 

therefore lack prices. Because these values are not priced, they are difficult to estimate but nonetheless the 

BLM guidance calls for efforts to be made to identify and assess impacts to nonmarket values in the 

planning process (BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-131, Guidance on Estimating Non-market 

Environmental Values, May 31, 2013). 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-133

Non-market values associated with recreation are estimated quantitatively for this RMP/EIS using a 

“benefits transfer” methodology described in Appendix N, Technical Report: Social and Economic 

Impact Analysis Methodology. Because of uncertainties inherent in quantification of non-market values, 

the analysis is conducted at the planning level only, and only for Alternative A. Potential differences 

between the alternatives in the non-market values associated with recreation are described qualitatively. 

Other non-market values are described qualitatively for all the alternatives. 

4.11.4 Summaries of the Quantitative Economic Impact Analysis 

Results 

This section presents a series of tables, and associated discussions, for the economic impacts that were 

estimated with the IMPLAN model, and additional estimates of tax and mineral revenues. Readers should 

keep in mind that the figures from the IMPLAN model and the revenue analysis only represent the 

quantifiable economic benefits (economic output, labor earnings, employment, and certain government 

revenues) of each alternative. Additional, non-modeled economic benefits exist. Many of these additional 

benefits are discussed qualitatively in later sections that address each alternative. 

Also, there are many economic and social costs that are not encompassed in the IMPLAN analysis and 

therefore are not reflected when the economic numbers below for one alternative are compared to those 

for another alternative. For instance, it is highly likely that Alternative A has higher social and 

environmental costs than Alternative C due to the much higher amount of oil and gas development under 

Alternative A. Oil and gas development necessarily has environmental costs, and high rates of oil and gas 

development can result in social costs such as reductions in community cohesiveness, increases in crime, 

and other impacts to quality of life. However, these externalities (costs not directly reflected in a 

particular market transaction such as an investment in developing an oil well) are difficult to quantify and 

are not estimated in this study. Some are addressed qualitatively in other parts of this socioeconomic 

impacts analysis. 

The resource uses for which the IMPLAN results are summarized in this subsection are: 

• Oil and gas development and production 

• Wind energy development and production 

• Livestock grazing 

• Recreation 

Oil and Gas Development and Production 

This section presents the results of the economic impact analysis for oil and gas development and 

production, based on the IMPLAN model and additional estimates of revenue impacts. The impacts for 

oil and gas development are presented first, in a summary table for the state, followed by a summary table 

for each BLM field office and Forest Service planning unit. Impacts for oil and gas production follow, 

again in a summary table for the state, followed by a summary table for each field office and planning 

unit. A brief discussion for each table highlights the key findings in the table, and makes some 

comparisons between the alternatives and among the field offices and planning units. 

It is very important for readers to note that the results presented here only address new oil and gas wells 

on federal mineral estate within the sage-grouse core/priority habitat, general habitat, and connectivity 

habitat areas. The economic figures presented below for the new oil and gas wells are a subset of the 

economic impacts of all oil and gas wells (new and existing) on federal mineral estate in each field office 

and planning unit, which in turn are a subset of the economic impacts of all oil and gas wells on all 

federal and nonfederal mineral estate in each field office and planning unit (i.e., including wells on 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-134 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

privately and state-owned mineral estate). Put another way, the figures below do not include the economic 

impacts of any wells (new and existing) on federal mineral estate outside of sage-grouse habitat areas,1

nor of any wells (new and existing) on nonfederal mineral estate. Nor do the figures include the economic 

impacts of production from existing wells on federal mineral estate within sage-grouse habitat areas; this 

existing production is not affected by the management decisions of this planning action.2

Likewise, the percentage differences for Alternatives B, C, D, and E in comparison to Alternative A as 

shown below only represent changes for new wells on federal mineral estate in habitat areas. They do not

represent the percentage change to total economic activity resulting from all oil and gas development and 

production. The percentage change to total oil- and gas-related economic activity would be smaller 

because while the absolute difference in dollars or jobs would be as shown in the tables below, the base 

for comparison, all oil and gas-related economic activity, would be larger. This is so because it would 

include the contributions of existing wells on federal mineral estate within sage-grouse habitat areas, of 

wells on federal mineral estate outside of sage-grouse habitat areas, and of wells on nonfederal mineral 

estate. 

Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development 

Table 4-43 summarizes the economic analysis at the statewide level for oil and gas development based on 

implementation of the alternatives across the planning area. Under Alternative A, oil and gas development 

on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $23,284 million (in present value 

and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output for the state economy in the period from 2013 to 2020, and 

$31,435 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $12,672 million in labor 

earnings, and support an average of 27,492 jobs per year. Annual economic impacts would vary each year 

according to the number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

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. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 25% to -26%. If 

Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 4%. If Alternative E were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 8%. 

Table 4-43. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for Wyoming through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $23,184,244 $20,755,032 $17,412,737 $22,320,544 $21,379,414 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -10.5% -24.9% -3.7% -7.8%

Total Economic Output $31,434,869 $27,977,575 $23,386,886 $30,267,706 $28,909,331 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -25.6% -3.7% -8.0%

 

1 In some of the field offices and planning units, sage-grouse habitat covers most of the office/unit. In these cases, the economic 

analysis encompasses most if not all of the new wells on federal mineral estate projected for each alternative. 

2 Any restrictions resulting from this planning action would only be applied to new leases (i.e., currently unleased areas). 

Production rates from existing wells in already leased areas would not be affected. With respect to new wells within already 

leased areas, these wells may be affected by this planning action. Action # 57 provides that the BLM will consider inclusion 

of stipulations to protect sage-grouse or their habitats as permit COAs, where adequately protective stipulations are not 

already in place. Whether COAs will be placed on new wells in already leased areas, and to what extent COAs would 

impact economic activity, cannot be known or reasonably estimated; therefore, the economic impacts of Action # 57, if any, 

are not included in the quantitative economic impact analysis. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-135

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Total Labor Earnings $12,672,188 $11,294,736 $9,460,364 $12,201,274 $11,667,185 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -10.9% -25.3% -3.7% -7.9%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 27,491.6 24,401.5 20,308.3 26,471.5 25,268.1

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.2% -26.1% -3.7% -8.1%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-44 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Casper Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in 

this field office would generate $2,497 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic 

output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Converse, 

Goshen, Natrona, and Platte Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $3,746 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $1,568 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 3,327 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Casper Field Office has the 

third highest total economic output from oil and gas development under Alternative A. Annual economic 

impacts would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 37% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

This is the largest percentage decrease among all the field offices and planning units for Alternative B. If 

Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 49%. This is the third 

largest percentage decrease among all the field offices and planning units for this alternative. If 

Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 6%. If Alternative E were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 20%, which is also the largest percentage 

decrease among all the field offices and planning units for this alternative. 

Table 4-44. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Casper Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $2,497,055 $1,573,571 $1,273,147 $2,354,557 $1,998,727 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -37.0% -49.0% -5.7% -20.0%

Total Economic Output $3,745,943 $2,361,837 $1,910,589 $3,532,410 $2,999,007 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -36.9% -49.0% -5.7% -19.9%

Total Labor Earnings $1,567,516 $988,621 $799,690 $1,478,216 $1,255,103 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -36.9% -49.0% -5.7% -19.9%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 3,327.1 2,109.6 1,711.7 3,135.2 2,672.4

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -36.6% -48.6% -5.8% -19.7%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-136 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-45 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Kemmerer Field 

Office. Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat 

areas in this field office would generate $1,168 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct 

economic output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as 

Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $1,537 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $610 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 1,398 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Kemmerer Field Office has 

the fifth highest total economic output from oil and gas development under Alternative A. Annual 

economic impacts would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 16% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 31% to 32%. If 

Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 2%. If Alternative E were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 8%. 

Table 4-45. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Kemmerer Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,168,132 $983,885 $796,236 $1,149,806 $1,068,918 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -15.8% -31.8% -1.6% -8.5%

Total Economic Output $1,536,758 $1,294,928 $1,048,597 $1,512,678 $1,406,417 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -15.7% -31.8% -1.6% -8.5%

Total Labor Earnings $610,360 $515,443 $418,858 $600,848 $558,932 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -15.6% -31.4% -1.6% -8.4%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 1,397.7 1,173.8 944.8 1,375.5 1,280.4

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.0% -32.4% -1.6% -8.4%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-46 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Newcastle Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in 

this field office would generate $174 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output 

for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Campbell, Crook, 

Niobrara, and Weston Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $233 million in total economic 

output. This economic activity would include $85 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 

199 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Newcastle Field Office has the lowest 

total economic output from oil and gas development under Alternative A. Annual economic impacts 

would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 17% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

This is the second largest percentage decrease among all the field offices and planning units for this 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-137

alternative. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 45% to 46%. 

If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 6%. If Alternative E were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 7%. 

Table 4-46. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Newcastle Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $174,094 $144,415 $96,185 $164,600 $162,229 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -17.0% -44.8% -5.5% -6.8%

Total Economic Output $233,439 $193,664 $129,003 $220,715 $217,618 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -17.0% -44.7% -5.5% -6.8%

Total Labor Earnings $84,977 $70,492 $46,909 $80,346 $79,309 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -17.0% -44.8% -5.5% -6.7%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 198.6 164.1 107.0 187.5 185.0

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -17.4% -46.1% -5.6% -6.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-47 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Pinedale Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in 

this field office would generate $14,228 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic 

output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Lincoln, Sublette 

and Sweetwater Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $17,835 million in total economic output. 

This economic activity would include $7,446 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 15,413 

jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Pinedale Field Office has by far the highest 

total economic output from oil and gas development under Alternative A. Annual economic impacts 

would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 4% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

This is the second lowest decrease among all the field offices and planning units. If Alternative C were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 13%, the lowest decrease among all the 

offices/units. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 4%. If 

Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 5%. 

Table 4-47. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Pinedale Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $14,228,180 $13,703,430 $12,328,808 $13,616,422 $13,556,841 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.7% -13.3% -4.3% -4.7%

Total Economic Output $17,834,786 $17,180,678 $15,457,666 $17,070,121 $16,995,647 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-138 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.7% -13.3% -4.3% -4.7%

Total Labor Earnings $7,445,681 $7,178,158 $6,459,764 $7,129,498 $7,098,868 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.6% -13.2% -4.2% -4.7%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 15,413.5 14,847.9 13,346.6 14,750.7 14,683.1

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.7% -13.4% -4.3% -4.7%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-48 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Rawlins Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in 

this field office would generate $2,920 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic 

output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Albany, Carbon, 

Laramie, and Sweetwater Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $4,149 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $1,575 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 3,864 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Rawlins Field Office has the 

second highest total economic output from oil and gas development under Alternative A. Annual 

economic impacts would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 14% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 43%. If Alternative D 

were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 1%. If Alternative E were implemented, 

the economic indicators would decrease by 8%. 

Table 4-48. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Rawlins Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $2,919,864 $2,512,088 $1,652,692 $2,877,789 $2,694,055 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.0% -43.4% -1.4% -7.7%

Total Economic Output $4,148,521 $3,571,437 $2,347,984 $4,089,021 $3,828,545 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -13.9% -43.4% -1.4% -7.7%

Total Labor Earnings $1,575,075 $1,359,982 $891,175 $1,552,971 $1,455,056 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -13.7% -43.4% -1.4% -7.6%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 3,863.5 3,311.5 2,176.7 3,805.4 3,555.9

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.3% -43.7% -1.5% -8.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-139

Table 4-49 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Rock Springs Field 

Office. Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat 

areas in this field office would generate $1,571 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct 

economic output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as 

Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $2,071 

million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $822 million in labor earnings, 

and support an average of 1,910 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Rock 

Springs Field Office has the fourth highest total economic output from oil and gas development under 

Alternative A. Annual economic impacts would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled 

each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 22% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

This is the second largest decrease among all the field offices and planning units for this alternative. If 

Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 29%. If Alternative D were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 2%. If Alternative E were implemented, the 

economic indicators would decrease by 8%. 

Table 4-49. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Rock Springs Field 

Office through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,571,410 $1,223,431 $1,121,388 $1,533,869 $1,449,266 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -22.1% -28.6% -2.4% -7.8%

Total Economic Output $2,070,512 $1,612,593 $1,477,953 $2,021,157 $1,910,103 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -22.1% -28.6% -2.4% -7.7%

Total Labor Earnings $822,380 $641,066 $587,410 $802,878 $759,155 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -22.0% -28.6% -2.4% -7.7%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 1,907.8 1,479.9 1,350.8 1,861.0 1,755.9

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -22.4% -29.2% -2.5% -8.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-50 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat 

areas in this planning unit would generate $444 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct 

economic output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit (defined as 

Fremont, Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $573 million in 

total economic output. This economic activity would include $244 million in labor earnings, and support 

an average of 533 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest has the sixth highest total economic output from oil and gas development under Alternative A. 

Annual economic impacts would vary each year according to the number of wells drilled each year, per 

the RFD. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-140 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would increase by 3% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in the RFD. 

This slight increase probably reflects rounding error at some point in the many calculations used in this 

analysis. In any case, of all the field offices and planning units, this planning unit would experience the 

least amount of change under Alternative B compared to Alternative A. If Alternative C were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 84%. This is the largest percentage decrease 

among all the field offices and planning units for this alternative. If Alternative D were implemented, the 

economic indicators would increase by 1%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators 

would increase by 1%. 

Table 4-50. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $444,341 $455,823 $68,972 $449,082 $449,378 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 2.6% -84.5% 1.1% 1.1%

Total Economic Output $573,340 $588,287 $89,027 $579,549 $579,936 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 2.6% -84.5% 1.1% 1.2%

Total Labor Earnings $243,815 $250,229 $37,905 $246,520 $246,689 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 2.6% -84.5% 1.1% 1.2%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 532.7 547.6 84.9 539.0 539.4

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 2.8% -84.1% 1.2% 1.2%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

According to the RFD, no oil or gas wells will be drilled on federal mineral estate in the Medicine Bow 

National Forest within the analysis period. Therefore, there are no oil and gas development economic 

impacts to report for this planning unit. 

Table 4-51 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas development for the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland. Under Alternative A, oil and gas development on federal mineral estate in sagegrouse habitat areas in this planning unit would generate $181 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) 

in direct economic output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit (defined 

as Campbell, Converse, Crook, Niobrara, and Weston Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and 

$240 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $89 million in labor 

earnings, and support an average of 204 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the 

Thunder Basin National Grassland has the second lowest total economic output from oil and gas 

development under Alternative A. Annual economic impacts would vary each year according to the 

number of wells drilled each year, per the RFD. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 12% to 13% based on the reductions in oil and gas development that are projected in 

the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 58% to 61%. 

This is the second largest percentage decrease among all the field offices and planning units for this 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-141

alternative. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 4%. If 

Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 8% to 9%. 

Table 4-51. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Development for the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $181,166 $158,390 $75,310 $174,417 $166,096 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -12.6% -58.4% -3.7% -8.3%

Total Economic Output $239,828 $209,760 $99,746 $230,898 $219,901 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -12.5% -58.4% -3.7% -8.3%

Total Labor Earnings $89,297 $78,214 $37,182 $85,986 $81,914 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -12.4% -58.4% -3.7% -8.3%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 204.0 176.9 80.4 195.8 185.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -13.2% -60.6% -4.0% -8.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates variations in wells drilled and wells completed by year according to the RFD and the BLM RMG.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production 

Table 4-52 summarizes the economic analysis at the statewide level for oil and gas production based on 

implementation of the alternatives across the planning area. Under Alternative A, oil and gas production 

on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $25,828 million (in present value 

and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output for the state economy in the period from 2013 to 2020, and 

$29,266 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $1,944 million in labor 

earnings, and support 5,700 jobs in 2020, the last year for which economic impacts were projected. 

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $1,249 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $1,201 million in 

severance taxes, and $1,576 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus 

a roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

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. If Alternative C were implemented, the 

economic indicators would decrease by 18% to 22%. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic 

indicators would decrease by 2%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would 

decrease by 3% to 4%. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-142 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-52. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for Wyoming through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $25,828,281 $24,924,123 $21,170,674 $25,422,413 $25,005,503

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.5% -18.0% -1.6% -3.2%

Total Economic Output $29,265,971 $28,208,044 $23,922,706 $28,805,863 $28,319,313

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.6% -18.3% -1.6% -3.2%

Total Labor Earnings $1,944,081 $1,832,372 $1,527,046 $1,911,451 $1,861,946

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -5.7% -21.5% -1.7% -4.2%

Total Jobs in 2020 5,699.5 5,268.0 4,189.9 5,542.3 5,372.6

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -5.9% -22.0% -1.7% -4.3%

Ad Valorem Taxes $1,249,334 $1,202,024 $1,019,020 $1,229,374 $1,207,871

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.8% -18.4% -1.6% -3.3%

Severance Taxes $1,200,913 $1,156,253 $980,673 $1,181,802 $1,161,437

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.7% -18.3% -1.6% -3.3%

FMR $1,576,170 $1,521,327 $1,293,374 $1,551,343 $1,525,987

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -3.5% -17.9% -1.6% -3.2%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-53 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Casper Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in this 

field office would generate $2,497 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output 

for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Converse, Goshen, 

Natrona, and Platte Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $3,746 million in total economic 

output. This economic activity would include $1,944 million in labor earnings, and support 5,700 jobs in 

2020, the last year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and planning units, 

the Casper Field Office has the third highest total economic output from oil and gas production under 

Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $75 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $70 million in 

severance taxes, and $81 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-143

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 32% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting 

reductions in production – that are projected in the RFD. This is the largest percentage decrease among all 

the field offices and planning units for Alternative B. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic 

indicators would decrease by 46%, the third largest percentage decrease among all the offices/units for 

this alternative. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 4%. If 

Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 18%, the largest percentage 

decrease among all the offices/units for this alternative. 

Table 4-53. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Casper Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,354,491 $916,796 $728,933 $1,297,499 $1,112,117

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.3% -46.2% -4.2% -17.9%

Total Economic Output $1,559,359 $1,055,462 $839,185 $1,493,747 $1,280,326

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.3% -46.2% -4.2% -17.9%

Total Labor Earnings $190,241 $128,766 $102,380 $182,236 $156,199

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.3% -46.2% -4.2% -17.9%

Total Jobs in 2020 571.7 408.8 329.0 541.7 483.2

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.3% -46.0% -4.3% -17.8%

Ad Valorem Taxes $75,483 $51,059 $40,575 $72,305 $61,964

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.4% -46.2% -4.2% -17.9%

Severance Taxes $70,280 $47,546 $37,788 $67,322 $57,695

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.3% -46.2% -4.2% -17.9%

FMR $81,269 $55,008 $43,736 $77,850 $66,727

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -32.3% -46.2% -4.2% -17.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-54 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Kemmerer Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in this 

field office would generate $1,034 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output 

for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Lincoln, Sweetwater, 

and Uinta Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $1,185 million in total economic output. This 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-144 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

economic activity would include $117 million in labor earnings, and support 399 jobs in 2020, the last 

year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and planning units, the 

Kemmerer Field Office has the fourth highest total economic output from oil and gas production under 

Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $49 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $48 million in 

severance taxes, and $62 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 11% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting 

reductions in production – that are projected in the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the 

economic indicators would decrease by 25%. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators 

would decrease by 4%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 

1% to 2%. 

Table 4-54. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Kemmerer Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,034,011 $920,733 $777,479 $1,019,065 $955,952

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -24.8% -1.4% -7.5%

Total Economic Output $1,185,471 $1,055,600 $891,363 $1,168,335 $1,095,978

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -24.8% -1.4% -7.5%

Total Labor Earnings $116,556 $103,787 $87,639 $114,872 $107,757

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -24.8% -1.4% -7.5%

Total Jobs in 2020 399.0 345.6 289.8 394.2 373.6

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.1% -25.0% -1.4% -7.5%

Ad Valorem Taxes $49,234 $43,841 $37,020 $48,522 $45,517

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -24.8% -1.4% -7.5%

Severance Taxes $47,504 $42,300 $35,720 $46,818 $43,918

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -24.8% -1.4% -7.5%

FMR $62,041 $55,244 $46,649 $61,144 $57,357

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -11.0% -24.8% -1.4% -7.5%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-145

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-55 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Newcastle Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in this 

field office would generate $170 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output for 

the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Crook, Weston, Niobrara 

and Campbell Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $191 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $18 million in labor earnings, and support 45 jobs in 2020, the last year 

for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Newcastle 

Field Office has the second lowest total economic output from oil and gas production under 

Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $10 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $9 million in 

severance taxes, and $10 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 15% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting 

reductions in production – that are projected in the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the 

economic indicators would decrease by 38% to 39%. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic 

indicators would decrease by 4%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would 

decrease by 1% to 2%. 

Table 4-55. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Newcastle Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $169,881 $144,940 $105,161 $162,339 $172,594

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.7% -38.1% -4.4% 1.6%

Total Economic Output $191,158 $163,093 $118,332 $182,671 $194,210

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.7% -38.1% -4.4% 1.6%

Total Labor Earnings $17,534 $14,960 $10,854 $16,756 $17,814

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.7% -38.1% -4.4% 1.6%

Total Jobs in 2020 45.3 37.6 20.9 42.6 44.5

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.9% -38.9% -4.5% 1.4%

Ad Valorem Taxes $9,521 $8,124 $5,896 $9,098 $9,673

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.7% -38.1% -4.4% 1.6%
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-146 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Severance Taxes $8,854 $7,555 $5,482 $8,461 $8,996

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.7% -38.1% -4.4% 1.6%

FMR $10,193 $8,696 $6,310 $9,740 $10,356

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -14.7% -38.1% -4.4% 1.6%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-56 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Pinedale Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in this 

field office would generate $18,620 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output 

for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Lincoln, Sublette, and 

Sweetwater Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $20,264 million in total economic output. 

This economic activity would include $1,075 million in labor earnings, and support 2,651 jobs in 2020, 

the last year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and planning units, the 

Pinedale Field Office has by far the highest total economic output from oil and gas production under 

Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $888 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $856 million in 

severance taxes, and $1,117 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus 

a roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 1% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting reductions 

in production – that are projected in the RFD. This is the lowest percentage decrease among all the field 

offices and planning units for Alternative B. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators 

would decrease by 9%, the lowest percentage decrease among all the offices/units for this alternative. If 

Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 2%. If Alternative E were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 2%. 

Table 4-56. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Pinedale Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $18,620,337 $18,721,226 $16,895,546 $18,319,570 $18,284,862

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.3% -1.6% -1.8%

Total Economic Output $20,264,134 $20,373,930 $18,387,080 $19,936,816 $19,899,044
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-147

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.3% -1.6% -1.8%

Total Labor Earnings $1,074,990 $1,080,815 $975,415 $1,057,626 $1,055,623

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.3% -1.6% -1.8%

Total Jobs in 2020 2,650.5 2,609.1 2,351.4 2,558.7 2,549.1

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.4% -1.7% -1.9%

Ad Valorem Taxes $887,739 $892,549 $805,510 $873,399 $871,744

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.3% -1.6% -1.8%

Severance Taxes $856,289 $860,929 $776,973 $842,457 $840,861

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.3% -1.6% -1.8%

FMR $1,117,220 $1,123,274 $1,013,733 $1,099,174 $1,097,092

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.5% -9.3% -1.6% -1.8%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-57 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Rawlins Field Office. 

Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas in this 

field office would generate $2,836 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic output 

for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Carbon, Albany, 

Laramie, and Sweetwater Counties Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $3,294 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $273 million in labor earnings, and support 1,067 

jobs in 2020, the last year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and 

planning units, the Rawlins Field Office has the second largest total economic output from oil and gas 

production under Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $139 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $133 million in 

severance taxes, and $170 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 9% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting reductions 

in production – that are projected in the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators 

would decrease by 42%. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 

1%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 5%. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-148 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-57. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Rawlins Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $2,836,024 $2,572,608 $1,644,635 $2,817,057 $2,697,022

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.3% -42.0% -0.7% -4.9%

Total Economic Output $3,294,306 $2,988,324 $1,910,396 $3,272,274 $3,132,842

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.3% -42.0% -0.7% -4.9%

Total Labor Earnings $273,419 $248,023 $158,558 $271,591 $260,018

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.3% -42.0% -0.7% -4.9%

Total Jobs in 2020 1,066.9 974.4 585.3 1,056.8 996.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.2% -42.2% -0.7% -5.0%

Ad Valorem Taxes $138,740 $125,863 $80,455 $137,813 $131,943

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.3% -42.0% -0.7% -4.9%

Severance Taxes $133,006 $120,659 $77,131 $132,118 $126,490

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.3% -42.0% -0.7% -4.9%

FMR $170,161 $154,356 $98,678 $169,023 $161,821

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -9.3% -42.0% -0.7% -4.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-58 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Rock Springs Field 

Office. Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas 

in this field office would generate $1,039 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic 

output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office (defined as Sweetwater, 

Uinta, Lincoln, Sublette, and Fremont Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $1,157 million in 

total economic output. This economic activity would include $68 million in labor earnings, and support 

263 jobs in 2020, the last year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and 

planning units, the Rock Springs Field Office has the fifth largest total economic output from oil and gas 

production under Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $49 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $48 million in 

severance taxes, and $63 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-149

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 16% to 17% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting 

reductions in production – that are projected in the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the 

economic indicators would decrease by 23%. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators 

would decrease by 1%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 

3%. 

Table 4-58. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Rock Springs Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,038,674 $868,216 $800,524 $1,026,111 $1,011,431

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.4% -22.9% -1.2% -2.6%

Total Economic Output $1,157,489 $967,532 $892,096 $1,143,488 $1,127,129

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.4% -22.9% -1.2% -2.6%

Total Labor Earnings $68,300 $57,091 $52,640 $67,474 $66,509

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.4% -22.9% -1.2% -2.6%

Total Jobs in 2020 263.1 208.6 184.8 257.1 245.7

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.8% -23.5% -1.3% -2.9%

Ad Valorem Taxes $49,357 $41,257 $38,040 $48,760 $48,063

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.4% -22.9% -1.2% -2.6%

Severance Taxes $47,646 $39,827 $36,722 $47,070 $46,397

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.4% -22.9% -1.2% -2.6%

FMR $62,320 $52,093 $48,031 $61,567 $60,686

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -16.4% -22.9% -1.2% -2.6%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-59 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest. Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas 

in this planning unit would generate $434 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct economic 

output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit (defined as Fremont, 

Lincoln, Sublette, and Teton Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $482 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $29 million in labor earnings, and support 184 

jobs in 2020, the last year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices and 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-150 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

planning units, the Bridger-Teton National Forest has sixth largest total economic output from oil and gas 

production under Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $21 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $20 million in 

severance taxes, and $26 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 6% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting reductions 

in production – that are projected in the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators 

would decrease by 87%. This is the largest percentage decrease among all the field offices and planning 

units for this alternative. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 

4%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 4%. 

Table 4-59. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $434,236 $461,537 $55,768 $449,568 $450,527

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -87.2% 3.5% 3.8%

Total Economic Output $481,530 $511,805 $61,842 $498,533 $499,595

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -87.2% 3.5% 3.8%

Total Labor Earnings $29,368 $31,215 $3,772 $30,405 $30,470

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -87.2% 3.5% 3.8%

Total Jobs in 2020 183.7 195.2 43.2 190.2 190.6

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -86.9% 3.5% 3.8%

Ad Valorem Taxes $20,704 $22,006 $2,659 $21,435 $21,481

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -87.2% 3.5% 3.8%

Severance Taxes $19,970 $21,226 $2,565 $20,675 $20,719

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -87.2% 3.5% 3.8%

FMR $26,054 $27,692 $3,346 $26,974 $27,032

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 6.3% -87.2% 3.5% 3.8%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-151

According to the RFD, no oil or gas wells will be drilled on federal mineral estate in the Medicine Bow 

National Forest within the analysis period. Therefore, there are no oil and gas production economic 

impacts to report for this planning unit. 

Table 4-60 summarizes the economic analysis for oil and gas production for the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland. Under Alternative A, oil and gas production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat 

areas in this planning unit would generate $341 million (in present value and 2011 dollars) in direct 

economic output for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit (defined as 

Campbell, Converse, Crook, Niobrara, and Weston Counties) in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $374 

million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $26 million in labor earnings, and 

support 46 jobs in 2020, the last year for which economic impacts were projected. Of all the field offices 

and planning units, the Thunder Basin National Grassland has the second lowest total economic output 

from oil and gas production under Alternative A.

Oil and gas production would also generate tax and royalty revenues. Under Alternative A, oil and gas 

production on federal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas would generate $19 million in ad 

valorem taxes (in present value and 2011 dollars) in the period from 2013 to 2020, $18 million in 

severance taxes, and $20 million in federal mineral royalties that accrue to the State of Wyoming (plus a 

roughly similar amount that accrues to the Federal Government). 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the number of wells in production increases, per 

the RFD. Tax revenues would also increase each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B were implemented, the economic indicators noted above 

would decrease by 7% based on the reductions in oil and gas development – and thus resulting reductions 

in production – that are projected in the RFD. If Alternative C were implemented, the economic indicators 

would decrease by 52%, the second largest percentage decrease among all the field offices and planning 

units for this alternative. If Alternative D were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 

3%. If Alternative E were implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 6%. 

Table 4-60. Economic Impacts of Oil and Gas Production for the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $340,627 $318,067 $162,628 $331,203 $320,999

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -6.6% -52.3% -2.8% -5.8%

Total Economic Output $374,455 $349,655 $178,779 $364,096 $352,878

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -6.6% -52.3% -2.8% -5.8%

Total Labor Earnings $26,346 $24,601 $12,579 $25,617 $24,828

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -6.6% -52.3% -2.8% -5.8%

Total Jobs in 2020 46.5 35.7 6.1 42.7 38.2

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -7.3% -54.1% -3.0% -6.3%

Ad Valorem Taxes $18,557 $17,326 $8,865 $18,042 $17,486

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -6.6% -52.2% -2.8% -5.8%

Severance Taxes $17,362 $16,211 $8,293 $16,881 $16,360
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-152 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -6.6% -52.2% -2.8% -5.8%

FMR $20,438 $19,084 $9,758 $19,872 $19,260

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -6.6% -52.3% -2.8% -5.8%

N.A.: Not Applicable

FMR: Federal Mineral Royalties (portion accruing to the State of Wyoming)

All figures are for wells on federal mineral estate only.

Analysis incorporates estimated growth in annual production. Estimates are based on a) increasing numbers of wells in operation 

each year, b) average per well production decline curves over time, c) estimated average co-production rates (oil from gas wells, 

gas from oil wells), all as provided by the BLM RMG.

Tax and FMR figures are based on the estimated sales value of oil and gas production.

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Wind Energy Development and Production 

The analysis of the economic impacts of wind energy development and production utilizes two 

development scenarios. Many wind energy projects are currently being planned or contemplated in 

Wyoming, including on federal public lands. However, it is not clear how many of these projects will be 

approved, and how many will be built. Much will depend on energy market conditions, and also on the 

availability of adequate transmission line capacity to move electricity generated in Wyoming to markets 

in other states. Because of these uncertainties, a high development scenario and a low development 

scenario were prepared and analyzed. The methodology and assumptions used in developing these 

scenarios are provided in Appendix N, Technical Report: Social and Economic Impact Analysis 

Methodology. 

Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Development 

Table 4-61 and Table 4-62 summarize the economic analysis at the statewide level for wind energy 

development based on implementation of the alternatives across the planning area. Under Alternative A, 

in the low development scenario, wind energy development on available BLM-administered lands and 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area would generate $239 million in direct economic output 

(in present value and 2011 dollars) for the state economy in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $339 

million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $147 million in labor earnings, 

and support an average of 422 jobs per year. In the high development scenario, wind energy development 

would generate $597 million in direct economic output and $849 million in total economic output; this 

economic activity would include $368 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 1,054 jobs per 

year. 

Wind energy development would also generate tax revenues. Under Alternative A, wind energy 

development in the planning area would generate $69 million (in present value and 2011 dollars, for the 

period from 2013 to 2020) in sales and use taxes in the low development scenario, and $172 million in the 

high development scenario. 

Annual economic impacts would vary each year according to variations in construction activity per the 

assumed wind energy deployment schedule. Tax revenues would also vary each year for the same reason. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B, C, or E were implemented, the various economic indicators 

would decrease by 90% in either development scenario due to reduced availability of BLM-administered 

lands and National Forest System Lands for wind energy development. If Alternative D were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 22%. However, readers should remember that 

there are many assumptions in the wind energy development projections. With respect to differences 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-153

between the alternatives, the analysis assumes that reductions in wind energy development would be 

directly proportional to reductions in the amount of BLM-administered lands and National Forest System 

Lands available for wind energy development. It is possible that the differences between wind energy 

development projected for Alternatives B, C, D, and E versus Alternative A may be made up on the 

remaining available BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands, or on other lands in the 

planning area. 

Table 4-61. Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Development for Wyoming through 2020, 

Low Scenario (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $238,757 $24,042 $24,042 $186,626 $24,042

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Economic Output $339,486 $34,186 $34,186 $265,361 $34,186 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Labor Earnings $147,391 $14,842 $14,842 $115,209 $14,842 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 421.7 42.5 42.5 329.6 42.5

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Sale and Use Tax $68,849 $6,933 $6,933 $53,816 $6,933 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-62. Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Development for Wyoming through 2020, 

High Scenario (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $596,774 $60,225 $60,225 $466,564 $60,225

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Economic Output $848,546 $85,633 $85,633 $663,402 $85,633 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Labor Earnings $368,404 $37,178 $37,178 $288,022 $37,178 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 1,054.0 106.4 106.4 824.0 106.4

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Sale and Use Tax $172,088 $17,367 $17,367 $134,541 $17,367 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-154 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Production 

Table 4-63 and Table 4-64 summarize the economic analysis at the statewide level for wind energy 

production based on implementation of the alternatives across the planning area. Under Alternative A, in 

the low development scenario, wind energy production on available BLM-administered lands and 

National Forest System Lands in the planning area would generate $32 million in direct economic output 

(in present value and 2011 dollars) for the state economy in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $43 

million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $24 million in labor earnings, and 

support an average of 188 jobs per year. In the high development scenario, wind energy production would 

generate $79 million in direct economic output and $106 million in total economic output; this economic 

activity would include $61 million in labor earnings, and support 471 jobs in 2020, the last year for which 

economic impacts were projected. 

Wind energy production would also generate tax revenues. Under Alternative A, wind energy production 

in the planning area would generate $1 million (in present value and 2011 dollars, for the period from 

2013 to 2020) in wind energy generation taxes and $34 million in property taxes in the low development 

scenario, and $3 million in wind energy generation taxes and $85 million in property taxes in the high 

development scenario. 

Annual economic impacts would increase each year as the installed capacity and amount of wind energy 

production increases according to the assumed deployment schedule. Tax revenues would also increase 

each year for the same reasons. 

Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative B, C, or E were implemented, based on the reductions in 

projected wind energy development (and thus production) on BLM-administered lands and National 

Forest System Lands, the various economic indicators would decrease by 90%. If Alternative D were 

implemented, the economic indicators would decrease by 22%. However, readers should remember that 

there are many assumptions in the wind energy development and production projections. With respect to 

differences between the alternatives, the analysis assumes that reductions in wind energy development 

(and thus production as well) would be directly proportional to reductions in the amount of BLMadministered lands and National Forest System Lands available for wind energy development. It is 

possible that the differences between wind energy development projected for Alternatives B, C, D, and E 

versus Alternative A may be made up on the remaining available BLM-administered lands and National 

Forest System Lands, or on other lands in the planning area. If so, differences in wind energy production 

and its economic impacts would also be made up. 

Table 4-63. Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Production for Wyoming through 2020, 

Low Scenario (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $31,674 $3,190 $3,190 $24,758 $3,190

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Economic Output $42,539 $4,284 $4,284 $33,251 $4,284

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Labor Earnings $24,207 $2,438 $2,438 $18,921 $2,438

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Jobs in 2020 188.4 19.0 19.0 147.3 19.0
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-155

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Generation Tax (NPV) $1,030 $104 $104 $805 $104

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Property Tax (NPV) $33,965 $3,420 $3,420 $26,549 $3,420

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-64. Economic Impacts of Wind Energy Production for Wyoming through 2020, 

High Scenario (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $79,169 $7,990 $7,990 $61,895 $7,990

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Economic Output $106,326 $10,730 $10,730 $83,127 $10,730 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Labor Earnings $60,505 $6,106 $6,106 $47,304 $6,106 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Total Jobs in 2020 471.0 47.5 47.5 368.2 47.5

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Generation Tax (NPV) $2,574 $260 $260 $2,012 $260 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

Property Tax (NPV) $84,895 $8,567 $8,567 $66,372 $8,567 

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. -89.9% -89.9% -21.8% -89.9%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Livestock Grazing 

The economic analysis of livestock grazing is based on a 10-year average of billed use. Because billed use 

may exceed actual grazing use, the economic analyses below may overstate the actual economic impacts 

of grazing to some degree. The reader should also note that the economic impact figures below only 

represent livestock grazing in sage-grouse habitat; they do not represent the total impact of livestock 

grazing in each BLM field office or Forest Service planning unit. Because of this, the percentage decrease 

between the action alternatives and Alternative A would be less on a total impact basis than in the figures 

below for sage-grouse habitat only. 

Table 4-65 summarizes the present value analysis results for all nine field offices and planning units 

combined. This analysis includes impacts taking place within Wyoming outside of each BLM field office 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-156 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

or Forest Service planning unit’s specific study area. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLMadministered lands and National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the planning 

area would generate $341 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the 

state economy in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $707 million in total economic output. This economic 

activity would include $233 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 1,113 jobs per year. 

Table 4-66 summarizes the annual economic impacts, assuming grazing use remains constant at the 10-

year average number of billed AUMs (or otherwise, that variations in use average out accordingly). Under 

Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands within 

sage-grouse habitat areas in the planning area would annually generate $49 million (2011 dollars) in 

direct economic output and $101 million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic 

activity would include $33 million in labor earnings and support 1,113 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 43% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-65. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for Wyoming through 2020 (1,000s of 

2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $340,857 $340,857 $193,783 $340,857 $340,857

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $706,579 $706,579 $400,427 $706,579 $706,579

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $232,873 $232,873 $132,090.96 $232,873 $232,873

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 1,112.8 1,112.8 630.9 1,112.8 1,112.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.3% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-66. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for Wyoming (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $48,557 $48,557 $27,606 $48,557 $48,557

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $100,657 $100,657 $57,043 $100,657 $100,657

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $33,174 $33,174 $18,817 $33,174 $33,174
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-157

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 1,112.8 1,112.8 630.9 1,112.8 1,112.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.3% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Table 4-67 and Table 4-68 summarize the results for the Casper Field Office. The analysis uses 10-year 

average annual billed use estimates of 78,034 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 60,443 AUMs in general 

habitat for cattle grazing, and 13,924 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 10,785 AUMs in general habitat 

for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 (or 

otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-67 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the field office would generate $57 million 

in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study 

area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $123 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $41 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 184 jobs per 

year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Casper Field Office has the second highest total 

economic output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-68 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in 

the field office would annually generate $8 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $18 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $6 million 

in labor earnings and support 184 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 56% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-67. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Casper Field Office through 

2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $57,351 $57,351 $25,033 $57,351 $57,351

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $123,004 $123,004 $53,689 $123,004 $123,004

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $41,494 $41,494 $18,112 $41,494 $41,494

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 184.1 184.1 80.4 184.1 184.1
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-158 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-68. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Casper Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $8,170 $8,170 $3,566 $8,170 $8,170

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $17,523 $17,523 $7,648 $17,523 $17,523

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $5,911 $5,911 $2,580 $5,911 $5,911

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 184.1 184.1 80.4 184.1 184.1

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -56.4% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-69 and Table 4-70 summarize the results for the Kemmerer Field Office. The analysis uses 10-

year average annual billed use estimates of 35,034 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 46,071 AUMs in 

general habitat for cattle grazing, and 19,012 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 25,001 AUMs in general 

habitat for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 

(or otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-69 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the field office would generate $47 million 

in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study 

area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $95 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $31 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 167 jobs per 

year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Kemmerer Field Office has the fourth highest total 

economic output from livestock grazing under Alternative A.

Table 4-70 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in 

the field office would annually generate $7 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $14 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $4 million 

in labor earnings and support 167 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-159

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 43% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-69. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Kemmerer Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $47,068 $47,068 $26,736 $47,068 $47,068

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $94,932 $94,932 $53,925 $94,932 $94,932

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $30,685 $30,685 $17,430 $30,685 $30,685

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 166.9 166.9 94.8 166.9 166.9

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-70. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Kemmerer Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $6,705 $6,705 $3,809 $6,705 $6,705

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $13,524 $13,524 $7,682 $13,524 $13,524

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $4,371 $4,371 $2,483 $4,371 $4,371

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 166.9 166.9 94.8 166.9 $166.9

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -43.2% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-71 and Table 4-72 summarize the results for the Newcastle Field Office. The analysis uses 10-

year average annual billed use estimates of 4,875 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 19,632 AUMs in 

general habitat for cattle grazing, and 301 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 1,212 AUMs in general 

habitat for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 

(or otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-160 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-71 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the field office would generate $9 million in 

direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study 

area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $18 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $6 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 28 jobs per year. 

Of all the field offices and planning units, the Newcastle Field Office has the third lowest total economic 

output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-72 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in 

the field office would annually generate $1 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $3 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $1 million 

in labor earnings and support 28 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 20% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-71. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Newcastle Field Office through 

2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $8,985 $8,985 $7,198 $8,985 $8,985

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $17,559 $17,559 $14,066 $17,559 $17,559

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $6,226 $6,226 $4,987.55 $6,226 $6,226

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 27.5 27.5 22.1 27.5 27.5

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-72. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Newcastle Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,280 $1,280 $1,025 $1,280 $1,280

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $2,501 $2,501 $2,004 $2,501 $2,501
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-161

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $887 $887 $711 $887 $887

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 27.5 27.5 22.1 27.5 27.5

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -19.9% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-73 and Table 4-74 summarize the results for the Pinedale Field Office. The analysis uses 10-year 

average annual billed use estimates of 27,540 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 43,659 AUMs in general 

habitat for cattle grazing. There are no AUMs in sage-grouse habitat used for sheep grazing in this field 

office. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 (or otherwise, that 

variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-73 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the field office would generate $26 million 

in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study 

area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $49 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $17 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 74 jobs per 

year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Pinedale Field Office has the sixth highest total 

economic output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-74 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in 

the field office would annually generate $4 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $7 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $2 million 

in labor earnings and support 74 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 39% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat.

Table 4-73. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Pinedale Field Office through 

2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $25,586 $25,586 $15,689 $25,586 $25,586

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $48,773 $48,773 $29,907 $48,773 $48,773

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $17,004 $17,004 $10,426.95 $17,004 $17,004
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-162 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 73.7 73.7 45.2 73.7 73.7

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-74. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Pinedale Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $3,645 $3,645 $2,235 $3,645 $3,645

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $6,948 $6,948 $4,260 $6,948 $6,948

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $2,422 $2,422 $1,485 $2,422 $2,422

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 73.7 73.7 45.2 73.7 73.7

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -38.7% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-75 and Table 4-76 summarize the results for the Rawlins Field Office. The analysis uses 10-year 

average annual billed use estimates of 100,866 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 140,465 AUMs in 

general habitat for cattle grazing, and 4,702 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 6,548 AUMs in general 

habitat for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 

(or otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-75 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the field office would generate $91 million 

in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study 

area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $184 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $61 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 267 jobs per 

year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Rawlins Field Office has the highest total economic 

output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-76 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in 

the field office would annually generate $13 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $26 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $9 million 

in labor earnings and support 277 jobs per year. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-163

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 42% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-75. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Rawlins Field Office through 

2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $91,304 $91,304 $53,143 $91,304 $91,304

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $184,289 $184,289 $107,264 $184,289 $184,289

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $61,265 $61,265 $35,658.83 $61,265 $61,265

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 266.8 266.8 155.3 266.8 266.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-76. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Rawlins Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $13,007 $13,007 $7,571 $13,007 $13,007

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $26,253 $26,253 $15,280 $26,253 $26,253

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $8,728 $8,728 $5,080 $8,728 $8,728

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 266.8 266.8 155.3 266.8 266.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -41.8% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-77 and summarize the results for the Rock Springs Field Office. The analysis uses 10-year 

average annual billed use estimates of 44,312 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 50,088 AUMs in general 

habitat for cattle grazing, and 26,170 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 29,581 AUMs in general habitat 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-164 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 (or 

otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-77 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the field office would generate $56 million 

in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study 

area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $115 million in total economic output. This 

economic activity would include $37 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 206 jobs per 

year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Rock Springs Field Office has the third highest total 

economic output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-78 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in 

the field office would annually generate $8 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $16 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $5 million 

in labor earnings and support 206 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 47% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-77. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Rock Springs Field Office 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $56,625 $56,625 $30,045 $56,625 $56,625

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $115,322 $115,322 $61,189 $115,322 $115,322

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $36,947 $36,947 $19,603.75 $36,947 $36,947

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 206.0 206.0 109.3 206.0 206.0

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-78. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Rock Springs Field 

Office (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $8,067 $8,067 $4,280 $8,067 $8,067
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-165

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $16,428 $16,428 $8,717 $16,428 $16,428

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $5,263 $5,263 $2,793 $5,263 $5,263

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 206.0 206.0 109.3 206.0 206.0

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -46.9% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-79 and Table 4-80 summarize the results for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The analysis uses 

10-year average annual billed use estimates of 83 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 21,845 AUMs in 

general habitat for cattle grazing, and no AUMs in priority/core habitat and 1,183 AUMs in general 

habitat for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 

(or otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-79 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the planning unit would generate $8 

million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the 

socioeconomic study area for this planning unit in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $16 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $6 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 25 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

has the second lowest total economic output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sagegrouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-80 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas 

in the planning unit would annually generate $1 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $2 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $1 million 

in labor earnings and support 25 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by less than 1% because livestock grazing 

would be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-79. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $8,362 $8,362 $8,332 $8,362 $8,362

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-166 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Total Economic Output $16,446 $16,446 $16,387 $16,446 $16,446

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $5,737 $5,737 $5,716.46 $5,737 $5,737

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 25.4 25.4 25.3 25.4 25.4

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-80. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Bridger-Teton National 

Forest (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,191 $1,191 $1,187 $1,191 $1,191

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $2,343 $2,343 $2,334 $2,343 $2,343

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $817 $817 $814 $817 $817

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 25.4 25.4 25.3 25.4 25.4

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-81 and Table 4-82 summarize the results for the Medicine Bow National Forest. The analysis 

uses 10-year average annual billed use estimates of 513 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 2,889 AUMs 

in general habitat for cattle grazing, and 57 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 194 AUMs in general 

habitat for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 to 2020 

(or otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-81 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the planning unit would generate $1 

million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the 

socioeconomic study area for this planning unit in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $3 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $1 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 4 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Medicine Bow National Forest 

has the lowest total economic output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within sage-grouse 

habitat areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-167

Table 4-82 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas 

in the planning unit would annually generate $0.2 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and 

$0.4 million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $0.1 

million in labor earnings and support 4 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 16% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-81. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Medicine Bow National Forest 

through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $1,325 $1,325 $1,117 $1,325 $1,325

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $2,587 $2,587 $2,181 $2,587 $2,587

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $843 $843 $711.48 $843 $843

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.9

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-82. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Medicine Bow National 

Forest (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $189 $189 $159 $189 $189

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $369 $369 $311 $369 $369

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $120 $120 $101 $120 $120

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.9
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-168 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -15.7% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-83 and Table 4-84 summarize the results for the Thunder Basin National Grassland. The analysis 

uses 10-year average annual billed use estimates of 40,999 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 57,621 

AUMs in general habitat for cattle grazing, and 9,235 AUMs in priority/core habitat and 16,732 AUMs in 

general habitat for sheep grazing. The analysis assumes these levels of billed use for each year from 2013 

to 2020 (or otherwise, that variations in use average out at these levels). 

Table 4-83 summarizes the present value analysis results. Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on 

National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the planning unit would generate $44 

million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the 

socioeconomic study area for this planning unit in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $86 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $29 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 145 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland has the fifth highest total economic output under Alternative A from livestock grazing within 

sage-grouse habitat areas. 

Table 4-84 summarizes the annual economic impacts using the 10-year average number of billed AUMs. 

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing on National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas 

in the planning unit would annually generate $6 million (2011 dollars) in direct economic output and $12 

million in total economic output for the state economy. This economic activity would include $4 million 

in labor earnings and support 145 jobs per year. 

The economic impact estimates for Alternatives B, D, and E are the same as for Alternative A. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. 

Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed later. Compared to Alternative A, if Alternative C were 

implemented, the various economic indicators would decrease by 40% because livestock grazing would 

be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Table 4-83. Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $44,252 $44,252 $26,491 $44,252 $44,252

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -40.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $85,998 $85,998 $51,568 $85,998 $85,998

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -40.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $29,335 $29,335 $17,527.62 $29,335 $29,335

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -40.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Average Total Jobs Per Year 144.8 144.8 87.4 144.8 144.8
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-169

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -39.6% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Analysis assumes total annual grazing use remains constant from 2013 to 2020 at the 2003-2012 average for billed use, and 

assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Table 4-84. Annual Economic Impacts of Livestock Grazing for the Thunder Basin 

National Grassland (1,000s of 2011$) 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Direct Economic Output $6,304 $6,304 $3,774 $6,304 $6,304

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -40.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Economic Output $12,251 $12,251 $7,346 $12,251 $12,251

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -40.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Labor Earnings $4,179 $4,179 $2,497 $4,179 $4,179

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -40.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Total Jobs Per Year 144.8 144.8 87.4 144.8 144.8

% Difference from Alt. A N.A. 0.0% -39.6% 0.0% 0.0%

N.A.: Not Applicable

Analysis is based on the 2003-2012 annual average of billed forage use and assumes actual use is equivalent to billed use.

Recreation 

The tables in this subsection present two views of the economic effects of recreation. Economic impact 

only measures the effects of new income coming into the study area. In the case of recreation, economic 

impact is based on the spending of non-local residents on local recreation. Economic contribution 

includes the effects of expenditures made by local residents (roughly, individuals who live within the 

socioeconomic study area), as well as the role of new income from outside the study area. In this case, 

economic contribution is based on the spending of local residents on local recreation and the spending of 

non-local residents on local recreation. Economic impact is the measure used in the analyses above of oil 

and gas development and production, wind energy development and production, and livestock grazing. 

Local residents buy only a very small proportion of the total output of those industries; therefore, a 

measure of economic contribution would be only slightly greater than the measure of economic impact. In 

the case of recreation, however, local residents make considerable recreation-related expenditures (gas, 

food, etc., while on local trips); therefore, it is fair to include those expenditures in an analysis of the 

economic role of recreation. Put another way, expenditures by local and non-local recreationists alike help 

keep local businesses going. 

The quantitative economic analyses below for recreation consist of one set of figures for all alternatives 

for each geographic area. The estimates do not address differences between the alternatives. This is 

because the differences in management actions affecting recreation cannot be quantified. Differences in 

impacts between the alternatives are discussed qualitatively later. It is also important to note that the 

analyses assume future recreation use levels (from 2013 to 2020) remain constant at recent actual use 

levels. This assumption means that the figures probably underestimate the economic effects of recreation 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-170 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

over this period. Based on general increasing trends in outdoor recreation patterns, recreation use levels 

are likely to rise in most if not all the geographic areas over this period, but estimating the amount of 

increase would be speculative. Finally, readers should understand that the estimates of economic effects 

presented below are for all recreation use in each field office or planning unit; insufficient information 

exists to allow estimation of recreation use on habitat areas only. 

Table 4-85 summarizes the present value analysis results for all nine field offices and planning units 

combined. This analysis includes impacts taking place within Wyoming outside of each BLM field office 

or Forest Service planning unit’s specific study area. In economic contribution terms, under 

Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands within sagegrouse habitat areas in the planning area would generate $1,910 million in direct economic output (in 

present value and 2011 dollars) for the state economy in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $2,405 

million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $631 million in labor earnings, 

and support an average of 3,044 jobs per year. The corresponding figures from the viewpoint of economic 

impact, as discussed above, are less than the figures for economic contribution. 

Table 4-86 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands and 

National Forest System Lands within sage-grouse habitat areas in the planning area would annually 

generate $272 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the state economy 

in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $343 million in total economic output. This economic activity would 

include $90 million in labor earnings, and support an average of 3,044 jobs per year. 

Table 4-85. Economic Effects of Recreation for Wyoming through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $1,674,172 $1,907,942

Total Economic Output $2,127,532 $2,404,851 

Total Labor Earnings $570,286 $630,559 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 2,746.5 3,043.7

Analysis is based on the best available estimates of recent recreational visitation, as noted for each BLM 

or Forest Service planning area.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-86. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for Wyoming (1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $238,496 $271,799

Total Economic Output $303,081 $342,586 

Total Labor Earnings $81,241 $89,827 

Total Jobs Per Year 2,746.5 3,043.7

Analysis is based on the best available estimates of recent recreational visitation, as noted for each 

BLM or Forest Service planning area.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-171

Table 4-87 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Casper Field Office. In economic 

contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in this field office would 

generate $120 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of 

the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $156 million in 

total economic output. This economic activity would include $40 million in labor earnings, and support 

an average of 184 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Casper Field Office has the 

fifth highest total economic output. 

Table 4-88 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in 

this field office would annually generate $17 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 

dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 

2020, and $22 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $6 million in labor 

earnings, and support an average of 184 jobs per year. 

Table 4-87. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Casper Field Office through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $102,192 $119,948

Total Economic Output $134,651 $156,404 

Total Labor Earnings $35,112 $40,029 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 162.0 184.1

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS 

estimate of total visits for FFY 2012.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-88. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Casper Field Office (1,000s of 

2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $14,558 $17,087

Total Economic Output $19,182 $22,281 

Total Labor Earnings $5,002 $5,702 

Total Jobs Per Year 162.0 184.1

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Table 4-89 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Kemmerer Field Office. In economic 

contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in this field office would 

generate $48 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the 

socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $57 million in total 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-172 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

economic output. This economic activity would include $12 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 67 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Kemmerer Field Office has the 

second lowest total economic output. 

Table 4-90 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in 

this field office would annually generate $7 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 

dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 

2020, and $8 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $2 million in labor 

earnings, and support an average of 67 jobs per year. 

Table 4-89. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Kemmerer Field Office through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $30,219 $48,486

Total Economic Output $36,204 $57,124 

Total Labor Earnings $7,902 $11,898 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 44.7 67.1

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-90. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Kemmerer Field Office (1,000s 

of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $4,305 $6,907

Total Economic Output $5,158 $8,138 

Total Labor Earnings $1,126 $1,695 

Total Jobs Per Year 44.7 67.1

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Table 4-91 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Newcastle Field Office. In economic 

contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in this field office would 

generate $2 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the 

socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $3 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $0.7 million in labor earnings, and support an 

average of 4 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Newcastle Field Office has by 

far the lowest total economic output. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-173

Table 4-92 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in 

this field office would annually generate $0.3 million in direct economic output (in present value and 

2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 

2013 to 2020, and $0.4 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $0.1 

million in labor earnings, and support an average of 4 jobs per year. 

Table 4-91. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Newcastle Field Office through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $1,681 $2,378

Total Economic Output $2,124 $2,945 

Total Labor Earnings $540 $719 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 2.9 3.8

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-92. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Newcastle Field Office (1,000s 

of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $239 $339

Total Economic Output $303 $420 

Total Labor Earnings $77 $102 

Total Jobs Per Year 2.9 3.8

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Table 4-93 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Pinedale Field Office. In economic 

contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in this field office would 

generate $221 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of 

the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $265 million in 

total economic output. This economic activity would include $66 million in labor earnings, and support 

an average of 380 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Pinedale Field Office has 

the third highest total economic output. 

Table 4-94 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in 

this field office would annually generate $31 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 

dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-174 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2020, and $38 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $9 million in labor 

earnings, and support an average of 380 jobs per year. 

Table 4-93. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Pinedale Field Office through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $198,494 $220,918

Total Economic Output $239,432 $264,982 

Total Labor Earnings $60,277 $65,568 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 349.8 379.5

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2010.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-94. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Pinedale Field Office (1,000s of 

2011$)

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $28,277 $31,471

Total Economic Output $34,109 $37,748 

Total Labor Earnings $8,587 $9,341 

Total Jobs Per Year 349.8 379.5

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2010.

Table 4-95 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Rawlins Field Office. In economic 

contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in this field office would 

generate $84 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the 

socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $107 million in total 

economic output. This economic activity would include $25 million in labor earnings and support an 

average of 132 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Rawlins Field Office has the 

sixth highest total economic output. 

Table 4-96 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in 

this field office would annually generate $12 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 

dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 

2020, and $15 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $4 million in labor 

earnings, and support an average of 132 jobs per year. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-175

Table 4-95. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Rawlins Field Office through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $71,708 $84,168

Total Economic Output $92,010 $107,043 

Total Labor Earnings $22,143 $25,270 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 116.2 132.4

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-96. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Rawlins Field Office (1,000s of 

2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $10,215 $11,990

Total Economic Output $13,107 $15,249 

Total Labor Earnings $3,154 $3,600 

Total Jobs Per Year 116.2 132.4

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Table 4-97 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Rock Springs Field Office. In economic 

contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in this field office would 

generate $173 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of 

the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $207 million in 

total economic output. This economic activity would include $47 million in labor earnings and support an 

average of 246 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the Rock Springs Field Office has 

the fourth highest total economic output. 

Table 4-98 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on BLM-administered lands in 

this field office would annually generate $25 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 

dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this field office in the period from 2013 to 

2020, and $30 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $7 million in labor 

earnings and support an average of 246 jobs per year. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-176 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Table 4-97. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Rock Springs Field Office through 2020 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $155,574 $173,446

Total Economic Output $186,766 $207,357 

Total Labor Earnings $42,671 $46,779 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 223.7 245.7

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-98. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Rock Springs Field Office 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $22,162 $24,708

Total Economic Output $26,606 $29,539 

Total Labor Earnings $6,079 $6,664 

Total Jobs Per Year 223.7 245.7

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the BLM RMIS estimate 

of total visits for FFY 2012.

Table 4-99 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Bridger-Teton National Forest. In 

economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on National Forest System Lands in this 

planning unit would generate $903 million in direct economic output (in present value and 2011 dollars) 

for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit in the period from 2013 to 2020, 

and $1,112 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $325 million in labor 

earnings and support an average of 1,437 jobs per year. Of all the field offices and planning units, the 

Bridger-Teton National Forest has by far the highest total economic output. 

Table 4-100 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on National Forest System Lands 

in this planning unit would annually generate $129 million in direct economic output (in present value 

and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit in the period 

from 2013 to 2020, and $158 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $46 

million in labor earnings and support an average of 1,437 jobs per year. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-177

Table 4-99. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Bridger-Teton National Forest through 

2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $811,412 $903,081

Total Economic Output $1,005,448 $1,111,555 

Total Labor Earnings $299,603 $324,620 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 1,324.6 1,437.2

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the Forest Service

NVUM estimate of total visits for FFY 2008.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-100. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

(1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $115,591 $128,650

Total Economic Output $143,233 $158,348 

Total Labor Earnings $42,680 $46,244 

Total Jobs Per Year 1,324.6 1,437.2

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the Forest Service

NVUM estimate of total visits for FFY 2008.

The best available recreation use and expenditures data for the Medicine Bow National Forest and 

Thunder Basin National Grassland is from the NVUM survey done in 2008. This survey combined the 

data for both Forest Service-administered areas. Therefore, the economic analysis is also combined for 

both planning areas. 

Table 4-101 summarizes the present value analysis results for the Medicine Bow National Forest and 

Thunder Basin National Grassland. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on 

National Forest System Lands in this planning unit would generate $355 million in direct economic 

output (in present value and 2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this 

planning unit in the period from 2013 to 2020, and $435 million in total economic output. This economic 

activity would include $98 million in labor earnings and support an average of 555 jobs per year. Of all 

the field offices and planning units, the Medicine Bow National Forest and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (combined) has the second highest total economic output. 

Table 4-102 summarizes the annual economic effects of recreation, based on recent actual annual use 

levels. In economic contribution terms, under Alternative A, recreation on National Forest System Lands 

in this planning unit would annually generate $51 million in direct economic output (in present value and 

2011 dollars) for the economy of the socioeconomic study area for this planning unit in the period from 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-178 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

2013 to 2020 and $62 million in total economic output. This economic activity would include $14 million 

in labor earnings and support an average of 555 jobs per year. 

Table 4-101. Economic Effects of Recreation for the Medicine Bow National Forest and 

Thunder Basin National Grassland through 2020 (1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $302,891 $355,518

Total Economic Output $373,417 $434,816 

Total Labor Earnings $85,502 $97,625 

Average Total Jobs Per Year 486.9 554.6

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the Forest Service

NVUM estimate of total visits for FFY 2008.

Analysis assumes annual recreation use from 2013 to 2020 remains constant at recent levels. 

All dollar figures are present values based on a 3% annual real discount rate.

Table 4-102. Annual Economic Effects of Recreation for the Medicine Bow National Forest 

and Thunder Basin National Grassland (1,000s of 2011$) 

Economic Effect, All Alternatives

Impact Contributions

Direct Economic Output $43,149 $50,646

Total Economic Output $53,196 $61,942 

Total Labor Earnings $12,180 $13,907 

Total Jobs Per Year 486.9 554.6

Analysis is based on the best available estimate of recent recreational visitation, the Forest Service

NVUM estimate of total visits for FFY 2008.

4.11.5 Economic Impacts by Alternative 

Many of the management actions for each alternative were incorporated into the minerals RFD, the wind 

RFD, and the calculations of AUMs. The economic impacts of those actions have thus been incorporated 

into the quantitative impact estimates in Section 4.11.4. Each of the subsections below briefly summarize 

the projected physical levels of oil and gas leasing, wind energy development, grazing use, and recreation 

under a specific alternative; these physical levels underpin the quantitative impact estimates of 

Section 4.11.4. Management actions that would have additional economic impacts are then discussed 

qualitatively for the alternative. 

In general, management actions may have two types of economic impacts that are amenable to qualitative 

discussion: 

• Level of economic activity: Management actions may directly affect (increase or decrease) the 

level of economic activity, for example, by allowing or prohibiting certain resource uses, or 

committing the government to certain types of expenditures.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-179

• Costs of projects and operations: Management actions may affect (increase or decrease) the costs 

of projects on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands or operating costs for 

users of these lands. 

In cases where costs are increased, several results can occur, sometimes simultaneously: 

• Reduced economic activity: Increased costs may impact the financial viability of certain projects 

or operators – which may result in reduced economic activity. In general, it is rare for cost 

increases to directly preclude projects or result in operators going out of business, as project 

proponents and operators will seek other approaches, such as reconfiguring or moving projects or 

operations. However, projects or operations may be scaled back, or if they are moved a great 

distance, the local economy experiences a loss. 

• Increase economic activity: Increased costs may result in greater expenditures being made in the 

local area and state. To the extent this occurs, the increased costs may reduce profits for 

operators, but the increased expenditures benefit the local economy by generating additional 

economic activity in the form of income and jobs in the economic sectors receiving the 

expenditures. 

• The net effect: In many cases it is not possible to identify which effect – increased or decreased 

economic activity – will predominate, without considerably more information. 

The subsections below qualitatively discuss potential economic impacts from various management 

actions, to the extent impacts can reasonably be expected to occur, based on the limited information 

available. Impacts that are largely speculative or hypothetical are not included. In some places the text 

reminds readers that certain management actions are addressed quantitatively in Section 4.11.4 rather than 

qualitatively. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative A 

Based on the restrictions or prohibitions on locations for surface disturbing and disruptive activities and 

unavailability of sensitive resource areas for oil and gas leasing, the RFD scenario for oil and gas 

development for Alternative A projects the drilling of 12,585 oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas wells on 

federal mineral estate within sage-grouse habitat areas between 2013 and 2020. The quantifiable 

economic impacts of this level of oil and gas development, and resulting oil and gas production, are 

presented in Section 4.11.4. 

Based on the assumptions and caveats described in Section 4.11.3, which incorporate limitations on wind 

development from various decisions, a total of 1,003 MW of wind energy capacity is projected to be 

developed on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands by 2020 under Alternative A in 

the low development scenario, and 2,507 MW in the high development scenario. The quantifiable 

economic impacts of these levels of wind power development and resulting wind energy production are 

presented in Section 4.11.4. 

Section 4.11.4 also presents the quantifiable economic impacts of livestock grazing on BLM and Forest 

Service-managed land within sage-grouse habitat areas under Alternative A. The estimated impact is 

based on historical billed AUMs and assumes this level of use will continue through 2020. 

Section 4.11.4 also presents the quantifiable economic impacts of recreation. The estimated impacts are 

based on recent levels of recreation use on BLM and Forest Service-managed land throughout each BLM 

and Forest Service planning area and assume these levels of use will continue through 2020. The 

estimated impacts are the same for all alternatives because differences in management actions affecting 

recreation cannot be quantified. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-180 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Some of the quantifiable economic impact of recreation is directly attributable to the presence of sagegrouse in the planning area. To the extent that sage-grouse populations are maintained or enhanced by this 

alternative, recreation centered on sage-grouse (bird-watching, hunting) would be maintained or 

enhanced. These activities have economic effects on local communities and the state. The Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (2010b) estimates that in 2009, hunter expenditures related to sage-grouse 

hunting in Wyoming amounted to $2.937 million. Total economic impacts would be greater because of 

the multiplier effect. An unknown amount of expenditures are generated by birders who travel to leks to 

observe sage-grouse. To the extent these activities bring in visitors from outside a BLM field office or 

Forest Service planning unit, or from outside the state, they are important to the local/state economy 

because these visitors’ expenditures represent an influx of money into the economy 

Additional potential economic impacts from various management actions of this alternative are discussed 

qualitatively below. 

Certain lands and realty management actions may result in increased costs for project proponents and thus 

could affect (increase or decrease) levels of economic activity. These include: 

• Managing portions of sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion zones and portions of 

sage-grouse general habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas may result in more costly routing of 

utilities relative to unconstrained corridors. 

• Constraints on location and uses of new or adjusted utility corridors in sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat areas may result in more costly routing of utilities relative to unconstrained 

corridors. 

• Requiring burial of utility lines or anti-perch devices in the Kemmerer Field Office would 

increase project costs. 

• MET tower location restrictions in the Kemmerer and Rawlins Field Offices may result in 

increased project costs. 

The economic impact of the level of wind energy development allowed for in this alternative is 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Allowing for disposal of identified public lands within sage-grouse core habitat would allow for increased 

economic activity through development or alternative uses of those parcels, and/or allow for generation of 

property tax revenues from the parcels that pass into private ownership, but in such cases would also 

result in some downward adjustment of PILTs to local government. 

Pursuing acquisition of lands and interests in lands in certain areas of the Rawlins and Casper Field 

Offices would reduce property taxes but also increase PILTs, commensurate with the amount of land or 

interests in land acquired. 

Allowing for determination of a variety of actions to address non-achievement of land health standards 

and non-conformance with guidelines due to existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing 

use in sage-grouse core habitat areas may result in reductions in grazing use and thus could reduce 

economic activity or result in increased costs for operators. 

Management actions related to the design and implementation of livestock grazing strategies as part of the 

grazing permit renewal process may result, in some specific cases, in increased costs to operators or 

reduced grazing levels and thereby could affect levels of economic activity. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-181

Voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits or grazing preference, as provided for in BLM and Forest 

Service regulations, would result in reduced economic activity to the extent that permits or AUMs are 

retired. Under BLM grazing regulations, permits that are relinquished are offered to other applicants 

unless specific decisions are made to retire the grazing preference. Retirement is a difficult and complex 

process that is not often carried out. Forest Service regulations require that grazing permits be waived 

back to the Forest Service and are only retired if there is an identified resource issue that needs to be 

addressed. Therefore, there would likely be little or no change expected to economic activity in this 

alternative related to voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits or grazing preference. 

Management actions setting various requirements or standards for range development projects may result 

in increased costs to operators relative to projects without such requirements. 

Management actions for livestock grazing in riparian areas may result in reductions in use and/or affect 

the practices of grazing operators and/or planned improvements. These effects may result in reduced 

economic activity and/or increased costs to operators. 

The economic impacts of a number of the minerals management decisions in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to minerals lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs on a 

case-by-case basis may allow for some increases in economic activity relative to not allowing these 

modifications. 

Continuation of various policies within the existing RMPs and LRMPs will allow for or prohibit 

geophysical exploration, and thereby affect economic activity (expenditures associated with exploration) 

or may affect costs of exploration. 

Requirements for mitigation and other COAs may increase costs to operators and in certain cases (Rock 

Springs/Green River RMP), may affect the level of economic activity relative to not having such 

requirements. 

Continuation of various policies within the existing RMPs and LRMPs regarding coal leasing, and 

allowances for coal exploration activities, generally allow for exploration for and development of coal 

resources and the economic activity that would result. 

Provisions for non-energy mineral leasing, and allowances for related exploration/prospecting activities, 

generally allow for exploration and development of coal resources, and the economic activity that would 

result. 

Withdrawal 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. 

Continuation of various policies within the existing RMPs and LRMPs regarding outdoor recreation 

management, including SRPs and SUAs, allow for economic activity attendant to recreation on BLMadministered lands and National Forest System Lands. 

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area within the Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices, 

respectively, as OHV “open” areas would preserve open OHV access and maintain the economic activity 

associated with this use. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-182 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The economic impacts of avoidance of surface disturbance or occupancy in certain areas (e.g., for road 

building for oil and gas development) are encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

A number of management actions in this alternative would generate economic activity due to the resulting 

expenditures made in the local and state economies, although the level of economic activity from many of 

these actions would be small relative to the activity generated by resource uses. Relevant management 

actions include: 

• Reclaiming unauthorized, redundant or unnecessary travel routes. 

• Vegetation treatment and vegetation management projects. 

• Fencing (i.e., resting) of treated (e.g., burn) areas from grazing. (However, this may reduce the 

economic activity generated by grazing). 

• Reclamation of surface disturbances. 

• Vegetation reclamation standards requiring use of native / genetically local plants or seeds. 

• Activities to control outbreaks of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets. 

• Provision of water developments to improve wild horse distribution and manage forage 

utilization. 

• Wildland fire fuels management / reduction activities (prescribed burns, mechanical, chemical, 

and biological treatments). 

• Stabilization and restoration activities subsequent to wildland fires. 

• Woodland encroachment treatments in certain grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and other vegetative 

communities. 

Onsite and offsite mitigation considerations in the Pinedale RMP, while not required, may result in 

increased costs for operators in that field office relative to not having such considerations. This could 

impact (reduce) levels of economic activity, but more likely operations would remain at the same level 

and the costs of mitigation actions would result in increased levels of economic activity. 

Restrictions on timing and distance of surface disturbance, surface occupancy, and in some cases, other 

wildlife-disturbing activity or general human activities, are partly encompassed in the quantitative 

analysis in Section 4.11.4. These restrictions would have various additional impacts; e.g., use of 

directional drilling to access fluid mineral resources under NSO areas or changes to operators’ practices 

for accessing sites. In rare cases, where operators cannot make adjustments, these restrictions may result 

in reducing economic activity. In most cases, the restrictions are likely to result in increased costs that 

would generate increased economic activity. 

Actions necessary to limit noise impacts to sage-grouse (e.g., siting of facilities, use of BMPs such as 

mufflers) would result in costs for operators. It is likely that operations would remain at the same level 

and the costs of noise reduction actions would result in increased levels of economic activity.

Impacts to Non-market Values 

The term non-market values refers to the benefits individuals attribute to experiences of the environment 

or uses of natural and cultural resources that do not involve market transactions and therefore lack prices. 

This includes direct and indirect use values and also non-use values (sometimes referred to as passive use 

values). Use value includes the benefits an individual directly derives from some experience or activity, 

such as climbing a spectacular peak, hunting or wildlife viewing. Use value also includes indirectly 

received benefits, such as from ecosystem services, which are environmental functions, processes, and 

characteristics that are valuable to people because they support, enable or protect human activity. 

Examples include crop pollination services provided by wild bees and other insects, and flood control 

from intact wetlands. In contrast, non-use value refers to the utility or psychological benefit some people 

derive from the existence of some environmental condition that may never be directly experienced: an 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-183

unspoiled Grand Canyon or the continued presence of an endangered species. These different types of 

values and the methods for estimating them are discussed further in the Socioeconomic Baseline Report. 

There are many non-market values associated with BLM-administered lands and National Forest System 

Lands in the planning area. A few of the most relevant non-market values are discussed below and for the 

other alternatives; these are the un-priced economic benefits associated with recreation, livestock grazing, 

the existence and preservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and ecosystem services. 

Non-market economic values associated with recreation are relatively amenable to quantitative 

estimation. These values are in addition to the market-based economic values quantified in Section 4.11.4. 

As discussed in the Socioeconomic Baseline Report, consumer surplus is a measure of non-market value 

that refers to the maximum dollar amount a consumer would be willing to pay to enjoy a good or service, 

above any actual payments made such as expenditures to get to a recreation site. It is a measure of the 

value recreationists receive that is not priced in markets. Consumer surplus values have been researched 

and quantified in many studies in the economics literature for many recreation activities and many 

locations (see for example, Loomis 2005 and Rosenberger 2012). Values from this literature can be 

applied to new locations using a methodology known as “benefits transfer.” 

For a high-level estimate of the consumer surplus values associated with recreation in the planning area, 

this EIS for sage-grouse management in Wyoming utilized some of the results from an analysis for 

Chapter 4 of the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Land Use Plan Amendment/EIS (BLM 

2013b). The benefits transfer approach was used in the Colorado sage-grouse EIS. The Colorado sagegrouse EIS methodology and its application to this Wyoming EIS are described in Appendix N, Technical 

Report: Social and Economic Impact Analysis Methodology. The applicability of the Colorado study to 

this study is also discussed in the appendix. In summary, the average consumer surplus value per day 

from the Colorado was applied to estimated visitor days on BLM-administered lands and National Forest 

System Lands in the planning area in Wyoming. 

In round numbers, appropriate to the uncertainties inherent in the estimation of non-market values, the 

estimated total consumer surplus value associated with recreation on BLM-administered lands and 

National Forest System Lands across the entire Wyoming planning area is $362 million on an annual 

basis, and $2,543 million in net present value over the period 2013–2020, using a 3% discount rate. These 

figures represent the value of the additional benefits, expressed in dollar terms, that recreationists derive 

from their activities on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands, above and beyond 

the value represented by their actual expenditures for their recreational activities. 

It is very important to note that this consumer surplus value is not directly comparable to the economic 

output or labor earnings figures generated by IMPLAN and reported in Section 4.11.4 (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2013-131, Guidance on Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values, May 31, 2013). 

They represent different portions of the total economic value of any activity, which encompasses both the 

values that are exchanged in markets and values that are not exchanged in markets. Output and labor 

earnings, including for recreation in Section 4.11.4, are values that are revealed in market transactions, 

while the consumer surplus value for recreation in this section is an additional and different type of 

economic value. In addition, output and labor earnings reflect the multiplier effect that generates 

additional economic activity from the original expenditures or sales. There is no corollary for consumer 

surplus to the multiplier effect for market transactions. The point of estimating consumer surplus value is 

not to compare that value with output or labor earnings, but to show that while the nonmarket benefits of 

BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands do not have prices, their value is 

substantially greater than zero. As noted in the previously cited BLM Instruction Memorandum, this 

value and other non-market values should be considered in the planning process. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-184 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

As with recreation, public land managed for livestock grazing provides both market values (in this case, 

forage that generates cash value when livestock are sold) and non-market values. The non-market values 

associated with livestock grazing includes the scenic value of open livestock range and ranch operations, 

including private land that is maintained in ranching in part because of the availability of public grazing 

lands. Non-market values also include the traditions, customs, and culture of ranching in the west, which 

have experiential value to ranching participants, surrounding communities and some visitors, and also 

broader value (passive use value) to the non-using public who, for instance, appreciate the historic and 

living cultural icon of the American cowboy and independent rancher. One indicator of the non-market 

value of grazing land is that purchases of ranches sometimes occur at prices in excess of the production 

value of the forage on the land. Some of the literature regarding non-market values of grazing land is 

discussed in the Colorado sage-grouse EIS (BLM 2013b), which also notes that some people see nonmarket opportunity costs associated with livestock grazing, such as the potential for forage losses for 

wildlife or for conflicts between livestock grazing and other lifestyles that utilize public lands. 

To the extent that management actions of Alternative A help livestock grazing operators remain in 

business and continue to use BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands, this alternative 

would help maintain the non-market benefits (and any non-market costs as well) associated with livestock 

grazing on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands. Analytical methods are available 

to quantify some of these non-market values, but there are many uncertainties in applying those methods; 

therefore, the BLM and Forest Service did not attempt to quantify these values. 

Another set of non-market values relevant to this EIS involves the preservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Many studies have shown that rare species have economic values beyond the use values associated with 

viewing the animals (Richardson and Loomis 2009). Further, the existence and perseverance of the 

Endangered Species Act indicates the value that the public places on preventing species from going 

extinct. These observations illustrate the idea of “existence value,” a passive use value. This subject is 

discussed further in the Socioeconomic Baseline Report. Passive use values can be quite large, because 

the population of people who experience a particular passive use value can be very large. 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). 

For the Colorado sage-grouse EIS (BLM 2013b), the BLM and Forest Service conducted a literature 

review to identify studies that have quantified the non-market values associated with Greater SageGrouse. No studies specific to Greater Sage-Grouse were identified. However, several studies addressing 

the value of protecting habitat for bird species with similar characteristics to Greater Sage-Grouse were 

identified. These studies found average stated willingness to pay of between $15 and $58 per household 

per year in order to restore a self-sustaining population or prevent regional extinction. The general 

conclusions of the findings in the Colorado sage-grouse EIS are also applicable to this Wyoming EIS: 

“These values represent a mix of use and non-use values, but the non-use components of value are likely 

to be the majority share, since the studies primarily address species that are not hunted. Since Greater 

Sage-Grouse protection is a public good available to all households throughout the inter-mountain west, if 

similar per-household values apply to the species, the aggregate regional existence value could be 

substantial.” To the extent that management actions under Alternative A help maintain sage-grouse 

populations, non-market values associated with Greater Sage-Grouse would be maintained. If this 

alternative’s management actions result in reduced sage-grouse populations, non-market values would be 

impacted. 

Sage-grouse habitat provides a variety of ecosystem services that benefit people. Some of these services 

are encompassed in the discussions above. For instance, recreational experiences are a type of “cultural 

service” provided by functioning ecosystems. (For further discussion of the concept of ecosystem services 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-185

and types of ecosystem services, see Ruhl et al. 2007.) Some additional ecosystem services provided by 

sage-grouse habitat may include: regulation of local/regional aspects of the hydrologic cycle; purification 

of water and air; support of insects that help pollinate crops used by humans; support of insects and 

animals that help control crop pests; production of plants gathered by people for culinary, aesthetic, 

cultural or medicinal purposes; support of additional species (e.g., other rare species) that have passive 

use values; and opportunities for scientific discovery. To the extent that management actions under 

Alternative A help protect the ecological functioning of sage-grouse habitat, this alternative supports the 

provision of ecosystem services by those habitat areas. At the same time, management actions under 

Alternative A may permit degradation of ecosystem services. For instance, resource development may 

impact hydrologic functions on the land, and grazing may impact the mix of plants, insects, and animals 

in ways that alter ecosystem service functions. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative B 

Based on restrictions to surface disturbing and disruptive activities, limitations on density of disturbance, 

and the areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, the RFD scenario for Alternative B 

projects the drilling of 10,712 oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas wells on federal mineral estate within 

sage-grouse habitat areas between 2013 and 2020. Compared to Alternative A, this would be 1,873 fewer 

projected wells. The quantifiable economic impacts of this level of oil and gas development, and resulting 

oil and gas production, are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

Based on the assumptions and caveats described in Section 4.11.3, which incorporate limitations on wind 

development from various decisions, a total of 101 MW of wind energy capacity is projected to be 

developed on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands by 2020 under Alternative B in 

the low development scenario, and 253 MW in the high development scenario. Compared to 

Alternative A, this would be 902 fewer MW of capacity in the low development scenario, and 2,254 

fewer MW in the high development scenario. The quantifiable economic impacts of these levels of wind 

power development and resulting wind energy production are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of sage-grouse habitat management on livestock grazing presented in 

Section 4.11.4 for Alternative B are the same as for Alternative A. This is because the differences in 

management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts 

are discussed below. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of recreation presented in Section 4.11.4 are the same for each 

alternative. This is because the differences in management actions affecting recreation cannot be 

quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed below. 

Some of the quantifiable economic impact of recreation is directly attributable to the presence of sagegrouse in the planning area. To the extent that sage-grouse populations are maintained or enhanced by this 

alternative, recreation centered on sage-grouse (bird-watching, hunting) would be maintained or 

enhanced. Economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A. These impacts might be larger or more 

likely to be maintained under this alternative because of its greater focus on conservation compared to 

Alternative A.

Additional potential economic impacts from various management actions of this alternative are discussed 

qualitatively below. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-186 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Certain lands and realty management actions may result in further increased costs for project proponents 

and thus could further affect (increase or decrease) levels of economic activity relative to Alternative A. 

These include: 

• Managing sage-grouse priority habitat areas as exclusion areas and general habitat areas as 

avoidance areas (subject to some exceptions) for new ROWs and SUAs may result in more costly 

routing of utilities relative to Alternative A and further increase utility project costs. 

• Prohibiting new above-ground transmission structures both inside and outside existing corridors 

would likely increase project costs relative to Alternative A.

• Not authorizing new transmission corridors in sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas, 

and relocating or un-designating ROW corridors would further constraint such utility projects 

relative to Alternative A. This may result in more costly routing of utilities and further increase 

utility project costs. 

Prohibiting MET towers in sage-grouse priority habitat areas would result in some decrease in economic 

activity relative to Alternative A.

The economic impact of the level of wind energy development allowed for in this alternative is 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Retaining public ownership of public land within sage-grouse priority habitat (subject to certain 

exceptions) may result in reduced disposal of public lands relative to Alternative A. This may result in 

less economic activity from development or alternative uses of disposed parcels, and/or the generation of 

property taxes from parcels passing into private ownership may be reduced, while PILTs would be less 

reduced. 

Acquisition of lands and interests in lands in this alternative would reduce property taxes from the 

acquired parcels but also increase PILTs. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the relative level of acquisition activity cannot be determined at this time. 

Incorporating a light grazing management strategy utilizing a 20% to 30% forage allocation for livestock 

in allotments not meeting standards due to livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat may result in 

reductions in grazing use and thus could reduce economic activity, or may result in increased costs for 

operators, relative to the status quo. However, impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined 

because the relative level of changes to grazing availability cannot be determined at this time. 

As in Alternative A, voluntary relinquishment of grazing privileges would result in reduced economic 

activity to the extent that permits or grazing preference are retired. This alternative provides additional 

guidance regarding retirement. However, impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined because 

the actual, relative level of retirement cannot be determined at this time. 

Management actions setting additional requirements or standards for range development projects may 

result in some cost increases for operators relative to Alternative A.

Management actions for livestock grazing in riparian areas would have similar impacts to Alternative A, 

but may result in some additional reductions in use and/or changes to practices of grazing operators 

and/or planned improvements, relative to Alternative A. 

The economic impacts of a number of the minerals management decisions in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-187

Not allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to minerals lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs 

in sage-grouse priority habitat may result in some decreases in economic activity or increases in costs 

relative to Alternative A. 

The economic impacts of geophysical exploration would be similar to Alternative A; however, constraints 

on the methods of exploration may increase costs of some exploration activities relative to Alternative A.

As in Alternative A, mitigation requirements and other COAs may affect operator costs and in certain 

cases may affect the level of economic activity. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the exact types and relative levels of requirements and conditions cannot be 

determined at this time. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on leases within priority habitats may require utilization of more 

costly directional drilling technologies, which would increase economic activity unless accessing the 

resource becomes un-economic and wells are foregone, and not make up for elsewhere. 

The economic impact of the management actions for coal exploration and coal leasing relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined, because the effects of the actions are highly dependent on the 

location of any proposed coal exploration activity or lease relative to sage-grouse priority habitat areas. 

The economic impact of the management actions for non-energy mineral exploration and leasing relative 

to Alternative A 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 sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas. 

The economic impacts of withdrawal of portions of sage-grouse priority habitat from mineral entry for 

locatable mineral development based on risk to sage-grouse and its habitat, relative to Alternative A, 

cannot be determined because the effects of this action depend on the location of economically 

developable locatable mineral resources relative to priority habitat areas and in comparison to the 

withdrawn areas that would occur under Alternative A.

Mitigation requirements for locatable mineral development may increase costs for operators relative to 

Alternative A.

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat areas to mineral material exploration, sale, and free use permits may 

reduce economic activity relative to Alternative A; however, substitute areas for mineral materials in 

many cases may be available outside of priority habitat areas. 

In priority habitat, restoring saleable mineral pits no longer in use to meet sage-grouse habitat 

conservation objectives may result in increased economic activity (expenditures for restoration). 

Not allowing SRPs and SUAs that do not have neutral or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas may 

result in some reductions in economic activity relative to Alternative A.

The economic impacts of designations of sage-grouse ACECs/SIAs are encompassed in the quantitative 

analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

The economic impacts resulting from OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be similar to those 

identified in Alternative A, except the non-sand dune portions of these areas would be managed as 

“limited to designated roads and trails.” This would probably not greatly reduce economic activity 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-188 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

because the sand dune portions of these areas would continue to be managed as OHV “open” areas; thus, 

a wide range of OHV user types would still be accommodated. 

Not allowing upgrading of certain existing routes in priority habitat and implementing constraints on new 

road standards may reduce economic activity (e.g., reduced expenditures on routes, and possibly 

reductions in activities that would be fostered by upgrades) relative to Alternative A. 

A number of management actions in this alternative would generate economic activity due to the resulting 

expenditures made in the local and state economies, although the level of economic activity from many of 

these actions would be small relative to the activity generated by resource uses. Relevant management 

actions include: 

• Reclaiming unauthorized, redundant or unnecessary travel routes – economic impacts would be 

similar to Alternative A.

• Vegetation treatment and vegetation management projects – economic impacts relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific comparative information in this 

planning level action. 

• Fencing/resting of treated areas – economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined due to lack of specific comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Reclamation of surface disturbances – economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

• Vegetation reclamation standards requiring use of native/genetically local plants or seeds – 

economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

• Economic activity from activities to control outbreaks of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets may 

be reduced in core habitat areas relative to Alternative A.

• Provision of water developments to improve wild horse distribution and manage forage utilization 

– economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific 

comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Wildland fire fuels management/reduction activities (prescribed burns, mechanical, chemical, and 

biological treatments) – economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to 

lack of specific comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Stabilization and restoration activities subsequent to wildland fires – increased economic activity 

may be generated relative to Alternative A due to additional emphasis on restoring, recovering, 

maintaining, and enhancing sage-grouse habitat. 

• Woodland encroachment treatments in certain grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and other vegetative 

communities are not explicitly included in this alternative; thus, economic activity from such 

treatments may be reduced relative to Alternative A.

Design of post Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) and Burn Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation (BAER) management and post fuels management projects to ensure long term persistence 

of seeded or pre-burn native plants – which may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock 

grazing, travel management, etc. – may result in reductions in economic activity relative to Alternative A.

The economic impacts of the management decisions for density and disturbance in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Mitigation requirements would likely result in increased costs for operators relative to Alternative A 

because these requirements apply across all nine planning areas. This could impact (reduce) levels of 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-189

economic activity but more likely operations would remain at the same level and the costs of mitigation 

actions would result in increased levels of economic activity. 

Restrictions on timing and distance of surface disturbance and surface occupancy are partly encompassed 

in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. These restrictions would have various additional impacts; 

e.g., use of directional drilling to access fluid mineral resources under NSO areas, or changes to 

operators’ practices for accessing sites. The net economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined as the restriction standards are substantially different than those used in Alternative A.

Limiting noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of 

a lek during active lek season may result in some changes to operators’ practices or require additional 

actions that would result in costs for operators. This is a substantially different standard than that used in 

Alternative A; therefore, the relative economic impacts cannot be determined. 

Impacts to Non-market Values 

Non-market values associated with recreation would be similar to those in Alternative A, but may be 

different in composition. Consumer surplus values associated with non-motorized recreation may increase 

somewhat because this alternative provides more protection to the open spaces that these recreationists 

value. Consumer surplus values for motorized recreationists (OHV users) who appreciate availability of 

open areas may decrease relative to Alternative A because Alternative B changes some currently open 

areas to limited to designated roads and trails. 

Non-market values associated with livestock grazing may decrease in this alternative relative to 

Alternative A. Some of this alternative’s management actions would result in increased costs to operators, 

or changes in operational practices. These changes may impact ranchers’ abilities to maintain their 

livelihoods and the customs and culture of ranching, which could impact the non-market values of 

livestock grazing. 

Non-market values associated with Greater Sage-Grouse populations would probably increase under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A (or experience fewer adverse impacts), because populations of 

sage-grouse are more likely to be maintained or enhanced due to this alternative’s greater focus on 

conservation. 

Ecosystem service non-market values would be greater under this alternative than Alternative A. This 

alternative’s greater focus on habitat conservation and lower levels of resource development would be 

more likely to support higher levels of ecological and other natural functions that provide various 

ecosystem services. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative C 

Based on restrictions to surface disturbing and disruptive activities, limitations on density of disturbance, 

and unavailability of sensitive resource areas for oil and gas leasing, the RFD scenario for Alternative C 

projects the drilling of 8,617 oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas wells on federal mineral estate within sagegrouse habitat areas between 2013 and 2020. Compared to Alternative A, this would be 3,968 fewer 

projected wells. The quantifiable economic impacts of this level of oil and gas development, and resulting 

oil and gas production, are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

Wind energy development and production activity under Alternative C would be the same as that 

projected under Alternative B. Therefore, the economic impacts would be the same as for Alternative B. 

The quantifiable economic impacts are presented in Section 4.11.4. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-190 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Sage-grouse habitat management on livestock grazing are presented in Section 4.11.4 for Alternative C. 

Grazing-related economic activity is less under Alternative C because livestock grazing would be 

prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat. Additional qualitative differences in impacts are discussed 

below. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of recreation presented in Section 4.11.4 are the same for each 

alternative. This is because the differences in management actions affecting recreation cannot be 

quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed below. 

Some of the quantifiable economic impact of recreation is directly attributable to the presence of sagegrouse in the planning area. To the extent that sage-grouse populations are maintained or enhanced by this 

alternative, recreation centered on sage-grouse (bird-watching, hunting) would be maintained or 

enhanced. Economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A. These impacts might be larger or more 

likely to be maintained under this alternative because of its greater focus on conservation compared to 

Alternative A and Alternative B.

Additional potential economic impacts from various management actions of this alternative are discussed 

qualitatively below. 

Certain lands and realty management actions may result in further increased costs for project proponents 

and thus could further affect (increase or decrease) levels of economic activity relative to Alternative A. 

These include: 

• Managing both sage-grouse priority habitat areas and general habitat areas as exclusion areas 

(subject to some exceptions) for new ROWs and SUAs may result in more costly routing of 

utilities relative to Alternatives A and B, and further increase utility project costs. 

• Not authorizing new transmission corridors in sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas, 

and relocating or un-designating ROW corridors would further constraint such utility projects 

relative to Alternative A. This may result in more costly routing of utilities and further increase 

utility project costs. 

• MET tower location restrictions in the Kemmerer and Rawlins Field Offices would result in the 

same costs as Alternative A.

The economic impact of the level of wind energy development allowed for in this alternative is 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Retaining public ownership of public land within sage-grouse priority habitat (subject to certain 

exceptions) may result in reduced disposal of public lands relative to Alternative A and Alternative B. 

This may result in less economic activity from development or alternative uses of disposed parcels, and/or 

the generation of property taxes from parcels passing into private ownership may be reduced, while PILTs 

would be less reduced. 

Acquisition of lands and interests in lands in this alternative would reduce property taxes from the 

acquired parcels but also increase PILTs. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the relative level of acquisition activity cannot be determined at this time. 

The economic impact of the prohibition on livestock grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat is 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. The economic impact estimates in that section 

(the reductions in economic activity) reflect only the reductions in the numbers of AUMs that would no 

longer be utilized on the allotments that are directly affected by the prohibition. In addition, loss of access 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-191

to those allotments may impact the ability of the permittees to utilize the remainder of their allotments, 

and their adjacent private lands. The extent of any such secondary impact cannot be readily determined, 

and would depend on individual operators’ abilities to adjust their operations to address the loss of forage 

in sage-grouse priority habitat. 

The impacts of voluntary relinquishment of grazing privileges would be the same as in Alternative B.

Avoidance of structural range developments and location of supplements may reduce economic activity 

(reduced spending on these measures) somewhat relative to Alternative A. Management actions setting 

additional requirements for range development projects (e.g., changes to fences) may result in some cost 

increases for operators relative to Alternative A.

Management actions for livestock grazing in riparian areas would have similar impacts to Alternative A, 

but may result in some additional reductions in use and/or changes to practices of grazing operators 

relative to Alternative A. Not authorizing certain new water developments may reduce economic activity 

(expenditures for such developments), while modifications to existing water developments may produce 

new economic activity. 

The economic impacts of a number of the minerals management decisions in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Not allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to minerals lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs 

in sage-grouse priority habitat and general habitat may result in some decreases in economic activity or 

increases in costs relative to Alternative A and Alternative B.

Not allowing new geophysical exploration in priority and general sage-grouse habitat may reduce 

economic activity relative to Alternative A and Alternative B. Application of constraints on the methods 

of exploration may increase costs of some exploration activities relative to Alternative A.

As in Alternative A, mitigation requirements and other COAs may affect operator costs and in certain 

cases may affect the level of economic activity. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the exact types and relative levels of requirements and conditions cannot be 

determined at this time. 

The economic impacts of not allowing new surface occupancy on leases within priority habitats would be 

the same as Alternative B.

Prohibiting the construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater 

may result in increased costs relative to Alternative A. This would likely be reflected in increased 

economic activity (expenditures for wastewater management) assuming the increased costs do not result 

in fewer wells. 

The economic impact of the management actions for coal exploration and coal leasing relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined, because the effects of the actions are highly dependent on the 

location of any proposed coal exploration activity or lease relative to sage-grouse priority habitat areas. 

The economic impact of the management actions for non-energy mineral exploration and leasing relative 

to Alternative A 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 sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-192 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The economic impacts of withdrawal of portions of sage-grouse priority habitat from mineral entry for 

locatable mineral development based on risk to sage-grouse and its habitat, relative to Alternative A, 

cannot be determined because the effects of this action depend on the location of economically 

developable locatable mineral resources relative to priority habitat areas and in comparison to the 

withdrawn areas that would occur under Alternative A.

Closing sage-grouse priority habitat areas to mineral material exploration, sale, and free use permits may 

reduce economic activity relative to Alternative A; however, substitute areas for mineral materials in 

many cases may be available outside of priority habitat areas. 

Not allowing SRPs and SUAs that do not have neutral or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas may 

result in some reductions in economic activity relative to Alternative A.

Seasonally prohibiting camping and other non-motorized recreation within four miles of active sagegrouse leks may result in some reductions in economic activity relative to Alternative A.

The economic impacts of designations of sage-grouse ACECs/SIAs are encompassed in the quantitative 

analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

The economic impacts resulting from OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be the same as 

Alternative B.

The economic impacts of restrictions on road building (e.g., for oil and gas development) are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Not allowing upgrading of certain existing routes in priority and general habitat, and limitations on route 

alignments, may reduce economic activity (e.g., reduced expenditures on routes, and possibly reductions 

in activities that would be fostered by upgrades) relative to Alternative A and Alternative B. 

A number of management actions in this alternative would generate economic activity due to the resulting 

expenditures made in the local and state economies, although the level of economic activity from many of 

these actions would be small relative to the activity generated by resource uses. Relevant management 

actions include: 

• Reclaiming unauthorized, redundant or unnecessary travel routes – economic impacts would be 

similar to Alternative A.

• Vegetation treatment and vegetation management projects – economic impacts (activity) relative 

to Alternative A may be reduced as only treatments that are demonstrated to benefit sage-grouse 

would be allowed, treatments to increase livestock or big game forage would be avoided, and 

significant pretreatment data requirements and post-treatment monitoring requirements may 

reduce the use of treatments. 

• Fencing/resting of burn areas – economic impacts (activity) from fencing relative to 

Alternative A may be reduced as this type of management action is not explicitly included in this 

alternative. However, economic activity from grazing in these areas may be greater than in 

Alternative A.

• Reclamation of surface disturbances – economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

• Vegetation reclamation standards requiring use of native/genetically local plants or seeds – 

economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-193

• Economic activity from activities to control outbreaks of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets may 

be reduced relative to Alternative A as this type of management action is not explicitly included 

in this alternative. 

• Provision of water developments to improve wild horse distribution and manage forage utilization 

– economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific 

comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Wildland fire fuels management/reduction activities (prescribed burns, mechanical, chemical, and 

biological treatments) – economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to 

lack of specific comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Stabilization and restoration activities subsequent to wildland fires – economic impacts (activity) 

relative to Alternative A may be reduced as this type of management action is not explicitly 

included in this alternative. 

• Woodland encroachment treatments in certain grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and other vegetative 

communities are not explicitly included in this alternative; thus, economic activity from such 

treatments may be reduced relative to Alternative A.

Design of post fuels management projects to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native 

plants – which may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, travel management, etc. 

– may result in reductions in economic activity relative to Alternative A.

Restrictions on grazing in burned areas may result in reductions in economic activity relative to 

Alternative A.

The economic impacts of the management decisions for density and disturbance in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Mitigation requirements would likely result in increased costs for operators relative to Alternative A 

because these requirements apply across all nine planning areas. This could impact (reduce) levels of 

economic activity but more likely operations would remain at the same level and the costs of mitigation 

actions would result in increased levels of economic activity. 

Restrictions on timing and distance of surface disturbance and surface occupancy are partly encompassed 

in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. These restrictions would have various additional impacts; 

e.g., use of directional drilling to access fluid mineral resources under NSO areas, or changes to 

operators’ practices for accessing sites. The net economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined as the restriction standards are substantially different than those used in Alternative A.

Limiting noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20-24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of 

a lek during active lek season may result in some changes to operators’ practices or require additional 

actions that would result in costs for operators. This is a substantially different standard than that used in 

Alternative A; therefore, the relative economic impacts cannot be determined. 

Impacts to Non-market Values 

Non-market values associated with recreation would be similar to those in Alternative B. Most recreationrelated management actions are the same. Consumer surplus values for non-motorized recreationists may 

be somewhat affected (reduced) by the action that would seasonally prohibit camping and other nonmotorized recreation within four miles of active sage-grouse leks. However, such changes may be 

counterbalanced by increases in consumer surplus based on the appreciation of some recreationists for the 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-194 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

increased protections in this alternative for the open spaces they value (i.e., because the lowest levels of 

resource development would occur in this alternative). 

Non-market values associated with livestock grazing are likely to be less under this alternative than 

Alternative A or the other alternatives. The prohibition on livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority 

habitat would reduce grazing-related economic activity from BLM-administered lands and National 

Forest System Lands; thus, the attendant non-market values for those lands would be impacted. In 

addition, loss of access to those allotments may impact the ability of the permittees to utilize the 

remainder of their allotments, and their adjacent private lands. To the extent that overall operations are 

affected and ranchers cannot adjust their operations to make up for the loss of the forage in sage-grouse 

priority habitat, the non-market values associated with some of the ranches in the planning area could be 

negatively impacted. 

Non-market values associated with Greater Sage-Grouse populations are likely to be higher under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A, and to be highest under this alternative, because populations of 

sage-grouse are more likely to be maintained or enhanced due to this alternative’s greater focus on 

conservation. Many of the same conservation decisions are found in this alternative as in Alternative B, 

but with broader application (e.g., in general habitat areas as well as priority/core habitat areas) and a 

variety of additional decisions are also likely to be more protective of sage-grouse habitat, thus helping 

maintain or enhance non-market values associated with Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Ecosystem service nonmarket values would be greater under this alternative than Alternative A and 

highest among the alternatives. This alternative’s greater focus on habitat conservation and lower levels 

of resource development would be more likely to support higher levels of ecological and other natural 

functions that provide various ecosystem services. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative D 

Based on restrictions to surface disturbing and disruptive activities, limitations on density of disturbance, 

and areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, the RFD scenario for Alternative D projects 

the drilling of 12,112 oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas wells on federal mineral estate within sage-grouse 

habitat areas between 2013 and 2020. Compared to Alternative A, this would 473 fewer projected wells. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of this level of oil and gas development and resulting oil and gas 

production are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

Based on the assumptions and caveats described in Section 4.11.3, which incorporate limitations on wind 

development from various decisions, a total of 784 MW of wind energy capacity is projected to be 

developed on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands by 2020 under Alternative D in 

the low development scenario, and 1,960 MW in the high development scenario. Compared to 

Alternative A, this would be 219 fewer MW of capacity in the low development scenario, and 547 fewer 

MW in the high development scenario. The quantifiable economic impacts of these levels of wind power 

development, and resulting wind energy production, are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of sage-grouse habitat management on livestock grazing presented in 

Section 4.11.4 for Alternative D are the same as for Alternative A. This is because the differences in 

management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts 

are discussed below. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of recreation presented in Section 4.11.4 are the same for each 

alternative. This is because the differences in management actions affecting recreation cannot be 

quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed below. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-195

Some of the quantifiable economic impact of recreation is directly attributable to the presence of sagegrouse in the planning area. To the extent that sage-grouse populations are maintained or enhanced by this 

alternative, recreation centered on sage-grouse (bird-watching, hunting) would be maintained or 

enhanced. Economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A. These impacts might not be as large or as 

likely to be maintained under this alternative as under Alternative B or Alternative C because its 

protections for sage-grouse are not as great as under those alternatives. 

Additional potential economic impacts from various management actions of this alternative are discussed 

qualitatively below. 

Certain lands and realty management actions may affects costs for project proponents and thus could 

further affect (increase or decrease) levels of economic activity relative to Alternative A. These include: 

• Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as exclusion areas (subject to some exceptions) for new 

ROWs and SUAs may result in more costly routing of utilities relative to Alternative A and 

further increase utility project costs. 

• Making general sage-grouse habitat areas available for new ROAs and SUAs may result in less 

costly routing of utilities relative to Alternative A.

• MET tower location restrictions in the Kemmerer and Rawlins Field Offices would result in the 

same costs as Alternative A.

The economic impact of the level of wind energy development allowed for in this alternative is 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Retaining public ownership of public land within sage-grouse priority habitat (unless other benefits are 

determined) would have similar effects as Alternative B.

Acquisition of lands and interests in lands in this alternative would reduce property taxes from the 

acquired parcels but also increase PILTs. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the relative level of acquisition activity cannot be determined at this time. 

Allowing for determination of a variety of actions to address non-achievement of land health standards 

and non-conformance with guidelines due to existing grazing would have the same economic impacts as 

Alternative A. 

Management actions related to the design and implementation of livestock grazing strategies as part of the 

grazing permit renewal process, with some additional consideration for sage-grouse habitat objectives and 

management considerations, would have similar impacts as Alternative A.

As in Alternative A, voluntary relinquishment of grazing privileges would result in reduced economic 

activity to the extent that permits or grazing preference are retired. This alternative provides for retirement 

of up to 15% of voluntarily relinquished grazing preference. However, impacts relative to Alternative A 

cannot be determined because the actual, relative level of retirement cannot be determined at this time. 

Management actions setting various requirements or standards for range development projects would 

have similar impacts to Alternative A.

Management actions for livestock grazing in riparian areas would have similar impacts to Alternative A; 

however, impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined because the relative types and levels of 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-196 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

effects on the practices of grazing operators and planned improvements relative to Alternative A cannot 

be determined at this time. 

The economic impacts of a number of the minerals management decisions in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

The economic impacts of allowing exceptions, waivers, and modifications to minerals lease stipulations, 

COAs, and T&Cs on a case-by-case would be similar to Alternative A. 

The economic impacts of geophysical exploration would be the same as Alternative A.

As in Alternative A, mitigation requirements and other COAs may affect operator costs and in certain 

cases may affect the level of economic activity. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the exact types and relative levels of requirements and conditions cannot be 

determined at this time. 

The economic impact of the management actions for coal exploration and coal leasing relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined, because the effects of the actions are highly dependent on the 

location of any proposed coal exploration activity or lease relative to sage-grouse core habitat areas. 

The economic impact of the management actions for non-energy mineral exploration and leasing relative 

to Alternative A 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 sage-grouse core 

habitat areas. 

The economic impacts of withdrawal of portions of sage-grouse core habitat from mineral entry for 

locatable mineral development would be the same as Alternative A.

Economic impacts from outdoor recreation management would be similar to Alternative A.

The economic impacts resulting from OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be the same as 

Alternative A.

The economic impacts of avoidance of surface disturbance or occupancy in certain areas (e.g., for road 

building for oil and gas development) are encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Allowing upgrading of routes in core and general habitat based on other resource uses would have similar 

economic impacts to Alternative A. 

A number of management actions in this alternative would generate economic activity due to the resulting 

expenditures made in the local and state economies, although the level of economic activity from many of 

these actions would be small relative to the activity generated by resource uses. Relevant management 

actions include: 

• Reclaiming unauthorized, redundant, or unnecessary travel routes – economic impacts (activity) 

would be reduced relative to Alternative A as only allowing natural deterioration of such routes is 

explicitly included in this alternative. 

• Vegetation treatment and vegetation management projects – economic impacts relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific comparative information in this 

planning level action. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-197

• Fencing/resting of treated areas – economic impacts (activity) from fencing relative to 

Alternative A would not occur as treated areas would not be rested. However, economic activity 

from grazing in these areas would be greater than in Alternative A.

• Reclamation of surface disturbances – economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

• Vegetation reclamation standards requiring use of native/genetically local plants or seeds – 

economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

• Economic activity from activities to control outbreaks of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets 

would likely be similar to Alternative A.

• Provision of water developments to improve wild horse distribution and manage forage utilization 

– economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific 

comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Wildland fire fuels management/reduction activities (prescribed burns, mechanical, chemical, and 

biological treatments) – economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to 

lack of specific comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Stabilization and restoration activities subsequent to wildland fires – increased economic activity 

may be generated relative to Alternative A due to additional emphasis on restoring, recovering, 

maintaining, and enhancing sage-grouse habitat. 

• Woodland encroachment treatments in certain grassland, sagebrush, aspen, and other vegetative 

communities are not explicitly included in this alternative; thus, economic activity from such 

treatments may be reduced relative to Alternative A.

The economic impacts of the management decisions for density and disturbance in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Mitigation requirements would likely result in increased costs for operators relative to Alternative A 

because these requirements apply across all nine planning areas. This could impact (reduce) levels of 

economic activity but more likely operations would remain at the same level and the costs of mitigation 

actions would result in increased levels of economic activity. 

The economic impacts of noise limitations would be the same as Alternative A.

Restrictions on timing and distance of surface disturbance and surface occupancy are partly encompassed 

in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. These restrictions would have various additional impacts; 

e.g., use of directional drilling to access fluid mineral resources under NSO areas, or changes to 

operators’ practices for accessing sites. The net economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined as the restriction standards are substantially different than those used in Alternative A.

Impacts to Non-market Values 

Non-market values associated with recreation would be similar to Alternative A under this alternative, 

because the recreation policies and levels of resource development are very similar. 

In this alternative, the non-market values associated with livestock grazing would be similar to 

Alternative A. Some of this alternative’s grazing provisions appear to be less favorable than those of 

Alternative A, some appear to be more favorable, and some are similar; therefore on an overall basis, 

continuation of livestock grazing operations and culture, and their attendant non-market values, would be 

expected. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-198 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Non-market values associated with Greater Sage-Grouse populations would be similar to Alternative A. 

These values might not be as large or as likely to be maintained under this alternative as under 

Alternative B or Alternative C because its protections for sage-grouse are not as great as under those 

alternatives. 

Ecosystem service non-market values may be less under this alternative than Alternative A and would 

likely be less than under the other alternatives. This alternative’s greater emphasis on resource 

development may result in impacts to ecological and other natural functions that provide various 

ecosystem services. 

Economic Impacts of Alternative E 

Based on restrictions to surface disturbing and disruptive activities, limitations on density of disturbance, 

and areas administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, the RFD scenario for Alternative E projects 

the drilling of 11,482 oil, gas, and coalbed natural gas wells on federal mineral estate within sage-grouse 

habitat areas between 2013 and 2020. Compared to Alternative A, this would 1,103 fewer projected wells. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of this level of oil and gas development, and resulting oil and gas 

production, are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

Wind energy development and production activity under Alternative C would be the same as that 

projected under Alternative B. Therefore, the economic impacts would be the same as for Alternative B. 

The quantifiable economic impacts are presented in Section 4.11.4. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of sage-grouse habitat management on livestock grazing presented in 

Section 4.11.4 for Alternative E are the same as for Alternative A. This is because the differences in 

management actions affecting livestock grazing cannot be quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts 

are discussed below. 

The quantifiable economic impacts of recreation presented in Section 4.11.4 are the same for each 

alternative. This is because the differences in management actions affecting recreation cannot be 

quantified. Qualitative differences in impacts are discussed below. 

Some of the quantifiable economic impact of recreation is directly attributable to the presence of sagegrouse in the planning area. To the extent that sage-grouse populations are maintained or enhanced by this 

alternative, recreation centered on sage-grouse (bird-watching, hunting) would be maintained or 

enhanced. Economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A. These impacts might be larger or more 

likely to be maintained under this alternative because of its greater focus on conservation compared to 

Alternative A.

Additional potential economic impacts from various management actions of this alternative are discussed 

qualitatively below. 

Certain lands and realty management actions may affects costs for project proponents and thus could 

further affect (increase or decrease) levels of economic activity relative to Alternative A. These include: 

• Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as avoidance areas for new ROWs and SUAs may result 

in less costly routing of utilities relative to Alternative A.

• Management of general sage-grouse habitat areas for new ROAs and SUAs would have some 

additional constraints relative to Alternative A, but with very similar impacts. 

• MET tower location restrictions and design limitations may result in additional costs relative to 

Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-199

The economic impact of the level of wind energy development allowed for in this alternative is 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Retaining public ownership of public land within sage-grouse priority habitat (subject to certain 

exceptions) would have the same effects as Alternative B.

Acquisition of lands and interests in lands in this alternative would reduce property taxes from the 

acquired parcels but also increase PILTs. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the relative level of acquisition activity cannot be determined at this time. 

Allowing for determination of a variety of actions to address non-achievement of land health standards 

and non-conformance with guidelines due to existing grazing would have the same economic impacts as 

Alternative A. 

Management actions related to the design and implementation of livestock grazing strategies as part of the 

grazing permit renewal process, with incorporation of sage-grouse habitat objectives and management 

considerations, would have similar impacts as Alternative A.

The impacts of voluntary relinquishment of grazing privileges would be the same as in Alternative A.

Management actions setting various requirements or standards for range development projects would 

have similar impacts to Alternative A.

Management actions for livestock grazing in riparian areas would have similar impacts to Alternative A; 

however, impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined because the relative types and levels of 

effects on the practices of grazing operators and planned improvements relative to Alternative A cannot 

be determined at this time. 

The economic impacts of a number of the minerals management decisions in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

The economic impacts of allowing exceptions, waivers, and modifications to minerals lease stipulations, 

COAs, and T&Cs on a case-by-case would be similar to Alternative A (and the same as Alternative D). 

The economic impacts of geophysical exploration would be similar to Alternative B.

As in Alternative A, mitigation requirements and other COAs may affect operator costs and in certain 

cases may affect the level of economic activity. However, the impact relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined because the exact types and relative levels of requirements and conditions cannot be 

determined at this time. 

The economic impact of the management actions for coal exploration and coal leasing relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined, because the effects of the actions are highly dependent on the 

location of any proposed coal exploration activity or lease relative to sage-grouse core habitat areas. 

The economic impact of the management actions for non-energy mineral exploration and leasing relative 

to Alternative A 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 sage-grouse core 

habitat areas. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-200 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The economic impacts of withdrawal of portions of sage-grouse core habitat from mineral entry for 

locatable mineral development based on risk to sage-grouse and its habitat, relative to Alternative A, 

cannot be determined because the effects of this action depend on the location of economically 

developable locatable mineral resources relative to core habitat areas and in comparison to the withdrawn 

areas that would occur under Alternative A.

Mitigation requirements for locatable mineral development may increase costs for operators relative to 

Alternative A.

Salable mineral activities in sage-grouse core habitat areas may be somewhat more restricted than in 

Alternative A; however, suitable substitute areas may often be available outside of core habitat, or within 

core habitat but meeting criteria analyzed in the Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) 

process. The overall differences in economic impacts from Alternative A are likely to be small. 

Economic impacts from outdoor recreation management would be similar to Alternative A.

The economic impacts resulting from OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be similar to 

Alternative B.

The economic impacts of avoidance of surface disturbance or occupancy in certain areas (e.g., for road 

building for oil and gas development) are encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Policies regarding upgrading of routes in core habitat, alignments, and road standards are somewhat more 

restrictive than Alternative A and could somewhat reduce economic activity (expenditures on upgrades, 

and possibly reductions in economic activity fostered by upgrades). 

A number of management actions in this alternative would generate economic activity due to the resulting 

expenditures made in the local and state economies, although the level of economic activity from many of 

these actions would be small relative to the activity generated by resource uses. Relevant management 

actions include: 

• Reclaiming unauthorized, redundant, or unnecessary travel routes – economic impacts would be 

similar to Alternative A.

• Vegetation treatment and vegetation management projects – economic impacts relative to 

Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific comparative information in this 

planning level action. 

• Fencing/resting of treated areas – economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined due to lack of specific comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Reclamation of surface disturbances – economic impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

• Vegetation reclamation standards requiring use of native/genetically local plants or seeds – 

economic impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

• Economic activity from activities to control outbreaks of grasshoppers and Mormon crickets 

would likely be similar to Alternative A.

• Provision of water developments to improve wild horse distribution and manage forage utilization 

– economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to lack of specific 

comparative information in this planning level action. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-201

• Wildland fire fuels management/reduction activities (prescribed burns, mechanical, chemical, and 

biological treatments) – economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be determined due to 

lack of specific comparative information in this planning level action. 

• Stabilization and restoration activities subsequent to wildland fires – increased economic activity 

may be generated relative to Alternative A due to additional emphasis on restoring, maintaining, 

and enhancing sage-grouse habitat. 

• The economic impacts of woodland encroachment treatments in certain grassland, sagebrush, 

aspen, and other vegetative communities would be the same as Alternative A.

Design of post ES&R and BAER management and post fuels management projects to ensure long term 

persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants – which may require temporary or long-term changes in 

livestock grazing, travel management, etc. – may result in reductions in economic activity relative to 

Alternative A.

The economic impacts of the management decisions for density and disturbance in this alternative are 

encompassed in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. 

Mitigation requirements would likely result in increased costs for operators relative to Alternative A 

because these requirements apply across all nine planning areas. This could impact (reduce) levels of 

economic activity but more likely operations would remain at the same level and the costs of mitigation 

actions would result in increased levels of economic activity. 

Noise limitation actions under this alternative may result in some changes to operators’ practices or 

require additional actions that would result in costs for operators. A substantially different noise standard 

is used compared to Alternative A, and additional currently unspecified actions may occur; therefore, the 

relative economic impacts cannot be determined. 

Restrictions on timing and distance of surface disturbance and surface occupancy are partly encompassed 

in the quantitative analysis in Section 4.11.4. These restrictions would have various additional impacts; 

e.g., use of directional drilling to access fluid mineral resources under NSO areas, or changes to 

operators’ practices for accessing sites. The net economic impacts relative to Alternative A cannot be 

determined as the restriction standards are substantially different than those used in Alternative A.

Impacts to Non-market Values 

Non-market values associated with recreation would be similar to those in Alternative B; i.e., similar to 

but somewhat different from Alternative A. Consumer surplus values for non-motorized recreationists 

would likely increase relative to Alternative A, but may decrease for some motorized recreationists. 

The non-market values associated with livestock grazing in this alternative would be similar to 

Alternative A. Some of this alternative’s grazing provisions appear to be less favorable than those of 

Alternative A, some appear to be more favorable, and some are similar; therefore on an overall basis, 

continuation of livestock grazing operations and culture, and their attendant non-market values, would be 

expected. 

Non-market values associated with Greater Sage-Grouse populations may be somewhat higher under this 

alternative than Alternative A due to the additional protections under this alternative. These values might 

not be as large or as likely to be maintained under this alternative as under Alternative B or Alternative C 

because its protections for sage-grouse are not as great as under those alternatives. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-202 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Ecosystem service non-market values may be somewhat higher under this alternative than Alternative A 

due to the additional protections under Alternative E that would help support ecological and other natural 

functions that provide various ecosystem services. These values might not be as large under this 

alternative as under Alternative B or Alternative C because the protections for sage-grouse habitat and 

limitations on development are not as great as under those alternatives. 

4.11.6 Social Impacts 

In general, social impacts of BLM management actions are of two primary types: 

• Social impacts driven by economic impacts – For instance, such impact may occur when changes 

in employment due to management decisions lead to changes in population that drive impacts to 

housing, schools, community services, crime, community cohesion, etc. 

• Social impacts that are more purely social and cultural in nature – These include impacts on 

intangible aspects of quality of life, attitudes and beliefs, traditional land uses and associated 

cultural values, and so on. 

Regarding social changes driven by economic impacts, major economic changes are underway in 

Wyoming due to two resource development trends that both affect BLM-administered lands and National 

Forest System Lands and are affected by BLM and Forest Service management decisions. These trends 

are the rapid development of oil and gas resources across many parts of the state, and the rapid 

development of wind energy resources in some locations. 

With respect to development of oil and gas resources, in some locations the rapid pace of development 

has driven important social changes, due to the influx of people to these areas who find employment in 

the oil and gas industry and ancillary service industries. For instance, the Final EIS for the Proposed 

Resource Management Plan of the Pinedale Field Office, prepared in August 2008, documented a variety 

of changes underway in this field office – within Sublette County in particular – that are attributed to 

rapid population growth (temporary and permanent residents) brought on by the oil and gas boom. These 

changes include stresses on community resources such as educational infrastructure, and impacts to 

community cohesiveness as newcomers bring value systems and mores that differ from those endemic to 

the region. 

The pace of oil and gas development in the Pinedale Field Office, and across the entire planning area for 

this planning action, slowed considerably during the recent recession compared to the pace in the mid2000s. Recently the pace of development has picked up, and very robust levels of development are 

anticipated in the RFD for this planning effort. 

Table 4-103 shows the absolute and relative levels of oil and gas well drilling projected in the RFD, by 

alternative, for the 2013 to 2020 period – the period used in the economic impact analyses in 

Section 4.11.4. 

Table 4-103. Total Wells Drilled on Federal Mineral Estate in Sage-Grouse Habitat from 

2013 to 2020, by Alternative 

Baseline* Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Total Wells Drilled** 13,469 12,585 10,712 8,617 12,112 11,482

Annual Wells Drilled** 1,684 1,573 1,339 1,077 1,514 1,435
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-203

Baseline* Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Total Difference from 

Baseline N.A. -884 -2,757 -4,853 -1,357 -1,987

Total Difference from Alt. 

A

N.A. N.A. -1,873 -3,968 -473 -1,103

N.A.: Not Applicable

*Projected baseline well counts assuming lands are available for leasing with no significant restrictions on drilling.

**Includes oil and gas wells and coalbed natural gas wells.

Source: RFD.

According to the RFD, all the alternatives considered in this planning effort would reduce the number of 

wells that would be drilled and completed on federal mineral estate in the planning area, relative to 

development that would occur without significant restrictions on drilling. Alternatives B through E would 

also reduce the number of wells drilled relative to Alternative A.

To the extent these reductions occur in areas where rates of development would otherwise drive the types 

of social impacts noted above for the Pinedale Field Office, these impacts may be reduced. However, 

depending on oil/gas field configurations, well-drilling technology, and availability of nonfederal mineral 

estate, in some areas oil and gas development may simply shift from federal mineral estate to nonfederal 

mineral estate. Determining the degree of such shifts in activity – and whether current trends in social 

impacts would be altered – requires considerably more information on the plans of and options available 

to oil and gas developers than is available for this planning level EIS. 

In places where high rates of development would drive social impacts, and oil and gas development 

would not simply shift to nonfederal mineral estate in the face of various BLM and Forest Service 

management decisions, reductions in social impact would be most likely under Alternatives B and C, 

given the degree of reductions to oil and gas development under these alternatives. In fact, the RFD 

anticipates that some nonfederal mineral estate also may be affected by the decisions in these two 

alternatives, leading to further reductions in the total wells drilled within sage-grouse habitat for 2013 to 

2020 of 483 wells in Alternative B and 497 wells in Alternative C. The RFD does not project reductions 

in drilling on nonfederal mineral estate in Alternatives A, D, or E.3

As shown in Table 4-103, the reductions in total wells drilled from 2013 to 2020 compared to the baseline 

scenario are much lower in Alternatives A and D, and somewhat lower in Alternative E, than in 

Alternatives B and C. It is likely that reductions in the social impacts of high levels of development would 

not be as significant under these alternatives as under Alternatives B and C. 

Reductions in the social impacts of high levels of development depend in the first place on whether the 

rate of development in the baseline scenario would be likely to induce such impacts. This depends on 

local rates of development, the locations of development relative to communities, and the capacity of 

communities to absorb increased demand on infrastructure and social patterns. 

Detailed inspection of the RFD shows that by far the largest amount of drilling from 2013 to 2020 is 

expected in the Pinedale Field Office – 5,679 wells under the baseline scenario, and 5,066 wells under 

Alternative A (42% and 40% of the total wells across the planning area, respectively). As noted above, 

the Pinedale Field Office is known to have experienced stresses on community resources and community 

 

3 While the RFD addresses reductions on nonfederal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas, it does not address shifts from 

federal to nonfederal mineral estate within sage-grouse habitat areas, or shifts from within to outside of sage-grouse habitat 

areas. 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-204 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

cohesiveness from high rates of development in the past. The rates of development projected in the RFD 

for the Pinedale Field Office are likely to induce these types of impacts in the future. These impacts are 

likely to be most significant under Alternatives A, D, and E, and may be reduced to some degree under 

Alternative B and particularly under Alternative C, which has a reduction of 1,428 wells compared to the 

baseline and 815 wells compared to Alternative A.

The next largest amount of drilling occurs in the Rawlins Field Office – 3,325 wells under the baseline 

scenario, and 3,172 wells under Alternative A. This level of development would probably induce some 

stresses on community resources and community cohesiveness. Reductions in these rates of development 

are significant (between 529 and 1,532 wells) for Alternatives B and C, which would probably result in 

some reductions in social impacts. 

Three other BLM field offices have more than 1,000 wells projected from 2013 to 2020 under the 

baseline scenario: the Casper Field Office (1,601 wells), Rock Springs Field Office (1,215 wells), and 

Kemmerer Field Office (1,023 wells). These levels of development may result in some stresses on 

community resources and social cohesiveness. Well drilling is reduced by over 500 wells in the Casper 

Field Office in Alternatives B and C; reductions in the other two field offices are less. 

The amount of well drilling from 2013 to 2020 is considerably lower in the remaining field offices and 

planning units. Social impacts due to stresses on community resources and social cohesiveness are less 

likely in these field offices and planning units under any of the alternatives. 

With respect to wind energy development, large wind farm projects can result in significant short-term 

increases in employment, which can produce similar stresses on community resources and social 

cohesiveness to those stresses seen with large-scale oil and gas development. Whether these impacts 

would occur would depend on the levels of wind energy development, the locations of such developments 

relative to communities, and the capacity of communities to absorb the demand on infrastructure and 

social patterns. If such impacts occur, they would occur in areas around a relatively small number of large 

wind farm projects. The locations of these projects cannot be reliably determined at this time. Based on 

the projected amount of wind development, these types of impacts would be more likely under 

Alternative A, and to some degree Alternative D. The amount of wind development on BLMadministered lands and National Forest System Lands in Alternatives B, C, and E is considerably less – 

social impacts from the levels of development are less likely or would be less pronounced. 

Regarding social changes that are more purely social and cultural in nature, the five high-level 

stakeholder categories identified and described in the Attitudes and Beliefs section of the Socioeconomic 

Baseline Report are used below to assess key social impacts the five alternatives. Stakeholders have 

distinct sets of attitudes, beliefs, values, opinions, and perceptions about public lands and the effects of 

various management policies and actions. These views reflect different cultural and economic linkages 

people have to public lands. By looking at the alternatives from different points of view, one can identify 

potential social and cultural impacts on each stakeholder group. The categorization of stakeholders is not 

meant to imply that all individuals and social groups fit neatly into a single category; many specific 

individuals or organizations may have multiple interests and would see themselves reflected in more than 

one stakeholder category. The point of the categories used here is to allow differentiation of social 

impacts based on broad differences in sociocultural linkages to public lands and associated points of view. 

Social Impacts of Alternative A 

Based on the analysis presented at the beginning of this section, social impacts driven by economic 

changes, such as stresses on community resources and community cohesiveness from high rates of 

resource development, would be highest under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-205

Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders would find this alternative unsatisfactory. These 

stakeholders believe protecting species and ecosystems is a fundamental social value, and is not 

sufficiently accomplished by the current policies carried forward by this alternative. They would view this 

alternative as leading to the long-term demise of sage-grouse populations and habitats. 

Mineral Development Stakeholders would generally find this alternative to be most favorable to their 

interests and values, and to maintenance of the mineral development economy and culture. This 

alternative has the highest level of projected oil and gas development of all the alternatives. In addition, it 

carries forward policies that these stakeholders are very familiar with and have largely incorporated into 

their costs of business. 

Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders would generally find this alternative to be most favorable 

to their interests. This alternative has the highest level of projected wind development of all the 

alternatives. In addition, it carries forward policies that these stakeholders are very familiar with and have 

largely incorporated into their costs of business. 

Livestock Grazing Stakeholders would generally find this alternative to be most favorable to their 

interests. It carries forward policies that these stakeholders are very familiar with and have largely 

incorporated into their costs of business. 

Recreation Stakeholders would generally find this alternative favorable, largely because it carries forward 

policies that some of these stakeholders are very familiar with. Commercial recreation operators who use 

BLM SRPs or the Forest Service Recreation Special Use Authorizations (RSUA) have largely 

incorporated these policies into their costs of business. Recreation stakeholders who value sage-grouse 

(e.g., some hunters and birdwatchers) or intact ecosystems may not favor this alternative because it does 

less to protect sage-grouse and their habitats than the other alternatives. 

Social Impacts of Alternative B 

Based on the analysis presented at the beginning of this section, social impacts driven by economic 

changes, such as stresses on community resources and community cohesiveness from high rates of 

resource development, would probably be reduced in Alternative B relative to Alternative A.

Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders would see this alternative as more favorable to their 

interests and values than Alternative A. This alternative has lower levels of projected mineral 

development and wind energy development (for example, because priority sage-grouse habitat would be 

closed to new fluid mineral leasing, and due to a limitation on anthropogenic disturbances to less than 3% 

of total sage‐grouse habitat). It also has stronger operational constraints such as various decisions for 

avoidance of and restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities during certain hours and 

certain seasons, which these stakeholders would see as more protective of sage-grouse. These 

stakeholders would find additional decisions to be favorable as well, such as managing sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas as exclusion areas for new BLM ROW or Forest Service SUA permits; prohibiting 

new above-ground transmission structures in sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas; and 

finding unsuitable all surface mining of coal in priority habitat areas. While these stakeholders would see 

this alternative as more in line with the species and ecosystem protection values they believe government 

and society should follow, some in this category would believe this alternative does not go far enough. 

Mineral Development Stakeholders would see this alternative as less favorable to their interests and 

values than Alternative A. Based on the lower level of resource development projected in this alternative, 

and the additional operational and other restrictions noted in the previous paragraph, these stakeholders 

would see this alternative as providing smaller economic benefits at the national, state, and local level, 

and also less support to long-standing mining customs and culture in Wyoming. They would also believe 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-206 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

that this alternative fails to take adequate advantage of Wyoming’s mineral resources to reduce reliance 

on foreign energy sources. 

Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders would find this alternative to be very unfavorable to their 

interests. Compared to Alternative A, this alternative has a greatly reduced level of projected wind 

development due to significant constraints imposed by a number of its management actions, including 

managing sage-grouse priority habitat areas as exclusion areas for new BLM ROW or Forest Service 

SUA permits, and various restrictions that would make development of new electricity development lines 

more difficult or uneconomical. These stakeholders would believe this alternative will result in Wyoming 

missing many opportunities to develop an emerging industry they see as environmentally sustainable and 

highly beneficial to local communities and the economy and culture of the state as a whole. 

Livestock Grazing Stakeholders would find this alternative less favorable than Alternative A. In terms of 

the quantitative economic impact estimates, this alternative generates the same amount of economic 

activity as Alternative A; however, some of its management actions would result in increased costs to 

operators, or changes in operational practices that could alter long-time customs associated with livestock 

grazing. These stakeholders would see this alternative as less conducive to their abilities to maintain their 

livelihoods and the customs and culture of ranching, and thus would also be concerned that this 

alternative could impact the long-term viability of maintaining livestock grazing as an important part of 

the traditions and economies of local communities. 

Recreation Stakeholders may have somewhat divergent views on this alternative. Non-motorized 

recreationists would see this alternative similarly to Alternative A or would favor it because it provides 

more protection to the open spaces that these recreationists value. Some commercial recreation operators 

may have some concerns with this alternative because in priority habitat areas it would only allow BLM 

SRPs or Forest Service RSUAs that have neutral or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas. Motorized 

recreationists (OHV users) who appreciate availability of open areas may find this alternative less 

favorable to Alternative A because it changes some currently open areas to limited to designated roads 

and trails. 

Social Impacts of Alternative C 

Based on the analysis presented at the beginning of this section, social impacts driven by economic 

changes, such as stresses on community resources and community cohesiveness from high rates of 

resource development, are likely to be reduced in Alternative C relative to Alternative A, and would be 

lowest in this alternative compared to any other alternative. 

Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders would see this alternative as more favorable to their 

interests and values than Alternative A, and as the most favorable of all the alternatives. This alternative 

has the lowest levels of projected mineral development and wind energy development, which these 

stakeholders would favor due to fewer impacts on sage-grouse and other wildlife and their habitats. They 

would approve of the use of many of the same decisions found Alternative B, while favoring the broader 

application compared to Alternative B (e.g., in general habitat areas as well as priority/core habitat areas) 

of various decisions, including operational constraints. These stakeholders would find a variety of 

additional decisions to be favorable as well, such as increasing designation of sage-grouse conservation 

ACECs/SIAs; prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks; prohibiting 

most geophysical exploration activity within priority and general sage-grouse habitat; and implementing a 

variety of additional restrictions and conservation activities aimed at protecting and enhancing sagegrouse populations and habitats. Some within this stakeholder group would favor this alternative’s 

prohibition on grazing within priority habitat areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-207

Mineral Development Stakeholders would see this alternative as less favorable to their interests and 

values than Alternative A, and as the least favorable of all the alternatives. Based on the lower level of 

resource development projected in this alternative, and additional operational and other restrictions, these 

stakeholders would see this alternative as providing the smallest economic benefits at the national, state, 

and local level, and also providing the least support to long-standing mining customs and culture in 

Wyoming. In addition, they would believe that this alternative fails to take adequate advantage of 

Wyoming’s mineral resources to reduce reliance on foreign energy sources. 

Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders would view this alternative very similarly to Alternative B, 

as its management actions lead to the same greatly reduced level of wind energy development compared 

to Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Stakeholders would find this alternative much less favorable than Alternative A. This 

view would be based, particularly, on the prohibition on grazing within priority habitat areas. As a result 

of that management action, the amount of economic activity generated from livestock grazing in this 

alternative would be considerably reduced compared to Alternative A (43% at the state-wide level, and 

more or less for specific field offices and planning units). Thus, these stakeholders would see this 

alternative as directly harmful to their abilities to maintain their livelihoods and the customs and culture 

of ranching, and they would also be concerned that this alternative would impact the long-term viability 

of maintaining livestock grazing as an important part of the traditions and economies of local 

communities. In addition, some of the management actions of Alternative C would result in increased 

costs to operators, or changes in operational practices that could alter long-time customs associated with 

livestock grazing. 

Recreation Stakeholders would view this alternative similarly to Alternative B. Most recreation-related 

management actions are the same. Some non-motorized recreationists may be concerned with the action 

that would seasonally prohibit camping and other non-motorized recreation within 4 miles of active sagegrouse leks. However, these concerns may be counterbalanced by the appreciation of some recreationists 

for the increased protections in this alternative for the open spaces they value (i.e., because the lowest 

levels of resource development would occur in this alternative). 

Social Impacts of Alternative D 

Based on the analysis presented at the beginning of this section, social impacts driven by economic 

changes, such as stresses on community resources and community cohesiveness from high rates of 

resource development, would be similar to Alternative A.

Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders would find this alternative unsatisfactory. They would see 

this alternative as more favorable to resource development than the other alternatives (possibly excepting 

Alternative A) and would believe that this favorability to development is contradictory to the need to 

protect and recover sage-grouse populations. While they would see some decisions within Alternative D 

as providing some possibility for improved protection of sage-grouse compared to Alternative A, they 

would see this alternative in general as not sufficiently protective against the long-term demise of sagegrouse populations and habitats. 

Mineral Development Stakeholders would find this alternative very conducive to their interests and 

values. While Alternative A has a somewhat higher projected level of oil and gas development, and thus 

would be favored by many members of this stakeholder group, some members would find Alternative D 

more attractive because it provides for consistent policies across the entire planning area, as opposed to 

the patchwork of policies now in place across the nine field offices and planning units. In addition to 

being consistent, the policies in this alternative are generally much more favorable to mineral 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-208 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

development than those under Alternatives B and C, and somewhat more favorable than those under 

Alternative E. This group would see Alternative D as providing ample opportunity to derive benefits from 

mineral development that support their livelihoods and the economies of local communities, the state, and 

nation, and would see this alternative as allowing for continuation of the mineral development traditions 

and customs of many Wyoming residents and communities. 

Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders would find this alternative to be less favorable than 

Alternative A, and more favorable than Alternatives B, C, or E. This alternative has a lower level of 

projected wind development than Alternative A, and a higher level than Alternatives B, C, or E. While 

they would not view Alternative D as negatively as Alternatives B, C, or E, renewable energy 

development stakeholders would believe this alternative will result in Wyoming missing some 

opportunities to develop an emerging industry they see as environmentally sustainable and highly 

beneficial to local communities and the economy and culture of the state as a whole. 

Livestock Grazing Stakeholders would view this alternative similarly to Alternative A. In terms of the 

quantitative economic impact estimates, this alternative generates the same amount of economic activity 

as Alternative A. In qualitative terms, some of its grazing provisions appear to be less favorable than 

those of Alternative A, some appear to be more favorable, and some are similar. 

Recreation Stakeholders would view Alternative D similarly to Alternative A; the recreation policies and 

levels of resource development are very similar. 

Social Impacts of Alternative E 

Based on the analysis presented at the beginning of this section, social impacts driven by economic 

changes, such as stresses on community resources and community cohesiveness from high rates of 

resource development, would be similar to Alternative A. In some localized areas, such social impacts 

might be reduced in Alternative E compared to Alternative A. 

Wildlife/Ecosystem Conservation Stakeholders would find this alternative more favorable than 

Alternative A or D, but less favorable than Alternative B or C. This view would be based in part on the 

lower level of oil and gas development compared to Alternative A or D, and in part on the more 

discretionary nature of many of the decisions in Alternative E compared to the generally more 

prescriptive decisions of Alternative B or C. Many of the management actions in this alternative would 

involve the BLM or the Forest Service making decisions by applying various criteria, evaluating and 

considering certain courses of action, designing and implementing certain actions to emphasize certain 

results, working with permittees to incorporate certain objectives and management considerations, etc. 

Many of these stakeholders would believe that the effectiveness of this alternative for protecting and 

enhancing sage-grouse population and habitats will depend on how its more discretionary approach is 

implemented. 

Mineral Development Stakeholders would view this alternative less favorably than Alternatives A and D, 

and more favorably than Alternatives B and C, largely due to the relative levels of projected oil and gas 

development across the alternatives. These stakeholders would appreciate some of the more discretionary 

aspects of the management actions in this alternative, which would allow them to work with the BLM and 

Forest Service to find paths forward for projects that develop mineral resources, while not unduly 

impacting sage-grouse populations and habitats; but they would likely prefer the known regulatory 

environment of Alternative A or the generally more development-favorable policies of Alternative D. 

Given the lower level of projected development in this alternative compared to Alternatives A or D, these 

stakeholders would believe this alternative will result in Wyoming missing some opportunities to take 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Socioeconomics 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-209

advantage of mineral resources to support their livelihoods as well as the economies of local 

communities, the state, and the Nation, and to support national energy supplies. 

Renewable Energy Development Stakeholders would view this alternative very similarly to Alternative B, 

as its management actions lead to the same greatly reduced level of wind energy development compared 

to Alternative A.

Livestock Grazing Stakeholders may view this alternative somewhat less favorably than Alternative A. In 

terms of the quantitative economic impact estimates, this alternative generates the same amount of 

economic activity as Alternative A. In qualitative terms, some of its grazing provisions are the same as or 

similar to Alternative A (and also Alternative D), some appear to be more favorable, and several appear to 

be less favorable. For example these stakeholders may be concerned about the management action to 

incorporate, within sage-grouse core habitat and as appropriate, site-specific sage-grouse habitat 

objectives and management considerations into all BLM and Forest Service grazing allotments through 

AMPs, permit renewals, Forest Service Annual Operating Instructions, and/or equivalent planning 

processes. 

Recreation Stakeholders may have somewhat divergent views on this alternative. In general, these 

stakeholders may favor this alternative over Alternative A due to its somewhat lower level of resource 

development, which would help protect the open spaces they value. Commercial recreation operators 

would probably see its policies on BLM SRPs or Forest Service RSUAs as differing from Alternative A 

in nuance but being similar in practical terms. OHV users would see this alternative as more similar to 

Alternative B than Alternative A with respect to management of OHV open areas, and thus may favor 

Alternative A over Alternative E. 

4.11.7 Environmental Justice Impacts 

Chapter 3 presents the methodology for screening the socioeconomic study area for potential 

Environmental Justice (EJ) populations, and the results. Once potential EJ populations are identified, EJ 

impact analysis consists of determining if the subject populations would experience disproportionately 

high and adverse environmental or human health effects – as defined by the CEQ and described in 

Chapter 3 – under one or more of the management alternatives. Environmental health effects may include 

cultural, economic, or social impacts when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or 

physical environment. 

Based on the definitions and threshold values noted above, and the data obtained for this study, the 

following places in the socioeconomic study area were flagged as areas of potential concern from an EJ 

perspective, for the populations noted: 

• Fremont County – based on the population of American Indians/Alaska Natives 

• Albany County – based on the population of all ages living in poverty 

• Niobrara County – based on the population of 65 years and older living in poverty. 

For Fremont County, none of the alternatives would create disproportionately high and adverse 

environmental or human health effects on the population of American Indians/Alaska Natives. Fremont 

County is not in the planning area; therefore, the management actions considered in this planning action 

does not apply to Fremont County. While not in the planning area, this county is included in the 

socioeconomic study area of the Rock Springs Field Office because firms in Fremont County may 

provide support to oil and gas development in that Field Office. The management alternatives would 

reduce the amount of oil and gas development in the Rock Springs Field Office. However, the benefits of 

oil and gas development in the Rock Springs Field Office, and therefore the impacts of any reductions, 
Chapter 4—Socioeconomics Draft EIS 

4-210 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

are attenuated in Fremont County since most of the support for oil and gas development in this field office 

comes from Sweetwater County, not Fremont County. This is shown by employment statistics of the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 2010, a total of 3,123 people in Sweetwater County were employed in oil 

and gas industry sectors, while only 683 people were employed in these sectors in Fremont County.4

Therefore, it is unlikely that reductions in oil and gas development under any of the alternatives would 

have disproportionate environmental (economic) impacts on American Indians/Alaska Natives. 

For Albany County, none of the alternatives would create disproportionately high and adverse 

environmental or human health effects on the population of all ages living in poverty. While the 

alternatives will reduce economic opportunities, for instance through reductions in oil and gas 

development, any reductions in opportunities would not fall disproportionately on this population 

compared to other populations. Individuals living in poverty are no more likely to be unemployed due to 

oil and gas development reductions than individuals in middle class income groups. It is also worth noting 

that the poverty rate in Albany County is somewhat inflated due to the presence of the University of 

Wyoming. Students, who typically have very low incomes, are accounted for in poverty rate calculations 

if they live on-campus, but are included as part of the population in poverty if they live off-campus. 

For Niobrara County, none of the alternatives would create disproportionately high and adverse 

environmental or human health effects on the population of 65 years and older living in poverty. While 

the alternatives will reduce economic opportunities, for instance through reductions in oil and gas 

development, any reductions in opportunities would not fall disproportionately on this population 

compared to other populations. This population would mainly experience indirect benefits from oil and 

gas development since members of the population are not typically in the labor force; therefore, the 

benefits to this population of oil and gas development in this county, and therefore the impacts of any 

reductions, are attenuated. 

 

4 The following sectors under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) are included: 211 - Oil and Gas 

Extraction, 213111 - Drilling Oil and Gas Wells, and 213112 - Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-211

4.12 SOILS

This section presents potential impacts on soils from implementing management actions presented in 

Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning soils are described in Chapter 3. 

4.12.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on soil resources are as follows: 

• Amount of land subject to surface disturbance 

• Vegetation cover (measured by acres in which vegetation would be removed/degraded or 

protected/maintained) 

4.12.2 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• On undisturbed rangelands and forestlands, natural erosion rates are minimal, except in areas that 

have experienced natural disturbance such as fire, where erosion rates may be elevated in the 

short-term after the disturbance. 

• For the purposes of this analysis, water erosion is the primary mechanism for loss of soil 

productivity. 

• Wind erosion can impact soil productivity in a similar manner as water erosion. 

• Eroded soil can be deposited as sediment at any point downslope or can be transported to water 

bodies such as streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. 

• The amount of sediment from upland soil erosion that is transported to streams and other water 

bodies is dependent on distance to the water body, slope, soil texture, filtering capacity of upland 

and riparian vegetation, and storm intensity and duration. 

• Vegetation removal and surface disturbance are the primary cause of accelerated soil erosion on 

the uplands. 

• The removal of vegetation increases the erosive force of overland water flow, decreases soil 

strength, reduces infiltration, increases runoff, alters soil structure, and reduces protection of the 

surface from raindrop impact. 

• Vegetation increases soil organic matter, aggregation of soil particles, and soil porosity, all of 

which increase soil resistance to erosion. 

• Soil compaction increases overland flow and subsequent erosion. 

• Short-term erosion impacts depend on soil texture and type, porosity and permeability, slope of 

the land, magnitude and type of disturbance, type of vegetation, and the length of time it takes for 

the disturbed area to become revegetated with a self-sustaining, perennial plant community. 

• Long-term erosion impacts are those impacts that continue after vegetation has become 

reestablished. They are due in part to changes in the vegetation community but to a greater extent 

to a surface area that remains void of vegetation, such as pads and roads. 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-212 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.12.3 Alternative A 

Surface disturbing activities can result in removal of vegetative cover, soil compaction, reduced 

infiltration, changes in physical and biological properties, reduction in organic matter content, reduced 

productivity, and increased erosion rates due to the exposure of soil particles to wind and water. 

Compaction of soil and changes in vegetative cover increases water runoff and downstream sediment 

loads and lowers soil productivity, thereby degrading water quality, channel structure, and overall 

watershed health where disturbances are near, or hydrologically connected to, water bodies. 

Surface disturbance restrictions apply to activities related to fluid mineral leasing/oil and gas activities on 

new leases and have been applied to existing leases (including development of associated infrastructure), 

development associated with linear and non-linear ROWs (some of which are related to oil and gas, wind 

energy, and solar energy development and some of which are not), construction of MET towers, 

development of other leasable minerals and mineral materials, livestock grazing management and range 

improvements, wildfire, fuels and vegetation treatments, and management activities that require a Special 

Use Permit. 

Limiting 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 

core habitats would in turn limit surface disturbance, and maintain vegetation, soil stability, and soil 

productivity in these areas in the short-term, and no off road travel would be allowed. 

Limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas would result in increased 

short-term surface disturbance, soil exposure, and soil erosion as land is cleared and vegetation is 

removed. The vegetation and soils in these corridors would experience re-disturbance each time a pipeline 

or power line is added to the corridor, increasing the length of time for soil stability and vegetation 

reclamation to occur. However, these impacts would be concentrated over a more finite area as opposed 

to being spread throughout the planning area, increasing habitat fragmentation.

Managing portions of sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) would 

result in no associated surface disturbing activities in these areas, and managing portions of sage-grouse 

general habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas (2,460,340 acres) would result in a low likelihood of 

associated surface disturbance occurring within these areas (Map 2-9). Vegetation removal, soil 

disturbance, and erosion within these habitats would be reduced, and soil productivity would be 

maintained by reducing the loss of nutrient-rich topsoil. However, these projects may be shifted outside of 

habitat areas, which would shift soil impacts and could create instances of increased erosion if these 

projects occur in areas with sensitive or less stable soils. 

Wind energy development activities involve land-clearing and surface disturbances. These actions would 

remove and disturb vegetation and result in short-term soil erosion and a reduction of soil productivity 

through the loss of nutrient-rich topsoil, until these areas were stabilized and vegetated. Wind energy 

development would be available in all sage-grouse core habitat areas, except for 437,120 acres that would 

be closed (Map 2-29). Approximately 1,254 2-megawatt (MW) wind turbines are projected to be 

constructed across the entire planning area. Within the closed areas, the amount of land-clearing and 

surface disturbance associated with the development of new wind turbines would be eliminated, which 

would in turn reduce the amount of overall soil disturbance and vegetation removal, and decrease the 

amount of soil erosion and runoff. 

Authorizing the construction of MET towers in certain areas, and on a case-by-case basis, could result in 

short-term surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and soil erosion, if authorized. If not authorized, soil 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-213

erosion, compaction, and loss of productivity activities associated with the construction MET towers 

would not occur. 

Livestock grazing and range improvements involve localized surface disturbance, including vegetation 

removal and soil compaction, from activities such as concentrated grazing, water development and salt 

block and mineral supplement placement, and construction of fences. These range improvement activities, 

such as fence construction, salt block placement, and water development near wildlife habitat and riparian 

areas would all lead to short-term surface disturbance, and potential long-term surface disturbance in 

areas where livestock congregate, particularly around salt blocks, which could lead to constant soil 

compaction and erosion in these areas. 

Grazing management practices, including managing lotic and lentic wetland/riparian areas toward 

properly functioning condition (PFC), and utilization of BLM and Forest Service guidance to evaluate 

land health standards would all help to enhance and maintain vegetation communities in the long term, 

which would in turn maintain soil stability and productivity while decreasing soil erosion. Livestock 

water development projects could result in surface disturbance, but could also alleviate pressure from 

grazing in riparian areas, which would reduce the amount of erosion caused by grazing, including 

declines in vegetation and increases in soil erosion and runoff. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing within sage-grouse core habitat areas throughout the planning area, except 

in areas that are unavailable to leasing (892,093 acres) (Map 2-4), would increase vegetation removal, soil 

erosion, and runoff. Managing areas with NSO stipulations (40,980 acres) and CSU stipulations 

(5,015,210) would help to reduce such impacts by limiting surface disturbances in these areas. Under this 

Alternative, 13,653 BLM or Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,758 coalbed natural gas (CBNG) wells 

would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat areas, resulting in 130,330 acres that would be disturbed 

over the short-term (before reclamation), and 39,050 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term 

(after reclamation). Fluid mineral leasing activities would involve land-clearing and surface disturbances, 

such as the construction of well pads, roads, and pipelines in sage-grouse core habitat areas. These actions 

remove and disturb vegetation, expose soils to the erosive forces of water and wind, and result in soil 

erosion and reduction of soil productivity through the loss of nutrient-rich topsoil both in the short-term, 

during construction activities, and in the long-term, as permanent structures, such as well pads, pits, and 

roads are maintained. 

Continuation of exceptions to lease stipulations, conditions of approval (COAs), and terms and conditions 

for sage-grouse on a case-by-case basis throughout the planning area could allow for more surface 

disturbance from oil and gas development activities overall, unless exceptions are to timing limitation 

stipulations, in which only the timing of the activity would change. These exceptions would be considered 

on a case-by-case basis, and would need to be consistent with applicable Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs), but any additional surface disturbances would lead to both short-term and long-term vegetation 

disturbance, increased soil erosion and runoff, and loss of soil productivity. 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas may result in a greater number of 

smaller-sized leases within these areas. A greater number of leases could result in a greater amount of 

surface disturbances, vegetation removal, and subsequent soil erosion and runoff, as well as a loss of soil 

productivity by reducing the amount of nutrient-rich topsoil. However, actions to minimize impacts to 

sensitive resources, including vegetation, could reduce the extent of surface disturbances, which would 

help maintain vegetation communities, and reduce soil erosion and soil productivity loss. 

Mitigation of oil and gas activity would lessen the impacts associated with oil and gas activities, including 

surface disturbance from construction of wells, well pads, roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. And, 

requiring reclamation bonds before any drillings or surface disturbing activities occur would help to 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-214 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

ensure reclamation is completed, which would allow for reestablishment of vegetation, stabilization of 

soil, and decrease soil erosion and loss of productivity. 

Surface and underground coal operations involve land-clearing, road development, construction of mining 

facilities, and surface disturbances. Surface coal mining in the Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rawlins, and 

Rock Springs Field Offices, Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (TBNG), would remove and disturb vegetation and result in subsequent soil erosion and 

reduction of soil productivity through the loss of nutrient-rich topsoil. Allowing for coal exploration 

activities and considering leasing of non-energy leasable minerals within sage-grouse core habitat areas 

(Map 2-24) would result in disturbance and removal of vegetation and result in subsequent short-term and 

long-term soil erosion and reduction of soil productivity. The magnitude of long-term soil erosion and 

reduction of soil productivity from coal exploration activities would depend on the duration of activity, as 

well as the type of reclamation efforts implemented and how long it would take for disturbed areas to 

become stabilized and vegetated. 

Alternatively, withdrawing portions of core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (1,677,420 acres; 

Map 2-19) would decrease the amount of surface disturbing activities associated with mineral entry, 

thereby maintaining vegetation, soil stability, and soil productivity. 

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permit operations in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

(except areas that are unavailable), as well as geophysical surveys where allowed, would also lead to 

surface disturbances that would result in vegetation removal, short-term and long-term soil erosion and 

reduction of soil productivity (Map 2-14). The magnitude of long-term soil erosion and soil productivity 

loss from mineral exploration would depend on the duration of activity, as well as the type of reclamation 

efforts implemented and how long it would take for disturbed areas to become stabilized and vegetated. 

Continuing to have saleable mineral pits that are not in use remain available for other uses could result in 

little to no vegetation near the pit, as well as soil compaction and increased soil erosion, particularly 

during heavy rain events. 

Allowing dispersed recreation and special use permits could result in short-term localized surface 

disturbance, resulting in vegetation removal, soil compaction, soil erosion, and loss of productivity.

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area within the Casper, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices, respectively, as OHV “open” areas would result in short-term and long-term impacts to 

vegetation and soil conditions. A one-time disturbance resulting from OHV use in these vegetated areas 

(excluding the “open” sand dune areas devoid of vegetation) could cause physical damage to vegetation 

by breaking stems and branches and could disturb the soil surface depending on soil conditions, slope, 

and ground cover. Usually, with a one-time disturbance, plants and disturbed areas recover. However, 

with repeated use, soil compaction could occur and new trails would be established, resulting in long-term 

loss of vegetation, soil erosion, and loss of soil productivity. The potential for formation of gullies along 

trails and roads would also increase with repeated use, which would increase the rate and amount of 

runoff and soil erosion in the long-term. 

Applying vegetation treatment measures and management, including use of prescribed fire, rehabilitation, 

and restoration measures, resting treated areas in certain locations for two growing seasons, restricting 

surface disturbance in wintering range, and would maintain and increase the overall health and function of 

vegetation communities. In riparian areas the loss of vegetation can increase sediment (due to erosion). 

Fire suppression would be guided by individual field office’s fire management plans. A greater acreage of 

sagebrush may be burned in Alternative A since it is the least restrictive on wildland fire management. As 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-215

a result, a greater loss of vegetation could occur under Alternative A. This could increase sediment loads 

in areas that have been burned and experienced heavy vegetation loss. Robust vegetation maintains soil 

stability and productivity, and reduces soil erosion. Application of these measures could result in shortterm vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion during treatment activities, but would improve 

vegetation health and help maintain soil stability and productivity over the long-term. 

Impacts on soil and water from planned and unplanned wildland fires are complex and involve changes in 

nutrient cycling, water infiltration and runoff, and erosion potential (Moody et al. 2008; Martin and 

Moody 2001). Fire-induced increases in runoff and sediment yield from wildlands are generally greatest 

one to two years following fire (Helvey 1980; Inbar et al. 1998; Robichaud 2005) and are typically 

reduced to background conditions within 10 years (Robichaud 2000). Research has demonstrated that 

increases in post-fire runoff and sediment yield decline over time. Recovery of post-burn runoff and 

erosion rates to pre-fire conditions usually occurs within 5 years on rangeland sites (Wright and Bailey 

1982); it depends on burn severity, vegetation recovery, litter deposition, debris recruitment, and soil 

water repellency (Pierson et al. 2008). Use of heavy equipment during surface-disturbing tactics to 

suppress fires can compact and displace soil. Also, adverse impacts on soil food webs and aquatic 

organisms are likely if ammonia-based fire retardant is misapplied. Effective fire prescriptions and postfire rehabilitation can minimize these impacts. 

In the short term, suppressing unplanned fires in areas of excessive fuel buildup can minimize highseverity fires and the associated impacts of vegetation loss and erosion. However, continued suppression 

of fires can result in increased fuel loading and can increase the risk of high-severity unplanned fires and 

related soil impacts in the long term. 

Closing and reclaiming roads, two-track routes, and trails, and reclamation of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) could 

result in short-term soil erosion due to surface disturbing activities as part of the reclamation process, but 

would result in long-term improved vegetation health and function, and subsequent reductions in soil 

erosion and runoff. 

Applying distance prohibitions (68,550 acres) and restrictions (437,680 acres) of surface occupancy and 

disturbance near occupied sage-grouse leks inside and outside core habitat and connectivity areas would 

reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities resulting from newly permitted activities (Map 2-1). A 

reduction in surface occupancy and disturbances would decrease the amount of vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, and soil erosion associated with surface disturbing activities in these areas, and subsequently 

maintain the health and productivity of soils in both the short-term and long-term. 

Seasonal avoidance of surface disturbing and disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat inside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, and inside sagegrouse winter concentration areas would decrease the amount of vegetation damage and/or removal 

occurring, as specific areas would be completely closed to newly permitted activities during this time 

period. The effects would be short-term during the four months that prohibitions and restrictions are in 

effect. 

4.12.4 Alternative B 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 could result in short-term 

vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion, but would improve the overall health and function of 

vegetation communities, compared to Alternative A, which would in turn stabilize soil, reduce soil 

erosion, and help to maintain soil productivity over the long-term. 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-216 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Working with proponents to ensure 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 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), are included in all project proposals, could lessen the 

amount or area of surface disturbance associated with mineral leasing activities within sage-grouse habitat 

both inside and outside of core habitat areas, compared to Alternative A. If the area of surface disturbance 

is reduced, vegetation removal, soil compaction, soil erosion, and productivity loss would be reduced in 

the long-term. 

Limiting 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 

core habitats would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A. However, once travel management 

planning is complete, any additional routes designated would result in increased soil erosion and 

compaction, while areas closed to motorized travel would result in a decrease of soil erosion and 

compaction, as vegetation could be reestablished in these areas. 

No new transmission corridors or above-ground transmission structures would be authorized within sagegrouse core and connectivity habitat areas, both inside and outside existing corridors. Sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas would be managed as exclusion areas and general habitat as avoidance areas for new BLM 

ROW or Forest Service Special Use Authorization (SUA) permits (Map 2-10). Soils within sage-grouse 

core habitat areas would not be impacted, as resulting surface disturbances from utility corridor 

development would not occur. Relocating corridors outside of priority habitat would result in long-term 

decreased surface disturbance within the habitat, but could result in greater surface disturbance in areas 

outside priority habitat, if those corridors are developed. 

As a ROW action, wind energy development as discussed under Alternative A would also be prohibited 

inside sage-grouse core habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) and restricted within sage-grouse general habitat 

areas (6,530,940 acres) (Map 2-30). This would result in larger prohibited and restricted areas, relative to 

Alternative A. Approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 

90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the amount of vegetation 

removal, soil erosion and runoff, and loss of soil productivity associated with wind energy development 

activities, compared to Alternative A. 

Prohibiting the construction of MET towers in sage-grouse priority habitat areas would further reduce the 

amount of soil erosion and productivity loss from these activities, compared to Alternative A, because 

MET towers would be prohibited in sage-grouse priority habitat areas throughout the planning area. 

Incorporating a light grazing management strategy in sage-grouse priority habitat would result in 

restrictions to grazing and associated surface disturbance, with fewer impacts to soils compared to 

Alternative A. Designing new structural range improvements and locations of supplements in sage-grouse 

priority habitat to conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat and planning and monitoring for 

invasive species due to these improvements would also reduce the impacts to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, as a healthy vegetative community would decrease soil erosion and loss of productivity. 

Managing riparian areas and wet meadows for proper functioning condition or other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only) within sage-grouse priority habitats would result in impacts to soils similar to 

Alternative A, because the vegetation communities in these areas would be managed for, thereby 

maintaining soil productivity and stability. Authorizing new water development in sage-grouse priority 

habitats for diversion from spring or seep source only when priority sage‐grouse habitat would benefit on 

both upland and riparian habitat from the development or there are no negative impacts to sage-grouse 

would reduce the extent of impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, as less water developments would 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-217

likely be authorized, resulting in less surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and soil erosion. Modifying 

water developments within sage-grouse priority habitat, including dismantling of water developments 

could result in short-term impacts to soils from surface disturbance associated with the dismantling. In the 

long-term, soil conditions may be enhanced where developments are removed, by establishing vegetation, 

stabilizing the soil, and decreasing erosion and loss of productivity, but these water developments could 

cause increased disturbance on other areas of the allotments, as the water source will have to be moved, 

which would impact the soil conditions in these areas in the long-term. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations for sage-grouse would not be considered within sage-grouse priority 

habitat. Vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion in the planning area would decrease, relative to 

Alternative A, if potential additional surface disturbances resulting from these exceptions would not 

occur. However, if exceptions were to timing limitation stipulations, only the timing of the activity would 

change (not the surface disturbance), resulting in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A.

Priority sage-grouse habitat would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing under this 

Alternative (6,809,580 acres)) (Map 2-5), which would be a 32% increase in closed areas compared to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 11,555 oil and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells would be anticipated 

in sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, resulting in 104,050 acres that would be 

disturbed over the short-term (before reclamation), and 33,530 acres that would be disturbed over the 

long-term (after reclamation). The number of wells anticipated would be approximately 16% less than the 

amount of wells anticipated under Alternative A. Activities associated with oil and gas leasing, such as 

construction of well pads, roads, pipelines, and other surface disturbances would be reduced, as would 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and runoff both in the short term and long term. Soil erosion and runoff 

would continue to decline as existing leases would not be re-offered once they expire. 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to 

soils as discussed under Alternative A.

Allowing geophysical exploration within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would decrease impacts to 

soils, compared to Alternative A, because associated surface disturbing activities would be restricted to 

existing roads within sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would in turn reduce vegetation 

disturbance and soil destabilization in areas where the exploration occurred. 

Applying conservation objectives throughout sage-grouse priority habitat would further reduce soil 

impacts associated with oil and gas activity, compared to Alternative A, because the objectives would be 

more intensive, and COAs and minimization of impacts to priority habitat through project design would 

be applied. 

Working with project proponents to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive 

resources would have impacts to soils similar to Alternative A, but to a greater extent within priority 

habitat areas as there would be additional stipulations applied that would require any development within 

sage-grouse priority habitat to be placed in the area least harmful to sage-grouse based on vegetation, 

topography, or other habitat features. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on existing federal fluid mineral leases within priority habitats 

would maintain vegetation, soil health, and soil productivity. However, surface disturbance could occur if 

the lease is entirely within priority habitat, in which case a loss of vegetation, and decreased soil stability 

could occur. 

Unitization results in waiving well spacing requirements to achieve better retrieval of the underground 

resource. Requiring unitization when necessary for proper development and operation of an area within 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-218 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

sage-grouse priority habitat could result in more concentrated surface disturbances and subsequent 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and loss of productivity in the short-term, with less surface disturbance 

overall through the unit/leases involved. Requiring a full reclamation bond specific to the site in 

accordance with 43 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 3104.2, 3104.3, and 3104.5 would result in 

impacts to soils similar to Alternative A.

Finding all surface coal mining unsuitable within sage-grouse priority habitat (Map 2-25) would prohibit 

surface disturbing activities associated with surface coal mining within all priority habitat in the planning 

area, as opposed to smaller, specific areas outlined in Alternative A, so impacts to soils would be reduced 

compared to Alternative A. Additionally, granting no new underground coal mining leases unless all 

surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of sage-grouse priority habitat area would 

decrease the impacts to soils within priority habitat, compared to Alternative A, as no surface disturbing 

activities could occur. However, this could increase the amount of mining activity and surface disturbance 

outside priority habitat areas, compared to Alternative A. Additionally, if new facilities associated with 

existing leases cannot be located outside the sage-grouse priority habitat area, co-locating new facilities or 

building them to the absolute minimum standard necessary would decrease impacts to soils, when 

compared to Alternative A, as the surface disturbing activities would be more concentrated, resulting in 

less vegetation removal, soil compaction, and soil erosion. Also, no coal exploration or leases for other 

non-energy leasable minerals would be allowed inside sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would 

reduce vegetation removal, soil erosion, and loss of productivity from these activities, relative to 

Alternative A where coal exploration would be allowed within this habitat. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry based on risk to the sage-grouse and its habitat from 

conflicting locatable mineral potential and development would result in impacts to soils similar to 

Alternative A if those areas considered for withdrawal are in fact withdrawn (Map 2-20). If they are not 

withdrawn, there would be an increase in surface disturbing activities, which would result in an increase 

of vegetation removal, soil erosion, and loss of productivity in the short-term. In the long-term, these 

areas would be mitigated and the impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would be closed in sage-grouse core habitat 

areas, subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-15). A reduction in these operations would reduce the 

amount of associated surface disturbance, and subsequently reduce soil erosion and runoff, compared to 

Alternative A. 

Restoring saleable mineral pits no longer in use would decrease impacts to soils compared to 

Alternative A, because localized vegetation would be established, and soil stability and productivity 

would increase in the short- and long-term. 

Allowing BLM Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) and Forest Service Recreation Special Use 

Authorizations (RSUAs) in priority habitat that have neutral or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas 

would decrease the extent of impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, in priority habitat, as 

maintaining soil health and stability would be a neutral or beneficial effect. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to designated roads 

and trails, including the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and continuing to manage the sand dune portions of 

these areas where roads to do not exist as “open,” would result in greater protections to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, if recreational riders avoided these areas, as vegetation would return, soil stability would 

improve, and soil erosion would decrease. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-219

Using existing roads within priority habitat and not allowing upgrading of existing routes that would 

change route category or capacity would maintain soil stability and productivity. However, if new roads 

are constructed or necessary route upgrades would occur, short-term loss of vegetation and subsequent 

soil erosion would occur until mitigation efforts were successful in revegetation and soil stabilization. 

Restoration of roads, primitive roads, and trails not designated in travel management plans within priority 

habitat would result in similar impacts to Alternative A, but to a larger extent as all priority habitat would 

be subject to this action. 

Management for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential and within 

the reference state to achieve sage-grouse seasonal habitat objectives in sage-grouse priority habitat 

would increase the overall health and function of vegetation communities, when compared to 

Alternative A, because a larger area of the planning area would be managed. Measures to maintain 

sagebrush canopy cover in priority habitat at no less than 15% unless required, would maintain vegetative 

cover and soil stability, health, and productivity. When compared to Alternative A these treatments would 

encompass a larger area. 

Only allowing for vegetation treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat in priority 

habitat, including restoration of burned areas, would ensure long-term persistence of native plants within 

priority sage-grouse habitats. Not using prescribed fire in less than 12-inch precipitation zones, and 

resting treated areas for two full growing seasons would result in increased long-term soil health and 

stability, when compared to Alternative A, because a larger area (entire priority habitat) would be 

required to follow this action. Fire in sage-grouse priority habitat would be suppressed to conserve 

habitat. Fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be converted to an early seral stage than under

Alternative A. However, there could also be a greater potential for catastrophic fire as a result of fire 

suppression and exclusion. As a result of habitat restrictions, more fires would be suppressed in the 

surrounding vegetative communities to protect sagebrush, and less habitat would be lost to fire. However, 

increased fire suppression could also contribute to larger catastrophic fires due to increases in fuel loading 

in areas outside of priority habitat. Changes in soil and water properties would be more likely to occur 

outside of priority habitat under this alternative. Requiring treatments in known sage-grouse winter range 

to maintain habitat quality would reduce the impacts from these treatments, compared to Alternative A, as 

the entire winter range within the planning area would be subject to this requirement.

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A. 

Identifying areas within sage-grouse priority habitat for vegetation restoration and implementing 

vegetation restoration would reestablish vegetation cover and stabilize the soil, and in the long-term 

rebuild pre-disturbance soil productivity levels. 

Managing discrete anthropogenic disturbances within sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas 

would increase protection to soils within these areas over the long-term. Density of disturbance on the 

landscape would not exceed 3% disturbance within the total sage-grouse habitat, and an average of 3% 

disturbance per 640 acres (within sage-grouse connectivity habitat areas). These limits would reduce the 

amount of surface disturbance in these areas, which would reduce vegetation removal and subsequent soil 

erosion and runoff, and help maintain overall health and function of vegetation communities and soil 

productivity over the long-term. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within sage-grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat, 

including winter concentration areas, would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

similar to Alternative A, except the prohibited area would increase. If a lease is within priority habitat, a 

4-mile perimeter would apply, with a limit to one disturbance per section, with no more than 3% surface 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-220 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

disturbance in that section. This increased area of restrictions would limit the amount of surface 

occupancy and subsequent vegetation removal, soil erosion, and runoff, relative to Alternative A.

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season within all sagegrouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat inside priority habitat areas, and within sage-grouse winter 

concentration areas inside priority habitat areas, would increase protections to soils in the short-term, 

compared to Alternative A, as the prohibitions would expand to a larger area. 

4.12.5 Alternative C 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 would have the same 

impacts to soils as discussed under Alternative B.

Working with proponents to ensure measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives, such as 

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, would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative B.

Limiting 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 

core habitats, would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative A.

The impacts associated with utility corridor designations discussed in Alternative A would not be 

realized. Relocating corridors outside of priority habitat would result in impacts to soils similar to 

Alternative B.

Managing sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA 

permits (Map 2-11) would decrease the impacts to soils within priority and general habitat, compared to 

Alternative A, because 11,245,410 more acres would be excluded from surface disturbance associated 

with ROW or SUA permits. However, these activities could occur outside these habitat areas, which 

would only displace the impacts to soils 

Impacts from managing sage-grouse general habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas discussed in 

Alternative A would not be realized. 

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within sage-grouse priority and general habitat 

areas (11,531,340 acres) (Map 2-31), which would be a greater prohibited area, relative to Alternative A. 

Approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 90% fewer 

turbines than under Alternative A. These prohibitions would reduce the amount of vegetation removal, 

soil erosion and runoff, and loss of soil productivity associated with wind energy development activities, 

when compared to Alternative A.

Authorizing the construction of MET towers in certain areas, and on a case-by-case basis, could result in 

would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative A. 

Industrial solar projects result in short-term surface disturbance associated with solar field construction, 

panel placement, and transmission lines. Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied 

sage-grouse habitats would result in increased protections to soils in these areas, because no surface 

disturbance, vegetation removal, and soil destabilization and erosion would occur. However, this action 

could result in a higher concentration or size of industrial solar projects outside these areas, which would 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-221

result in increased surface disturbance, loss of vegetation, and increased soil erosion outside ACECs and 

occupied sage-grouse habitats. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat and avoiding new structural range 

developments in sage-grouse priority and general habitat would increase protections to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, as no surface disturbing activities associated with livestock grazing would occur and range 

developments would be less likely to occur due to avoidance stipulations, and the area of these 

stipulations would be larger. 

Ensuring that soil cover and native herbaceous plants are at their ESD within sage-grouse habitat would 

help to maintain vegetation health, soil stability and productivity over the long-term. 

Impacts to soils from livestock grazing would be similar to Alternative A because riparian areas and wet 

meadows would be managed for proper functioning condition or other similar methodology (Forest 

Service only) within sage-grouse priority habitats, which would enhance the vegetation communities in 

these areas, and thereby enhance soil productivity and stability. Additionally, within sage-grouse priority 

and general habitats, wet meadows would be managed to maintain a component of perennial forbs with 

diverse species richness and productivity relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) and at least six 

inches of stubble height would remain on all riparian/meadow area herbaceous species at all times, which 

would further stabilize soil, preventing soil runoff and erosion, and maintaining productivity, compared to 

Alternative A. Not authorizing any new water developments for diversion from spring or seep sources 

within sage‐grouse priority and general habitats would decrease impacts to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, as no new water developments and associated surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

soil erosion would occur within priority and general habitat. Modifying water developments within sagegrouse habitat, including dismantling of water developments would have the same impacts to soils 

discussed under Alternative B.

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for sage-grouse would not be considered within sagegrouse priority and general habitat. Vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion in the planning area 

would decrease, relative to Alternative A, if potential additional surface disturbances resulting from these 

exceptions would not occur. If exceptions are to timing limitation stipulations, only the timing of the 

activity would change (not the surface disturbance), which would result in impacts to soils similar to 

Alternative A.

Closing priority and general sage-grouse habitat to fluid mineral leasing would result in 16,878,220 acres 

that would be closed, an increase of nearly 20 times the area closed under Alternative A. Vegetation 

removal, soil erosion, and loss of productivity would not occur in these areas, except for when there is an 

opportunity for the BLM and Forest Service to influence conservation measures, which may result in 

short-term surface disturbance. However, in the long term, it would enhance vegetation, soil productivity, 

and soil stability when compared to Alternative A (Map 2-6). Under this alternative, 9,533 BLM or Forest 

Service oil and gas wells and 1,594 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat and 

connectivity habitat areas, resulting in 85,140 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before 

reclamation), and 27,030 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). The 

number of wells anticipated would be approximately 32% less than the amount of wells anticipated under 

Alternative A. 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to 

soils as discussed under Alternative A.

Not allowing any new geophysical exploration within sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas 

would decrease impacts to soils, when compared to Alternative A, in the long-term because no new 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-222 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

geophysical exploration would be allowed within sage-grouse priority habitat areas. In the short-term, 

impacts to soils could be similar to Alternative A.

Applying conservation objectives throughout the planning area would further reduce soil impacts 

associated with oil and gas activity, compared to Alternative A, because the objectives would be more 

intensive, and Conditions of Approval, minimization of impacts to priority habitat through project design, 

and mitigation requirements would be applied. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on existing federal fluid mineral leases and requiring unitization 

when necessary for proper development and operation of an area within sage-grouse priority habitats 

would have the same impacts to soils as discussed under Alternative B.

Requiring a full reclamation bond specific to the site in accordance with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3, and 

3104.5 would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A.

Finding all surface coal mining unsuitable and not allowing new leases for other non-energy leasable 

minerals within sage-grouse priority habitat (Map 2-26) would prohibit surface disturbing activities 

associated with these activities throughout the habitat, as opposed to smaller, specific areas outlined in 

Alternative A, so impacts to soils would be reduced, compared to Alternative A. Additionally, granting no 

new underground coal mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed 

outside of the sage-grouse priority habitat area would decrease the impacts to soils within priority habitat, 

compared to Alternative A, as no surface disturbing activities could occur. However, this could increase 

the amount of short-term surface disturbance outside priority habitat areas, compared to Alternative. 

Additionally, if new facilities associated with existing leases cannot be located outside the sage-grouse 

priority habitat area, co-locating new facilities or building them to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary would decrease impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, as the surface disturbing activities 

would be more concentrated, resulting in less vegetation removal, soil compaction, and soil erosion. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry based on risk to the sage-grouse and its habitat from 

conflicting locatable mineral potential and development (Map 2-21) would result in the same impacts 

discussed in Alternative B.

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would be closed in sage-grouse core habitat 

areas, subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-16). A reduction in these operations would reduce the 

amount of associated surface disturbance, and subsequently reduce soil erosion and runoff, compared to 

Alternative A. 

Restoring saleable mineral pits no longer in use would decrease impacts to soils compared to 

Alternative A, because localized vegetation would be established, and soil stability and productivity 

would increase in the short and long-term. 

Allowing BLM Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) and Forest Service Recreation Special Use 

Authorizations (RSUAs) in priority habitat that have neutral or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas 

would decrease the extent of impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, in priority habitat, as 

maintaining soil health and stability would be a neutral or beneficial effect. 

Managing the OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and 

a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area as “open,” in addition to all other OHV “open” 

areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas, as “limited to designated roads and trails,” would result in 

greater protections to soils, compared to Alternative A, if recreational riders avoided these areas, as 

vegetation would return, soil stability would improve, and soil erosion would decrease. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-223

Limiting route construction to realignments of existing designated routes within priority and general 

habitat, not allowing upgrading of existing routes that would change route category or capacity unless 

necessary, and mitigating any impacts with demonstrated methods to offset the loss of sage-grouse habitat 

would have impacts to soils similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser extent as these requirements would 

apply to both priority and general sage-grouse habitat. Restoration of roads, primitive roads, and trails not 

designated in travel management plans within priority habitat would result in similar impacts to 

Alternative A, but to a larger extent as all priority habitat would be subject to this action. 

Maintaining sagebrush canopy cover in priority and general habitat at no less than 15% unless 

strategically required for habitat protection and conservation would maintain vegetative cover, which 

would maintain soil stability, health, and productivity, when compared to Alternative A. These treatments 

would encompass a larger area than in Alternative A.

Only allowing for vegetation treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat in priority 

and general habitat would have similar effects to soils as Alternative B, except the extent would be 

greater, as the area would be larger. Requiring fuels treatments in known sage-grouse winter range to 

maintain habitat quality would reduce the impacts from these treatments, compared to Alternative A, as 

the entire winter range within the planning area would be subject to this requirement. And, avoiding 

sagebrush reduction/treatments in sage-grouse priority and habitat areas, and including plans to restore 

high-quality habitat in areas with invasive species would maintain the vegetative community, soil 

stability, and soil productivity. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A. 

Rehabilitating and restoring vegetation within sage-grouse priority and general habitat would enhance soil 

conditions, compared to Alternative B, because a larger area would be restored. 

Not using fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones, unless as a last resort, would 

result in less impacts to soils compared to Alternative A, because a larger area (priority and general sagegrouse habitat) would be restricted from use of prescribed fire. If fire is used as a last resort, impacts to 

soils would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A.

Ensuring long-term persistence of native plants, including sagebrush, within sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat, would have similar effects to soils as those discussed under Alternative B, but to a greater 

extent, as it would include a larger area within the planning area. 

Excluding livestock grazing from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve sage-grouse 

habitat objectives, and closing sage-grouse priority and general habitat to grazing until recovered, would 

protect soils within sage-grouse priority and general habitat by allowing vegetation communities to 

become established, and soil stability to be maintained. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within sage-grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat, 

including winter concentration areas, would result in impacts to soil resources similar to Alternative A, 

except the prohibited area would increase. If a lease is within priority habitat, a 4-mile perimeter would 

apply, with a limit to one disturbance per section, with no more than 3% surface disturbance in that 

section. This increased area of restrictions would limit the amount of surface occupancy and subsequent 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and runoff, relative to Alternative A.

Prohibiting surface disturbing and disruptive activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season 

within all sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat inside and outside priority and general habitat 

areas and connectivity habitat, and within sage-grouse winter concentration areas inside priority habitat 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-224 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

areas, would reduce vegetation removal, erosion, and runoff, compared to Alternative A, in the short-term 

when seasonal prohibitions are in effect. 

4.12.6 Alternative D 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per the BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 would have the same 

impacts to soils as under Alternative B.

Working with proponents to ensure measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives, such as 

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, would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative B.

Limiting 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 

core habitats would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative A.

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits, and 

limiting ROWs and transmission projects in existing utility corridors within a designated two-mile wide 

corridor through sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas or within 0.5 miles on either side of 

existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines, between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and 

November 30 in winter concentration areas) would result in a greater area open for surface disturbances 

associated with these projects (Map 2-12). Impacts to soils would decrease, compared to Alternative A, 

because 4,855,410 acres more would be excluded from surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation 

removal, soil erosion, and runoff associated with ROW or SUA permits. 

Alternatively, allowing general sage-grouse habitat areas to be available for new ROWs or SUAs, subject 

to best management practices (BMP), would result in increased impacts to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, because these areas would be available for ROW utility placement, which would result in 

surface disturbance, vegetation removal, soil compaction, erosion, and destabilization. 

Prohibiting wind energy development within sage-grouse core habitat, unless it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat 

populations, would result in 5,000,400 acres closed, and 501,830 acres restricted (Map 2-32). Impacts to 

soils would be similar to Alternative A, as surface disturbance could still occur within sage-grouse core 

habitat and approximately 980 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 22% 

fewer turbines than under Alternative A. 

Authorizing the construction of MET towers in certain areas, and on a case-by-case basis, would have the 

same impacts to soils as under Alternative A. 

Utilization of BLM and Forest Service guidance to evaluate land health standards achievement in sagegrouse core habitats would have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A. Continuing to evaluate 

and modify when necessary, existing range improvements associated with grazing management 

operations for reducing impacts on sage-grouse and its habitat within sage-grouse general and core 

habitat, would result in reduced impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, as these range improvement 

activities would be evaluated and modified to minimize surface disturbing activities. 

Balancing grazing in sage-grouse core habitats between riparian habitats and upland habitats would 

further decrease impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, because riparian and upland vegetation 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-225

communities would be maintained in a larger area of the planning area. This would decrease the surface 

disturbance associated with livestock grazing, and thereby maintain a larger area of upland and riparian 

vegetation communities, soil stability, and productivity. Within sage-grouse core habitats, authorizing 

water developments as needed to support grazing objectives within sage-grouse core habitat would 

decrease the extent of impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, as there would likely be fewer water 

developments. 

Continuing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions for sage-grouse within sagegrouse core and general habitat on a case-by-case basis would have the same impacts to soils as under 

Alternative A. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing would have impacts to soils similar to those discussed in Alternative A, 

except to a greater extent as 47% fewer acres would be unavailable, compared to Alternative A. Under 

this Alternative, 964,860 acres would be closed and 2,117,990 acres would be CSU (Map 2-7). Under this 

alternative, 13,083 BLM or Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,686 CBNG wells would be anticipated 

in sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, 4% less than in Alternative A, resulting in 

122,910 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before reclamation), and 37,720 acres that 

would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to 

soils as discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts to soils from geophysical surveys would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A.

Working with proponents during oil and gas leasing to promote measurable sage-grouse conservation 

objectives could reduce the impacts to soils, if conservation objectives would include minimization of 

vegetation removal, stabilization of soil, and control of soil runoff, compared to Alternative A.

Actions to minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including vegetation, and requiring reclamation bonds 

before any drillings or surface disturbing activities occur would result in the same impacts to soils 

discussed under Alternative A.

Using unitization for orderly development of an area within sage-grouse core habitat would have the same 

impacts to soils discussed under Alternative B.

Surface mining could occur in sage-grouse core areas, but could not have a significant long-term impact 

on the sage-grouse. Therefore, surface disturbance, where it did occur, would have impacts similar to 

Alternative A, but the extent of impacts would be less. Underground coal mining and allowing for coal 

exploration activities within sage-grouse core habitat areas (Map 2-27) would also have the same impacts 

to soils as discussed under Alternative A.

Consideration of all non-energy leasable mineral activities in sage-grouse core habitats would result in 

similar impacts to soils if these activities were allowed. If they were not allowed, impacts to soils would 

be reduced, when compared to Alternative A. 

Withdrawing core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (Map 2-22), opening sage-grouse core 

habitat areas to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-17), and continuing to 

have saleable mineral pits not in use available for other uses would all result in the same impacts to soils 

as discussed under Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-226 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in sage-grouse priority habitat on a case by case basis 

would have impacts to soils similar to Alternative A, except the area would be larger. If not approved, 

impacts to soils would be the same as discussed under Alternative A.

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, part of the hill climb area in Section 33, T15 North, R114 West, 

Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area as 

OHV “open” areas would have the same impacts to soils discussed under Alternative A.

Allowing road upgrades within sage-grouse core and general habitat could result in short-term impacts to 

soils similar to Alternative A. Allowing natural deterioration of roads within sage-grouse core and general 

habitat would decrease impacts to soil, compared to Alternative A, but in the short-term the effects would 

not be as great as Alternative A, due to the lack of active restoration. In the long-term, effects would be 

greater than Alternative A because the area is larger. However, if vegetation could not be established, 

effects would be less than Alternative A.

Managing for vegetation composition and structure that reflects desired plant community or comparable 

standard within sage-grouse core habitat would increase the overall health and function of vegetation 

communities and minimize soil erosion, compared to Alternative A, because a larger area of the planning 

area would be managed. 

Using the WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse for vegetation treatments in 

core habitat areas would result in impacts to soils similar to those discussed under Alternative B, except 

the effects would be more intense as treatment proposals would be subject to these additional protocols. 

Treated areas that are not rested from livestock grazing could result in increased impacts to soils, when 

compared to Alternative A, because grazing could lead to surface disturbance, soil compaction, and 

vegetation loss, which would lead to an increase in soil erosion and decrease in soil productivity. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), rehabilitation and restoration measures that occur after wildland fire, 

and use of prescribed fire would all have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A.

Managing the density of energy production (excluding coal and trona mining) and/or transmission 

structures (excluding buried pipelines or power lines) on the landscape inside sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat areas would increase impacts to soils within the planning area long-term, compared 

to Alternative B. A limit of three energy production locations and/or transmission structures per 640 acres 

within the DDCT would now be allowed, regardless of the percent disturbance in Alternative B, and a 

greater limit of sagebrush habitat loss (9%) would be allowed under this Alternative, when compared to 

the limit of 3% surface disturbance (and subsequent sagebrush loss) in Alternative B.

Restricting surface occupancy and disturbance, including new road construction, around sage-grouse leks 

inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat areas would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A, 

except the area restricted would decrease. Surface disturbing activity and surface occupancy would be 

restricted within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks across the planning area. Surface disturbing 

activities from newly permitted activities would be restricted within 75,870 acres (Map 2-2), compared to 

Alternative A, in which surface disturbance would be prohibited on 68,550 acres, and restricted on 

437,680 acres. These actions would allow for a greater area of surface disturbance and subsequent 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and runoff. 

Seasonal restrictions of surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting and 

early brood-rearing habitat inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-227

during the sage-grouse nesting season, and seasonal prohibitions within sage-grouse winter concentration 

areas and areas supporting connectivity populations inside sage-grouse core habitat areas reduce 

vegetation removal, erosion, and runoff, compared to Alternative A, as timing and area of these 

restrictions and prohibitions would be expanded. 

4.12.7 Alternative E 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 would have the same 

impacts to soils as under Alternative B.

Working with proponents to ensure measurable sage-grouse conservation objectives, such as 

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, would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative B.

Limiting 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 

core habitats would have the same impacts to soils as under Alternative A.

Allowing ROWs and transmission projects in existing utility corridors within a designated two-mile wide 

corridor through sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas, or within 0.5 miles on either side of 

existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines, would result in the same impacts to soils as discussed under 

Alternative A, but the intensity would be less, as new transmission projects in existing utility corridors 

would be subject to more surface disturbance stipulations and review designed to protect sage-grouse 

populations in sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas. These would include the use of the 

Framework for Sage-Grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission Lines or other appropriate 

documents, and prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities from March 15 to June 30. New 

ROW or SUAs could be issued in existing designated ROW corridors with appropriate sage-grouse 

seasonal timing constraints, which could reduce impacts to soils, but not to the extent as in Alternative B 

because surface disturbance associated with ROWs and SUAs would likely still occur. 

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits 

(Map 2-13) would result in similar impacts to soils as discussed under Alternative A, except there would 

be more avoidance areas, which could increase the extent of impacts to soils. 

Co-locating new ROWs/SUAs, where feasible, would result in decreased impacts to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, because surface disturbance associated with new ROWs/SUAs would be in a concentrated 

area, which would minimize the amount of vegetation removal, soil compaction, erosion, and 

destabilization associated with these activities. Timing restraints would have no effect because the surface 

disturbance could still occur at other times of the year. 

Prohibiting wind energy development within sage-grouse core habitat, unless it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat 

populations, would result in 5,002,520 acres closed, and 6,528,810 acres restricted (Map 2-33). Impacts to 

soil resources would be similar to Alternative A but to a lesser extent, as approximately 127 2-MW wind 

turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A, 

and less subsequent surface disturbance associated with this development. 

Impacts to soils from MET tower construction would be reduced, compared to Alternative A, because the 

siting perimeter avoidance area is larger compared to Alternative A. 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-228 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Utilization of BLM and Forest Service guidance to evaluate land health standards progress towards or 

achievement in sage-grouse core habitats would have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A. 

Continuing to evaluate, and modify when necessary, existing range improvements for impacts on sagegrouse and its habitat within sage-grouse general and core habitat, would result in reduced impacts to 

soils, compared to Alternative A, as these range improvement activities would be evaluated and modified 

to minimize surface disturbing activities. Continuing to authorize mineral, salt and nutritional 

supplements and supplemental feeding for livestock where appropriate would result in impacts to soils as 

discussed under Alternative A.

Balancing grazing in sage-grouse core habitats between riparian habitats and upland habitats would 

further decrease impacts to soils, compared to Alternative A, because riparian and upland vegetation 

communities would be maintained in a larger area of the planning area. This would decrease the surface 

disturbance associated with range improvements, maintain a larger area of upland and riparian vegetation 

communities and, in turn, maintain soil stability and productivity. Evaluating and modifying water 

developments that have a negative effect on sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impacts to 

soils discussed under Alternative B. 

Continuing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions for sage-grouse within sagegrouse core and general habitat on a case-by-case basis would have the same impacts to soils as under 

Alternative A. 

Impacts to soils from fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas 

would be similar to Alternative A, except to a lesser extent as 22% more acres would be unavailable for 

leasing (892,090 acres ) (Map 2-8) compared to Alternative A. Under this Alternative, 12,355 BLM or 

Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,462 CBNG wells would be anticipated in available sage-grouse 

core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, 10% less than Alternative A. Over the short term (before 

reclamation), 112,330 acres would be disturbed, and 35,430 acres would be disturbed over the long-term 

(after reclamation). The agencies would allow oil and gas leasing consistent and subject to the leasing 

stipulations analyzed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and density restrictions sections (Appendix I). 

Application of a minimum lease size of 640 acres within sage-grouse core habitat areas would help to 

prevent fragmentation and increased numbers of smaller-sized leases by reducing the potential for 

increased surface disturbance and subsequent soil erosion and loss, as well as a loss of soil productivity, 

relative to Alternative A. There are exceptions for leases smaller than 640 acres, such as for regulatory 

compliance, but these exceptions would likely not be numerous enough to outweigh the reduction in soil 

erosion and loss from minimum lease sizes. 

Allowing geophysical exploration projects within sage-grouse core habitat, except where prohibited or 

restricted by existing LUP decisions, would reduce the extent of impacts to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, because the projects would be designed to minimize habitat fragmentation within sage‐

grouse core habitat, which would reduce the amount of surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and soil 

erosion associated with these projects. 

Working with project proponents to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive 

resources would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A. 

Requiring any development within sage-grouse priority habitat to be placed in the area least harmful to 

sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features would have impacts to soils similar 

to Alternative A, but to a greater extent within priority habitat areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-229

Encouraging unitization within sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impacts to soils discussed 

under Alternative B where it is utilized. Areas within sage-grouse core habitat where unitization is not 

utilized could have increased impacts to soils, compared to Alternative B, as more areas may be 

developed and undergo surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and subsequent soil erosion and loss of 

productivity. 

Requiring reclamation bonds or partial reclamation bonds commensurate with the scope, scale, size of the 

project within sage-grouse core habitat would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A.

Under this Alternative, surface mining and underground coal mining could occur in sage-grouse core 

areas (Map 2-28), but it could not have a significant long-term impact on the sage-grouse. Therefore, 

surface disturbance, where it did occur, would have impacts similar to Alternative A, but the extent of 

impacts would be less. Allowing coal exploration activities in core habitat areas would result in impacts 

to soils similar to Alternative A, as these activities could occur within sage-grouse core habitats, but the 

extent would be less due to surface occupancy, and disturbance and density stipulations, which may 

reduce vegetation removal and subsequent soil erosion and topsoil loss, if the analyses and potential 

mitigation measures result in revegetation and soil stabilization. 

Consideration of all non-energy leasable mineral activities in sage-grouse core habitats would result in 

impacts to soils similar to Alternative A, if these activities were allowed. If these activities were not 

allowed, impacts to soils would be reduced, compared to Alternative A, as no surface disturbance and 

subsequent vegetation removal, soil erosion, and loss of productivity would occur. 

Impacts to soils from withdrawal of core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (Map 2-23) would be 

similar to Alternative A if those areas considered for withdrawal are in fact withdrawn. If they are not 

withdrawn, there would be an increase in surface disturbing activities, which would result in an increase 

of vegetation removal, soil erosion, and loss of productivity in the short-term. In the long-term, these 

areas would be mitigated, and the impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts to soils from mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permit operations (Map 2-18) 

would be similar to Alternative A, except in sage-grouse core habitat areas where restrictions to surface 

disturbance and disruptive activity may result in less surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation 

removal, soil erosion, and runoff inside these areas. However, these operations may be sited outside of the 

sage-grouse core habitat areas, in which case the impacts to soils would be the same as Alternative A.

Considering closure and restoration of saleable mineral pits no longer in use would result in similar 

impacts to soils as those discussed under Alternative A if the mineral pit is not restored, and would 

decrease impacts to soils when compared to Alternative A, if restored. Localized vegetation would be 

established and soil stability and productivity would increase in the short and long-term. 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in core habitat unless negative impacts to sage-grouse 

cannot be adequately mitigated would have impacts to soils similar to Alternative A, except in cases 

where BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs are approved, in which case impacts to soil would increase 

in the short-term, until those impacts were mitigated. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to existing roads and 

trails, and allowing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and continuing to manage the sand dune portions of 

these areas where roads do not exist as “open,” would result in greater protections to soils, compared to 

Alternative A, if recreational riders avoided these areas, as vegetation would return, soil stability would 

improve, and soil erosion would decrease. 
Chapter 4—Soils Draft EIS 

4-230 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Using existing roads and not allowing upgrading of existing routes unless there would be minimal impact 

to sage-grouse core habitat would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative B, except the area of 

surface disturbance could be larger, because of the 5% limit, versus the 3% limit in Alternative B. If the 

disturbance is less than 5%, but greater than 3%, mitigation would not be necessary, which would result 

in loss of vegetation, and subsequent soil erosion in the short-term, until mitigation efforts result in 

revegetation and soil stabilization. Allowing natural reclamation of roads and trails within sage-grouse 

core habitat would have impacts to soils similar to Alternative A, except this action would also include 

those not designated in WSAs and within lands with wilderness characteristics that have been selected to 

be managed to retain those characteristics for protection. 

Managing for vegetation composition and structure that reflects ESD within sage-grouse core and general 

habitat, and deferring grazing on treated areas for two full growing seasons, would increase the overall 

health and function of vegetation communities, compared to Alternative A, because a larger area of the 

planning area would be managed. Not conducting vegetation treatments in nesting and wintering core 

habitat that would reduce sagebrush canopy to less than 15%, unless beneficial to sage-grouse habitat, 

would decrease impacts to soil, compared to Alternative A, because these treatments would encompass a 

larger area than in Alternative A. 

Using the WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse for vegetation treatments in 

core habitat areas would result in similar impacts to Alternative B, except the effects would be more 

intense as treatment proposals would be subject to these additional protocols. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), along with development of a monitoring plan for each reclamation 

project, would have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A. Identifying areas that could be 

identified for vegetation restoration both inside and outside priority habitat would enhance soil 

conditions, compared to Alternative A, as a larger area could be restored. 

Restoration of burned areas within core sage-grouse habitats would further enhance soil conditions, 

compared to Alternative A, because the restoration would occur within core habitat throughout the entire 

planning area. 

Avoiding the use of prescribed fire in core habitat, and complying with WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse and Appendix A to avoid being considered a core habitat disturbance, 

would have impacts similar to Alternative A, but not as extensive, as these requirements would likely 

result in less prescribed fire use within core habitat. Alternative E would also prioritize suppression in 

priority habitat, but suppression activities would also take into account all resource values managed by the 

BLM/Forest Service. Changes in soil and water properties would be more likely to occur under this 

alternative outside of priority habitat, than under the other action alternatives. 

Ensuring long-term persistence of native plants, including sagebrush within sage-grouse core habitat, 

would have similar effects to soils as those discussed under Alternative B, but to a greater extent, as it 

would include a larger area within the planning area, and erosion would be specifically controlled. 

Impacts to soils from managing the density of surface disturbing activities to not exceed an average of 

one disruptive activity location per 640 acres (within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas) and 

5% loss of sagebrush habitat within sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas would have 

impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a slightly greater extent as surface disturbance could occur within 

5% of the core habitat, compared to 3% in Alternative B. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Soils 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-231

Prohibiting surface occupancy and disturbance activity prohibitions around sage-grouse leks inside and 

outside sage-grouse core habitat areas would increase protections to soils, compared to Alternative A. 

Surface disturbing activities and occupancy would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of occupied sage-grouse 

leks inside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas and restricted within 0.25 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks outside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas (Map 2-3). Primary and 

secondary (BLM route category) or Route Category level 4 and 5 (Forest Service) road construction 

within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks would also be avoided. Under this 

Alternative, 304,970 acres would be prohibited, and 21,950 acres would be restricted. This increased area 

of prohibitions around the sage-grouse leks would decrease the amount of surface occupancy and 

disturbance to soils in these areas and resulting soil erosion and loss of productivity, relative to 

Alternative A, in which surface disturbance would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and avoided on 437,680 

acres. The exception would be the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek areas within the Casper Field 

Office and the MBNF, where the four-mile surface and two-mile disturbance buffer around occupied 

sage-grouse leks (respectively) would be reduced to a 0.6-mile prohibition. Also, the restrictions on new 

primary and secondary or Route Category level 4 and 5 road construction may result in increased road 

construction outside of the prohibited areas, as longer roads may be constructed to circumvent the lek 

buffers, which could cause increased surface disturbance and subsequent soil erosion and loss of 

productivity in these areas, relative to Alternative A. 

Seasonal prohibitions of surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity areas, along with 

winter concentration areas, would increase protections to soils, compared to Alternative A, as surface 

disturbance would be entirely eliminated in these areas for a longer time period. 
Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas Draft EIS 

4-232 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.13 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS AND MANAGEMENT AREAS

This section identifies potential impacts to Special Designations and Management Areas (SD/MA) from 

implementing actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions of SD/MAs are described in Chapter 3.

The SD/MAs discussed in this section include Areas of Critical Concern (ACEC) and other Management 

Areas (MA) within the BLM field offices; Special Interest Areas (SIA), Research Natural Areas (RNA), 

and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) within the Forest Service planning units; and Wilderness Areas, 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA), National Historic Trails (NHT), and Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) 

within the planning area. 

4.13.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on special designations are as follows: 

• The number and acreage of special designations and management areas 

• The amount of surface disturbing and disruptive activities occurring within or near special 

designations and management areas 

• The ambient noise level within special designations and management areas. 

4.13.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Existing management prescriptions would provide the necessary protections for which the 

SD/MAs were designated. 

• Updated policy addressing the management of eligible, suitable, and designated WSRs was issued 

in 2012. The BLM will manage eligible, suitable, and designated rivers in accordance with BLM 

Manual 6400. This policy will be adhered to during any site-specific project NEPA analyses that 

are conducted in the planning area. 

• New policy addressing the management of National Historic Trails was issued by the BLM in 

2012. The BLM will manage National Scenic and Historic Trail resources, qualities, values, and 

associated settings, and the primary use or uses in accordance with the direction provided in BLM 

Manual 6280. This policy will be adhered to during any site-specific project NEPA analyses that 

are conducted in the planning area. 

• Updated policy addressing the management of WSAs was issued in 2012. The BLM will manage 

WSAs in accordance with BLM Manual 6330. This policy will be adhered to during any sitespecific project NEPA analyses that are conducted in the planning area. 

• 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. 

• The analysis of effects on ACECs from the implementation of management actions is limited to 

the protection of and prevention of damage to the relevant and important values. 

• The analysis of effects on WSRs from the implementation of management actions is limited to 

the protection of and prevention of damage to outstandingly remarkable values. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-233

• The analysis of effects on MAs, NHTs, SIAs, and RNAs from the implementation of 

management actions is limited to the protection of and prevention of damage to the resources or 

resource uses for which special management was applied. 

• The analysis of effects on WSAs and IRAs from the implementation of management actions is 

limited to the reduction in parcel size, roadless characteristics, and naturalness for which those 

areas are designated. 

• The WSAs in the planning area would continue to be managed under BLM Manual 6330 until 

such time as Congress either designates all or portions of the WSAs as wilderness or releases 

them from any further consideration for wilderness, and the lands revert back to general land use 

management. 

BLM Manual 6330 and FSM 2300 Chapter 2320 prescribe non-impairment as the standard for wilderness 

management. As stated in BLM Manual 6330, the Bureau’s policy for the management of WSAs is to 

“...protect WSAs to preserve wilderness characteristics so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for 

designation by Congress as wilderness.” While this policy does allow for some activities, such as 

recognizing valid existing rights and temporary uses that would not create surface disturbance, it is 

believed that impacts that could impair the WSA’s wilderness characteristics would not occur. If any 

WSAs were released from wilderness consideration they would be managed as multiple use areas and the 

impacts identified below could occur within these areas. 

4.13.3 Alternative A 

Surface disturbing activities and disruptive activities occurring within SD/MAs would increase the 

potential for impacts on many of the resources or resource uses for which SD/MAs are managed. 

Examples of these activities include increased human presence, use of heavy equipment, development and 

facilities associated with development such as compressors, power lines, pipelines, and generators. While 

management prescriptions currently exist that are intended to provide protection to the resources and 

resource uses in SD/MAs, in some instances surface disturbing activities could potentially cause impacts 

to these values that were not anticipated. Such impacts include but are not limited to the discovery of and 

potential damage to previously unidentified historic or cultural sites, increased potential of natural 

hazards, disturbance and degradation of vegetation communities and soil composition, and the 

degradation of scenic, historic, wild, recreational, and undisturbed natural resources. These impacts would 

likely be short-term in duration because mitigation measures would be applied that would assist in the 

management of the resource values or resources uses associated with the SD/MAs. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 68,550 acres and restricting surface disturbance on 437,680 

acres (Map 2-1) would reduce the overall level of surface disturbance within SD/MAs from new 

permitted activities. This would affect SD/MAs by implementing additional management prescriptions 

that would indirectly provide protection to the resources and resource uses for which the SD/MAs are 

managed. Restricting or avoiding surface disturbance would provide additional protections to SD/MAs 

that are managed to protect wildlife by preserving the natural habitat and precluding actions and 

permanent facilities that may prevent wildlife movement and migration. The potential for degrading or 

destroying undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources and historic places would be reduced from 

prohibiting or avoiding surface disturbing activities. Avoidance would reduce the potential for 

disturbance and degradation of vegetation communities, soils, and wild, recreational, and scenic 

resources. The SD/MAs that seek to manage for primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities 

would be impacted by reducing the potential for development and facilities that would degrade the setting 

and reduce the quality and experience of the visitor. The SD/MAs that are managed for primitive and 

semi-primitive recreation opportunities would be impacted by reducing the potential for development and 

facilities that would degrade the setting and reduce the quality and experience of the visitor. 
Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas Draft EIS 

4-234 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Seasonal timing limitations on occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat, winter 

habitat, and winter concentration areas and seasonal restrictions on disruptive activities would reduce the 

level of development in these areas during this time periods listed in Chapter 2. This would reduce the 

extent of disturbed areas and the potential for impacts to the resources and resource uses for which 

SD/MAs are managed. However, any exception to seasonal restrictions could potentially result in indirect 

impacts to the resources and resource uses of the SD/MAs by allowing surface disturbing and disruptive 

activities to proceed. 

ROW exclusion (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (2,460,340 acres) (Map 2-9) within core and general 

habitat and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas (Map 2-36) 

would serve to consolidate utility ROWs and structures. This would reduce the overall potential of surface 

disturbance in these areas and the associated impacts to SD/MAs resources and resource uses. However, 

if no alternative location is available and utility structures were placed within sage-grouse core habitat, 

potential impacts to SD/MAs resource and resource uses could occur. The likelihood of such impacts 

would be minimal because of site specific environmental analysis for each proposed ROW and mitigation 

measures that would be applied to prevent or limit impacts to SD/MAs resources or resource use. Impacts 

from the development of any ROW granted would be short-term in duration and would primarily occur 

from surface disturbance during the construction phase and any associated maintenance. In some 

instances, such as the development of power lines, impacts to wildlife could occur from increased 

potential for predator presence from the power lines being used as perching sites. This would reduce 

management values in SD/MAs that have wildlife as a value. The SD/MAs that have scenic values would 

be affected by above and below ground ROW infrastructure projects. Such impacts could be reduced and 

localized through measures to consolidate ROW corridors and through exclusion and avoidance. 

Pursuing land acquisitions would increase the acreage of federal lands. New land acquisitions could be 

added for the purpose of protecting natural resources and may ultimately be designated as special 

management areas with relevant, important, outstandingly remarkable or other values worth protecting. 

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed in portions of core and general sage-grouse habitat (Map 2-4) with 

13,653 oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells projected during the planning period. This would cause 

an estimated 130,330 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of long-term disturbance. 

This would increase the potential for impacts to special area values and resource uses within SD/MAs that 

allow for mineral development. Activities associated with oil and gas exploration and development would 

increase human presence and the use the heavy equipment in sage-grouse core habitat areas from surface 

disturbing activities. The increased development of oil and gas structures and the presence of associated 

infrastructures (e.g., power lines, compressors, pipelines, and fuel tanks) could potentially result in 

impacts to SD/MA values, such as undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources, historic places, 

wildlife habitat, and the increased potential for disturbance and degradation of vegetation communities, 

sensitive soils, recreational values, and visual resources. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs in regards to the NSO or CSU restrictions considered 

on a case-by-case basis would result in increased surface disturbing activities and human presence, which 

would have the potential for degradation of those resource values and some resource uses for which 

SD/MAs are managed. However, most impacts from exceptions may only change the timing of when 

impacts occur because most lease exceptions only modify the timing limitation stipulations. Examples of 

impacts to SD/MAs include increased potential for impacts to undiscovered cultural or paleontological 

resources and historic places, wildlife habitat degradation, and the increased potential for disturbance and 

degradation of vegetation communities, sensitive soils, wild lands, recreational values, and visual 

resources. Most of the impacts would likely be short-term due to the management action to provide 

protections to the resources and resource uses of the SD/MAs. Additionally, reclamation efforts of surface 

disturbing activities in sage-grouse habitats and efforts to work with proponents to identify appropriate 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-235

site locations would minimize impacts to sensitive resources and provide additional protections to 

SD/MAs resource values and uses. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would help to maintain the management of many of the SD/MAs resource values 

and uses by improving the overall health and function of vegetation communities in previously disturbed 

areas. This would also indirectly assist in providing protections to wildlife habit, maintaining soil 

stability, and preserving visual and natural qualities by promoting healthy, diverse vegetation 

communities. 

Minimizing noise levels by applying BMPs to noise generating activities, such as oil and gas 

development and production, and other noise reducing stipulations would impact SD/MAs that are 

managed for wildlife and primitive to semi-primitive recreation opportunities. Restricting noise levels 

caused by development and facilities would assist in maintaining the primitive and semi-primitive 

recreational experiences for the recreational user by assisting management in maintaining the natural 

character of the area. Additionally, noise restrictions would provide additional protections to wildlife by 

reducing stress and providing opportunities for wildlife to maintain natural behaviors and behavior 

patterns. 

Allowing wind energy development in sage-grouse core and general habitat areas, except in areas that are 

currently unavailable for such development (Map 2-39) would increase the potential for impacts to 

resource values and resource uses within SD/MAs that allow for such activities. Through the year 2020, 

an estimated 1,254 wind turbines will be constructed in the planning area. Because wind energy 

development is not anticipated to occur within ACECs, effects to the relevant and important values 

associated with these areas would not likely occur. The potential for wind energy development in 

SD/MAs would be minimal because of the existing objectives for which the areas are managed. However, 

if such activities were to occur, impacts would be similar to those associated with surface disturbing 

activities and development of energy-related facilities discussed above. Examples include increased 

potential for impacts to undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources and historic places, stress to 

wildlife and loss or degradation of habitat and migration patterns, and the increased potential for 

disturbance and degradation of vegetation communities, sensitive soils, wild lands, recreational values, 

and visual resources. Because of the height of wind turbines, development of wind energy on lands 

adjacent to SD/MAs would also create an impact in special areas where visual resources are an important 

value, such as areas protected for primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

Finding coal leasing unsuitable; closing non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-24), withdrawing locatable 

minerals from entry (Map 2-19), and closing mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-14) in core habitat areas would result in decreased development in SD/MAs that allow for such 

activities. This would result in decreased surface disturbance and impacts to those resource values and 

uses that would otherwise be impacted by such activities. Examples include decreased potential for 

impacts to undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources, stress to wildlife and loss or degradation of 

habitat and migration patterns, and the decreased potential for disturbance and degradation of vegetation 

communities, soils, and visual resources. Impacts these types of mineral development would likely be 

minimal due to management prescriptions that are in place to protect those resource and resource uses and 

from reclamation efforts and site location efforts that are intended to minimize impacts to sensitive 

resources. 

4.13.4 Alternative B 

SD/MAs are considered unique in some respect and contain specific management prescriptions to protect 

or preserve certain resources or resource uses. Some of the resources for which SD/MAs are designated 
Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas Draft EIS 

4-236 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

include, but are not limited to, wildlife, scenic values, cultural and paleontological resources, historic 

places, wilderness, free-flowing riverways, watersheds, sensitive soils, and vegetation. Designating all 

priority habitat areas as a sage-grouse conservation ACEC would greatly increase the area for which 

relevant and important values would be established and protected. Approximately 5,000,400 acres would 

be added as SD/MAs under this alternative, which would be a significant increase over Alternative A. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas, would 

have similar impacts as prohibiting or restricting surface disturbance under Alternative A, except 4-mile 

buffers with a cap on surface disturbance of one disturbance per section and no more than 3% total 

surface disturbance would protect more total area from surface disturbance, which would reduce the 

impacts described above to SD/MAs from surface disturbance. 

Implementing NSO restrictions on existing leases within priority habitat would reduce the total amount of 

surface disturbance allowed in these areas compared to the density limitations discussed under 

Alternative A. Placing a limit on the average amount of allowable surface disturbance could result in the 

relocation or redesign of new development projects or, in some cases, preclude such projects to ensure 

they do not contribute to the exceedance of the density restrictions. The overall extent of surface 

disturbances would be reduced compared to Alternative A, which would provide additional protection to 

the resources and resource uses for which SD/MAs are managed. This would assist in reducing impacts 

that could occur to undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources and historic places by limiting 

development and indirectly provide protections to wildlife, vegetation communities, sensitive soils, wild 

lands, and visual resources. In addition, this could provide protections to the overall character of SD/MAs 

and indirectly provide assistance in managing primitive and semi-primitive recreational opportunities. 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would have similar impacts as under 

Alternative A, except to a greater extent due to increased areas where surface disturbance is seasonally 

limited and surface disturbing activities are prohibited. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority sage-grouse habitat (5,141,340 acres), expanding 

avoidance to all general habitat (6,390,010 acres), and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to 

designated corridors throughout the planning area (Map 2-10 and Map 2-36) would reduce the impacts 

discussed under Alternative A because less area would be available ROWs and new corridors would be 

prevented, which could otherwise cross or run adjacent to SD/MAs. 

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have a similar impact to SD/MAs as under Alternative A, 

except that more acquisitions would be pursued. 

Oil and gas leasing would be unavailable on 6,809,580 acres and managed with NSO stipulations on 

2,082,140 acres. This would reduce the short-term surface disturbance by 20% from Alternative A to 

104,050 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 14 percent to 33,530 acres. Overall, 11,555 oil and 

gas wells (15% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,154 CBNG wells (22% fewer than Alternative A) are 

projected over the life of the plan under Alternative B. This would reduce the overall impacts discussed 

under Alternative A, decrease the level of human presence and the use of heavy equipment in these areas, 

and reduce the potential for impacts to undiscovered cultural or paleontological resources and historic 

places, as well as provide indirect protections to wildlife, vegetation communities, sensitive soils, wild 

lands, recreational values, and visual resources. 

Not allowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs in priority habitat would restrict and, in 

some cases, preclude development related to oil and gas. In turn, this would reduce surface disturbance 

within SD/MAs, indirectly providing additional protections to many of the resource and resource uses for 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-237

which SD/MAs are managed including, but not limited to, unidentified cultural or paleontological 

resources and historic places, wildlife, vegetative communities, sensitive soils, wild lands, recreational 

values, and visual resources. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Limiting noise to 10 dB at active lek perimeters would be similar to impacts identified under 

Alternative A. This would result in additional protections to SD/MAs that are managed for wildlife and 

primitive to semi-primitive recreational opportunities. 

Wind energy development as discussed under Alternative A would be eliminated within priority habitat 

and limited within general habitat (Map 2-30). For the entire planning area, the number of wind turbines 

would be reduced from 1,254 under Alternative A, to 127 (a 90 percent reduction). The removal and 

reduction of potential wind energy development would decrease visual, noise, and traffic impacts to 

primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities discussed under Alternative A. This would 

indirectly provide additional protections to the resources and resource uses of SD/MAs that allow for 

wind development. 

Finding coal leasing unsuitable; closing non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-24); withdrawing locatable 

mineral from entry (Map 2-19); and closing mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits 

(Map 2-14) in priority habitat areas would reduce the occurrence of these types of mineral development 

compared with Alternative A, which would prevent impacts from related surface disturbance in SD/MAs. 

4.13.5 Alternative C 

The effects of designating ACECs and SIAs would have the same impact to SD/MAs as under 

Alternative B, except Audubon Important Bird Areas would also be designated. This would further 

increase areas for which relevant and important values would be established and protected. 

Approximately 6,423,374 acres would be managed as SD/MAs under this alternative, which represents an 

increase of 1,397,821 acres compared to Alternative B.

Not allowing new surface occupancy within priority habitat, including winter concentration areas (timing 

and distance stipulations) would be the same as under Alternative B. 

Seasonal timing and distance limitations on priority habitat, occupied leks, sage-grouse nesting/early 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat, and winter concentration areas would have the same impact to 

SD/MAs as Alternative B, except that requirements would be extended to disruptive activities as well, 

which could reduce noise, traffic, and human presence. This would be an indirect benefit to some special 

designation values, such as areas where wildlife or solitude and unconfined recreation experiences are 

values. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority and general sage-grouse habitat (11,531,340 acres, 

expanded from Alternative B) (Map 2-11) and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated 

corridors (same as Alternative B) (Map 2-36) would reduce the impacts from ROWs discussed under 

Alternative A, more than under Alternative B.

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative B.

Oil and gas leasing would not be open on any areas within core and general sage-grouse habitat under 

Alternative C (Map 2-6). This would remove impacts discussed under Alternative A for all oil and gas 
Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas Draft EIS 

4-238 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

development, except for that associated with valid existing leases. This would reduce the short-term 

surface disturbance by 35% from Alternative A to 85,140 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 

31 percent to 27,030 acres. Overall, 9,533 oil and gas wells (30% fewer than Alternative A) and 1,594 

CBNG wells (42% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative C. 

Lease buy outs in priority and general habitat would prevent development of some oil and gas leases, 

which could indirectly prevent more of the impacts discussed under Alternative A.

Not allowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs in both priority and general habitat would 

expand the protection of SD/MAs from mineral development to these areas. This would increase the areas 

protected over both Alternatives A and B. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Impacts from minimizing noise levels would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative B.

Siting wind turbines at least 5 miles from active leks could reduce impacts to SD/MAs from wind turbines 

in some areas, but could increase them in areas where there are no active leks (Map 2-31). For the entire 

planning area, the number of wind turbines would be reduced from 1,254 under Alternative A, to 127 (a 

90% reduction and the same as Alternative B). The removal and reduction of potential wind energy would 

decrease visual, noise, and traffic impacts to primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities 

discussed under Alternative A. These actions would indirectly provide additional protections to many of 

the special values and uses for which the SD/MAs are managed by reducing the potential of surface 

disturbing activities. 

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied habitat would reduce potential renewable 

energy development in those areas. This could include decreased potential for impacts to undiscovered 

cultural or paleontological resources, reductions in stress to wildlife, and the decreased potential for 

disturbance and degradation of vegetation communities, sensitive soils, wild lands, recreational values, 

and visual resources. 

Impacts from coal leasing; non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-25); locatable mineral entry (Map 2-20); 

and mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-15) would have the same impact to 

SD/MAs as under Alternative B. 

4.13.6 Alternative D 

Not designating sage-grouse conservation ACEC/SIAs would have the same impact as Alternative A.

Impacts from restricting surface disturbance (Map 2-2) would have similar impacts as described in 

Alternative A, except 75,870 acres would be restricted and none would be prohibited. This could allow 

for impacts to SD/MAs to occur in some areas otherwise protected under Alternative A, but areas within 

sage-grouse core habitat would be more protected from activities that would degrade special management 

values. 

Density limitations of 3 locations per 640 acres and a 9 percent disturbance cap within core habitat would 

limit noise, visual impacts, user conflict, and traffic congestion impacts from development activities, but 

less so than NSO restrictions under Alternatives B and C. 

Seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas 

would expand the seasonal timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A in some areas and 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-239

remove them in others. The overall impact of seasonal restrictions would be similar to those impacts 

discussed under Alternative A.

Managing core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas (5,141,340 acres) (Map 2-12), with 1,211,030 acres 

as avoidance outside core areas would increase the effects described under Alternative A. Inside core 

areas, impacts to SD/MAs would be the same as Alternatives B and C. In general habitat areas, impacts to 

SD/MAs would be the same as Alternative A. The management of ROW corridors (Map 2-36) would 

have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Areas closed to oil and gas leasing would be expanded to include Raven Creek in the Newcastle Field 

Office and 3 areas in the Pinedale Field Office, which would increase the total area to 964,860 acres 

(Map 2-7). This would reduce impacts from minerals management on SD/MAs from Alternative A, but 

not by nearly as much as Alternatives B and C. Estimated short-term surface disturbance would be 

reduced by 6% from Alternative A to 122,910 acres and long-term disturbance would be reduced by 

about 3% to 37,720 acres. Overall, 13,083 oil and gas wells (only 4% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,686 

CBNG wells (only 3% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under 

Alternative D.

Impacts from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impact to SD/MAs 

as under Alternative A.

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Impacts from minimizing noise levels would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Limiting wind turbines in core habitat unless it can be shown that sage-grouse would not decline would 

reduce the total number of wind turbines in the planning area (Map 2-32) to 980 (a 22% reduction from 

Alternative A). This would reduce the amount of surface disturbance and would provide indirect 

protections to managing resource values and uses for which many of the SD/MAs are managed. 

Impacts from coal leasing would be of the same type as described under Alternative A, but on less area. 

Coal leasing would occur on more area than Alternatives B and C, thus the impacts on SD/MAs would be 

greater than those alternatives. Non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-26) would be allowed on 

approximately the same area as Alternative A, but with more mitigation aimed at protecting sagebrush 

habitat, which would reduce impacts to SD/MAs as well. Locatable mineral entry (Map 2-21), mineral 

material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-16) would have the same impact to SD/MAs as 

under Alternative A.

4.13.7 Alternative E 

The effects of designating SD/MAs would have the same impact to SD/MAs as under Alternative D.

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities on 304,970 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impacts as 

described in Alternative A, except 236,420 more acres (over 3 times as many) would be prohibited. 

Restricting surface disturbance on 21,950 acres (Map 2-3) would have the same impact as described in 

Alternative A, except impacts would occur on 415,730 fewer acres, mainly from prohibiting surface 

disturbance on lands that only have restrictions under Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Special Designations and Management Areas Draft EIS 

4-240 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Density limitations of one location per 640 acres and a 5% disturbance cap within core habitat would 

have impacts similar to those described under Alternative D, but to a larger area. Less surface disturbance 

would be allowed, which would protect the values for which SD/MAs are designated. 

Seasonal restrictions in sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas 

would expand the seasonal timing and distance impacts described under Alternative A. Timing and 

distance impacts would be greater than Alternative D, but less than Alternatives B and C. 

The management of ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (6,065,960 acres) (Map 2-

13) within core and general habitat would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, except 

avoidance areas would be expanded by 3,605,620 acres. This would increase the amount of area in which 

ROWs would be restricted and possibly precluded, which would reduce related effects on SD/MAs. The 

management of ROW corridors (Map 2-36) would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Effects from pursuing land acquisitions would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed on 16,068,160 acres under Alternative E (Map 2-8), the same as 

Alternative A. Although areas where oil and gas would be allowed would be the same, other restrictions, 

such as NSO and CSU would be greatly increased, which would further protect SD/MA values. Estimated 

short-term surface disturbance would be reduced by 14% from Alternative A to 112,327 acres and longterm disturbance would be reduced by about 9% to 35,432 acres. Overall, 12,355 oil and gas wells (10% 

fewer than Alternative A) and 2,462 CBNG wells (11% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the 

life of the plan under Alternative E. This would be more protection than Alternatives A and D, but less 

than Alternatives B and C. 

Impacts from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impact to SD/MAs 

as under Alternative A.

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impact to SD/MAs as Alternative A.

Impacts from minimizing noise levels on a case-by-case basis would have the same impact to SD/MAs as 

Alternative A, except at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek, which would have similar impacts to 

Alternative B due to similar noise restrictions from March 1 to May 15. 

The development of wind energy (Map 2-33) would have a similar impact as Alternative B, except there 

would be 5,027,675 acres closed to wind development (compared to 5,025,533 acres under Alternative B 

and 437,119 acres under Alternative A). There would be 127 wind turbines developed across the planning 

area through 2020. Compared to Alternative A, there would be 1,127 fewer wind turbines (or 90% fewer). 

This would significantly reduce the amount of surface disturbance and would provide indirect protections 

to managing resource values and uses for which many of the SD/MAs are managed. 

Impacts from coal leasing and non-energy leasable minerals would have the same impact to SD/MAs as 

Alternative D. Pursuing some withdrawals for locatable mineral entry and requiring stipulations for 

mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would reduce impacts to SD/MAs compared to 

and as described under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-241

4.14 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

This section presents potential impacts on special status species implementing management actions 

presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning special status species are described in Chapter 3 

(Section 3.12). 

Special status species are those listed as threatened or endangered, are proposed for listing, or are 

candidates for listing under the provisions of the endangered species act (ESA); those listed by a state 

implying potential endangerment or extinction (i.e., NSS); or those designated by the BLM State Director 

as sensitive. The BLM defines sensitive species as those that could easily become endangered or extinct 

in a state unless protection is granted. Designated sensitive species are provided the same level of 

protection by the BLM as federal candidate species. In compliance with the ESA, BLM will evaluate all 

proposed actions to determine if individuals or populations of federally listed species or their habitat, 

including designated critical habitat, may be affected (BLM Manual 6840). Forest Service Sensitive 

Species are those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester for which population viability 

is a concern, as evidenced by: a) Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers 

or density; b) Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species' existing distribution; c) The species' population or habitat is stable but limited. 

Over the life of the plan, some species that are currently considered sensitive, or not formally included in 

BLM’s or the Forest Service sensitive species list, may be listed under the ESA. Some currently listed 

species may be delisted during the life of the plan. Most species that are delisted or downgraded from 

federally proposed or candidate status will be included on the BLM sensitive species list. 

Because the purpose of the RMP Amendments is for the management and conservation of Greater SageGrouse habitats, a separate analysis for Greater Sage-Grouse has been included under each alternative 

within this section. For each alternative, impacts for all special status species will be described first 

followed by a subsection for impacts specific to Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitat.

4.14.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on wildlife and fisheries are as follows: 

• Acres and condition of native vegetation communities 

• Degree/magnitude/level of connectivity between sagebrush and other native vegetation 

communities 

• Degree/magnitude/level of human presence 

• Degree/magnitude/level of surface disturbance and vegetation removal 

• Introduction or development of non-natural structures or items into the native habitat. 

4.14.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Special status fish and wildlife populations would continue to be managed by WGFD. BLM and 

Forest Service would continue to manage species’ habitat. 

• USFWS would have jurisdiction over the management of federally listed fish, wildlife and plant 

populations, critical habitat, and migratory birds. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-242 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

• Natural variability in wildlife health, population levels, and habitat conditions would continue. 

Periods of mild or severe weather as well as outbreaks of wildlife disease or insects/diseases that 

impact habitat (e.g., mountain pine beetle, blister rust, mistletoe, and bleeding rust) could impact 

wildlife population levels. 

• Impacts to special status wildlife species are primarily based on potential impacts to habitats that 

the BLM or Forest Service manages. 

• Precise, quantitative estimates of impacts generally are not possible because the exact locations of 

future actions are unknown, population data for special status wildlife species are often lacking, 

or habitat types affected by surface-disturbing activities cannot be predicted. 

• Actions impacting one species have similar impacts on other species using the same habitats or 

areas. 

• The more acreage of habitat protected, the greater the benefit to the targeted species. 

• Sage-grouse core habitat areas and other management actions for Greater Sage-Grouse that 

preclude or restrict development, including those not specifically aimed at conserving special 

status species, are assumed to benefit special status species where populations overlap with 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. 

• Impacts from management for oil and gas development would only apply to new leases; existing 

development or existing leaseholders would not be impacted by these alternatives, unless 

specifically described under the management actions. 

• Prohibiting all disturbing and disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitats is more 

beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse than avoiding these activities. 

• Removal of sagebrush habitat would have a long-term adverse impact on sage-obligate species. 

• Measures to protect Greater Sage-Grouse would benefit all sagebrush-dependent species. 

• Because of the migratory nature and relative mobility of some special status wildlife species (e.g., 

waterfowl, neo-tropical migrants, and raptors), these species also would be impacted by actions 

on non-BLM lands or non-National Forest System Lands. Adverse impacts to special status 

wildlife during different life stages on non-BLM-administered lands can reduce populations 

regardless of BLM or Forest Service protective measures. 

• The total amount of new surface disturbance allowed by an alternative is a good index of 

potential impacts to special status species. Success of reclamation measures prescribed as a 

condition of development is unknown, and could underestimate the potential impact of surface 

disturbance on special status species populations. 

• The health of fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and 

functional capabilities of riparian/wetland resources, which in turn reflect watershed health. 

• Any activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would 

directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment. The degree of impact attributed to any one 

disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, time and 

degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and hydrologic condition. 

The main habitat of impact in the RMP Amendments is sagebrush or areas with mixed sagebrush habitat 

components. Other habitats such as forests, waterways, and riparian areas may occur inside Greater SageGrouse core habitat areas; but are either used by Greater Sage-Grouse very little or not at all in the case of 

forests and alpine areas. Species that use forested, riparian, wetland or waterways may benefit or be 

impacted indirectly from management in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas. Without knowing where 

disturbing activities are going to occur in the future, making predictions of impacts to various habitat and 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-243

the species that utilize them could be inaccurate. Since the focus of the amendments is on Greater SageGrouse and sagebrush habitat; the special status species included in this analysis will be mainly those that 

spend a major portion of their life history in sagebrush or mixed sagebrush habitat. 

An analysis of the impacts to the Forest Service sensitive species for the Bridger Teton National Forest, 

the Medicine Bow National Forest, and the Thunder Basin National Grassland can be found in the 

Wildlife and Botany Report in Appendix M. 

4.14.3 Alternative A 

In the BLM Field Offices, MBNF, and within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat in BTNF, existing rightsof-way (ROW) would be used whenever possible for placement of new linear facilities. Exceptions could 

occur, and in those cases, disturbance is to be limited and mitigated. Where existing ROWs occur, 

disturbance to important sagebrush habitat would likely be minimal due to the conditions of ROW 

corridors where the land, usually within a two mile wide pathway, has been previously disturbed from 

prior facility construction. Species associated with grassland areas, such as swift fox, long-billed curlew, 

mountain plover, and burrowing owl could be disturbed or forced to abandon habitat if development 

within existing ROWs occurred. Construction activities could disturb other special status species; 

possibly causing species vacate the area to lower quality habitat. Moving from desirable habitat can result 

in reduced health of animals, making them susceptible to disease or predation. Disturbed areas would be 

more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat 

function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. Some actions such as construction of pipelines, 

buried fiber-optic lines, and other subsurface actions likely would have short-term impacts, because 

proper reclamation should restore some level of habitat function in these areas that could be used by 

wildlife. Because of the long time frames required for some disturbed sites to return to pre-disturbance 

vegetation cover or the re-disturbance of a ROW corridor, certain impacts could be long term. Any 

surface disturbance or vegetation loss could impact special status plants from habitat loss, damage or 

invasive, non-native plant species which could change habitat composition and function, making habitat 

inhospitable for native plant species. 

Aboveground ROW actions, such as communication sites and power lines, would have long-term 

potential for collision or electrocution of bats, raptors, and other avian species. New utility towers could 

provide hunting perch sites for hawks, falcons, or eagles but could increase the danger of electrocution or 

collisions with transmission lines. Small mammals could be at a greater threat of predation in these areas 

and could abandon areas as new transmission towers are constructed. 

In TBNG and in case-by-case situations within the planning area where new ROWs are allowed to be 

developed, vegetation loss, habitat degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species could occur. Loss or 

degradation of habitat would impact terrestrial wildlife species and could force wildlife to move to other 

less desirable habitat for foraging or cover. New linear disturbances would introduce additional 

fragmentation into the landscape. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is intersected, 

divided, or segmented by disturbing activities. 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). Closing Bates Hole and Sand Hills Management 

Area in the Casper Field Office to new corridor designations would prevent habitat loss from linear ROW 

within the areas and could protect wildlife habitat from removal, loss, degradation, and invasion of exotic 

plant species. Wildlife species that use sagebrush habitat for food or shelter, such as Brewer’s sparrow, 

sage sparrow, and sage thrasher would benefit from management within the Bates Hole area (WGFD 

2010c). 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-244 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Within the planning area, 285,930 acres are currently managed as ROW exclusion areas and 2,460,340 

acres are managed as avoidance areas. Lands within the exclusion and avoidance areas would be managed 

to prevent habitat loss from linear ROWs and could protect special status wildlife habitat and plants from 

removal, loss, degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species. Prohibiting new above ground structures 

would also prevent new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle disruption; all of which would protect 

wildlife habitat. Linear corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as hawks and swift fox. 

Reducing these areas may be beneficial to prey species (pygmy rabbit, white tailed prairie dog) but could 

also reduce hunting corridors for the predators. Preventing overhead structures could reduce the risk of 

predation from avian predators (eagles, hawks, falcons), but also prevent the construction of overhead 

perches for hunting raptors. The risk of collision or electrocution of raptors, migratory bird, and bat 

species could be reduced where overhead structures are not allowed. Maintenance and upgrades of 

existing structures could result in short term disturbance of special status wildlife from human and vehicle 

activity, but long term impacts would be minimal. 

Within the Kemmerer field office, new utility lines would be buried or anti-perching devices would be 

installed within sagebrush and/or semiarid shrub-dominated habitats. Anti-perch devices could protect 

small mammals from predation by raptors, ravens or crows. Buried utility lines could prevent collision or 

electrocution of special status bats or bird species from suspended wires. 

Within the planning area, 1,254 wind turbines are estimated to be developed. In Alternative A, 437,120 

acres are closed to wind energy and 3,888,930 acres are restricted to development of wind energy. The 

development of wind energy could cause habitat loss, and both short and long-term impacts to special 

status wildlife or plants. Large wind energy fields also involve surface disturbance, which could 

permanently change the habitat structure, affecting special status wildlife or plants. Disturbance during 

installation of towers, roads, and infrastructure could force special status wildlife away from habitat. 

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. However, overhead structures could 

provide perches for hunting raptors or other predatory birds. 

Initial construction may result in displacement of some special status wildlife and raptor species from 

breeding and foraging habitat within the construction area. Construction of wind turbines throughout the 

planning area may create collision hazards for special status raptors, bats, and multiple avian species. 

Studies have documented deaths of special status avian and bat species from wind turbines, although the 

levels of collision and death vary in the scientific research (Cohn 2008, Madders and Whitfield 2006). 

Collision levels fluctuate based on habitat, terrain, elevation, and even weather conditions (Madders and 

Whitfield 2006). Prediction of accurate bird or bat losses from wind development is currently not 

available, however; it can be assumed that some losses of these species will occur. Bats most commonly 

found within wind farms with the highest mortality are the eastern red bat and hoary bat, a special status 

species, which are found within the planning area (Cohn 2008). 

Restrictions on MET towers in Kemmerer and Rawlins could reduce impacts to special status species by 

preventing the perching of raptors and removing collision obstacles within sagebrush habitat. Buffer 

distances between 0.25 and one mile from occupied leks could reduce perceived or actual threats to small 

mammals such as pygmy rabbit or Idaho pocket gopher from overhead predation from raptors or other 

predatory birds. 

Land disposals within the Casper field office could impact special status species depending on the parcel 

of land and the entity which acquires the land. Most land disposals do not occur without review for major 

impacts to special status species. Land acquisitions within the Casper field office could impact special 

status species depending on the resources found on the parcel of land. Acquisitions could lead to 

obtaining valuable habitat for special status species where possible. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-245

Using the 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 SageGrouse core habitat could identify where land health standards are not being met. If appropriate action is 

taken by issuing a decision to modify grazing, constructing management facilities, or implementing 

treatments, impacts to special status species from livestock grazing could be reduced. Impacts from 

standards not being met include habitat loss or degradation for special status plants and animals, reduction 

of forage or cover vegetation for special status wildlife, and spread of invasive, non-native plant species, 

which can impact habitat for special status plants and wildlife. Soil erosion or compaction of soils may 

also lead to habitat loss and damage to water sources. Implementation of management practices for nonconformance could reduce effects to special status habitat from the impacts described above. 

Adjustments in grazing use or management of BLM-administered lands to meet Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands could also result in actions that could balance the impacts of grazing while sustaining 

wildlife species and their habitat. Making adjustments to grazing management as a result of monitoring 

could provide overall improvements in landscape health, prevent or reduce the spread of invasive, nonnative plant species, provide additional forage, and allow for greater cover habitat for special status 

species. 

Forest Service livestock grazing practices to provide adequate forage, cover, and other habitat needs for 

Greater Sage-Grouse could provide forage and cover for other sagebrush dependent species such as swift 

fox, Idaho pocket gopher, ground nesting birds such as Columbian Sharp-Tailed grouse, and Mountain 

Plover (WGFD 2010), and could protect special status plant species that occur within sagebrush 

ecosystems. 

Implementing conversions in types of livestock and grazing season of use to meet rangeland standards 

could maintain a higher level of habitat function for wildlife and livestock use. Managing season of use in 

sagebrush habitat could allow for grazing to be applied during timeframes to support seasonal habitat for 

sage-grouse and could provide important habitat components for special status wildlife species (Cagney et 

al. 2010). Conversions in types of livestock could alter grazing patterns and vegetation use. For example, 

cattle use in areas where grasses could be reduced and forbs increased; sheep use where forbs could be 

reduced and grasses increased (Beck and Mitchell 2000). 

Water developments could affect special status wildlife habitat through reductions in forage due to 

increased distribution of animals or trampling of vegetation or could increase the potential for the spread 

of West Nile virus. However, implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on 

BLM-administered lands would ensure that impacts were not significant. Adverse impacts of fences on 

wildlife within the planning area would be minimal because of requirements that fences are located so as 

not to impede wildlife movement and that the fences be removed, modified, or reconstructed where 

documented conflicts with wildlife occurred. Future livestock conversions (sheep to cattle or vice versa) 

would be carefully analyzed. Sustainability reviews would be required before conversions, which could 

benefit the rangelands and some special status species. 

Management of livestock allotments within the Casper field office and BTNF and TBNG for drought 

conditions could provide important seasonal forage, cover, or habitat protection for special status species 

during periods of drought. 

Range improvement projects within the planning area could initially cause short term impacts from 

habitat loss or damage during the improvement construction or project timespan. Disturbed areas would 

be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat 

function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. Long term, many improvements could provide 

additional vegetation for forage or cover, increased access to the landscape, additional water resources, or 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-246 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

access to mineral supplements. In TBNG and MBNF, where wildlife escape ramps are required in stock 

water troughs and tanks, the potential for drowning by birds and small mammals could be reduced or 

prevented. 

Fence modification, removal, or construction of new fences to BLM standards would provide varying 

impacts to wildlife species. Fences can provide special status species with less competition from livestock 

for forage when fences exclude livestock from grazing habitat. Fences can also impact special status 

wildlife by creating travel barriers, altering distribution patterns, increasing stress and energy loss, and 

causing injury or death from collision or entanglement. Modifying or constructing fences to BLM 

standards could reduce impacts to special status wildlife from fences by decreasing the chances of 

entanglement. Where fences are constructed with perch inhibitors for raptors, prey species would be less 

likely to be subject to hunting from predatory bird species; however, predatory birds would not benefit 

from hunting perches. Where fences were constructed with anti-collision standards for special status 

species, they would be less likely to be injured or perish from impact with fences. Removal of fences 

reduces threats of injury or death from impacts to fences, opens up travel corridors, and could allow 

special status wildlife access to additional forage and cover. 

Within the Casper, Kemmerer, and Pinedale Field Offices, prohibiting the placement of mineral 

supplements within one-quarter mile (this distance may be greater in the TBNG or MBNF) of lentic/lotic 

water and wetland/riparian areas would prevent stream bank erosion, vegetation loss, and nutrient loading 

in surface water, preserve aquatic habitats, and prevent the degradation of sensitive habitat. Mineral 

supplement blocks for livestock and wildlife use would be placed in locations that both promote proper 

grazing distribution and prevent inappropriate livestock use on riparian habitat, minimizing soil 

compaction and runoff near surface waters, and could decrease grazing pressure and competition for 

riparian vegetation. 

Current management for livestock trailing in Casper, Kemmerer, and Pinedale could impact special status 

species from movement of herds through habitat, causing loss of vegetation for forage and cover, soil 

compaction, erosion, trampling of vegetation and habitat, and the spread of invasive non-native plant 

species. 

Managing riparian and wetland areas for PFC/WY Standards for Rangeland Health/improving habitat 

conditions could decrease runoff, sedimentation, and cementation of substrates in stream channels, which 

could provide preferential habitat conditions for aquatic species for feeding, cover, and reproduction. 

Maintaining or improving riparian and wetlands could improve water quality; reduce the likelihood of 

stream bank erosion, stream channel alteration, and loss of wetland or riparian vegetation. Improving 

habitat conditions could maintain or improve riparian/wetland areas, which are important to special status 

plants such as persistent sepal yellowcress, meadow pussytoes, and Ute ladies’ tresses and wildlife such 

as Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Columbia spotted frog, or a variety of 

cutthroat trout species. Habitat and forage could be enhanced from careful, seasonal management of 

wetland and riparian areas by applying short-duration grazing, preventing or limiting utilization of woody 

species, and seasonal use regimes. Because livestock and wildlife can tend to congregate near water 

sources, management focused toward riparian and wetland areas could reduce heavy impacts from soil 

compaction, erosion, and overgrazing of vegetation resources which could improve overall habitat 

conditions in these areas for special status species. 

In the Rock Springs Field Office, where water developments are proposed or considered in sensitive 

wildlife habitat and are developed where wildlife could benefit from the development, short term impacts 

could occur from the initial construction, human presence, habitat disturbance, and vegetation loss. 

Special status wildlife could vacate the area until construction of improvements was complete. During 

this time special status species could be forced to inhabit lower quality habitat for forage or cover, which 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-247

could impact health and reproduction until species could return to the area. Once construction was 

complete, habitat conditions in the area would return over time if grazing was monitored and over-use of 

the area by livestock did not occur. Access to water sources would be beneficial to terrestrial wildlife. 

However, water developments could also adversely affect vegetation through reductions in forage due to 

increased distribution of animals. However, implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands on BLM-administered lands could ensure that special status species are not severely 

impacted. Any shallow areas of water are susceptible to mosquito breeding and possible spread of West 

Nile virus could occur (Cagney et al. 2010). Within the MBNF, water developments would be kept out of 

riparian and wetland areas where feasible, which could reduce the impacts to special status species from 

habitat loss, West Nile virus, or reductions in forage in those areas. 

Allowing exceptions to lease stipulations, conditions of approval (COAs) and terms of conditions (T&Cs) 

to be considered on a case-by-case basis for sage-grouse habitat could allow for additional surface 

disturbing activities in sagebrush habitat which creates disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, 

and human activity and could disrupt contiguous, uninterrupted habitat and result in overall habitat loss. It 

is unknown, however, what type or degree of exceptions would occur, because the outcome is dependent 

on each lease and the habitat where the lease is being developed. 

It is estimated that a total of 16,411 oil, gas, and CBNG wells would be developed under Alternative A 

within the planning area. There would be 130,330 acres of initial surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of 

long-term disturbance from oil and gas development. The primary impacts on wildlife species from 

minerals development within the planning area would be the reduction in usable wildlife habitat and 

disruption of migration corridors that link crucial habitats for special status species such as Columbia 

Sharp-tailed Grouse. Reductions could be particularly severe in areas with continuous surface 

disturbance. As discussed by Bartmann et al. (1992), crowding of animals may have a density-dependent 

impact of reducing animal survival and damaging resources. Human disturbance of wildlife results in 

increased energy costs to the alerted animal (Bromley 1985). The disturbed animal can incur a 

physiological cost either through excitement (preparation for exertion) or locomotion. A fleeing or 

displaced animal incurs additional costs through loss of food intake and potential displacement to poorer 

(lower) quality habitat. If the disturbance becomes chronic or continuous, these costs can result in reduced 

animal fitness and reproductive potential (Geist 1978). 

Making 871,780 acres closed to new oil and gas leasing could help protect these areas from future 

development. Making these areas unavailable to new oil and gas leasing would provide unfragmented 

blocks of habitat and migration corridors between habitat areas, as well as reducing habitat loss and 

disturbance from humans and infrastructure. Under Alternative A, 40,980 acres would be managed as no 

surface occupancy (NSO), and 5,015,210 acres would be managed as controlled surface use (CSU). 

Fluid mineral leasing could cause changes to important special status species habitat components, 

population function, and fragment remaining habitat. This could potentially reduce survivability and 

breeding of affected wildlife populations. Authorized wells would not be anticipated to directly affect 

species populations given the review and stipulations placed upon each permit; however, population 

function could be impacted as development increases due to habitat fragmentation or habitat loss. Risks to 

special status wildlife from oil, gas, and CBNG development include elevated mortality due to collisions 

with structures and vehicles, risk of West Nile virus due to increased mosquito habitat from holding 

ponds, disturbance of some wildlife that may force them into suboptimal habitats with elevated predation 

rates (resulting in a decline in habitat suitability), and direct habitat loss (Walker et al. 2007). The 

construction phase of well development (drilling and completion), which typically takes 1-2 months for a 

single drill bore (but can extend up to 14 months or more for a multiple drill hole well pad), is a period of 

high intensity human activity, noise, road and equipment use, and site disturbance. This period could 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-248 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

affect special status wildlife especially if it coincides with seasons when species might already be 

stressed. 

Human disturbance near raptor and other bird nest sites, such as the bald eagle and sage thrasher, could 

result in the abandonment of the nest; high nestling mortality from overheating, chilling, or desiccation 

when young are left unattended; premature fledging; and ejection of eggs or young from the nest. Avian 

species that successfully nest during a disturbance may abandon the nesting territory the following year. 

Responses of nesting birds to human disturbance typically are determined by the type, duration, 

magnitude, noise level, and timing of activity relative to nesting phenology. Although some level of 

habituation to disturbance could occur, repeated flushing of adult raptors and other special status birds 

increases energy expenditure during foraging and decreases energy ingestion, depleting energy reserves 

and resulting in premature mortality during harsh conditions. Evidence suggests that some falcons and 

owls are generally more tolerant of human-induced disturbance and human environments; northern 

goshawks appear much less tolerant; and buteos exhibit a wide range of acceptance levels; however, some 

speculate that ferruginous hawks should be considered the raptor most sensitive to human disturbance. 

Raptors are less tolerant of disturbance when populations of prey species are at low levels (Romin and 

Muck 2002). 

Geophysical exploration can impact special status species in many ways. Use of vehicles for seismic 

projects or vibroseis trucks in the open landscape could crush vegetation or special status plants, and 

human and vehicle presence could cause wildlife to vacate the area. During this time, wildlife could be 

forced to inhabit lower quality habitat for forage or cover, which could impact health and reproduction 

until species could return to the area. Once exploration was complete, habitat conditions in the area would 

return over time, depending on habitat and weather conditions. Seismic lines from vibroseis trucks can 

open up corridors that could be used by predatory animals, and additional vehicle traffic could illegally 

use the pathway opened by the operation. Vehicles could cause mortality by crushing nesting birds or 

colliding with wildlife. Areas where geophysical operations were prohibited totally, through buffer 

distances, or seasonally (Pinedale, March 1 to May 15; 8:00 am to 8:00 pm) could provide special status 

plants or wildlife protection from the impacts listed above. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for special status 

wildlife that use or inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat and protection 

for special status plants. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects special status wildlife from human and 

other disturbance and allows for corridors for migration and travel. Disturbance can result in wildlife 

moving from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Abandonment of 

important habitat can lower reproduction and survival rates of the species and result in a decline in 

wildlife populations. 

Requiring reclamation bonds for drilling or surface disturbance provides insurance that funding is 

available for reclamation and compliance of the lease terms if a leaseholder abandons the project without 

conducting proper surface reclamation and other project requirements. Reclamation bonds could provide 

wildlife with habitat improvement and recovery in areas disturbed by oil, gas, and other surface disturbing 

activities if project abandonment occurs. 

Disposal of produced water from coalbed natural gas can be treated and disposed of in several different 

ways in Wyoming, depending on location and quality of the water. If treated properly, disposal of water 

into waterways or through reinjection should not impact wildlife due to water quality. However, injection 

facilities have continued human presence and truck traffic. Careful placement of future water injection 

wells is essential for the continued protection of sensitive habitats and future wildlife population 

expansion. Discharge of produced water resulting from coalbed natural gas extraction to surface water 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-249

features could affect aquatic habitat by altering local hydrologic conditions of receiving water bodies. If 

disposal pits are used for produced water, impacts to wildlife could occur if ponds were not managed 

properly. Produced water from producing natural gas wells can be highly alkaline and contain very high 

concentrations of salt (USFWS 2006b). If Trumpeter Swans or other wetland species were to enter the 

ponds, they could accumulate high concentrations of salt in their feathers, which could cause them to 

drown from the excess weight. If water was ingested, the salts could accumulate in their tissues, which 

could cause damage if toxic levels built up. The risk of West Nile virus due to increased mosquito habitat 

from holding ponds may also affect special status bird species. 

Managing split estate lands within the Pinedale field office subject to the same stipulations as leased 

federal estate lands could provide additional protections to special status species and their habitat through 

federal oil and gas lease stipulations provided in the Pinedale RMP. Negotiating federal management for 

nonfederal minerals under federal ownership in MBNF could provide additional protections to special 

status species and their habitat through federal oil and gas lease stipulations provided in the MBNF 

LRMP. 

In areas considered suitable for further consideration for coal leasing and development, appropriate 

mitigation measures to protect sage-grouse and special status species would be attached to any issued coal 

lease. Effects to special status wildlife habitat could be extensive, depending on the type 

(surface/subsurface) and location of the coal development. Coal leasing would result in mining activities 

which could cause displacement of special status wildlife from developed areas, avoidance of a larger 

area around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite impacts, 

including erosion, and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Depending on the scale and location 

of the disturbance to critical special status wildlife habitats, the effects could be more immediate. 

Allowing coal exploration activities in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could cause short-term impacts 

to wildlife from human or vehicle presence, disturbance or removal of vegetation during exploratory 

drilling, and noise from vehicles and equipment, all of which could cause special status species to 

abandon the area. Special status plant species could be affected if surface coal mining were to occur 

within plant locations. Surveys for threatened and endangered species would occur before operations start 

and plant habitat would be identified and protected. 

The leasing of non-energy leasable minerals within core habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse would be 

considered within areas available for leasing. Under Alternative A, 234,230 acres are closed to nonenergy, solid leasable mineral leasing. Allowing prospecting for new leases could be considered on a 

case-by case basis. Most of the non-energy leasable mineral resources within the planning area are trona 

and phosphate. Trona mining occurs in primarily sub-surface mines where disturbance to special status 

species habitat is low. Human presence and vehicle use from the mine to processing areas could cause 

displacement of special status wildlife from vehicles and noise, avoidance of a larger area around the 

development because of human presence, vehicles and noise, and possible collisions from vehicles. 

Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators, which could benefit special status predators, but would 

likely impact prey species (pygmy rabbit, prairie dogs) from predation. Impacts from phosphate would be 

similar although more habitat impacts from loss, disturbance and erosion could occur from open pit 

mining. Special status plant species could be affected if surface mining were to occur within plant 

locations. Surveys for threatened and endangered species would occur before operations start and plant 

habitat would be identified and protected. 

The portions of the planning area in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry (1,677,420 acres) would continue to have protection of sensitive resources, and would prevent 

effects from mineral extraction to special status species habitat. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-250 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Salable minerals within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be continue to be open where authorized. 

Impacts could include removal or damage of special status plants, displacement of special status wildlife 

from exploration or pit areas, avoidance of a larger area around the development because of human 

presence and noise, and possible offsite impacts, including erosion, and spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species. Currently, 871,780 acres are closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use 

permits. These areas would not have impacts to special status species from mineral material activity. 

Allowing salable mineral pits to persist after they are no longer in use could reduce short-term impacts of 

reclamation from human and vehicle presence; however, depending on how the area is used after minerals 

are no longer removed, impacts could be varied. If the area is allowed to naturally reclaim, impacts to 

special status species habitat could be low aside from possible spread of invasive, non-native plant species 

and alteration of some habitat components from the presence of invasive plant species. If the area is used 

for recreation or does not naturally reclaim, erosion, sediment runoff, and spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species could occur, impacting special status species and habitat use. 

Dispersed recreation activities that increase human presence could have a localized impact on special 

status wildlife habitat. Displacement from human and vehicle activities moves special status animals into 

less desirable habitat and increases competition for available resources with other species and uses. 

Spread of invasive, non-native plant species and alteration of some habitat components from the presence 

of invasive plant species could occur from vehicles and human tracking from one area to another and 

could impact both special status plants and wildlife. Allowing special recreation permits (SRP) for large 

events or events that involve surface disturbing activity could lead to direct or indirect impacts on special 

status wildlife and plant habitat, particularly in areas that contain known or potential populations and 

habitats. Impacts to wildlife occur from displacement and physiological stress from human presence and 

activity during sensitive life stages. Stipulations placed on SRPs in accordance with federal protections 

and BLM or Forest Service policy for water, soils, and special status species would minimize the 

potential for impacts to special status habitat. Restrictions of SRPs within two miles of active Greater 

Sage-Grouse display grounds from March 1 to June 15 in the TBNG would reduce impacts to habitat 

within and adjacent to those areas. 

OHV use within OHV “open” areas could impact special status wildlife by increasing human presence 

and noise and increasing the potential for animal-vehicle collisions. The open OHV areas in the Casper, 

Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices: Poison Spider OHV Park (285 acres); Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area (3,736 acres); and the portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area (529 acres) 

have large areas of sand dunes as the open use area, which is not desired habitat for most special status 

wildlife species. Because these areas are existing use areas, it is likely that most special status wildlife 

have already abandoned use or avoid the area. Sand dune-obligate species, specifically blowout 

penstemon and dune wildrye could be killed or damaged by open use of sand dunes from OHVs if plant 

species were to occur in these areas. Off road, open OHV use in areas outside of the dune areas can 

degrade vegetation and lead to erosion and habitat loss, reduced quality of habitat, and lead to the 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plants that can further degrade habitat quality and change 

habitat composition. 

Limiting 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 Greater SageGrouse core habitats, could limit impacts to special status species from vehicle use. The miles of routes 

that could be limited cannot be determined until transportation planning is completed, but limiting new 

roads, routes, and cross-country travel until the planning occurs could prevent some disturbance to special 

status wildlife habitat. Cross country vehicle use can open up corridors that could be used by predatory 

animals, and additional vehicle traffic could use the pathway. Vehicles could cause mortality from 

crushing nesting birds or colliding with wildlife. Linear disturbances can create barriers in migration 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-251

corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss for special status species. Vegetation loss, 

erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following vehicle 

passage. 

Avoiding surface disturbing activities or occupancy within 0.25 mile of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks in Casper (except for Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek), Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale (in 

Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas), Rawlins, Rock Springs (including Jack Morrow Hills), 

and TBNG could prevent habitat loss or human presence within the buffered areas. The 0.25 mile area 

surrounding the lek would prevent habitat fragmentation and the impacts from surface disturbance, such 

as vegetation and habitat loss, soil loss and erosion, or the introduction of invasive, non-native plant 

species such as cheatgrass, which can alter the composition of native species for forage and cover for 

special status plants and wildlife. 

Management in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area of the Casper Field Office restricts or 

prohibits surface disturbing activity within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. In areas 

with over 10% canopy cover, surface disturbing activities would be avoided within four miles of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The additional half mile distance from leks, as compared to the other areas 

under Alternative A, would allow for greater protection from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, 

and contiguous habitat areas. The four mile buffer in areas with over 10% canopy cover would provide 

habitat protection and connectivity, as well as allowing for minimal disturbance to special status species 

in these areas. 

Closing, rehabilitating or reclaiming unused roads or trails could provide fewer disturbances from 

occasional vehicle or human presence and could improve habitat conditions by removing linear 

disturbances, allowing for greater habitat connectivity, and providing additional vegetation resources for 

forage or cover. Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators, prey species could benefit from the 

rehabilitation of unused roads or trails which could reduce the presence of predatory animals. In the 

Kemmerer field office, not upgrading designated roads could reduce surface disturbance from upgrading 

activities, preventing vegetation and soil loss, sedimentation, and possible displacement of special status 

wildlife from human and vehicle presence. 

Designing seed mixes or plantings for vegetation types that meet desired future condition to use for 

rehabilitation in the BTNF could lead to habitat re-establishment with appropriate species, which could 

provide desirable habitat for special status wildlife species. Native species are ideal, but if the nutrition 

and habitat quality were commensurate with natives, vegetation could benefit special status wildlife and 

achieve desired future conditions (DFC). 

Vegetation treatments for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush within the planning area could provide 

sagebrush obligate special status wildlife habitat, forage, and cover within these areas. Initial treatments 

could cause displacement from human and vehicle activities which could move animals into less desirable 

habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and habitat uses. 

Treatments could affect special status plants if treatment occurred within existing populations. Limiting 

treatments within sagebrush habitat in the TBNG to 15 to 20% could prevent habitat fragmentation and 

provide varied vegetation structure within the greater habitat area. Limiting prescribed burns to specific 

canopy cover, vegetation composition, patch size, or amount of precipitation within sagebrush habitat 

could cause vegetation treatments to be maximized for the conditions and habitat structure. Habitat for 

special status species could benefit from carefully managed prescribed burn treatments as described 

above. Special status species plants could be damaged or lost due to prescribed burn treatments if plants 

were within the treatment areas. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-252 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Depending on the extent, location, severity, and seral type affected, unplanned ignitions would have 

short-term impacts on special status wildlife species. It would do this by removing or degrading habitat 

for some species, injuring or killing slow-moving species, causing habitat avoidance and changes in 

species movement patterns, or reducing population viability and increasing the contribution to the need to 

list a species. In areas that are available for fuels treatments, changes in vegetation can result in negative 

impacts on special status wildlife species, such as direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disruption 

to species; however, it can also result in beneficial impacts, such habitat restoration. 

A concern of resetting vegetation seral stage through fuels management is the invasion of undesirable 

plant species. Noxious and invasive weeds are often of lower value to wildlife and degrade wildlife 

habitat by reducing optimal cover or food. Sagebrush-steppe communities are among the ecosystems most 

vulnerable to invasion and degradation by invasive weeds. Cheatgrass invasion is also a threat to some 

treatment areas. Invasive nonnative plants with little or no forage value for special status wildlife species 

are increasing in some areas. The greatest impacts have occurred on winter range areas with low 

precipitation rates. Not only can invasive species outcompete most native plants when moisture is limited, 

they can also change site-specific fire ecology and result in the loss of critical shrub communities. 

Cheatgrass may provide some short-term forage benefits to special status wildlife species while in early 

stages of growth; however, it lacks the ability to provide high quality forage during most of the year. 

Fire suppression removes vegetation and disturbs soil and can have both short- and long-term impacts on 

special status wildlife and other habitats. For example, using heavy equipment to construct fire lines can 

cause habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation in the short term. Moreover, if not rehabilitated, these 

fire lines can cause erosion and provide opportunities for the spread of undesirable plant species, thereby 

resulting in long-term adverse impacts on wildlife habitat. Timely rehabilitation following fire, therefore, 

is important to maintaining the quality of wildlife habitats. 

The noise from heavy equipment and chainsaws could temporarily disperse bird species from breeding 

and nesting habitat and wildlife from occupied habitat. Prescribed burning could also disturb nesting bird 

species, as the result of smoke inadvertently drifting into occupied habitat. These activities could remove 

suitable habitat or other desirable vegetation. Disturbances from heavy equipment, chainsaws, and 

prescribed burning would be localized and short term. Most wildlife species would move into adjacent 

untreated areas; however, direct mortality during the vegetation treatments is possible. Timing limitations 

(such as those for big game birthing areas, raptor nesting, and big game winter habitat), as well as sitespecific COAs (e.g., timing limitations for migratory bird nesting), could mitigate the short-term impacts 

resulting from the treatments. 

ESR treatments following a wildfire are effective in restoring wildlife habitat, but equipment is often 

noisy, and noise may alter animal behavior or cause wildlife to leave an area during the disturbance. 

These impacts would be short-term and are not likely to have much effect on the long-term health and 

habitat use of wildlife in the treatment area. 

Although both planned and unplanned wildland fire adversely impacts wildlife habitats in the short-term 

by removing vegetation and disturbing soil, the long-term benefits of wildland fire often outweigh the 

short-term adverse impacts. For example, prescribed fire can be used to restore conditions benefiting 

wildlife species favoring early plant succession stages and young age classes of woody plants (McAninch 

et al. 1984). Prolonged fire suppression has allowed fuels to build up to the point that an unplanned 

wildfire is likely to be much larger and greater in intensity. 

Some wildlife species thrive on the occurrence of fire. The herbaceous and woody plants that establish 

following a burn provide abundant foliar tissue and seeds, which are used by small rodents and birds that 

in turn are important prey for a variety of avian and mammalian predators. Over the short-term, the 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-253

wildlife community is changed dramatically by a fire, as taller and denser vegetation is replaced by a 

more open habitat. As the area gradually recovers, however, many of the pre-fire components become 

reestablished, and the area again supports a community associated with denser forests. This cycle may 

take decades or centuries, depending on the dominant plant species, or it might never occur if climatic 

conditions are no longer suitable for the former dominants. 

Wallmo (1980) suggests that fire improves the palatability of forage and causes browse plants to resprout 

close to the ground, putting the current season’s growth within reach of deer for several years. 

Additionally, wildland fire can improve the quality of wildlife habitat by releasing soil nutrients, reducing 

fuel load, or setting back trees encroaching into shrubland or grassland habitats. 

Fuels treatments could be beneficial for species that depend on younger seral stages. In the long-term, 

wildlife would benefit from most wildfires and fuels management due to an increase in vegetation 

productivity and to increased plant diversity and age classes, which would, in turn, provide additional 

forage, cover, and prey base. 

Mimicking natural periodic disturbance is often necessary in order to stimulate plant productivity, 

increase diversity, and increase nutritional value. Foraging opportunities for big game and other 

herbivores would increase as understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs reestablish. The benefits for mule deer 

and elk are likely to be long term. Directly following application of fire there is generally more palatable 

browse available for wild ungulates. Improving vegetation in upland areas would provide more forage to 

big game species and other herbivorous species that occur in these areas and would result in direct 

beneficial impacts. In addition, fuels treatments in upland areas often increase forage production, which 

diverts livestock and wildlife use from riparian and wetland areas, thereby increasing the vigor and 

structural diversity of these plant communities. 

Following a wildfire, ESR is implemented to protect and conserve habitats that have sustained damage or 

degradation from catastrophic wildfire. Typically these activities are beneficial for special status wildlife 

species and are designed to improve the overall condition of the area, which in turn improves habitat for 

wildlife. For example, weed-free seeding would stabilize soil and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. 

Additionally, replacing organic matter in disturbed areas would protect topsoil and provide a suitable bed 

for the restoration of a native vegetative community. Alternative A would have the fewest restrictions for 

fuels management actions and the most potential for vegetation disturbance. Additionally, Alternative A 

would not prioritize habitat restoration beyond what has already been determined in the fire management 

plans for the area; therefore, Alternative A would have the greatest impact on special status wildlife. 

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. Rested areas could provide special status wildlife with new vegetation for 

habitat or forage without competition with livestock during the rest period. Not allowing treatments in 

known Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat in the TBNG with the exception to strategically reduce 

wildland fire risk could protect habitat components important to sagebrush obligate species, such as sage 

sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, and pygmy rabbit. 

Reclamation of sage-grouse habitats in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) 

could provide sufficient restoration of habitat following oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activities. If 

the policy is followed, prevention of erosion and the introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could 

be minimized. The landscape could be reclaimed to the original habitat components and structure to the 

extent possible and could provide habitat for sagebrush obligate or other special status species. While the 

initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, over the long term, sagebrush habitat could be restored; 

although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original conditions 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-254 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may also provide 

opportunities for invasive plant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to restore 

sagebrush habitat with native species in some areas. 

Use of weed-free seed and mulch, desirable non-native species or sterile perennials, or reclaiming to 

native site plant composition for reclamation projects could reduce the risk of disturbed areas being 

inundated by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing the spread of invasive plant species could 

help the reclamation area restore to original site vegetation composition. Areas that restore with native 

plant composition provide habitat and cover for special status species and could support special status 

plant and wildlife populations in the future. 

Working with stakeholders to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets in the Casper Field Office could 

impact some special status wildlife from the loss of insects as an important food source. However; major 

infestations could result in vegetation loss from insect consumption of plants, which could also impact 

wildlife from loss of forage, and could result in losses of special status plants. Impacts to special status 

species from pesticide spraying can cause short-term displacement from vehicle use and human presence. 

In the Rock Springs Field Office, management of wild horses to consider wildlife, watershed, and other 

resource needs could provide special status species wildlife with adequate forage, habitat cover and water, 

and could provide habitat protection for special status plants. Water developments to improve herd 

distribution and manage forage utilization for wild horses could reduce grazing pressure possibly 

providing additional forage and habitat for special status wildlife. 

Using wildfire for resource benefit can result in short term impacts from habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, displacement of special status wildlife to less desirable, lower quality habitat, soil erosion 

and sedimentation. Invasive, non-native plant species can become established in disturbed areas, which 

can alter native plant composition, reducing forage and cover species for special status wildlife and 

threatening persistence of special status plants. In the long term, wildfire for resources benefit may result 

in strong, healthy native plant composition returning to burned areas, providing special status wildlife 

with preferred forage and cover vegetation. Rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland fires (Kemmerer, 

Newcastle, and Rawlins) to prevent further resource damage could protect special status wildlife habitat 

from erosion and landslides that could result in habitat loss and runoff into riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems. Sediment and runoff could impact aquatic species and special status fish. Use of prescribed 

fire as a management tool can remove decadent or undesirable vegetation, promote new growth of fireadapted plant species, or can be used for general fuels reduction in sensitive or at-risk areas. Prescribed 

fire can also introduce varied successional stages of plants within habitat areas. New growth and varied 

successional stages of vegetation provide special status wildlife with both forage and cover. Short-term 

impacts from prescribed fire are the same as described above for wildland fire use. Suppression 

techniques could impact special status plants and wildlife in areas where they occur. Vegetation removal, 

crushing of habitat, the use of heavy equipment and fire retardant and human presence, could force 

special status wildlife from the area where these activities occurred to less desirable, lower quality habitat 

until these areas have recovered. 

Prioritizing Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek for vegetative treatments to improve Greater SageGrouse habitats could be effective in controlling invasive annual plant species, such as cheatgrass, by 

using herbicides. If treatments were effective, sagebrush ecosystems could recover and provide habitat 

and forage for sagebrush obligate special status wildlife species. Using monitoring to ensure residual 

herbaceous vegetation is maintained for nesting cover in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within these areas 

could help retain some effective habitat components in treatment areas and provide vegetation for special 

status wildlife. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-255

Offsite mitigation for oil and gas development in the Pinedale Field Office could provide improvements 

to special status species which inhabit those areas being mitigated. The initial mitigation projects could 

displace special status wildlife species from human and vehicle presence, causing wildlife to flee to other, 

possibly lower quality habitat. Displacement could cause short-term impacts from stress from fleeing or 

inadequate forage, shelter or breeding habitat. Long term, special status wildlife could benefit from 

mitigation of habitat with increased forage, shelter, or breeding habitat. 

Avoiding surface disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks in Casper 

(except for Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek), Kemmerer, Newcastle, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices (437,675 total acres; Map 2-1) and prohibiting surface disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks in Pinedale (in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas), 

Rawlins, and Jack Morrow Hills (within the Rock Springs field office), and TBNG (68,548 acres; Map 2-

1) could prevent habitat loss or human presence within the buffered areas. The 0.25-mile area surrounding 

the lek could prevent habitat fragmentation and the impacts from surface disturbance such as vegetation 

and habitat loss, soil loss and erosion, or the introduction of invasive, non-native plant species such as 

cheatgrass, which can alter the composition of native species for forage and cover for special status plants 

and wildlife. Management in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area of the Casper Field Office 

restricts or prohibits surface disturbing activity within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. 

In areas with over ten percent canopy cover, surface disturbing activities would be avoided within four 

miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The additional half mile distance from leks, as compared to 

the other areas under Alternative A, would allow for protection from surface disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and reduction of contiguous habitat. The four-mile buffer in areas with over 10% canopy cover 

would provide ideal habitat protection and connectivity, as well as allowing for minimal disturbance to 

special status wildlife species within or nearby these areas. 

Providing buffers around leks for all Field Offices and Forest Service Units under Alternative A would 

help reduce habitat fragmentation around leks. Buffers around leks can provide undisturbed corridors for 

special status wildlife species to travel, feed and use for cover. The buffer areas could also provide 

protective habitat for sensitive plant species such as meadow milkvetch or largeflower triteleia. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat, avoiding surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within two miles of an 

occupied lek, or in identified Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the 

two-mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 in the Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, and Pinedale field offices 

(Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas) and in the TBNG and MBNF planning units from 

March 1 to June 15 could reduce the level of noise, disturbance or disruption to special status wildlife 

species during the specified timeframes (Table 4-106). In addition to the buffer area, the limitation of 

human presence during the timing limitations (early morning and late evening) would add an additional 

reduction of disturbance to special status wildlife, especially those species with nocturnal habits such as 

owls or bats. In the Rawlins Field Office, the restrictions are similar except that there are additional 

restrictions for geophysical surveys and organized recreational activities that require a special use permit 

which could protect sagebrush obligate special status species from these additional disturbing activities. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas would be 

avoided from November 15 to March 14 in the Casper, Kemmerer, and Newcastle Field Offices. In the 

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area winter habitat is CSU for surface disturbing activities in 

sagebrush stands of more than 20% canopy cover. In the Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs field 

offices, winter protections occur within winter concentration areas. In the Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock 

Springs field offices, the timing is also from November 15 to March 14. Within the remainder of the Rock 

Springs Field Office, restrictions are on a case-by-case basis. Winter habitat contains specific areas of 

sagebrush, which rise 10-14 inches above the snow where Greater Sage-Grouse can feed on sagebrush 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-256 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

leaves and buds (BLM 2009b). 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). Special status species such as the pygmy rabbit, 

which inhabit dense, mature sagebrush would benefit from protections to winter habitat. 

Minimizing impacts from predators, such as minimizing creation of new roads and requiring raptor perch 

deterrents on power poles as a component of permit issuance or renewal, could affect prey species such as 

prairie dogs, pygmy rabbit, or Idaho pocket gopher by reducing predation to the species. However, there 

could be effects to special status predators (swift fox, Bald Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk), in extreme cases, 

removal and death. 

Noise minimization could reduce disturbance to wildlife species (Kemmerer, Pinedale and TBNG). 

Specific limitations, such as limiting noise to 49 decibels (10 dBA above background noise) from March 

1 to June 15 or within two miles of a Greater Sage-Grouse lek (TBNG), could reduce disturbance to 

special status wildlife species. While most wildlife will flee from sounds made by human presence, it is 

unknown how most special status wildlife react to sustained noise within their local habitat. Noise 

minimization can reduce stress responses, prevent a reduction in reproductive success, and prevent 

decreased immune response (Pater et al. 2009). 

Greater Sage-Grouse–Alternative A 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations across the West have declined over the last half of the century due to 

factors such as habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss (Crawford et al. 2004, Holloran 2005). As oil 

and gas development has increased in Wyoming, so has the concern over how this type of development 

might affect Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Impacts from fluid mineral development on Greater SageGrouse populations in developed fields could include habitat loss from well, road, pipeline, and 

transmission line construction; displacement from increased human activity and associated noise; 

increased illegal harvest; and mortality associated with evaporation ponds and increased exposure to 

predation (Braun 1986, Schroeder et al. 2004). Greater Sage-Grouse are dependent on sagebrush habitats 

year-round (Patterson 1952). Habitat loss and degradation, as well as loss of population connectivity, 

have been identified as important factors contributing to the range wide decline of Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations (Braun 1998, Wisdom et al. 2002). 

Sage-grouse are a sensitive species on the BTNF, MBNF and TBNG, and are so designated by the 

Regional Foresters in Regions 2 and 4. The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) provides guidance for the 

management of sensitive species such that any management actions that may impact individuals and may 

cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability would result in a “significant effect.” 

Actions for managing sensitive species on Forests and any proposed actions in Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat may be mitigated at the project level if unacceptable adverse effects are identified. Thus, many of 

the generalized adverse effects on National Forest System Lands identified in Alternative A may be 

mitigated at the project level. 

In the BLM Field Offices, MBNF, and within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat in TBNG, existing 

ROWs would be used whenever possible for placement of new linear facilities. Exceptions could occur, 

and in those cases, disturbance is to be limited and mitigated. Where existing ROWs occur, disturbance to 

important sagebrush habitat would likely be minimal due to the conditions of ROW corridors where the 

land, usually within a two-mile wide pathway, has been previously disturbed from prior facility 

construction. Human presence, vehicles, and equipment would cause disturbance and noise, which could 

force Greater Sage-Grouse to abandon the area either temporarily or permanently. Habitat abandonment 

could lead to successful relocation if nearby habitat is available; or a move to lower quality habitat where 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-257

survival or reproduction could be diminished from physiological stress or lack of forage and cover 

(Blickley et al. 2012). 

New utility towers could provide perch sites for raptors that prey on Greater Sage-Grouse, possibly 

resulting in increased predation. In addition, if grouse experience or perceive a greater threat of 

harassment and/or predation, they might avoid areas with overhead structures. In TBNG and in case-bycase situations within the planning area, new ROWs are allowed to be developed, and could cause 

vegetation loss, habitat degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species. If construction of new ROW 

corridors were to occur, the resulting fragmentation of formerly intact habitat can affect Greater SageGrouse populations by severing migration routes to seasonal habitat areas such as winter habitat and 

nesting or early brood rearing areas. Closing Bates Hole to new corridor designations would prevent 

habitat loss from linear ROW within the area and could protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from 

removal, loss, degradation, and invasion of non-native plant species. 

Within the planning area, 285,930 acres are currently managed as ROW exclusion areas and 2,460,340 

acres are managed as avoidance areas. Lands within the exclusion and avoidance areas would be managed 

to prevent habitat loss from linear ROWs and could protect Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat removal, 

loss, or degradation, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Prohibiting new above ground 

structures would also prevent new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle disruption, all of which would 

protect Greater Sage-Grouse. The lack of elevated structures of various types would reduce perch sites for 

raptors that prey on grouse, protecting Greater Sage-Grouse from the threat of additional predation. 

Linear corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as raptors and red fox, reducing these 

areas could be beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse by preventing predation. Preventing overhead structures 

in these areas could reduce the risk of actual or perceived threats of overhead predation. The risk of 

collision or electrocution of Greater Sage-Grouse could be reduced where overhead structures are not 

allowed. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in short term disturbance of habitat 

from human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts would be minimal. 

Within the Kemmerer field office, new utility lines would be buried or anti-perching devices would be 

installed within sagebrush and/or semiarid shrub-dominated habitats. Anti-perch devices could protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse from predation by raptors, ravens or crows. Buried utility lines could prevent 

collision or electrocution of Greater Sage-Grouse from suspended wires. 

Within the planning area, 1,254 wind turbines are estimated to be developed. In Alternative A, 437,120 

acres are closed to wind energy and 3,888,930 acres are restricted to development of wind energy. The 

development of wind energy would cause habitat loss and both short and long-term impacts to habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Disturbance during installation of towers, roads, and infrastructure could force 

Greater Sage-Grouse away from habitat within at least 0.25 miles of the construction. Greater SageGrouse 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 al. 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 al. 2011). 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. 

Restrictions on MET towers in Kemmerer and Rawlins could reduce impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse by 

preventing the perching of raptors and removing collision obstacles within sagebrush habitat. Buffer 

distances between 0.25 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. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-258 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Land disposals within the Casper field office could impact Greater Sage-Grouse depending on the parcel 

of land and the entity that acquires the land. Most land disposals do not occur without review for major 

impacts to wildlife, special status species, and species habitat. Land acquisitions within the Casper Field 

Office could impact Greater Sage-Grouse depending on the resources found on the parcel of land. 

Acquisitions could lead to obtaining valuable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse where possible. 

Using the 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 SageGrouse core habitat could identify where land health standards are not being met. If appropriate action is 

taken by issuing a decision to modify grazing, construct management facilities, or implement treatments, 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock grazing could be reduced. Impacts from standards not 

being met include habitat loss or degradation, reduction of forage or cover, and spread of invasive plant 

species, which could cause Greater Sage-Grouse to abandon an area. Implementation of standards could 

reduce effects to Greater Sage-Grouse from the impacts described above. 

Adjustments in grazing use or management of BLM-administered lands to meet Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands could also result in actions that would balance the impacts of grazing while 

sustaining sagebrush habitat. Making adjustments to grazing management as a result of monitoring could 

provide overall improvements in landscape health, prevent or reduce the spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species, provide additional forage, and allow for greater cover habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Forest Service livestock grazing practices to provide adequate forage, cover and other habitat needs for 

Greater Sage-Grouse could provide Greater Sage-Grouse with habitat for nesting and forage during 

lekking and nesting. Greater Sage-Grouse nests can range from 2.1 to 4.8 miles or more from their lek 

area; the three mile buffer distance for TBNG for sagebrush cover greater than 15 percent surrounding 

leks would provide necessary habitat sufficient for a large number of nesting and breeding birds (WGFD 

2010c). 

Implementing conversions in types of livestock and grazing season of use to meet rangeland standards 

could provide adequate habitat components for Greater Sage-Grouse. Managing season of use in 

sagebrush habitat could allow for grazing to be applied during timeframes that would not affect sagegrouse forage or cover needs such as in winter concentration areas or riparian areas in the spring and 

summer (Cagney et al.2010). Conversions in types of livestock could alter grazing patterns and vegetation 

use. For example, cattle use in areas where grasses could be reduced and forbs increased; sheep use where 

forbs could be reduced and grasses increased (Beck and Mitchell 2000). Careful use of conversions is 

necessary to ensure that needed habitat components for Greater Sage-Grouse would be available during 

the seasons when the birds need it. 

Management of livestock allotments within the Casper field office and BTNF and TBNG for drought 

conditions could provide important seasonal forage and cover for Greater Sage-Grouse during periods of 

drought. 

Range improvement projects within the planning area could initially cause short term impacts from 

habitat loss or damage during the improvement construction or project timespan. Disturbed areas would 

be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat 

function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. Long term, many improvements could provide 

additional vegetation for forage or cover, increased access to the landscape, additional water resources, or 

safety features for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Fence modification, removal, or construction of new fences to BLM standards would provide varying 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Fences can provide sage-grouse with fewer impacts from livestock from 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-259

grazing or trampling of cover and forage when fences exclude livestock from Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat. Fences can also impact Greater Sage-Grouse by creating travel barriers, altering distribution 

patterns, increasing stress and energy loss, and causing injury or death from entanglement or collisions. 

Modifying or constructing fences to BLM standards could reduce impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

fences by decreasing the chances of collision or entanglement only if they were also fitted with anticollision markers. Studies in Wyoming show that fence markers can reduce sage-grouse mortality from 

wire fence collision by 70-83% (Christiansen 2009, Stevens et al. 2012). Where fences were constructed 

with anti-collision standards for special status species, Greater Sage-Grouse could be less likely to be 

injured or perish from impact with fences. Where fences are constructed with perch inhibitors for raptors, 

Greater Sage-Grouse would be less likely to be subject to hunting from predatory bird species. Removal 

of fences reduces threats of injury or death from impacts to fences, opens up travel corridors, and could 

allow access to additional forage and cover. 

Prohibiting the placement of mineral supplements within one-quarter mile of lentic/lotic water and 

wetland/riparian areas, as well as Greater Sage-Grouse leks, could prevent damage to important riparian 

areas, late season brood rearing habitat, trampling and degradation of wetlands, and overall habitat loss. 

Mineral supplement blocks for livestock and wildlife use would be placed in locations that both promote 

proper grazing distribution and prevent inappropriate livestock use on riparian habitat, minimizing soil 

compaction and damage to vegetation, and could decrease grazing pressure and competition for riparian 

vegetation. Water developments could also adversely affect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, particularly in 

nesting habitat and riparian areas, through reductions in forage, cover, or possible nest trampling due to 

increased distribution of animals. However, implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands on BLM-administered lands could ensure that impacts were not significant. In TBNG and 

MBNF, where wildlife escape ramps are required in stock water troughs and tanks, the potential for 

drowning of sage-grouse could be reduced or prevented. 

Current management for livestock trailing in the Casper, Kemmerer, and Pinedale field offices could 

impact Greater Sage-Grouse depending on timing and where the trailing occurred. Trailing can result in 

vegetation loss from livestock use or trampling, generally species (forbs, grass, or sagebrush) that Greater 

Sage-Grouse use for either forage, cover, or both. Reduction of vegetation could also result in fewer 

insects, which could be detrimental to sage-grouse if it occurred in early or late brood rearing habitat. 

Some trampling of nests or nesting habitat is possible if trailing were to occur within nesting habitat or 

near leks in the spring (March to May). Livestock trailing could also lead to the spread of invasive, nonnative plant species which can overtake native habitat and lead to loss of native forbs and grasses, which 

are important for Greater Sage-Grouse forage and cover. 

Managing riparian and wetland areas for PFC/WY Standards for Rangeland Health/improving habitat 

conditions could maintain or improve riparian/wetland areas which are important to Greater Sage-Grouse 

for summer-late brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et al. 2000). Riparian habitat is critical to Greater SageGrouse for late-growing season foraging (Crawford et al. 2004). Habitat and forage could be enhanced 

from careful, seasonal management of wetland and riparian areas from applying short duration grazing, 

preventing or limiting utilization of woody species, and seasonal use regimes. Because livestock and 

wildlife can tend to congregate near water sources, management focused toward riparian and wetland 

areas could reduce heavy impacts from soil compaction, erosion, and overgrazing of vegetation resources 

which could improve overall habitat conditions in these areas for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

In the Rock Springs field office, where water developments are proposed or considered in sensitive 

wildlife habitat and are developed where wildlife could benefit from the development, short term impacts 

could occur from the initial construction, human presence, habitat disturbance, and vegetation loss. Once 

construction was complete, habitat conditions in the area could return over time if grazing was monitored 

and over-use of the area by livestock or wildlife did not occur. Access to water sources could be 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-260 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse if escape ramps are installed in stock water troughs and tanks to 

prevent the potential for drowning of sage-grouse. However, water developments could also adversely 

affect Greater Sage-Grouse, particularly if developments were located in springs, seeps, riparian or 

wetland areas. Riparian habitat is critical to Greater Sage-Grouse for late-growing season foraging and 

summer-late brood-rearing habitat (Connelly et al. 2000, Crawford et al. 2004). Because livestock and 

wildlife can tend to congregate near water sources, careful management would be necessary to ensure that 

areas surrounding water developments within sagebrush, riparian, or wetland habitat are not over used 

and/or overgrazed (Crawford et al. 2004). Any shallow areas of water are susceptible to mosquito 

breeding and possible spread of West Nile virus could occur (Cagney et al. 2010). Within the MBNF, 

water developments would be kept out of riparian and wetland areas where feasible, which could reduce 

the impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat loss, West Nile virus, or reductions in forage in those 

areas. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations considered on a case-by-case basis for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in all 

field offices could allow impacts to sagebrush and Greater Sage-Grouse if oil and gas development were 

to occur near important habitat areas. Impacts could come from surface disturbing activities in sagebrush 

habitat, which create disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, and human activity, and could 

disrupt contiguous, uninterrupted habitat and result in overall habitat loss. It is unknown, however, what 

type or degree of exceptions would occur, because the outcome is dependent on each lease and the habitat 

where the lease is being developed. 

Fluid mineral leasing could cause changes to important Greater Sage-Grouse habitat components, 

population function, and fragment remaining habitat. This could potentially reduce survivability and 

breeding of affected Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Authorized wells would not be anticipated to 

directly affect species populations given the review and stipulations placed upon each permit; however, 

population function could decline as development increases due to habitat fragmentation or habitat loss 

(Naugle et al. 2006; Walker et al. 2007). Risks to Greater Sage-Grouse from oil, gas, and CBNG 

development include elevated mortality due to collisions with structures and vehicles, risk of West Nile 

virus due to increased mosquito habitat from holding ponds, disturbance of birds that may force them into 

suboptimal habitats with elevated predation rates (resulting in a decline in habitat suitability), and direct 

habitat loss (Walker et al. 2007). The construction phase of well development (drilling and completion), 

which typically takes 1-2 months for a single drill bore (but can extend up to 14 months or more for a 

multiple drill hole well pad), is a period of high intensity human activity, noise, road and equipment use, 

and site disturbance. This period is considered one of high impact to Greater Sage-Grouse, especially if it 

coincides with seasons when the birds might already be stressed (Walker et al. 2007). However, adverse 

impacts to sage-grouse may continue to occur following the construction phase during normal operations 

(Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007; Doherty et al. 2008). Sage-grouse may simply avoid otherwise 

suitable habitat as the density of roads, power lines, or energy development increases (Lyon and 

Anderson 2003; Holloran 2005; Kaiser 2006; Doherty et al. 2008). Abandonment of leks may not occur 

during the first year of drilling and operations, but often is shown to occur within 2-10 years following 

well development (Walker et al. 2007, Hess and Beck 2012). 

Making 871,780 acres unavailable to new oil, gas, and CBNG leasing would protect these areas, which all 

occur within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. Closing areas to new oil and gas leasing would provide 

unfragmented blocks of habitat and protect corridors between habitat areas; as well as reducing habitat 

loss and disturbance from humans and infrastructure. Within the planning area, there would be 

approximately 130,330 acres of initial short-term surface disturbance as a result of an anticipated 16,411 

of oil, gas, and CBNG wells drilled, with long term disturbance following reclamation of 39,050 acres. 

Disturbance to habitats could displace Greater Sage-Grouse, and the possible long-term habitat 

deterioration could eliminate potential habitat that may provide refuge for Greater Sage-Grouse displaced 

from current territories. Conversion of large areas to early seral stage vegetation or cheatgrass could occur 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-261

as well pads are reclaimed. Conversion of large expanses to early seral vegetation could result in 

additional habitat loss and the resulting population decline of Greater Sage-Grouse if this occurred within 

severe winter range or nesting habitat (Doherty et al. 2008; Holloran et al. 2005). In addition, female 

sage-grouse are known to have a high fidelity to their natal nesting habitat; it could be 5-9 years before 

the nesting population response to a gas field development is realized (Holloran 2005). Yearling female 

sage-grouse displaced from their natal habitat have been found to have a lower nest initiation rate than 

those that remained, perhaps because of unfamiliarity with the habitat (Kaiser 2006). Over time, female 

Greater Sage-Grouse chose nest sites farther from active drilling rigs and producing gas wells, suggesting 

a long-term avoidance of active natural gas developments (Holloran 2005). Ingelfinger and Anderson 

(2004) found that for lands within 328 feet of a road or well pad, the density of sagebrush obligate bird 

species drops by 50% regardless of the amount of activity on the road. 

Table 4-104 Acres of Oil, Gas, and CBNG Restricted by Lek Buffers and Greater SageGrouse Management 

Restriction Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Closed 871,780 6,809,580 16,878,220 964,860 892,090

NSO 40,980 2,082,140 2,082,140 - 689,300

CSU 5,015,210 - - 2,117,990 6,146,570

The use of geophysical exploration in core or general habitat could affect Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitat. The use of vehicles for seismic projects or vibroseis trucks in the open landscape can 

crush vegetation, and the temporary human and vehicle presence could cause Greater Sage-Grouse to 

vacate the area. While exploration was occurring, Greater Sage-Grouse could be forced to flee lower 

quality habitat for forage or cover, which could impact health and reproduction until species could return 

to the area, depending on the habitat and time of year. Once exploration was complete, habitat conditions 

in the area could return over time, subject to habitat and weather conditions. Seismic lines from vibroseis 

trucks can open up corridors that could be used by predatory animals, and additional vehicle traffic could 

illegally use the pathway opened by the operation. Vehicles could cause mortality from crushing nesting 

birds or from collisions. Areas that where geophysical operations were prohibited entirely, through buffer 

distances 150 foot wide strip around leks, or seasonally (Pinedale, March 1 to May 15 from 8:00 am to 

8:00 pm) would provide Greater Sage-Grouse protection from the impacts listed above. 

Offsite mitigation for oil and gas development could affect Greater Sage-Grouse if sagebrush habitat was 

being replaced, providing additional sagebrush habitat for future use. The initial mitigation projects could 

displace Greater Sage-Grouse if it occurred near occupied habitat, from human and vehicle presence, 

causing grouse to flee to other, possibly lower quality habitat. Displacement could cause impacts from 

stress from fleeing or inadequate forage, shelter or breeding habitat. Long term, Greater Sage-Grouse 

could benefit from mitigation of habitat with increased forage, shelter, or breeding habitat. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for Greater SageGrouse that use or inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat protects species from human and other disturbance and allows for corridors for 

migration and travel. Disturbance can result in Greater Sage-Grouse moving from high quality habitat to 

areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Abandonment of important habitat can lower reproduction 

and survival rates of the species and result in a further decline in the species. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-262 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Requiring reclamation bonds for drilling or surface disturbance provides insurance that funding is 

available for reclamation and compliance of the lease terms if a leaseholder abandons the project without 

conducting proper surface reclamation and other project requirements. Reclamation bonds could provide 

Greater Sage-Grouse with habitat improvement and recovery in areas disturbed by oil, gas, and other 

surface disturbing activities if project abandonment occurs. Even though areas may be reclaimed, it is not 

guaranteed that sage-grouse will return to the area; if they do, they may not repopulate to the same level 

before habitat disturbance (Connelly et al. 2004, Braun et al. 2002). 

If produced water is stored in evaporation ponds or reservoirs, Greater Sage-Grouse could be vulnerable 

to the threat of West Nile virus if mosquitos were allowed to breed in the holding ponds (Walker et al. 

2007). 

Managing split estate lands within the Pinedale Field Office subject to the same stipulations as leased 

federal estate lands could provide additional protections to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat 

through federal oil and gas lease stipulations provided in the Pinedale RMP. Negotiating federal 

management for nonfederal minerals under federal ownership in MBNF could provide additional 

protections to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat through federal oil and gas lease stipulations 

provided in the MBNF LRMP. 

If coal lease applications were approved, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed. Currently, 

234,230 acres are closed to non-energy solid leasable mineral development. Effects to Greater SageGrouse habitat could be extensive, depending on the type (surface/subsurface) and location of the coal 

development. Sage-grouse will abandon areas near coal mines but will often return once mining activities 

are complete, although the population numbers may not return to pre-disturbance levels (Connelly et al. 

2000). Coal mining activities could cause displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse from developed areas, 

avoidance of a larger area around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible 

offsite impacts, including erosion, and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which could further 

degrade habitat. Depending on the scale and location of the disturbance to critical sage-grouse habitats, 

the effects could be more severe or long term. Allowing coal exploration activities in Greater SageGrouse core habitat could cause impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from human or vehicle presence, 

disturbance or removal of vegetation during exploratory drilling, and noise from vehicles and equipment, 

all of which could cause sage-grouse to abandon the area. 

The leasing of non-energy leasable minerals within core habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse would be 

considered within areas available for leasing. Allowing prospecting for new leases could be considered on 

a case-by-case basis. Most of the non-energy leasable mineral resources within the planning area are trona 

and phosphate. Trona mining occurs in primarily sub-surface mines where disturbance to Greater SageGrouse habitat is low. Human presence and vehicle use from the mine to processing areas could cause 

displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse from vehicles and noise, avoidance of a larger area around the 

development because of human presence, vehicles and noise, and possible collisions from vehicles. 

Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators, which could impact Greater Sage-Grouse. Impacts from 

phosphate would be similar although more habitat impacts from loss, disturbance, and erosion could 

occur from open pit mining. 

The portions of the planning area in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry (1,677,420 acres) would continue to have protection of Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat, 

and would prevent future effects from mineral extraction to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. 

Salable minerals within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be continue to be open where authorized. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse could include displacement of birds from exploration or pit areas, 

avoidance of a larger area around the development because of human presence and noise, and the spread 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-263

of invasive, non-native plant species. Currently, 274,860 acres are closed to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits. These areas would not receive the impacts from mineral material activity. 

Allowing salable mineral pits to persist after they are no longer in use could reduce short-term impacts of 

reclamation from human and vehicle presence; however, depending on how the area is used after minerals 

are no longer removed, impacts could be varied. If the area is allowed to naturally reclaim, impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat could be low aside from possible spread of invasive, nonnative plant species and alteration of some habitat components from the presence of invasive plant 

species. If the area is used for recreation or does not naturally reclaim, human presence could persist and 

prevent Greater Sage-Grouse from returning to the area if sagebrush habitat was in close proximity, and 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species could occur, further impacting reclamation of native species. 

Dispersed recreation activities that increase human presence could have a localized impact on Greater 

Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. Displacement from human and vehicle activities could move Greater 

Sage-Grouse into less desirable habitat. Spread of invasive, non-native plant species and alteration of 

some habitat components from the presence of invasive plant species could occur from vehicles and 

human tracking from one area to another. Campgrounds and roadways provide thoroughfares and areas 

that attract predators, which could increase predation on sage-grouse (Connelly et al, 2004). Allowing 

special recreation permits (SRP) for large events or events that involve surface disturbing activity could 

lead to direct or indirect impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat, particularly in areas that 

contain known or potential populations and habitats. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse occur from 

displacement and physiological stress from human presence and activity during sensitive life stages. 

Stipulations placed on SRPs in accordance with federal protections and BLM policy for water, soils, and 

special status species would minimize the potential for impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Restrictions of SRPs within 2.0 miles of active Greater Sage-Grouse display grounds from March 1 to 

June 15 in the TBNG could reduce or prevent impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse during lekking and nesting 

and their habitat within and adjacent to those areas. 

“Open” OHV areas on BLM lands that occur within or nearby Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could impact 

sage-grouse from disturbance from human presence and noise, and from possible collisions with vehicles. 

The open OHV areas in the Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices: Poison Spider OHV Park 

(285 acres); Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area (3,736 acres); and the portion of the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area (529 acres) have large areas of sand dunes as part of the open use area, which is 

not desired habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. Because these areas are existing use areas, it is likely that 

sage-grouse have already abandoned use of the area or avoid it during migrations. 

Limiting 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 Greater SageGrouse priority habitat could limit impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. Roads and road construction are 

listed among the main causes of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation for Greater Sage-Grouse (Holloran 

et al. 2005). The miles of routes that would be limited cannot be determined until transportation planning 

is completed, but limiting new roads, routes, and cross-country travel until the planning occurs could 

prevent some disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat loss and fragmentation. Cross country 

vehicle use can cause habitat degradation and open up corridors that could be used by predatory animals 

and vehicles could cause mortality from crushing nesting birds, eggs or hatchlings. Linear disturbances 

can create barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation 

loss and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following vehicle 

passage. 

Avoiding surface disturbing activities or occupancy within 0.25 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks in the Casper (except for Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek), Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-264 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

(in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas), Rawlins, and Rock Springs (including Jack 

Morrow Hills), and TBNG would provide some area of protection to sage-grouse from disturbance and 

habitat fragmentation. Sage-grouse leks within 0.25 miles of natural gas development were shown to have 

significantly fewer males per lek and lower annual rates of population growth compared to leks with less 

disturbance (Braun et al. 2002, Holloran 2005). Connelly et al. (2000) recommends that energy related 

facilities be located at least two miles from active leks in areas where sagebrush habitat components are 

uniform, and approximately three miles where habitat components are non-uniform (Holloran and 

Anderson 2005). 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, Hess and Beck 2012). While Alternative A provides a buffer area 

from surface disturbance or occupancy, it is not of a distance that is recommended by current science and 

may force Greater Sage-Grouse away from high quality leks to other areas of lower quality habitat and 

smaller populations of lekking birds. The result of lek disturbance and abandonment is lower reproductive 

rates of Greater Sage-Grouse, and reduction of sage-grouse populations. 

Management in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area of the Casper Field Office restricts or 

prohibits surface disturbing activity within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. In areas 

with over 10% canopy cover, surface disturbing activities would be avoided within four miles of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The additional half mile distance from leks, as compared to the other areas 

under Alternative A, would allow for greater protection from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, 

and reduction of contiguous lekking habitat areas. The four-mile buffer in areas with over 10% canopy 

cover would provide ideal habitat protection and connectivity, as well as allowing for minimal 

disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse on leks. Birds in these protected areas are expected to remain/return 

to leks and continue reproductive activities to maintain or increase population numbers. 

Providing buffers around leks for all Field Offices under Alternative A (Table 4-105) would help reduce 

habitat fragmentation around leks. Buffers around leks can provide undisturbed corridors for female 

grouse to move from the lek to nesting areas. Areas of habitat connectivity are imperative for Greater 

Sage-Grouse survival. Walker et al. (2007) recommends large areas with extensive stands of sagebrush of 

approximately four or more miles around leks to allow breeding populations of Greater Sage-Grouse to 

return to the lek. The availability of large, uninterrupted areas of sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse to 

forage and nest is likely to influence the size of the breeding populations and persistence of leks 

(Swenson et al. 1987, Ellis et al. 1989, Schroeder et al. 1999, Leonard et al. 2000, Smith et al. 2005). 

Table 4-105. Buffer Distances for Occupied Leks—Alternative A 

Field Office/ Forest Unit Buffer Distance Type of Activity

Casper 0.25 miles Surface disturbance or occupancy

Casper—

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek

0.75 miles Surface disturbance or occupancy

Casper—

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek

4 miles Surface disturbing activities in areas 10% 

sagebrush cover

Casper—

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek

2 miles

March 15 to July 15

Avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and 

early brood-rearing habitats

Kemmerer 0.25 miles Surface disturbance or occupancy

Newcastle 0.25 miles Surface disturbance or occupancy

Pinedale (Traditional Leasing Areas and 

Unavailable Areas) 0.25 miles Surface disturbance 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-265

Field Office/ Forest Unit Buffer Distance Type of Activity

Rawlins 0.25 miles Surface disturbance or occupancy

Rock Springs 0.25 miles Surface disturbance or occupancy

Rock Springs—

Jack Morrow Hills

0.25 miles or caseby-case

Surface disturbance or occupancy

TBNG 0.25 miles New oil and gas facilities (includes roads)

Closing or rehabilitating unused or reclaiming roads or trails could provide fewer disturbances to greater 

Sage-Grouse from occasional vehicle or human presence and could improve habitat conditions by 

removing linear disturbances, allowing for greater habitat connectivity, and providing additional 

vegetation resources for forage or cover. Vehicle routes can be used by predators (raptors, coyote, red fox, 

and raven). Greater Sage-Grouse could benefit from the rehabilitation of unused roads or trails, which 

could reduce the presence of predatory animals. Vehicle routes are prone to the spread of invasive, nonnative plant species, which are known to cause changes in native habitat that could damage sagebrush 

ecosystems that are necessary for Greater Sage-Grouse survival. In the Kemmerer field office, not 

upgrading designated roads could reduce surface disturbance from upgrading activities, preventing 

vegetation loss and possible displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse from human and vehicle presence. 

Designing seed mixes or plantings for vegetation types that meet desired future condition to use for 

rehabilitation in the BTNF could lead to habitat re-establishment with appropriate species, which could 

provide desirable habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse when sagebrush or other desired habitat were included 

in the plantings. 

Vegetation treatments for sage-grouse and sagebrush within the planning area could provide Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat, forage, and cover within these areas within 15 to 25 years for sagebrush, but much 

shorter term for forbs and grasses. Initial treatments could cause displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse 

from human and vehicle activities, which could move grouse into less desirable habitat and could increase 

competition for available resources with other species and habitat uses. Treated areas are vulnerable to the 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Careful monitoring would be necessary to 

prevent or limit invasive, non-native plant species within the treated areas. Limiting treatments within 

sagebrush habitat in the TBNG to 15 to 20 percent canopy cover could provide varied seral structure 

within the greater habitat area. Limiting prescribed burns to specific canopy cover, vegetation 

composition, patch size, or amount of precipitation only where it can be demonstrated to be beneficial to 

Greater Sage-Grouse could provide some habitat improvements; however, there is little evidence that 

sagebrush habitat is greatly enhanced by fire treatments, and in some studies, negative effects have been 

documented (Crawford et al. 2004, Connelly et al. 2004). 

Depending on the extent, location, severity of a fire, and seral vegetation (stage or relating to the natural 

succession within a plant community of an ecosystem) type affected, unplanned ignitions would have 

short-term impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse. They would do this by removing or degrading habitat, 

injuring or killing slow-moving animals, causing habitat avoidance and changes in species movement 

patterns, or potentially reducing population viability. In areas that are available for fuels treatments, 

changes in vegetation can result in negative impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse, such as direct habitat loss, 

habitat fragmentation, and disruption to species; however, it can also result in beneficial impacts, such as 

habitat restoration. 

A concern associated with resetting vegetation seral stage through fuels management is the invasion of 

undesirable plant species. Noxious and invasive weeds are often of lower value to wildlife and degrade 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-266 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

wildlife habitat by reducing optimal cover or food. Sagebrush-steppe communities are among the 

ecosystems most vulnerable to invasion and degradation by invasive weeds. Cheatgrass invasion is also a 

threat to some treatment areas. The greatest impacts have occurred on Greater Sage-Grouse winter range 

areas with low precipitation rates. Not only can invasive species outcompete most native plants when 

moisture is limited, they can also change site-specific fire ecology and result in the loss of critical shrub 

communities. 

Fire suppression removes vegetation and disturbs soil and can have both short- and long-term impacts on 

Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitats. For example, using heavy equipment to construct fire lines can 

cause habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation in the short term. Moreover, if not rehabilitated, these 

fire lines can cause erosion and provide opportunities for the spread of undesirable plant species, thereby 

resulting in long-term adverse impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Timely rehabilitation following 

fire, therefore, is important to maintaining the quality of wildlife habitats. 

The noise from heavy equipment and chainsaws could temporarily disperse Greater Sage-Grouse from 

breeding and nesting habitat and from other occupied habitats. Prescribed burning could also disturb 

nesting bird species, from smoke inadvertently drifting into occupied habitat. These activities also could 

remove suitable habitat or other desirable vegetation. Disturbances from heavy equipment, chainsaws, 

and prescribed burning would be localized and short term. Most wildlife species would move into 

adjacent untreated areas; however, direct mortality during the vegetation treatments is possible. Timing 

limitations and site-specific COAs could mitigate the short-term impacts from the treatments. 

Using ESR treatments following a wildfire are effective in restoring wildlife habitat; however, equipment 

is often noisy, and noise may alter animal behavior or cause wildlife to leave an area during the 

disturbance. These impacts would be short term and are not likely to have much effect on the long-term 

health and habitat use in the treatment area. Although both planned and unplanned wildland fire adversely 

impact wildlife habitats in the short term by removing vegetation and disturbing soil, the long-term 

benefits of wildland fire often outweigh the short-term adverse impacts. For example, prescribed fire can 

be used to restore conditions benefiting wildlife species favoring early plant succession stages and young 

age classes of woody plants (McAninch et al. 1984). Prolonged fire suppression has allowed fuels to build 

up to the point that an unplanned wildfire is likely to be much larger and greater in intensity. Some 

wildlife species thrive on the occurrence of fire. The herbaceous and woody plants that establish 

following a burn provide abundant foliar tissue and seeds. These are more palatable for Greater SageGrouse and provide an influx of insects that provide valuable nourishment for Greater Sage-Grouse 

chicks. Over the short term, the plant community is changed dramatically by a fire, as taller and denser 

vegetation is replaced by a more open habitat. As the area gradually recovers, however, many of the prefire components become reestablished, and the area again supports a healthy plant community. This cycle 

may take decades or centuries, depending on the dominant plant species. Alternatively, vegetation 

restoration might never occur if climatic conditions are no longer suitable for the former dominants. 

Wallmo (1980) suggests that fire improves the palatability of forage and causes browse plants to resprout 

close to the ground, putting the current season’s growth within reach for several years. Additionally, 

wildland fire can improve the quality of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by releasing soil nutrients, reducing 

fuel load, or setting back trees encroaching into shrubland or grassland habitats. 

Fuels treatments could be beneficial for species that depend on younger seral stages. In the long term, 

Greater Sage-Grouse could benefit from some wildfires and most fuels management, due to an increase in 

vegetation productivity and to increased plant diversity and age classes. This would, in turn, provide 

additional forage and cover. Mimicking natural periodic disturbance is often necessary in order to 

stimulate plant productivity and increase diversity and nutritional value. Foraging opportunities for 

Greater Sage-Grouse would increase as understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs reestablish. In addition, 

fuels treatments in upland areas often result in increased forage production, which diverts livestock and 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-267

wildlife use from riparian and wetland areas, thereby increasing the vigor and structural diversity of these 

plant communities. 

Following a wildfire, ESR is implemented to restore habitats that have sustained damage or degradation 

from catastrophic wildfire. Typically these activities are beneficial for Greater Sage-Grouse and are 

designed to improve the overall condition of the area, which improves habitat for wildlife. For example, 

weed-free seeding would stabilize soil and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Additionally, replacing 

organic matter in disturbed areas would protect topsoil and provide a suitable bed for the restoration of a 

native vegetative community. Alternative A would have the fewest restrictions for fuels management 

actions, with the most potential for vegetation disturbance. Additionally, Alternative A would not 

prioritize fire operations beyond what has already been determined in the fire management plans for the 

area; therefore, Alternative A would have the greatest impact on Greater Sage-Grouse. 

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. Beck and Mitchell (2000) recommend that seeded areas should be rested at 

least two growing seasons or longer to prevent sagebrush seedlings from being trampled by livestock. 

Rested areas could provide Greater Sage-Grouse with new vegetation for cover habitat and forage without 

competition with livestock during the rest period. Not allowing treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse 

winter habitat in the TBNG with the exception to strategically reduce wildland fire risk could protect 

important habitat components for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 

2009a) would provide restoration of habitat following oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activities. If 

the policy is followed, soil erosion and introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could be 

minimized. The landscape could be reclaimed to the original habitat components and structure to the 

extent possible. While the initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, some sagebrush habitat could be 

restored over the long term. Some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to 

original conditions due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may 

also provide opportunities for invasive plant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to 

restore sagebrush habitat with native species in some areas. 

Use of weed-free seed and mulch, desirable non-native species or sterile perennials, or reclaiming to 

native site plant composition for reclamation projects could reduce the risk of disturbed areas being 

inundated by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing the spread of invasive plant species could 

help the reclamation area restore to original site vegetation composition. Areas that restore with native 

plant composition provide habitat and cover for Greater Sage-Grouse and could support populations in the 

future. 

Working with stakeholders to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets in the Casper Field Office could 

impact Greater Sage-Grouse from the loss of an important food source for chick survival (Cagney et al. 

2010). However; major infestations could result in vegetation loss from insect consumption of plants. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from pesticide spraying can cause short-term displacement from vehicle 

use and human presence. 

In the Rock Springs Field Office, management of wild horses to consider wildlife, watershed, and other 

resource needs could help preserve the herbaceous component of sagebrush habitat, if management 

focused on Greater Sage-Grouse needs (Cagney et al. 2010). Considering water developments to improve 

herd distribution and manage forage utilization only if wildlife habitat and resource conditions will be 

improved or maintained, could provide habitat improvements to sage-grouse. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-268 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Using wildfire for resource benefit can result in impacts from habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, 

displacement of sage-grouse to less desirable, lower quality habitat. Invasive, non-native plant species 

such as cheatgrass can become established in disturbed areas which can alter native plant composition, 

reducing forage and cover for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

In Rock Springs, where prescribed burns are preferred in areas having greater than 35 percent sagebrush 

composition, 20 percent desirable grass composition, and greater than 10 inches of precipitation, any loss 

of sagebrush habitat could result in declines in Greater Sage-Grouse. Wildland fire use in Greater SageGrouse lek habitat has shown negative results from loss of leks. (Connelly et al. 2000). Use of fire within 

sagebrush habitat is not recommended due to the slow recovery of sagebrush and regeneration of the 

overall habitat (Cagney et al. 2010). Even if an area of sagebrush habitat were to recover, sage-grouse 

may not return. Rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland fires (Kemmerer, Newcastle and Rawlins) to 

prevent further resource damage could protect habitat from erosion and landslides that could result in 

additional habitat loss. Suppression techniques could impact Greater Sage-Grouse if they occur in 

sagebrush habitat, core or general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Vegetation removal, crushing of habitat, 

the use of heavy equipment and fire retardant and human presence could force Greater Sage-Grouse from 

the area where these activities occurred, possibly to less desirable, lower quality habitat which often leads 

to species decline. 

Prioritizing Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek for vegetative treatments to improve Greater SageGrouse habitats could be effective in controlling invasive annual plant species such as cheatgrass, but 

most research shows that a majority of treatment techniques are not helpful for providing habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Connelly et al. 2004, Crawford et al. 2004, Cagney et al. 2010). Imazapic chemical 

treatment could be effective in controlling invasive annual plant species such as cheatgrass; preventing 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitats from degradation. Using monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous 

vegetation is maintained for nesting cover in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat within these areas could help 

retain some effective habitat components in treatment areas. 

Offsite mitigation in the Pinedale Field Office for oil and gas development could provide future habitat 

components for Greater Sage-Grouse if sagebrush habitat were being mitigated. The initial mitigation 

projects could displace sage-grouse from human and vehicle presence; habitat could be further 

fragmented, interrupting migration corridors, and causing Greater Sage-Grouse to temporarily or 

permanently abandon habitat. 

For sage-grouse leks inside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, avoiding surface disturbing 

activities or occupancy within 0.25 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks in the Casper (except for 

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek), Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale (in Traditional Leasing Areas 

and Unavailable Areas), Rawlins, and Rock Springs (including Jack Morrow Hills) Field Offices and 

TBNG would provide some area of protection to Greater Sage-Grouse from disturbance and habitat 

fragmentation. Sage-grouse leks within 0.25 miles of natural gas development were shown to have 

significantly fewer males per lek and lower annual rates of population growth compared to leks with less 

disturbance (Braun et al. 2002, Holloran 2005). Connelly et al. (2000) recommend that energy related 

facilities be located at least two miles from active leks in areas where sagebrush habitat components are 

uniform, and approximately three miles where habitat components are non-uniform (Holloran and 

Anderson 2005). 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, Hess and Beck 2012). While Alternative A provides a buffer area 

from surface disturbance or occupancy; it is not of a distance that is recommended by current science and 

may force Greater Sage-Grouse away from high quality leks to other areas of lower quality habitat and 

smaller populations of lekking birds. The result of lek disturbance and abandonment is lower reproductive 

rates of Greater Sage-Grouse, and reduction of Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-269

Management in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area of the Casper Field Office restricts or 

prohibits surface disturbing activity within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. In areas 

with over 10% canopy cover, surface disturbing activities would be avoided within four miles of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The additional half mile distance from leks, as compared to the other areas 

under Alternative A, would allow for greater protection from surface disturbing activities, habitat loss, 

and reduction of contiguous lekking habitat areas. The four mile buffer in areas with over 10% canopy 

cover would provide ideal habitat protection and connectivity, as well as allowing for minimal 

disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse in leks. Birds in these protected areas are expected to remain/return to 

leks and continue reproductive activities to maintain or increase population numbers. 

Providing buffers around leks for all Field Offices and Forest Service Units (except the BTNF and 

MBNF) under Alternative A would help reduce habitat fragmentation around leks (Table 4-105). Buffers 

around leks can provide undisturbed corridors for females to move from the lek to nesting areas. Areas of 

habitat connectivity are imperative for Greater Sage-Grouse survival. Walker et al. (2007) recommends 

large areas with extensive stands of sagebrush of approximately four or more miles around leks to allow 

breeding populations of Greater Sage-Grouse to return to the lek. The availability of large, uninterrupted 

areas of sagebrush habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse to forage and nest is likely to influence the size of the 

breeding populations and persistence of leks (Swenson et al. 1987, Ellis et al. 1989, Schroeder et al. 1999, 

Leonard et al. 2000, Smith et al. 2005). 

In Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat, avoiding surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities in suitable Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitats within two miles of an 

occupied lek, or in identified Greater Sage-Grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat outside the two 

mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 in Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale (Traditional Leasing 

Areas and Unavailable Areas), and TBNG and MBNF from March 1 to June 15 would provide 

uninterrupted corridors for female Greater Sage-Grouse to migrate from leks to nesting areas (Table 

4-106). Female Greater Sage-Grouse will avoid nesting in areas of development or where disturbing or 

land-clearing activities occur, such as oil and gas development, roads, urban areas, or cropland (Aldridge 

and Boyce 2007). Sage-grouse that nest within the two mile buffer area would be protected from habitat 

loss and disturbance from noise and human presence within that buffer area. Suitable Greater SageGrouse habitat outside the defined spatial buffer would not receive any timing restrictions. Impacts to 

nesting Greater Sage-Grouse and other special status species may occur on various levels. Direct take is 

possible if nesting was to occur within proposed disturbance areas. Depending on distance from the 

disturbance, increased stress, or decreased time on a nest, changes in behavioral patterns may occur. In 

the Rawlins Field Office, the restrictions are similar except that there are additional restrictions for 

geophysical surveys and organized recreational activities that require a special use permit which would 

protect Greater Sage-Grouse from these additional disturbing activities. The Rawlins Field Office also 

starts their avoidance timing on March 1 to correspond with the seasonal activity of Greater Sage-Grouse 

in that area of Wyoming. Rock Springs, including Jack Morrow Hills, follows a similar protocol as the 

other field offices; however, their restrictions are on a case-by case basis. 

Seasonal timing limitations for human activity in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek areas of 

the Casper Field Office within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks during specified 

timeframes could reduce disturbance to lekking, nesting or grouse chicks (Table 4-106). Surface 

development or disturbing activities would be restricted within four miles of occupied Greater SageGrouse leks. The additional buffer distances from leks would allow for greater protection from human 

activity and disruption of lekking activities. The four mile buffer distance for surface disturbance or 

disturbing activities would provide additional protection from human activity and disruption of lekking 

activities as well as provide expansive habitat protection and habitat connectivity. The buffer distance 

also meets the recommendations from Walker et al. (2007) for a four mile buffer distance around leks. 

Connelly et al. (2000) recommends that “human activities within view of or within 0.3 miles from leks 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-270 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

should be minimized during the early morning and late evening when birds are near or on leks.” Timing 

limitations can be an important tool for species protection during critical life stages (i.e., egg incubation 

and parturition), if they are used in conjunction with the proper habitat management for that species. The 

timing limitation for Greater Sage-Grouse leks would offer reduction of disturbance from human activity 

to birds that remain in the buffer area and are active within the dates and times designated by the field 

offices. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas would be 

avoided from November 15 to March 14 in the Casper, Kemmerer, and Newcastle Field Offices. In the 

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area, surface disturbing activities that occur within sage-grouse 

winter habitat would be restricted in sagebrush stands of more than 20% canopy cover. For the Pinedale, 

Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices, winter protections occur within winter concentration areas. In 

the Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs (Jack Morrow Hills area) field offices, the timing is also from 

November 15 to March 14. Within the remainder of the Rock Springs Field Office, restrictions are on a 

case-by-case basis. Winter habitat contains specific areas of sagebrush which rise 10-14 inches above the 

snow where Greater Sage-Grouse can feed on sagebrush leaves and buds (BLM 2009b). Winter 

concentration areas are documented areas where large numbers (25 to 50 or more) of Greater SageGrouse consistently use habitat during the winter months and contain sagebrush as described for winter 

habitat (BLM 2009b). The management would provide Greater Sage-Grouse within this habitat protection 

from noise, human disturbance, and habitat loss during the winter months. Winter habitat and 

concentration areas are another critical component of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat where birds come to 

feed solely on sagebrush. Doherty et al. (2008) reported that impacts to wintering habitat may have 

disproportionate effects on regional Greater Sage-Grouse population size and persistence due to the 

importance of sagebrush as their only food source in the winter. 

Table 4-106. Seasonal Timing Limitations for Sage-grouse Nesting and Early Broodrearing Habitat 

Location Dates/Time Habitat

Buffer 

Distance 

from Leks

Type of Activity

Casper March 15—July 

15

Occupied lek, 

nesting, early 

brood-rearing

2 mile Surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activity

Casper

March 1—May 

15

8 p.m.—8 a.m.

Occupied leks 0.25 miles

Surface-disturbance or 

occupancy. Human activity.

Casper—

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek

March 1—May 

15

8 p.m.—8 a.m.

Occupied leks 0.75 miles Surface use

Casper—

Bates Hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek

March 15—July 

15

8 p.m.—8 a.m.

Occupied leks 4 mile Surface development or 

wildlife-disturbing activities

Kemmerer March 15—July 

15

Nesting and early 

brood rearing 2 miles Surface-disturbing and disruptive activity

Newcastle March 15—July 

15

Nesting and early 

brood rearing 2 miles Surface disturbing activity

Pinedale March 15—July 

15

Nesting and early 

brood rearing 2 miles

Surface-disturbing activity in 

traditional leasing areas and 

unavailable areas
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-271

Location Dates/Time Habitat

Buffer 

Distance 

from Leks

Type of Activity

Rawlins March 1—July 

15

Nesting and early 

brood rearing 2 miles Surface-disturbing and disruptive activity

Rock Springs March 1—July 

15 Nesting

Appropriate 

distances up to 

2 miles

—

Rock Springs—

Jack Morrow Hills

March 15—July 

15

Nesting and early 

brood rearing Case-by-case Disruptive activities

BTNF — — — Case-by-case

MBNF March 1—June 

30 — 2 mile New, various disturbances

TBNG March 1—June 

15 Nesting 2 mile Specific surface disturbing activities.

Minimizing impacts from predators, such as minimizing creation of new roads and requiring raptor perch 

deterrents on power poles as a component of permit issuance or renewal, could affect Greater SageGrouse by reducing predation to the species. 

Noise minimization could reduce disturbance to wildlife species (Kemmerer, Pinedale, and TBNG). 

Specific limitations such as limiting noise to 49 decibels (10 dBA above background noise) from March 1 

to June 15 or within two miles of a Greater Sage-Grouse lek (TBNG) could reduce disturbance to Greater 

Sage-Grouse. Studies conducted on Greater Sage-Grouse indicate that noise could adversely affect the 

communication abilities of strutting males (LaGory et al. 2001; Dantzker et al. 1999). Holloran (2005) 

and Blickley et al. (2012) suggest that noise emitted from drilling operations could reduce lek attendance 

by male and possibly female sage-grouse. Reducing noise could allow for males to continue use of leks 

nearby drilling operations. 

4.14.4 Alternative B 

The following impacts apply to Alternatives B, C, D and E: 

Implementing direct mitigation, utilizing best management practices (BMPs), and off-site compensatory 

mitigation would help maintain or improve sagebrush habitat and would minimize vegetation loss and 

soil erosion which could maintain or improve water quality, protecting important special status fish 

habitat. Utilizing Local Working Group (LWG) plans, analyses, and other sources of information to guide 

development of conservation objectives for local management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats provides 

additional data and resources to aid in the protection and management of sagebrush habitat. These 

measures could protect or enhance sagebrush habitat where projects occur outside of BLM lands, 

providing additional areas of habitat connectivity. This management would support special status wildlife 

species that use sagebrush habitat within and outside the planning area. 

Application of appropriate seasonal restrictions when implementing vegetation management treatments 

for seasonal habitats in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could provide special status wildlife with 

habitat improvements and could reduce the disturbance of wildlife that use habitat during the same season 

as Greater Sage-Grouse, such as Sage Thrasher, pygmy rabbit, and Brewer’s Sparrow. Monitoring the 

treatments could provide feedback to whether the treatments were successful and if changes should be 

made in the approach to methods or timing in the area. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-272 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Ensuring site-specific, measurable, conservation, and mitigation objectives are included in project 

planning within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitats could help special status species habitat recover 

after projects were completed and could assist in maintaining habitat and minimizing disturbance of 

special status wildlife during project development. 

Developing landscape-scale restoration/conservation and maintenance strategies, including special 

management of seasonal habitats and connectivity zones outside of Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority 

habitat areas, with voluntary partners and cooperating agencies could protect uninterrupted expanses of 

sagebrush habitat, providing special status wildlife species with fewer disruptions of habitat. 

Improvements made to habitat would benefit special status wildlife with improved forage and cover. 

Using Integrated Vegetation Management per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 

and designing all range projects to minimize potential for invasive species establishment could help 

prevent the spread and inundation of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive, non-native plant species 

can proliferate in disturbed areas and permanently damage native ecosystems if not prevented or quickly 

eradicated. Most special status wildlife species rely on native plant species for food and cover; when 

invasive, non-native plant species replace native habitat, species must relocate in search of desired 

habitat. If special status wildlife must travel any distance to relocate, their systems can become stressed, 

and if large numbers of wildlife are forced to leave an area due to lack of forage or cover, the relocation 

area may not be able to support all of the relocating species and they could be impacted by lack of forage 

or habitat. Monitoring and treating invasive species associated with existing range improvements could 

also prevent the establishment and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Applying Required Design Features (RDFs) (Appendix B) as mandatory stipulations/COAs within 

core/priority Sage‐grouse habitat for fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, range 

management, wild horse and burro, solid minerals-coal, locatable minerals, West Nile virus, mineral 

materials, non-energy solid leasables, vegetation management, fire and fuels management, and noise 

where applicable, appropriate, and technically feasible, could ensure uninterrupted expanses of sagebrush 

habitat, providing special status species with fewer disruptions of habitat, improved forage and cover 

within Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat areas. 

Sagebrush habitat could be protected or improved where operators agree to implement additional 

conservation measures for their approved leases within Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat. The 

degree and scale depends on which measures are implemented. 

Incorporating new occupied sage-grouse habitat into Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority areas for 

management as they are found would provide special management and protection to the special status 

species found within these areas. Continued ground-truth efforts for statewide Greater Sage-Grouse 

models could contribute data to provide more accuracy for the modeling effort. Using the sage-grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework or best available assessment tool for evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitats would allow BLM or Forest Service wildlife biologists to survey for habitat value with the 

greatest accuracy and would provide rich data to support conservation, protection, and improvement of 

these habitats. Annual meetings and reviews of lek data with WGFD could provide continued 

communication and data transfer between agencies. 

Working with proponents holding valid existing leases to provide additional protections to sagebrush 

habitat could reduce habitat loss and disturbance to sagebrush dependent special status species and could 

allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. It is unknown, however, what level of long-term protection of 

habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s discretion. If leaseholders/project 

proponents agree to additional protections for their lease, there would be a reduction in additional habitat 

loss and fragmentation due to oil and gas development by protecting existing habitat resources from new 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-273

development with buffer distances, additional reclamation, or seasonal closures. This would occur for all 

projects both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat, which would allow for greater 

protections as habitat outside Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat would be included. 

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Completing activity level travel plans within five 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 or other sensitive habitat. Designating routes during activity level planning in 

priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only could 

reduce the level of road/route use. Reducing road/route use could decrease the level of disturbance from 

vehicle and human presence, or collisions with vehicles for wildlife. Assessing existing plans for 

consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives could allow the BLM and Forest Service 

to make changes to routes/roads that could reduce further impacts to special status species and their 

habitat. 

The construction of roads to minimum design standards needed for production activities within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitats, in compliance with the DDCT, could reduce the amount of disturbance from 

road construction in some cases. Road construction can cause habitat and vegetation loss, erosion, 

sedimentation, and runoff which can affect special status plants and aquatic species. The spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction, which can 

further damage habitat. Human presence and vehicles may force special status wildlife species away from 

desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat, creating additional stress for special status wildlife. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for special status 

species that use or inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat protects species from human and other disturbance. Disturbance can result in 

wildlife moving from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Abandonment 

of important habitat can lower reproduction and survival rates of the species and result in a decline in 

special status wildlife populations. 

Developing EIS/project level adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming (State of WY EO 2011-05) could 

provide special status species additional habitat protection though additional management for sage-grouse 

and sagebrush habitat. 

The following impacts apply only to Alternative B:

Under Alternative B, new transmission corridors would not be authorized within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority and connectivity areas which would prevent habitat loss from linear corridors within the area. 

Prohibiting new above-ground structures would also prevent new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle 

disruption; all of which would protect special status species and their habitat within sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in short term disturbance of 

special status wildlife from human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts could be minimal. Linear 

disturbances can create barriers in migration corridors and fragmentation of habitat for special status 

species. Disturbed corridors are desirable areas for predatory special status animals, preventing the 

development of these areas may be beneficial to special status prey species but would also reduce hunting 

corridors for the predators. Preventing overhead structures in these areas could reduce the risk of 

predation from overhead predators, but also prevent the construction of overhead perches for predator 

hunting. The risk of collision or electrocution of special status bird and bat species could be reduced 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-274 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

where overhead structures are not allowed. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result 

in short term disturbance of special status species from human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts 

would be minimal. 

In priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, relocating existing designated ROW corridors void of authorized 

ROWs or undesignating the corridor could prevent future disturbance to special status species and their 

habitat from the construction of transmission lines or other linear ROW, as described above. 

Under Alternative B, 5,141,340 acres would be managed as exclusion areas for new ROW/SUA permits, 

which could protect 4,855,410 more acres than in Alternative A. Avoidance areas would encompass 

6,390,010 acres, 3,929,670 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to special status species habitat in 

these areas would be the same as Alternative A, although greater areas would be managed as exclusion 

and avoidance areas as compared to Alternative A. Co-locating ROWs or SUAs could reduce overall 

disturbance to new habitat; however disturbance would still occur during development within the existing 

corridor. Special status species that use early successional habitat could be impacted by development 

within existing corridor. Construction could result in vegetation loss and erosion which could affect 

special status plants from removal and could affect special status aquatic species from sedimentation and 

diminished water quality. The spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or 

following construction which could compete with special status plant species. Human presence and 

vehicles may force special status species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable 

habitat. Collisions of special status species with vehicles may also occur during construction. Corridors 

are desirable areas for predatory animals, but these areas may be avoided by prey species which may 

move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. A 3% disturbance cap could further prevent habitat loss 

and disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse. Mitigation to offset exceeding the 3% cap could provide habitat 

for special status species, but revegetation of effective sagebrush habitat can take 10 or more years, 

depending on soil conditions, climate and weather, viability of seed and/or transplants, and ongoing 

maintenance to prevent invasive, non-native plant species from taking over the area. 

Removing, modifying, or burying existing power lines, reclaiming linear features such as roads or fences, 

or removal of facilities, and reclamation of well sites could provide benefits to special status wildlife 

species. Removing, modifying or burying existing power lines could reduce the risk of collision or 

electrocution of special status bats, raptors, and other avian species. Prey species would be less likely to 

be subject to hunting from predatory bird species; however, predatory birds would no longer benefit from 

overhead hunting perches. Removal of fences reduces threats of injury or death from impacts to fences, 

opens up travel corridors, and could allow access to additional forage and cover. There would be short 

term disturbance during reclamation and some initial habitat loss before vegetation returns. Disturbed 

areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same 

level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. During reclamation, human and 

vehicle presence could cause species to vacate the area to lower quality habitat. Moving from desirable 

habitat can result in reduced health of animals, making them susceptible to disease or predation. 

Under Alternative B, wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be prohibited. In 

Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, 127 turbines are projected to be developed, 1,127 fewer than under 

Alternative A. The development of wind energy outside of sage-grouse priority habitat areas could cause 

habitat loss, and both short and long-term impacts to special status species habitat. Impacts from wind 

development in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat would be the same as described under Alternative A, 

but for a fewer number of turbines. 

Restrictions on MET towers in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could prevent impacts to smaller 

wildlife species by preventing the perching of raptors and removing collision obstacles for avian and bat 

species within sagebrush habitat to a greater degree than in Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-275

Retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would ensure that management within 

these areas would protect sagebrush habitat with all of the BMPs and other designations, which could 

provide habitat protection and contiguous habitat for special status wildlife which inhabit these areas, and 

would provide greater protections than Alternative A. Mitigation measures for land disposals with similar 

protections could provide habitat protection for sagebrush obligate special status species. Acquisitions or 

conservation easements (in lieu of acquisitions) could allow for additional management for Greater SageGrouse, providing habitat protection for sagebrush obligate species. Seeking to acquire state and private 

lands with intact subsurface mineral estate or BLM-administered lands or National Forest System Lands 

that need subsurface mineral estate by donation, purchase or exchange could allow for additional 

management for Greater Sage-Grouse, providing habitat protection for sagebrush obligate species such as 

Brewer’s Sparrow, Sage Thrasher, or pygmy rabbit. 

Not recommending withdrawal proposals not associated with mineral activity in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat unless the land management is consistent with sage-grouse conservation measures could 

allow for additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse, providing habitat protection for sagebrush 

obligate species or other special status species such as Sage Sparrow, Burrowing Owl, and midget faded 

rattlesnake. 

Incorporating a light grazing strategy utilizing 20-30% forage allocation for livestock in allotments not 

meeting standards in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could provide an opportunity for forbs, grasses, 

and sagebrush to restore for forage and cover for special status species within sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas. 

Working cooperatively on integrated ranch planning within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (in Greater SageGrouse priority habitat) could allow for coordinated planning between ranchers and federal agencies by 

planning in single units, and could lead to fewer disturbances to special status species. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for management of rangelands, vegetation, and livestock 

grazing. In addition, Alternative B would require more stringent management from assessments to include 

indicators and measurements of structure, condition, and composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

sage‐grouse habitat objectives, or by using sage‐grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly et al. 

2000b and Hagen et al. 2007, prioritizing completion of land health assessments, and using Ecological 

Site Descriptions (ESD). This management could allow for more frequent feedback on habitat conditions 

where livestock grazing and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat overlaps. Monitoring could provide information 

as to where objectives are not being met and could lead to effective procedures to take proper steps to 

ensure that those areas can meet habitat objectives, and provide adequate cover and forage for special 

status species. 

Reducing the procedures to retire grazing allotments could allow habitat to recover from the use of 

livestock, which could provide additional habitat and forage for special status species. 

Impacts to special status species from Conservation Plan development to modify grazing management to 

meet seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be 

the same as Alternative A. In addition, including terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that 

assure plant growth requirement are met, and residual forage remains available for sage-grouse hiding 

cover could provide special status species additional habitat components of forage or cover. 

Impacts to special status plants and wildlife habitat from the retirement of grazing privileges would be the 

same as Alternative A, but could be applied a larger area within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. 

Identifying specific allotment(s) where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is potentially 

beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse could provide special status species with larger areas of contiguous, 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-276 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

uninterrupted habitat with desirable habitat components such as adequate forage and cover species. 

Special status plant species could be protected from vegetation loss or damage, erosion, and soil loss from 

removal of livestock. 

Impacts to special status plants and wildlife habitat from management for drought and other conditions in 

livestock allotments would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to all Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat. Additional priority for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during periods of drought could also 

be beneficial to special status species which also use sagebrush habitat for forage of cover. 

Impacts to special status plants and wildlife habitat from range improvement projects would be the same 

as Alternative A. In addition, designing any new structural range improvements and location of 

supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat through 

an improved grazing management system relative to sage-grouse objectives and other considerations for 

range improvements within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could also be beneficial to special status 

species which use sagebrush habitat for forage or cover. Requiring sage-grouse safe fence design could 

reduce impacts to special status avian species from collisions. Perch inhibitors for raptors could prevent 

prey species from hunting from predatory bird species; however, predatory birds would not benefit from 

overhead hunting perches. 

Impacts to special status plants, wildlife and fisheries habitat from management of riparian, springs, and 

seep areas would be the same as Alternative A. Additional management to reduce hot season grazing and 

for edge habitat in wet meadows could provide special status species with improved habitat conditions 

during hot weather within riparian areas. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from water development would be the same as Alternative A; however, 

implementing development in springs and seeps only where it would either benefit or have neutral 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse could also provide additional protection of special status species habitat. 

Not allowing any exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs could prevent additional surface 

disturbing activities in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, which temporarily reduces disturbance from roads, 

structures, power lines, and human activity and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat for that 

season the activity is proposed. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat supports migration corridors, provides 

forage or hunting areas (in the case of predators), and can also protect special status species from human 

and other disturbance. These are temporary benefits since the activity is only restricted seasonally. 

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, 6,809,580 acres, would 

reduce habitat loss for special status species and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat, and 

would close 5,937,800 more acres than Alternative A. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects special 

status wildlife from human and other disturbance and is necessary for wildlife to breed, migrate, forage, 

seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil and gas exploration and development can result in noise, 

human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species which can force special status species to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, 

less desirable habitat. Removing disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and 

human disturbance from oil and gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of 

habitat and would allow for continued habitat connectivity. Allowing exceptions to the closure in areas 

where sage-grouse are shown to not be impacted could have impacts to special status species as described 

under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 2,082,140 acres would be managed as NSO, 2,041,160 more 

acres than Alternative A. 

Oil, gas, and CBNG leasing and development would still be available outside of Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat. Impacts from exploration and development activities would be the same as described 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-277

under Alternative A for oil and gas development; however, 13,709 wells are predicted to be developed 

outside of sage-grouse priority habitat under Alternative B, 2,702 fewer wells as compared to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, only 33,530 acres of short-term disturbance would occur, 5,520 

fewer acres than Alternative A; and 104,050 acres of long-term disturbance would remain under 

Alternative B, 26,280 fewer acres than Alternative A. The lower number of acres disturbed by oil and gas 

development would provide even greater protections to special status species as compared to 

Alternative A.

Impacts from geophysical exploration to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as Alternative A. Some 

impacts could be reduced by using helicopter‐portable drilling or wheeled or tracked vehicles on existing 

roads in accordance with seasonal timing limitations and other restrictions that may apply. Using 

helicopters or existing roads for geophysical exploration could reduce linear disturbances to vegetation 

created by vibroseis thereby preventing impacts to special status species habitat from vegetation damage 

or loss and interruption of habitat and migration corridors. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, 

applying COAs, mitigating or reducing the impact to Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat during lease 

development would reduce habitat loss for special status species and would allow for contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects special status wildlife from human and 

other disturbance and is necessary for wildlife to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their 

life histories. Oil and gas exploration and development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, 

vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which can force wildlife to 

move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing disturbance 

from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and gas 

development would remove a majority of stressors to special status wildlife and disruption of habitat and 

would allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where future leases could occur under the other 

action alternatives. 

Working with proponents holding valid existing leases to promote measurable Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives within priority habitat could reduce habitat loss and disturbance to sagebrush 

dependent wildlife species and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. It is unknown, however, 

what level of long-term protection of habitat would occur because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s 

discretion. If leaseholders/project proponents agree to additional protections for their lease, there would 

be a reduction in 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. This would occur for all projects both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat, which would allow for greater protections, as land outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

would be included. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects to promote measurable Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives would impact special status species the same as Alternative A. In addition, 

requiring development within priority habitat to be placed in the area least harmful to Greater SageGrouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features could benefit wildlife species that use 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, such as pygmy rabbit and Sage Sparrow. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

(2,082,140 acres) could reduce habitat loss for special status species and would allow for contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects special status wildlife from human and 

other disturbance and is necessary for wildlife to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their 

life histories. Oil and gas exploration and development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, 

vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force special 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-278 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

status species to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Removing disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance 

from oil and gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would 

allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur under 

Alternative A. While a four mile buffer around a lek could reduce or prevent impacts to special status 

species from disturbance from noise, human and vehicle presence, and drilling activities in the buffer 

area, habitat could be still impacted from oil and gas development by surface disturbance, habitat loss, 

erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Surface disturbance also disrupts contiguous 

habitat, which can inhibit special status wildlife travel and migration patterns, and could lead to reduced 

health and reproductive success in some special status wildlife species within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

Completing Master Development Plans during planning and review of projects involving multiple 

proposed disturbances within a lease or priority habitat area, without an exception for individual wildcat 

(exploratory) wells could provide fewer impacts to special status from surface disturbance from 

consolidated planning of infrastructure within the development area. 

Requiring unitization within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat when deemed necessary for proper 

development and operation of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring) could consolidate 

development and infrastructure, reducing impacts to special status species and their habitat from surface 

disturbing activities (Marranzino et al. 2011). 

Requiring full reclamation bonds sufficient to restore lands to prior disturbance conditions (Connelly et 

al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2007) could provide special status species with complete habitat improvement and 

recovery in areas disturbed by oil, gas and other surface disturbing activities if project abandonment 

occurs. Full restoration of habitat could benefit special status species with native forage and cover 

depending on the habitat being restored. 

Impacts to special status species from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership 

(federal surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative A, 

but on a larger scale for the entire planning area. 

Under Alternative B, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to non-energy, solid mineral leasing. Impacts to 

special status species from coal leasing in lands outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be 

the same as Alternative A. In addition, finding Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat unsuitable to all 

surface mining of coal under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 3461.5 would prevent surface disturbance, 

habitat loss or damage, soil runoff, erosion, and the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species. Impacts such as displacement of special status species from surface mining activities, avoidance 

of the area around the development because of human and vehicle presence and noise forcing special 

status species to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat could be 

avoided if surface mining for coal was found unsuitable. 

Granting no new underground mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are 

placed outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat area would reduce surface disturbance within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, creating a smaller amount of forage and habitat loss compared to 

Alternative A. Human presence and vehicle use to access the mine could cause displacement of special 

status species from vehicles and noise, avoidance of a larger area around the development because of 

human presence, vehicles and noise, and possible collisions from vehicles. Vehicle routes are prone to use 

by predators, which would benefit predators but could impact prey species (prairie dog, Wyoming pocket 

gopher, and pygmy rabbit) from predation. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-279

Allowing appurtenant facilities by co-locating them or building facilities to minimum standards could 

result in surface disturbance or habitat loss, soil loss or sedimentation, and the introduction or spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species. The management could reduce overall disturbance to new habitat; 

however disturbance could occur within an existing corridor. Special status species that use early 

successional habitat such as mountain plover, long-billed curlew or white-tailed prairie dog could be 

impacted by development within an existing corridor. Noise, human presence, vehicle use, and linear 

disturbances can cause special status species to move to habitat lower quality, less desirable forage and 

cover during and following construction activities. 

Not allowing coal exploration in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would prevent the impacts 

described under Alternative A.

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to non-energy leasable mineral leasing (5,000,400 acres) 

would prevent the impacts described under Alternative A.

If all lands recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

were withdrawn (3,442,120 acres), 3,324,890 more acres of special status species habitat could be 

protected from disturbance and habitat loss as compared to Alternative A. Additional mitigation, seasonal 

restrictions, or making withdrawal areas subject to validity exams or buy out could reduce further habitat 

disturbance or damage, or in some cases, improvement in habitat. 

Under Alternative B, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to mineral material sales, exploration, and free use 

permits, 4,725,540 more acres as compared to Alternative A. Special status species and their habitat 

within these areas would not be impacted by displacement from exploration or pit areas, abandoning 

habitat within the area around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite 

impacts, including erosion, and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Restoring salable mineral pits within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could cause short-term impacts 

to special status species and their habitat from restoration activities by human and vehicle presence, noise, 

or surface disturbance and runoff; however, restoring habitat for wildlife could have long-term beneficial 

impacts from additional forage and cover, especially for special status species that use sagebrush habitat. 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat that have neutral 

or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas could reduce the impacts to special status species from 

recreational activities and human presence as compared to Alternative A.

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

ACECs/SIA, 5,025,550 acres. Special status species plants, wildlife and fisheries habitat could receive the 

benefits of management under an ACEC/SIA. 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. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas as limited to 

designated roads and trails (not including the sand dune portions of these areas) (Poison Spider OHV Park 

[285 acres]; Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area [3,736 acres]; and the portion of the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area [529 acres]) could prevent damage to special status species habitat from off road 

vehicle use. Off road, open OHV use in areas outside of the dunes can degrade vegetation and lead to 

erosion and habitat loss, reduced quality of habitat, and the introduction and spread of invasive, nonnative plants that can further degrade habitat quality and change habitat composition. Designating use as 

limited to roads and trails could reduce these impacts to special status species habitat. The remaining open 

areas are sand dunes, which are not desired habitat for most special status species. However, two dune 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-280 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

dwelling plants, blowout penstemon and dune wildrye, could be vulnerable to destruction or damage from 

vehicles if they occurred within the open OHV areas. Because these are existing OHV use areas, it is 

likely that most special status wildlife species have already abandoned use of the area. 

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would be the same as 

Alternative A. Completing activity level travel plans within five 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 or other sensitive habitat. Designating routes during activity level 

planning in priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access 

only could reduce the level of road/route use. Reducing road/route use could decrease the level of 

disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse leks or sensitive habitat from vehicle and human presence, collisions 

with vehicles, increased predation, or the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Assessing existing 

plans for consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives could allow the BLM and Forest 

Service to make changes to routes/roads that could reduce further impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Not upgrading existing routes could reduce surface disturbance from upgrading activities, preventing 

vegetation and soil loss, sedimentation, and possible displacement of special status species wildlife from 

human and vehicle presence. Any exceptions resulting in road upgrades could further fragment habitat, 

cause vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which could affect 

special status plants. Human presence and vehicles may force special status species wildlife species away 

from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles may also occur when 

roads are constructed within wildlife habitat. 

Using existing roads to access valid existing rights could prevent vegetation and soil loss, sedimentation, 

noise, vehicle use, and human presence that are associated with road construction. New road construction 

can create barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation 

loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following road 

construction which could affect special status plant and animal species. Human presence and vehicles 

may force special status wildlife species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Collisions with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife habitat. Road 

corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, but these areas may be avoided by prey species which 

may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. All of these impacts could be avoided by using 

existing roads. Increased use of roads during lease development could occur which could increase impacts 

to wildlife from collisions with vehicles. If new roads were necessary, impacts to special status species 

and habitat described above could apply. Mitigation to offset exceeding the 3% cap could provide new 

habitat (where possible) to replace habitat that was lost during construction, but impacts from roads and 

construction would still affect special status species, and new habitat would take at least five or more 

years to revegetate and 15-30 years to be fully restored (BLM 2004i). 

Restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat could provide fewer disturbances from occasional vehicle or human presence and could improve 

sagebrush habitat conditions by removing linear disturbances, allowing for greater habitat connectivity, 

and providing additional vegetation resources for special status species forage or cover. Vehicle routes are 

prone to use by special status predators (swift fox, Ferruginous Hawk). Special status prey species (prairie 

dog, Wyoming pocket gopher, and pygmy rabbit) could benefit from the rehabilitation of unused roads or 

trails, which could reduce the presence of predatory animals; although special status predatory wildlife 

species could lose hunting habitat as roads and routes are reclaimed. 

Special status species could benefit managing for vegetation composition and structure consistent with 

ecological site potential and within the reference state to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitat 

objectives within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. This management could provide sagebrush 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-281

obligate, special status wildlife habitat, forage, and cover within these areas within 15 to 25 years for 

sagebrush, but much shorter term for forbs and grasses. Initial treatments could cause short term impacts 

from displacement from human and vehicle activities which could move animals into less desirable 

habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and uses. Using ESD 

potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect against invasive, non-native plants could prevent 

the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can alter or degrade the native 

landscape and force special status species to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. 

Managing for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the 

reference state to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitat objectives within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat could provide Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, forage, and cover within these areas within 15 

to 25 years for sagebrush, but much shorter term for forbs and grasses. Initial treatments could cause short 

term impacts from displacement from human and vehicle activities which could cause Greater SageGrouse to move into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with 

other species and uses. Using ESD potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect against 

invasive, non-native plants could prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species 

which can alter or degrade the native landscape and cause Greater Sage-Grouse to move from high quality 

habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Special status plant species could be protected 

from vegetation loss or damage, erosion and soil loss, and the introduction and spread of invasive, nonnative plant species. 

Designing and limiting treatments within sagebrush habitat not to reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less 

than 15% could prevent habitat fragmentation and habitat loss within the greater habitat area, the same as 

Alternative A. Limiting prescribed burns to specific canopy cover, vegetation composition, patch size, or 

amount of precipitation within sagebrush habitat could cause vegetation treatments to be limited for the 

conditions and habitat structure. Special status plants and wildlife could benefit from carefully managed 

prescribed burn treatments as described above. Fuel breaks can provide barriers to wildland fires or 

contain prescribed fire. While fuel breaks remove vegetation and habitat, and create linear disturbances, 

without them, catastrophic fires could occur, destroying habitat, and leaving areas of disturbance. 

Considering the use of fuel breaks in NEPA documents could allow decision makers to make an informed 

decision on the best course of action for each location. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, allowing treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat could provide sagebrush obligate special status species habitat, forage, and cover 

within these areas. Initial treatments could cause displacement from human and vehicle activities, which 

could move animals into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with 

other species and uses. 

Not allowing treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter range with the exception to strategically 

reduce wildland fire risk could protect habitat components to sagebrush obligate species, especially those 

who use winter habitat such as pygmy rabbit. Impacts to special status species from resting treated areas 

from livestock grazing for two years after prescribed burns would be the same as Alternative A, although 

it would apply to the entire planning area. Impacts to special status species from reclamation of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (2009a) would be the same as 

Alternative A. Alternative B would prioritize fire operations in priority and general sage-grouse habitat 

immediately after life and property; therefore, the potential for disturbance to special status wildlife 

species within these habitats is lower under Alternative B than Alternative A. The greatest amount of 

benefit under Alternative B would be provided to those species whose ranges overlap priority habitat. 

There is potential to negatively influence those special status species that use other habitat types. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-282 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Where restoration of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat occurs, the use of native seeds or other nonnative seeds to meet Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives, reestablishment of sagebrush cover and 

desirable understory plants, restoring native plants and creating landscape patterns that most benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse, considering potential changes in climate would provide habitat and forage for 

sagebrush obligate and other special status species. Attempting to use native seeds not only provides 

special status species with desirable forage and cover, it also can prevent the introduction and spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species which can alter habitat and render it unusable to special status species. 

While the initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, over the long term, sagebrush habitat could be 

restored, although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original 

conditions due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Prioritizing areas for restoration 

could benefit special status species that use those areas which are restored. 

Prioritizing native seed allocation for use in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat in years when preferred 

native seed is in short supply by reallocating from ES&R (BLM) and/or Burn Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation (BAER) (Forest Service) projects could reduce the risk of disturbed areas being inundated 

by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing the spread of invasive plant species could help the 

reclamation area restore to original site vegetation composition. Special status plant species could be 

protected from vegetation loss or damage, erosion and soil loss, and the introduction and spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species. Areas that restore with native plant composition provide habitat and 

cover for special status species and can support healthy wildlife populations. Managing post ES&R and 

BAER areas to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants using temporary or longterm changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc. could allow treated 

areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and vegetation to mature to the point of withstanding pressure from 

grazing or other activities. Changing management in restored areas could provide special status wildlife 

with new vegetation for forage without competition or disturbance from other resource uses. 

Altering existing seedings where appropriate to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse could also benefit sagebrush 

obligate special status species such as pygmy rabbit, Sage Thrasher, and Sage Sparrow, but could impact 

other special status species that are using the existing seedings from habitat loss. Short-term impacts to 

special status wildlife and wildlife habitat could occur from restoration activities by human and vehicle 

presence, noise, or surface disturbance and runoff, but the long term impacts would benefit the species 

that would use the restored habitat. Giving priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat 

restoration projects could impact special status species similarly as the actions above. Special status 

wildlife using grassland habitat, such as mountain plover, long-billed curlew or white-tailed prairie dog 

could be displaced as the habitat is converted, possibly to lower quality habitat or areas with more 

competition for resources. 

Establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production for fire prone areas could ensure that 

seed is available for habitat restoration, providing habitat for sagebrush obligate special status wildlife or 

other special status species. 

Ensuring that grasshopper and Mormon cricket control could only occur in Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat where it can be demonstrated that it is beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse would reduce the impacts 

described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from the management of wild horses with the consideration of Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

within priority habitat could benefit special status species habitat. Conducting land health assessments in 

all BLM herd management areas (HMAs) within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could identify 

where habitat improvements could occur. Wild horses can compete with special status wildlife species for 

forage, habitat, cover, and water. Any management that could improve habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse 

could also benefit special status wildlife, especially those who are sagebrush obligate or those who use 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-283

sagebrush for some part of their life cycle. Management of wild horses to consider wildlife, watershed, 

and other resource needs could provide special status wildlife with adequate forage, habitat cover and 

water. 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. 

Designing and implementing fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could have short and long term impacts to special 

status species habitat. The emphasis on protecting sagebrush ecosystems could protect sagebrush obligate 

habitat, forage, and cover within these areas. Impacts to special status species from rehabilitation for areas 

burned by wildland fires would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to the Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat area and could receive additional recovery effort. 

Impacts to wildlife from the use of prescribed fire would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to 

the entire Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat area. The additional restriction to precipitation levels could 

prevent long term habitat loss from the use of fire in areas where the lack of rainfall makes revegetation 

and restoration prohibitive. Cheatgrass can also quickly recover from fire, and could continue to spread 

and out-compete native grasses, altering native habitat and creating monocultures. Special status plant 

species could be protected from vegetation loss or damage, erosion and soil loss, and the introduction and 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Designing post fuels management areas to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native 

plants using temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel 

management, etc. could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and for vegetation to mature to 

the point of withstanding pressure from grazing or other activities. Changing management in restored 

areas could allow seedings to become established and areas to recover for future use by special status 

species. 

Impacts to special status species using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire suppression techniques 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Prioritizing fire suppression to protect Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could prevent the loss of 

sagebrush habitat and is very important to protecting and maintaining existing sagebrush habitat (Braun et 

al. 2005). Fire suppression techniques could impact nearby special status wildlife species in areas where 

they occur. Vegetation removal, crushing of habitat, the use of heavy equipment and fire retardant, and 

human presence could force special status species from the area where these activities occurred to less 

desirable, lower quality habitat until these areas have recovered. 

The use of monitoring plans could provide benefits to wildlife within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by 

studying the effectiveness of conservation efforts for sage-grouse by confirming habitat is being improved 

or that current management is not meeting the objectives laid out in their projects. If Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat is meeting objectives, then special status species could be benefitting from the habitat as well. If 

habitat is not meeting objectives, special status species could be impacted, and through monitoring, 

improvements could be made which then could provide habitat benefits to special status species. Making 

improvements could provide overall improvements in landscape health, prevent or reduce the spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species, provide additional forage, and allow for greater cover habitat for 

special status species. 

Under Alternative B, management would not allow discrete anthropogenic disturbances to cover more 

than 3% of the total sage‐grouse habitat regardless of ownership within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat. The density of disruptive activities under Alternative B for Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

would provide the lowest density of disturbance of habitat. If Alternative B were applied, special status 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-284 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

species could be affected by lower losses of habitat as compared to Alternative A. This alternative could 

provide for more contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects special 

status species from human and other disturbance and is necessary for special status wildlife to breed, 

migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Development of anthropogenic features can 

result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, nonnative plant species which can force special status species to move from high quality habitat to areas of 

lower quality, less desirable habitat. Capping disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling 

operations, and human disturbance could remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and 

would allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur 

under Alternative A. Within Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, a 3% disturbance cap per section 

(640 acres). This management also applies when permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet 

developed. 

Using mitigation to restore habitat to maintain the three percent disturbance limit could be effective for 

rehabilitating special status species habitat and continuing to provide contiguous uninterrupted habitat 

with minimal disturbance. However, restoration of mature sagebrush habitat takes 15 to 30 years, so 

usable habitat may not be available for many years after the rehabilitation takes place. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal oil and gas leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

and connectivity habitat (2,082,140 acres) could reduce habitat loss for special status species and would 

allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects special status 

species from human and other disturbance and is necessary for special status wildlife to breed, migrate, 

forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil and gas exploration and development can result 

in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species, which can force special status wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower 

quality, less desirable habitat. Special status plant species could be affected by vegetation loss or damage, 

erosion and soil loss, and the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Removing 

disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and 

gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for 

continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur under Alternative A. 

A four mile buffer around leks could reduce or prevent impacts to special status species from disturbance 

from noise, human and vehicle presence, and drilling activities; however, special status wildlife habitat 

could be impacted from oil and gas development by surface disturbance, habitat loss, erosion, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Surface disturbance also causes barriers in contiguous habitat 

which can disrupt special status wildlife travel and migration patterns, and could lead to reduced health 

and reproductive success in some special status species. 

Applying a restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface disturbing activity during nesting and 

early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could protect the habitat identified as 

suitable and the special status species that use or occur within the identified area. This management could 

allow for fewer disturbances to wildlife from noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, and the 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which can force special status species to 

move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in mapped Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas 

would be prohibited both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas, as well as for 

connectivity areas. Management under Alternative B would protect the mapped winter concentration 

habitat throughout the year from habitat loss and would provide greater protection to habitat as compared 

to Alternative A. Preventing surface disturbance could reduce barriers in contiguous habitat, preventing 

disruptions in special status species travel and migration patterns, and could provide special status 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-285

wildlife continued health and reproductive success, especially for those species that use winter 

concentration habitat such as pygmy rabbit. 

Limitations on noise would have similar impacts to special status species but on a larger scale covering 

the entire planning area, as compared to Alternative A.

Greater Sage-Grouse–Alternative B 

The following impacts apply to Alternatives B, C, D, and E: 

The continued support of the development of statewide Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitat models for 

the State of Wyoming would benefit Greater Sage-Grouse from seasonal habitat modeling and 

identification. Seasonal habitat is critical to the reproduction and survival of the species; identification of 

these areas allows for protection of habitat and keeping contiguous expanses of contiguous habitat intact. 

Implementing direct mitigation, utilizing BMPs, and conducting off-site compensatory mitigation would 

help maintain or improve habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse and would minimize vegetation loss and soil 

erosion which would maintain or improve water quality. Utilizing LWG plans, analyses, and other 

sources of information to guide development of conservation objectives for local management of Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitats provides additional data and resources to aid in the protection and management of 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. These measures could protect or enhance habitat where projects occur 

outside of BLM lands, providing additional areas habitat connectivity. 

Application of appropriate seasonal restrictions when implementing vegetation management treatments 

for seasonal habitats in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could prevent impacts to Greater SageGrouse during sensitive life phases and within important habitat. Monitoring the treatments could provide 

valuable feedback to whether the treatments were successful or not and if changes in Greater Sage-Grouse 

population numbers result from the treatments. 

Ensuring site-specific, measurable, conservation, and mitigation objectives are included in project 

planning within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could help sagebrush habitat recover after projects were 

completed and could assist in maintaining habitat and disturbance of Greater Sage-Grouse during project 

development. 

Developing landscape-scale restoration/conservation and maintenance strategies, including special 

management of seasonal habitats and connectivity zones outside of Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority 

habitat areas, with voluntary partners and cooperating agencies could protect uninterrupted expanses of 

sagebrush habitat; but impacts would be dependent on the types of strategies were implemented. 

Using Integrated Vegetation Management per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 

and designing all range projects to minimize potential for invasive species establishment could help 

prevent the spread and inundation of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive, non-native plant species 

can proliferate in disturbed areas and permanently damage native ecosystems if not prevented or quickly 

eradicated. The spread of invasive, non-native plant species could also lead to further habitat 

fragmentation, reducing the ability of Greater Sage-Grouse to move from seasonal habitat areas. 

Monitoring and treating invasive species associated with existing range improvements could also prevent 

the establishment and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Applying RDFs (Appendix B) as mandatory stipulations/COAs within core/priority sage‐grouse habitat 

for fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, range management, wild horse and burro, solid 

minerals-coal, locatable minerals, West Nile virus, mineral materials, non-energy solid leasable minerals, 

vegetation management, fire and fuels management, and noise where applicable, appropriate, and 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-286 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

technically feasible, could ensure uninterrupted expanses of sagebrush habitat, providing Greater SageGrouse with fewer disruptions of habitat, improved forage and cover, and measures applied to protect 

sage-grouse within Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat areas. 

Sagebrush habitat could be protected or improved where operators agree to implement additional 

conservation measure for their approved leases within Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat. The 

degree and scale depends on which measures are implemented. 

Incorporating new occupied Greater Sage-Grouse into core areas for management as they are found 

would provide additional management and protection to Greater Sage-Grouse found within these areas. 

Continued ground-truth efforts for statewide Greater Sage-Grouse models could contribute data to 

provide more accuracy for the modeling effort. Using the sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or 

best available assessment tool for evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would allow BLM wildlife 

biologists to survey for habitat value with the greatest accuracy and would provide rich data to support 

conservation, protection, and improvement of these habitats. Annual meetings and reviews of lek data 

with WGFD could provide continued communication and data transfer between agencies. 

Working with proponents holding valid existing leases to provide additional protections to sagebrush 

habitat could reduce habitat loss and disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse and could allow for contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat. It is unknown, however, what level of long-term protection of habitat would occur, 

because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s discretion. If leaseholders/project proponents agree to 

additional protections for their lease, there would be a reduction in 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. This would occur for all 

projects both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, which would allow for greater 

protections because habitat outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be included. 

Limiting 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 Greater SageGrouse core habitats could limit impacts to sage-grouse from vehicle use. The miles of routes that could 

be limited cannot be determined until transportation planning is completed, but limiting new roads, 

routes, and cross-country travel until the planning occurs could prevent some disturbance to Greater SageGrouse. Cross country vehicle use can open up corridors that could be used by predatory animals, and 

additional vehicle traffic could use the pathway. Vehicles could cause mortality from crushing nesting 

birds or colliding with grouse. Linear disturbances can create barriers in migration corridors, 

fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species may also occur during or following vehicle passage. 

Completing activity level travel plans within five 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 or other sensitive habitat. Designating routes during activity level planning in 

priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only could 

reduce the level of road/route use. Reducing road/route use could decrease the level of disturbance to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from vehicle and human presence, or collisions from vehicles. Assessing existing 

plans for consistency with sage-grouse conservation objectives could allow BLM/Forest Service to make 

changes to routes/roads that could reduce further impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. 

The construction of roads to minimum design standards needed for production activities within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitats, in compliance with the DDCT could reduce the amount of disturbance from 

road construction in some cases. Road construction can cause habitat and vegetation loss, erosion, 

sedimentation, and runoff. The spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-287

following road construction, which can further damage habitat. Human presence and vehicles may force 

Greater Sage-Grouse species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat, creating 

additional stress for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for Greater SageGrouse that use or inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat protects species from human and other disturbance. Disturbance can result in sagegrouse moving from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Abandonment of 

important habitat can lower reproduction and survival rates and result in a decline in Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. 

Developing EIS/project level adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming (State of WY EO 2011-05) could 

additional protection though additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. 

The following impacts apply only to Alternative B:

Under Alternative B, new transmission corridors would not be authorized within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority and connectivity areas which would prevent habitat loss from linear corridors within the area and 

could protect sage-grouse habitat from removal, loss, degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species. 

Prohibiting new above-ground structures both inside and outside existing corridors would prevent new 

perch sites for raptors that prey on grouse, protecting Greater Sage-Grouse from the threat of increased or 

perceived predation, as well as preventing new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle disruption; all of 

which would protect Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. Prohibiting new above-ground 

structures would also prevent new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle disruption, all of which would 

protect Greater Sage-Grouse. The lack of elevated structures of various types would reduce perch sites for 

raptors that prey on grouse, protecting Greater Sage-Grouse from the threat of additional predation. 

Linear corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as raptors and red fox; reducing these 

areas could be beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse by preventing actual or perceived threats of overhead 

predation. Preventing overhead structures in these areas could reduce the risk of predation from overhead 

predators. The risk of collision or electrocution of Greater Sage-Grouse could be reduced where overhead 

structures are not allowed. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in short term 

disturbance of habitat from human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts would be minimal. 

In priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, relocating existing designated ROW corridors void of authorized 

ROWs or undesignating the corridor could prevent future disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

from the construction of transmission lines or other linear ROW, as described above. 

Under Alternative B, in priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 5,141,340 acres would be managed as 

exclusion areas for new ROW/SUA permits, which could protect 4,855,410 more acres than in 

Alternative A. General Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would encompass 6,390,010 acres of avoidance area, 

3,929,670 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat in these 

areas would be the same as Alternative A, although much larger areas would be managed as exclusion 

and avoidance areas as compared to Alternative A. Co-locating ROWs or SUAs could reduce overall 

disturbance to new habitat; however, disturbance could still occur during development within the existing 

corridor. Construction within existing corridors could result in vegetation loss and the spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species could occur during or following construction. Construction activities could 

disturb Greater Sage-Grouse, possibly causing birds to vacate the area into lower quality habitat. Moving 

from desirable habitat can result in mortality or lower reproductive rates and hatchling survival. 

Collisions with vehicles may also occur during construction. Corridors are desirable areas for predatory 

animals, such as raptors and fox, but these areas may be avoided by prey species which may move to less 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-288 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

desirable habitat to avoid predation. A 3% disturbance cap could further prevent habitat loss and 

disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse. Mitigation to offset exceeding the three percent cap could provide 

habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, but revegetation of effective sagebrush habitat can take 10 or more 

years, depending on soil conditions, climate and weather, viability of seed and/or transplants, and ongoing 

maintenance to prevent invasive, non-native plant species from taking over the area. 

Removing, modifying or burying existing power lines, reclaiming linear features such as roads or fences, 

or removal of facilities and reclamation of well sites could provide benefits to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Removing, modifying or burying existing power lines could reduce the risk of collision or electrocution 

of Greater Sage-Grouse. Greater Sage-Grouse would be less likely to be subject to hunting from predatory 

bird species; or would be less likely to abandon habitat from the perceived threats of overhead predation. 

Removal of fences reduces threats of injury or death from impacts to fences, opens up travel corridors, 

and could allow access to additional forage and cover. There would be short-term disturbance during 

reclamation and some initial habitat loss before vegetation returns. Disturbed areas would be more 

vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat 

function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. During reclamation, human and vehicle 

presence could cause Greater Sage-Grouse to vacate the area to lower quality habitat. Moving from 

desirable habitat can result in reduced health, making grouse susceptible to disease, predation or reduced 

reproductive success. 

Under Alternative B, wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be prohibited. In 

Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, 127 turbines are projected to be developed, 1,127 fewer than under 

Alternative A. The development of wind energy outside of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas 

could cause habitat loss and both short and long-term impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush 

habitat where development occurred on or near sage-grouse or sagebrush habitat, which is greatly reduced 

in areas outside of priority habitat although impacts could still occur. Impacts from wind development in 

Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat would be the same as described under Alternative A, but for fewer 

numbers of turbines. 

Prohibiting MET towers in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could prevent perching of raptors and 

removing collision obstacles within sagebrush habitat to a greater degree than in Alternative A.

Retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would ensure that management within 

these areas would protect sagebrush habitat with all of the BMPs and other designations, which could 

provide habitat protection and contiguous habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, and would provide greater 

protections than Alternative A. Mitigation measures for land disposals with similar protections could 

provide habitat protection for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. Acquisitions or conservation 

easements (in lieu of acquisitions) could allow for additional management for sagebrush habitat and 

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse. Seeking to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface 

mineral estate or BLM-administered lands or National Forest System Lands that need subsurface mineral 

estate by donation, purchase or exchange could allow for additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse 

and sagebrush habitat. 

Not recommending withdrawal proposals not associated with mineral activity in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat unless the land management is consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

measures could allow for additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat. 

Incorporating a light grazing strategy utilizing 20-30% forage allocation for livestock in allotments not 

meeting standards in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could provide an opportunity for forbs, grasses, 

and sagebrush to restore for forage and cover Greater Sage-Grouse. Working cooperatively on integrated 

ranch planning within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat (in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat) could allow 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-289

for coordinated planning between ranchers and federal agencies by planning in single units, and could 

lead to fewer disturbances to Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for management of rangelands, vegetation, and livestock 

grazing. In addition, Alternative B would require more stringent management from assessments to include 

indicators and measurements of structure, condition, and composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

sage‐grouse habitat objectives, or by using sage‐grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly et al. 

2000 and Hagen et al. 2007, prioritizing completion of land health assessments, and using Ecological Site 

Descriptions (ESD) could allow for more frequent feedback on habitat conditions where livestock grazing 

and Greater Sage-Grouse habitat overlaps. Monitoring could provide information as to where objectives 

are not being met and could lead to effective procedures to take proper steps to ensure that those areas can 

meet habitat objectives, and provide adequate cover and forage, and if Greater Sage-Grouse are returning 

to the area. 

Reducing the procedures to retire grazing allotments could allow habitat to recover from the use of 

livestock, which could provide additional habitat and forage for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from Conservation Plan development to modify grazing management to 

meet seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be 

the same as Alternative A. In addition, including terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that 

assure plant growth requirement are met, and residual forage remains available for Greater Sage-Grouse 

hiding cover would ensure that Greater Sage-Grouse would have essential habitat components and could 

reduce impacts of livestock grazing on sage-grouse. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the retirement of grazing privileges would be the same as 

Alternative A, but could be applied a larger area within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. Identifying 

specific allotment(s) where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is potentially beneficial to Greater 

Sage-Grouse could provide Greater Sage-Grouse with larger areas of contiguous, uninterrupted habitat 

with desirable habitat components such as adequate forage and cover species. Impacts to Greater SageGrouse from managing the effects of drought and other conditions in livestock allotments would be the 

same as Alternative A, but would apply to all Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. Additional priority for 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during periods of drought would ensure that Greater Sage-Grouse would 

have continued habitat, residual grass cover for nesting, and forage during and following drought events. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from range improvement projects would be the same as Alternative A. In 

addition, designing any new structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat through an improved grazing 

management system relative to Greater Sage-Grouse objectives and other considerations for range 

improvements within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could be beneficial to sage-grouse. Any 

actions that would keep livestock from congregating on or near sage-grouse habitat, such as placement of 

water improvements or location of supplements, would reduce impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

harassment, displacement, and habitat and/or forage loss (Sage-Grouse Communications Committee 

2005). Removing, modifying or marking fences in high risk areas could reduce injury or mortality from 

collisions with fences. Studies in Wyoming show that fence markers can reduce sage-grouse mortality 

from wire fence collision by 70% (Christiansen 2009, Stevens et al 2012). Where fences are constructed 

with perch inhibitors for raptors, Greater Sage-Grouse would be less likely to be subject to hunting from 

predatory bird species. Removal of fences reduces threats of injury or death from impacts to fences, opens 

up travel corridors, and could allow access to additional forage and cover habitat. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from management of riparian, springs, and seep areas would be the same 

as Alternative A. The additional management for wet meadows and riparian areas would provide habitat 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-290 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

protection of important summer-late brood-rearing habitat and habitat critical to Greater Sage-Grouse for 

late-growing season foraging (Crawford et al. 2004). Additional management to reduce hot season 

grazing and for edge habitat in wet meadows could ensure sufficient habitat and forage for late broodrearing habitat. Using fencing/herding techniques could provide habitat improvements for Greater SageGrouse depending on the technique and season of use. Beck and Mitchell (2000) suggested that livestock 

could be used occasionally within wet meadow exclosures to reduce old vegetation and to stimulate forb 

growth. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from water development would be the same as Alternative A; however, 

implementing development in springs and seeps only where it would either benefit or have neutral 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse could provide additional protection of sensitive and important late broodrearing habitat for sage-grouse. 

Not allowing any exceptions to lease stipulations would prevent additional surface disturbing activities in 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, which reduces disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, and human 

activity and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat is 

necessary for Greater Sage-Grouse to breed, travel, and complete their life histories, and can protect 

Greater Sage-Grouse from human and other disturbance. 

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, 6,809,580 acres, would 

greatly reduce habitat loss for sage-grouse and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat and 

would close 5,937,800 more acres than Alternative A. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects Greater 

Sage-Grouse from human and other disturbance and is necessary for sage-grouse to breed, migrate, and 

complete their life histories. Disturbance can result in sage-grouse moving from high quality habitat to 

areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat and could lead to reduced fecundity and vulnerability to 

predators. Oil and gas development within two to four miles of leks and nesting/early brood rearing 

habitat has been studied to show that Greater Sage-Grouse need large buffer distances for viable 

populations to persist (Connelly et al. 2000, Holloran and Anderson 2005, Walker et al. 2007). Removing 

disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, and human disturbance from oil and gas development 

would be the strongest solution to protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and prevent further loss of Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations. 

Oil, gas, and CBNG leasing and development would still be available outside of Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat. Impacts from exploration and development activities 

would be the same as described under Alternative A for oil, gas, and CBNG development; however, only 

13,709 wells are predicted to be developed outside of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat under 

Alternative B, 2,702 fewer wells as compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative B, only 33,530 acres of 

short-term disturbance would occur, 5,520 acres fewer than Alternative A, and 104,050 acres of long-term 

disturbance would remain under Alternative B, 26,280 acres fewer than Alternative A. The lower number 

of acres disturbed by oil and gas development would provide even greater protections to Greater SageGrouse habitat as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from geophysical exploration to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as Alternative A. Some 

impacts could be reduced by using helicopter‐portable drilling or wheeled or tracked vehicles on existing 

roads in accordance with seasonal timing limitations and other restrictions that may apply. Using 

helicopters or existing roads for geophysical exploration could reduce linear disturbances to vegetation 

created by vibroseis or vehicles thereby preventing impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from vegetation 

damage, crushing of habitat, nests, eggs, or young, or linear disturbances that interrupt migration 

corridors or allow for increased predation. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-291

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, 

applying COAs, mitigating or reducing the impact to Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat during lease 

development could reduce or prevent sagebrush habitat loss and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted 

habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat provides unobstructed migration corridors and is necessary for 

Greater Sage-Grouse to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil and gas 

exploration and development can result in habitat loss, noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation 

loss, and the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force Greater SageGrouse to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing 

disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and 

gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for 

continued habitat connectivity in areas where future leases could occur under the other action alternatives. 

Working with proponents holding valid existing leases to promote measurable Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives could reduce habitat loss and disturbance to sagebrush habitat and Greater SageGrouse and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. It is unknown, however, what level of longterm protection of habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s discretion. If 

leaseholders/project proponents agree to additional protections for their lease, there would be a reduction 

in 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. This 

would occur for all projects both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, which would 

allow for greater protections as habitat outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be included. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for Greater SageGrouse that use or inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat protects species from human and other disturbance. Disturbance can result in sagegrouse moving from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Abandonment of 

important habitat can lower reproduction and survival rates and result in a decline in Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to oil 

and gas leasing, 2,082,140 acres, would prevent the development of wellpads and installation of tanks and 

surface infrastructure. This management could reduce direct habitat loss and impacts to Greater SageGrouse and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects 

Greater Sage-Grouse from human and other disturbance and is necessary for Greater Sage-Grouse to 

breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil and gas exploration and 

development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species which can force Greater Sage-Grouse to desert the area. If suitable 

habitat is not found, grouse may not reproduce and will eventually perish. Removing disturbance from 

roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and gas development 

would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for continued habitat 

connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur under Alternative A. 

A four mile buffer around a lek could reduce or prevent impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from disturbance 

from noise, human and vehicle presence, and drilling activities in the buffer area; Greater Sage-Grouse 

could be still impacted from oil and gas development by surface disturbance, habitat loss, erosion, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Surface disturbance also disrupts contiguous habitat, which 

can inhibit Greater Sage-Grouse travel and migration patterns, and could lead to reduced health and 

reproductive success in Greater Sage-Grouse. Walker et al. (2007) recommends a buffer distance of at 

least four miles containing extensive stands of sagebrush habitat for breeding populations to persist. This 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-292 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

management could provide that buffer area and reduce some impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the 

presence of humans, vehicles, infrastructure, roads, and other disruptions in habitat. 

Completing Master Development Plans during planning and review of projects involving multiple 

proposed disturbances within a lease or priority habitat area, without an exception for individual wildcat 

(exploratory) wells could provide fewer impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from surface disturbance from 

consolidated planning of infrastructure within the development area. Requiring unitization within Greater 

Sage-Grouse priority habitat when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an area 

(with strong oversight and monitoring) could consolidate development and infrastructure, reducing 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from surface disturbing activities (Marranzino et al. 2011). 

Requiring full reclamation bonds sufficient to restore lands to prior disturbance conditions could provide 

funding to complete habitat improvement and recovery in areas disturbed by oil, gas, and other surface 

disturbing activities if project abandonment occurs. Full restoration of habitat could provide Greater SageGrouse forage and cover depending on the habitat being restored; however it is uncertain if repopulation 

of the area would occur (Connelly et al.2000). 

Private lands are not required to apply mitigation measures, which can cause further impacts to habitat 

loss and displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from applying 

conservation measures to split-estate land ownership (federal surface/private surface or federal 

surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative A, but on a larger scale for the entire planning 

area. 

Under Alternative B, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to non-energy, solid mineral leasing. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from coal leasing in lands outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be 

the same as described in Alternative A. In addition, finding Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

unsuitable to all surface mining of coal under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 3461.5 would prevent 

surface disturbance, direct habitat loss or damage, and the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species. Impacts such as displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse from surface mining activities, 

avoidance of the area around the development because of human and vehicle presence and noise forcing 

grouse to abandon habitat could be avoided if surface mining for coal was found unsuitable. Not allowing 

coal exploration in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would prevent the impacts described under 

Alternative A.

Granting no new underground mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are 

placed outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat area would reduce surface disturbance, forage 

and habitat loss compared to Alternative A. Human presence and vehicle use to access the mine could 

cause displacement of grouse from vehicles and noise, or avoidance of a larger area around the 

development because of human presence, vehicles and noise, and possible collisions from vehicles. 

Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators which could impact Greater Sage-Grouse from direct 

predation or cause grouse to avoid those areas. 

Allowing appurtenant facilities by co-locating them or building facilities to minimum standards could 

result in surface disturbance or habitat loss and the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species. The management could reduce overall disturbance to new habitat; however, disturbance could 

occur within an existing corridor. Noise, human presence, vehicle use, and linear disturbances impact 

Greater Sage-Grouse and could cause them to abandon the surrounding area, forcing birds into areas of 

habitat with increased competition from other displaced grouse or into areas of reduced habitat quality 

causing further stress and reduced fecundity and longevity. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-293

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to non-energy leasable mineral leasing (5,000,400 acres) 

would prevent the impacts described under Alternative A.

If all lands recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

were withdrawn, 3,324,750 more acres of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could be protected from 

disturbance and habitat loss as compared to Alternative A. Additional mitigation, seasonal restrictions, or 

making withdrawal areas subject to validity exams or buy out could reduce further habitat disturbance or 

damage, or in some cases, improvement in habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Under Alternative B, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to mineral material sales, exploration, and free use 

permits, 4,725,540 more acres as compared to Alternative A. Greater Sage-Grouse within these areas 

would not be impacted by displacement from exploration or pit areas, abandoning habitat within the area 

around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite impacts, including the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Restoring salable mineral pits within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat could cause short-term impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from restoration activities by 

human and vehicle presence, noise, or surface disturbance and runoff if Greater Sage-Grouse remained in 

the surrounding area. Long-term, when the habitat recovered, it could be beneficial to Greater SageGrouse by providing sagebrush habitat. 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat that have neutral 

or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas could reduce the impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitat from recreational activities and human presence as compared to Alternative A.

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

ACECs/SIAs, 5,025,550 acres. Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat would receive the benefits of 

management under an ACEC/SIA. This management would be focused on the protection of Greater SageGrouse and sagebrush habitat, which could further protect and preserve sage-grouse and their habitat. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas as limited to 

designated roads and trails (not including the sand dune portions of these areas) (Poison Spider OHV Park 

[285 acres]; Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area [3,736 acres]; and the portion of the Greater Sand 

Dunes Recreation Area [529 acres]) would protect the non-sand dune landscape from surface disturbance 

and disruptive activity from cross-country use by vehicles and human presence. Because these areas are 

existing use areas, it is likely that Greater Sage-Grouse have already abandoned use of the area or avoid it 

during migrations. Limiting the use to designated roads and trails could reduce the likelihood of vehicle 

collisions and could encourage Greater Sage-Grouse to return to previously abandoned habitat. The sand 

dunes would remain an open use area, which is not desired habitat for sage-grouse and the major 

disturbance to sage-grouse from these areas would be noise from OHVs. 

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would be the same as 

Alternative A. Completing activity level travel plans within five 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 or other sensitive habitat. Designating routes during activity level 

planning in priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access 

only could reduce the level of road/route use. Reducing road/route use could decrease the level of 

disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse leks or sensitive habitat from vehicle and human presence, collisions 

with vehicles, increased predation, or the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Assessing existing 

plans for consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives could allow the BLM and Forest 

Service to make changes to routes/roads that could reduce further impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-294 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Not upgrading existing routes could reduce surface disturbance and habitat loss from upgrading activities, 

and displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse from human and vehicle presence. Any exceptions resulting in 

road upgrades could further fragment habitat, cause vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species. Human presence and vehicles may force Greater Sage-Grouse species away 

from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles and increased 

predation may also occur when roads are constructed within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Using existing roads to access valid existing rights could prevent vegetation and habitat loss, noise, and 

the presence of humans, vehicles, and construction equipment that are associated with road construction. 

New road construction can create barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall 

habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur 

during or following road construction. Human presence and vehicles may cause Greater Sage-Grouse to 

abandon habitat and move to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles may also occur 

when roads are constructed within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Road corridors are desirable areas for 

predatory animals and could increase the threat of predation to grouse. All of these impacts could be 

avoided by using existing roads. Increased use of roads during lease development could occur which 

could increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from collisions with vehicles. If new roads were 

necessary, impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and habitat described above could apply. A 3% disturbance 

cap could further prevent habitat loss and disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse if new roads had to be built. 

Mitigation to offset exceeding the three percent cap could provide new habitat (where possible) to replace 

habitat that was lost during construction, but impacts from roads and construction would still affect 

Greater Sage-Grouse, and new habitat would take at least five or more years to revegetate and 15-30 years 

to be fully restored (BLM 2004i). 

Restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat could reduce disturbances from occasional vehicle or human use and could improve sagebrush 

habitat conditions by removing linear disturbances, allowing for greater habitat connectivity, and 

providing additional vegetation resources for forage or cover. Vehicle routes are prone to use by 

predators, Greater Sage-Grouse could benefit from the rehabilitation of unused roads or trails, which 

could reduce the presence of predatory animals as roads and routes are reclaimed. Short term impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse could occur during the restoration process from human and vehicle presence, but 

long-term vegetation regeneration to sagebrush habitat could provide grouse with new forage or cover. 

Using appropriate seed mixes and transplanted sagebrush for reseeding roads, primitive roads, and trails 

within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could restore important habitat components for Greater SageGrouse. 

Managing for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the 

reference state to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitat objectives within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat could provide Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, forage, and cover within these areas within 15 

to 25 years for sagebrush, but much shorter term for forbs and grasses. Initial treatments could cause short 

term impacts from displacement from human and vehicle activities, which could cause Greater SageGrouse to move into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with 

other species and uses. Using ESD potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect against 

invasive, non-native plants could prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species 

which can alter or degrade the native landscape and cause Greater Sage-Grouse to move from high quality 

habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Designing and limiting fuels treatments within sagebrush habitat not to reduce sagebrush canopy cover to 

less than 15% unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to 

meet strategic protection of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the 

species could provide some protection and limitations to how and when prescribed fire is used in 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-295

managing sagebrush habitat. If habitat is in good ecological condition, it is recommended that fire use 

should be avoided (Connelly et al. 2000). Sagebrush in Wyoming can take over 40 years to return to 20% 

canopy cover due to the climate conditions (Goodrich 2005). Fuel breaks can provide barriers to wildland 

fires or containing prescribed fire; while fuel breaks remove vegetation, habitat and create linear 

disturbances, without them, catastrophic fires could occur, destroying habitat, and leaving areas of 

disturbance. Considering the use of fuel breaks in NEPA documents could allow decision makers to make 

an informed decision on the best course of action for each location, especially in areas of high habitat 

value such as Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, only allowing treatments that conserve, enhance or restore sagegrouse habitat could provide Greater Sage-Grouse additional habitat, forage, and cover within these areas. 

Initial treatments could cause displacement from human and vehicle activities which could move animals 

into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and 

uses. 

Not allowing treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter range with the exception to strategically 

reduce wildland fire risk could protect critical and virtually irreplaceable habitat components for Greater 

Sage-Grouse life cycles. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from resting treated areas from livestock 

grazing for two years after prescribed burns would be the same as Alternative A, although it would apply 

to the entire planning area. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from reclamation of Greater SageGrouse habitat in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (2009a) would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Where restoration of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat occurs, the use of native seeds or other nonnative seeds to meet sage-grouse habitat objectives; reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable 

understory plants; restoring native plants and creating landscape patterns that most benefit sage-grouse 

and considering potential changes in climate could allow for effective restoration of sagebrush and 

eventual Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Attempting to use native seeds not only provides appropriate 

vegetation for the climate and conditions, the use also can prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species which can alter habitat and render it unusable to Greater Sage-Grouse. While the 

initial disturbance could result in habitat loss, over the long term, sagebrush habitat could be restored, 

although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original conditions 

due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Prioritizing areas for restoration could benefit 

Greater Sage-Grouse in those areas where habitat is restored. 

Prioritizing native seed allocation for use in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat in years when preferred 

native seed is in short supply by reallocating from ES&R (BLM) and/or BAER (Forest Service) projects 

could reduce the risk of disturbed areas being inundated by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing 

the spread of invasive plant species could help the reclamation area restore to original site vegetation 

composition. Areas that restore with native plant composition could provide future habitat and cover for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Reallocating seed from projects outside of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to 

within priority habitat would benefit priority areas where Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is deemed most 

important; however, it could prevent revegetation projects from occurring in Greater Sage-Grouse general 

habitat. Managing post ES&R and BAER areas to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn 

native plants using temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel 

management, etc. could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and vegetation to mature to the 

point of withstanding pressure from grazing or other activities. Changing management in restored areas 

could allow seedings to become established and areas to recover for future use by Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Altering existing seedings where appropriate to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse could provide additional 

habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse forage and cover. Short-term impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse could 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-296 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

occur from restoration activities from human and vehicle presence, noise, surface disturbance or longer 

term impacts of the possible introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Where 

restoration activities were successful, additional sagebrush habitat would benefit Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Giving priority for implementing specific Sage‐grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands 

could eventually expand Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and possibly providing greater habitat continuity. 

Establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production for fire prone areas could ensure that 

seed is available for habitat restoration, which could provide future sagebrush habitat for Greater SageGrouse. 

Ensuring that grasshopper and Mormon cricket control could only occur in Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat where it can be demonstrated that it is beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse would reduce the impacts 

described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from the management of wild horses with the consideration of Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could benefit Greater Sage-Grouse from ensuring that sagegrouse habitat would not be diminished or impacted from grazing or trampling from wild horses. 

Conducting land health assessments in all BLM HMAs and Forest Service WHTs within Greater SageGrouse priority habitat could identify where habitat improvements could occur. Wild horses consume 

grasses, which can be important for Greater Sage-Grouse nesting cover (Crawford et al. 2004). 

Management of wild horses to consider Greater Sage-Grouse, wildlife, watershed, and other resource 

needs could provide Greater Sage-Grouse with adequate forage, habitat, cover, and water. Water 

developments to improve herd distribution and manage forage utilization for wild horses could reduce 

pressure on areas where wildlife frequent and move wild horses elsewhere, reducing pressure on the 

surrounding habitat. 

Designing and implementing fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could provide careful use of prescribed fire only in 

areas where fire would be beneficial to sagebrush habitat. Use of fire within sagebrush habitat is strongly 

not recommended due to the slow recovery of sagebrush and regeneration of the overall habitat (Braun et 

al. 2005, Cagney et al. 2010). The emphasis on protecting sagebrush ecosystems could protect sagebrush 

habitat, forage, and cover within these areas. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from rehabilitation for areas 

burned by wildland fires would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to the Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat area and could receive additional recovery effort. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the use of prescribed fire would be the same as Alternative A, but 

would apply to the entire Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat area. The additional restriction to 

precipitation level could prevent long term habitat loss from the use of fire in areas where the lack rainfall 

makes revegetation and restoration prohibitive. Considering cheatgrass levels could prevent the chance of 

hot-burning fires that could get out of control if proper planning is not implemented. Cheatgrass can also 

quickly recover from fire, and could continue to spread and out-compete native grasses, altering native 

habitat and creating monocultures. 

Designing post fuels management areas to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native 

plants using temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel 

management, etc. could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and for vegetation to mature to 

the point of withstanding pressure from grazing or other activities. Changing management in restored 

areas could allow seedings to become established and areas to recover for future use by Greater SageGrouse. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire suppression 

techniques would be the same as Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-297

Prioritizing fire suppression to protect Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could prevent the loss of 

sagebrush habitat and is very important to protecting and maintaining existing sagebrush habitat (Braun et 

al. 2005). Fire suppression techniques could impact nearby Greater Sage-Grouse in areas where they 

occur. Vegetation removal, crushing of habitat, the use of heavy equipment and fire retardant, and human 

presence could force Greater Sage-Grouse from the area where these activities occurred to less desirable, 

lower quality habitat until these areas have recovered. 

The use of monitoring plans could provide benefits to Greater Sage-Grouse within priority habitat by 

studying the effectiveness of conservation efforts for sage-grouse by confirming habitat is being 

improved, that current management is not meeting the objectives laid out in their projects, and if Greater 

Sage-Grouse are returning to or using the habitat. If habitat is not meeting objectives, through 

identification from monitoring, improvements could be made to make the management more effective. 

Improving project efficacy could provide overall improvements in landscape health, prevent or reduce the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species; provide additional forage, and allow for greater cover habitat 

for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Greater Sage-Grouse are also sensitive to density of disturbance as well as to proximity. Under 

Alternative B, management would not allow discrete anthropogenic disturbances to cover less than 3% of 

the total sage‐grouse habitat, regardless of ownership, within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. The 

density of disruptive activities under Alternative B for Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would 

provide the lowest density of disturbance of habitat. If Alternative B were applied, Greater Sage-Grouse 

could be affected by lower losses of habitat as compared to Alternative A. Holloran’s (2005) study 

showed that the number of males on leks declined when the density of well reached more than five wells 

within 1.9 miles; and when density was between one and three wells per 1.9 miles, numbers of male birds 

on leks did not decline. This alternative could for more contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat protects Greater Sage-Grouse from human and other disturbance and is necessary 

for breeding, migration, foraging, cover habitat, and to grouse complete their life histories. 

Development of anthropogenic features can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force Greater Sage-Grouse to 

abandon important habitat. Capping disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, 

and human disturbance could remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for 

continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur under Alternative A. 

Within Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, a 3% disturbance cap per section (640 acres) would be 

applied. This management also applies when permitting APDs on existing leases that are not yet 

developed. Using mitigation to restore habitat to maintain the 3% disturbance limit could be effective for 

rehabilitating some habitat and continuing to provide contiguous uninterrupted habitat with minimal 

disturbance. However, restoration of sagebrush habitat takes a minimum of five years, so usable habitat 

may not be available for many years after the rehabilitation takes place. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

connectivity habitat on 2,082,140 acres, could reduce habitat loss and allow for contiguous, uninterrupted 

habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects Greater Sage-Grouse from human and other 

disturbance and is necessary for Greater Sage-Grouse to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete 

their life histories. The availability of large, uninterrupted areas of sagebrush habitat for Greater SageGrouse to forage and nest is likely to influence the size of the breeding populations and persistence of leks 

(Swenson et al. 1987, Ellis et al. 1989, Schroeder et al. 1999, Leonard et al. 2000, Smith et al. 2005). Oil 

and gas exploration and development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which can force Greater Sage-Grouse to 

move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing disturbance 

from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and gas 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-298 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for 

continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur under Alternative A.

A four-mile buffer around leks could reduce or prevent impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from disturbance 

from noise, human and vehicle presence, and drilling activities; however, Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

could be impacted from oil and gas development by surface disturbance, habitat loss, erosion, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Walker et al. (2007) recommends large areas with extensive 

stands of sagebrush of approximately four or more miles around leks to allow breeding populations of 

Greater Sage-Grouse to return to the lek. Surface disturbance also causes barriers in contiguous habitat, 

which can disrupt Greater Sage-Grouse travel and migration patterns, and could lead to reduced health 

and reproductive success. 

Applying a restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface disturbing activity during nesting and 

early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could protect Greater Sage-Grouse and 

their young from disturbance from drilling activities, including noise, human presence, vehicle use, 

vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Female Greater SageGrouse will avoid nesting in areas of development or where disturbing or land-clearing activities occur; 

such as oil and gas development, roads, urban areas, or cropland (Aldridge and Boyce 2007). If any 

activity were to occur during this season, females may abandon their nests, or move to less 

desirable/lower quality habitat for nesting. Moving to lower quality habitat and/or nest abandonment can 

result in lower reproductive success and lead to the further decrease in Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 

This management could allow for fewer disturbances to Greater Sage-Grouse, which can force Greater 

Sage-Grouse to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in mapped Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas 

would be prohibited both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas, as well as in 

connectivity areas. Management under Alternative B would protect the mapped winter concentration 

habitat and the Greater Sage-Grouse within the identified area throughout the year from habitat loss and 

would provide greater protection of habitat as compared to Alternative A. If any activity were to occur 

nearby the identified winter concentration areas, Greater Sage-Grouse could move to less desirable or 

lower quality sagebrush areas. Moving to lower quality sagebrush could result in lower calorie 

consumption and reduced health and vigor, making birds more susceptible to disease and predation. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas 

within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitats during any time of the year could prevent vegetation loss of 

critical winter habitat and would prevent disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse from human presence or 

activity. Management under Alternative B would protect Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration 

habitat in priority habitat throughout the year from habitat loss and would provide greater protection of 

habitat as compared to Alternative A. If any activity were to occur adjacent to winter concentration areas 

or in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, sage-grouse could move to less desirable or lower quality 

sagebrush areas. Moving to lower quality sagebrush could result in lower calorie consumption and 

reduced health and vigor, making birds more susceptible to disease and predation. 

Limitations on noise would have similar impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse but on a larger scale covering 

the entire planning area, as compared to Alternative A.

4.14.5 Alternative C 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-299

Impacts to special status species from relocating existing designated ROW corridors would be the same as 

Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from management of priority and general Greater SageGrouse habitat as ROW exclusion areas would be the same as Alternative A but it would protect 

11,531,340 acres, all as exclusion areas, 11,245,410 acres more than under Alternative A. Amending 

ROWs to require features that enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat security (protective features) would 

be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to a greater area, providing more protection to special 

status species. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures in BLM ACECs and Forest Service 

Special Areas could result in short-term disturbance of special status species from human and vehicle 

activity, but long-term impacts would be minimal. 

Under Alternative C, wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 

prohibited. Closing 11,531,340 acres to wind energy development would protect special status species 

habitat from surface disturbance, habitat loss, disturbance from human presence and activity, new road 

construction, the spread of invasive, non-native plant species, and the threats of collision mortality of 

birds and bats. Under Alternative C, 127 turbines could be developed. If wind development was allowed 

to occur (wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be prohibited), 

locating wind energy development at least five miles from active Greater Sage-Grouse leks could reduce 

disturbance to special status species which use lek habitat such as mountain plover, long-billed curlew or 

white-tailed prairie dog. Restrictions on MET towers would have the same impacts to special status 

species as in Alternative A.

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs/SIAs and occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would 

prevent the impacts to thousands of acres of special status species habitat from vegetation removal, 

habitat loss, increased runoff and erosion, displacement, and the loss of contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. 

Retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would ensure that management within 

these areas would protect sagebrush habitat with all of the BMPs and other designations, which could 

provide habitat protection for special status species that inhabit these areas, and would provide greater 

protections than Alternative A. Impacts to special status species would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from acquisitions or conservation easements would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Acquiring important private lands would provide greater protection to special status species within 

sagebrush habitat as compared to Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from not approving recommended withdrawal proposals unless the land 

management is consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures could provide greater 

protection to sagebrush habitat and could provide habitat protection for special status species that inhabit 

these areas, and could provide greater protection to functional habitat than Alternative A.

Prohibiting livestock grazing within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat (5,000,400 acres) would 

provide the greatest availability of habitat and forage for special status species as compared to 

Alternative A, completely removing competition for resources with livestock. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for management of BLM-administered lands to meet 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, although it would occur only on Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat. In addition, Alternative C includes additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in general habitat by providing healthy, resilient, and recovering habitat components, which could 

provide sagebrush obligate and other special status species additional habitat and forage within these 

areas. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-300 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Using ESD potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect against invasive, non-native plants 

could prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can alter or degrade 

the native landscape and force special status species to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower 

quality, less desirable habitat. In areas without ESDs, special status species habitat could benefit from the 

use of reference sites to identify appropriate vegetation communities and soil cover. 

Impacts to special status species habitat from reducing the procedures to retire grazing allotments would 

be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species habitat from the retirement of grazing 

privileges would be the same as Alternative A. Identifying specific allotment(s) where permanent 

retirement of grazing privileges is potentially beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species habitat from management for drought and other conditions in livestock 

allotments would be the same as Alternative A. Additional priority for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

during periods of drought could also be beneficial to special status species which also use sagebrush 

habitat for forage of cover and would include a larger area of habitat than under Alternative B (priority 

and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat). 

Impacts to special status species habitat from range improvement projects would be the same as described 

under Alternative B, but would apply to livestock grazing within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat 

since priority habitat would be closed to grazing under Alternative C. 

Impacts to special status species habitat from current livestock trailing practices would be the same as 

Alternative A; in addition, avoiding grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and 

winter habitats during periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by Greater Sage-Grouse could 

affect special status species habitat by protecting it from the impacts described in Alternative A: loss of 

vegetation for forage and cover, soil compaction, erosion, trampling of vegetation and habitat, and the 

spread of invasive non-native plant species. 

Impacts to special status species habitat from riparian habitat management in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat would be the same as Alternatives A and B. In addition, Alternative C would provide 

additional habitat for special status species with the requirement of at least six inches stubble height. This 

management could affect aquatic, riparian or wetland habitat by preventing streambank erosion or 

channel alteration, sedimentation, habitat loss, or the spread of invasive, non-native plant species 

(University of Idaho Stubble Height Review Team 2004). Hot season livestock grazing would not apply 

under Alternative C.

Impacts to special status species from water developments would be the same as Alternative A. In 

addition, not authorizing new water developments in spring and seep habitat could protect sensitive spring 

and seep habitat from trampling from big game or livestock (in general habitat) surrounding the water 

development, could prevent breeding of mosquitoes and the possible spread of West Nile virus, and could 

prevent the introduction or spread of invasive non-native plant species. 

Impacts to special status species from modifying springs, seeps, and associated water developments to 

maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would 

be the same as Alternative B. In addition, dismantling water developments could affect special status 

species habitat by removing additional developed water sources and could protect sensitive spring and 

seep habitat from trampling from big game or livestock surrounding the water development. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-301

Impacts to special status species from not allowing any exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs 

in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would include Greater 

Sage-Grouse general habitat to affect more of the planning area. 

Maximizing the avoidance of impacts from oil, gas, or geothermal activity could reduce habitat loss for 

special status species and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted 

habitat protects special status species from human and other disturbance and is necessary for animals to 

breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil, gas, and geothermal exploration 

and development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which can force special status wildlife to move from high 

quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing disturbance from roads, 

structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and gas development would 

remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for continued habitat 

connectivity in areas where future leases could occur under the other action alternatives. 

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, 16,878,220 acres, 

would reduce habitat loss for special status species and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat, 

and would close 16,006,440 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to special status species habitat 

would be the same as described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, 11,126 wells are predicted to 

be developed, 5,284 fewer wells as compared to Alternative A. This alternative would allow for the 

greatest number of acres to be protected from habitat loss due to oil and gas development and could 

provide the largest protection of special status species habitat as compared to Alternative A.

Not issuing new geophysical exploration permits within priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would prevent impacts to special status species associated with geophysical exploration. Allowing 

exceptions for geophysical exploration would impact special status species the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Applying 

COAs and mitigating or reducing the impact to Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat during lease 

development would have impacts the same as those described under Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species 

from completing Master Development Plans and requiring unitization within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from requiring full 

reclamation bonds would be the same as Alternative B.

Prohibiting the construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater 

would provide special status species greater protection as compared to Alternative A. Not allowing 

construction of reservoirs could prevent impacts to special status species from contact with highly 

alkaline wastewater with very high concentrations of salt (USFWS 2006b). Alternative C would remove 

the impacts from special status waterfowl entering the ponds and the threat of West Nile virus. 

Exploring options to amend, cancel, or buy out leases in ACECs and Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would not have any impacts to special status species habitat until leases were amended, 

canceled, or bought out. 

Impacts to special status species from coal leasing in lands outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from not granting new 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-302 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

underground mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of 

the priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species if all lands recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat were withdrawn would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to 

special status species from 5,000,400 acres being closed to mineral material sales, exploration, and free 

use permits would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from restoring salable 

mineral pits within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in priority Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Seasonally prohibiting camping and other non-motorized recreation within four miles of active Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks could protect special status species within the buffer area from impacts of recreation 

use, such as displacement of special status species from human and vehicle activities, damage or loss of 

habitat, spread of invasive, non-native plant species and alteration of some habitat components from the 

presence of invasive plant species, or physiological stress from human presence during sensitive life 

stages. 

Under Alternative C, Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas 

would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs, 6,423,370 acres. Impacts from 

this management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from designating all OHV “open” areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat areas as limited to designated roads and trails (not including the sand dune portions of these areas) 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to special status species from limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails at a minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete would be the same as 

Alternative B. Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of the perimeter of active Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks would provide buffer distances for special status species that use lek or sagebrush 

habitat from the presence of roads and the impacts of road construction. Road construction can create 

barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, 

and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction. 

Special status plant species could be damaged from vegetation loss or damage, erosion and soil loss, and 

the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Human presence and vehicles may force 

special status species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with 

vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife habitat. Road corridors are desirable 

areas for predatory animals, but these areas may be avoided by prey species which may move to less 

desirable habitat to avoid predation. Avoiding new road construction in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would impact special status species as described above where roads were not constructed. 

Impacts to special status species habitat from not upgrading existing routes in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. 

Impacts to special status species from limiting route construction to realignments of existing routes in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would 

apply to a larger area, 11,531,340 acres. In addition, mitigating any impacts to keep disturbance within 

3% with methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat could benefit sagebrush obligate special status species from additional loss of habitat, forage, and 

cover within these areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-303

Impacts to special status species from restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans 

within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status 

species from reseeding closed roads or trails in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. In addition, the use of native seed and 

transplanted sagebrush could provide additional forage and habitat for sagebrush obligate special status 

species such as swift fox, pygmy rabbit, or Brewer’s Sparrow. 

Impacts to special status species from not reducing sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% during fuels 

treatment in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, with some exceptions, would be the same 

as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. Impacts to special status species from the use of 

fuel breaks in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, 

except it would apply to a larger area. Alternative C would prioritize fire operations in priority habitat 

immediately after life and property; therefore, the potential for disturbance to special status wildlife 

within priority habitat is the same as Alternative B but less than Alternative B in general habitat. With 

regard to fuels management. Alternative C is more restrictive than Alternative B since all of the 

management actions fall within priority and general habitat; therefore, impacts from fuels management on 

special status wildlife species are expected to be less than Alternative B. Conversely, Alternative C does 

not offer as many protective management actions that could benefit special status wildlife as Alternatives 

B and D; therefore, it has more potential for habitat degradation than the other alternatives. However, the 

greatest amount of benefit under Alternative C would be provided to those species whose ranges overlap 

priority and general habitat. There is potential to negatively influence those special status species that use 

other habitat types. 

Impacts to special status species from vegetation treatments in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area (priority and general 

habitat). Mitigating impacts using methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss 

of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could provide sagebrush habitat for special status species. Impacts to 

special status species from not allowing fuels treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter range 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Avoiding (not conducting) sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, and including plans to restore high-quality habitat in 

areas where invasive species are present could affect special status species differently. Some big game 

may not benefit from increases in sagebrush forage as much as sagebrush obligate special status species, 

which could be affected by high quality sagebrush habitat for forage and cover. Impacts to special status 

species from reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (2009a) would be the same as Alternative A.

Rehabilitating exotic seedings to recover sagebrush in areas to expand Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat could provide special status species habitat, forage, and cover within these areas within 15 

to 25 years for sagebrush, but much shorter term for forbs and grasses. Initial treatments could cause 

displacement of special status species from human and vehicle activities, which could move special status 

species into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other 

species and habitat uses. Treated areas are vulnerable to the introduction and spread of invasive, nonnative plant species which could affect special status plants. Careful monitoring would be necessary to 

prevent or limit invasive, non-native plant species within the treated areas. 

Impacts to special status species from prioritizing restoration projects and the use and allocation of native 

seed within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would also 

encompass Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, a total of 11,531,340 acres. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-304 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Altering existing seedings of perennial grasses where appropriate to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would 

apply to a larger area (11,531,340 acres). 

Impacts to special status species from establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed 

production for fire prone areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Including pretreatment data on existing habitat conditions in plans for vegetation treatments would 

provide valuable data when conducting monitoring post-treatment and could lead to improved habitat 

conditions for treated areas. 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. Beck and Mitchell (2000) recommend that seeded areas 

should be rested at least two growing seasons or longer to prevent sagebrush seedlings from being 

trampled by livestock. Rested areas could provide special status species with new vegetation for cover 

habitat and forage without competition with livestock during the rest period. Long term monitoring of 

vegetation treatments can provide important data on post-revegetation conditions. Data collected could be 

used in future revegetation projects, could provide feedback on the success or needs for improving of the 

methods being used in revegetation efforts, and document when or if Greater Sage-Grouse return to the 

area. 

Impacts to special status species from the management of wild horses with the consideration of Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from conducting land health assessments for HMAs, and the 

management of wild horses in priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from designing and implementing fuels treatments, the use of prescribed 

fire, and post fuels management in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B (5,000,400 acres), except the management would apply to a larger area (11,531,340 acres). 

Within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, managing lands to be in the good or better 

ecological condition to help minimize adverse impacts of fire could provide vital habitat components for 

special status species. Minimizing the impacts of fire could provide protection of sagebrush habitat, which 

can take up to 40 years to recover from fire. Managing lands to be in the good or better ecological 

condition could prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native plant species prior to or 

following catastrophic fire events. 

Fuels treatments that focus on interfaces with human habitation or significant existing disturbances within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, could reduce impacts of fuels treatments in other habitat 

where special status species are more likely to be found. Interfaces with human habitation are not ideal 

habitat for most special status species, effects to special status species from vegetation removal, surface 

disturbance, and the presence of humans, vehicles and equipment could be lower than in areas a mile or 

more away from human habitation. 

Establishing adequately sized exclosures (free of livestock grazing) for post fire recovery that can be used 

to assess recovery within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat could protect recovering 

habitat from livestock grazing while vegetation is re-establishing. Allowing vegetation to become reestablished without livestock could allow for faster habitat recovery and provide a baseline of how the 

treated area recovers compared to areas within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat where grazing occurs. 

Allowing vegetation to recover could provide habitat and forage for special status species without the 

competition from livestock. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-305

Excluding or closing areas within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat from livestock grazing 

after prescribed burns could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and until woody and 

herbaceous plants achieve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives would be beneficial to special status 

species and sagebrush habitat recovery. Resting or closing 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. Beck and Mitchell (2000) 

recommend that seeded areas should be rested at least two growing seasons or longer to prevent 

sagebrush seedlings from being trampled by livestock. 

Mowing of grass in any fuels reduction project (roadsides or other areas) Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

and general habitat could reduce total loss of sagebrush habitat from common fuelbreak techniques, 

which can include bulldozing fire lines. Mowed areas still retain seeds and rooted plants that could grow 

back over time, returning habitat to the area. The disturbance could still fragment habitat and cause 

special status species to abandon the area. 

Impacts to special status species from using fire suppression to protect Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from managing the level of density of disturbance within Greater SageGrouse connectivity habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from a 3% limit of disturbance per section (640 acres) when permitting 

APDs on existing leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to special status species from not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species habitat from restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface 

disturbing activity and related activities that are disruptive to Greater Sage-Grouse, including vehicle 

traffic and other human presence during nesting and early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority, general and connectivity habitat could be reduced as compared to Alternative A. Alternative C 

could allow more contiguous, uninterrupted habitat which could buffer special status species from human 

and other disturbance and is necessary for special status species to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and 

complete their life histories. 

Impacts to special status species from conservation measures within Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species habitat from limiting noise would be the same as Alternative B.

Greater Sage-Grouse–Alternative C 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from relocating existing designated ROW corridors would be the same as 

Alternative B. Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas, preventing development of ROWs within 11,531,340 acres, 11,245,410 more acres than under 

Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from ROW exclusion areas would be the same as 

described Alternative B; however those impacts would apply to a much larger area. Amending ROWs to 

require features that enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat security (protective features) would be the 

same as Alternative A, but would apply to a greater area, providing more protection to Greater Sage-
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-306 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Grouse. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures in BLM ACECs and Forest Service Special 

Areas could result in short-term disturbance of Greater Sage-Grouse from human and vehicle presence. 

Under Alternative C, wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 

prohibited. Closing 11,531,340 acres to wind energy development would protect Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat from surface disturbance, habitat loss, disturbance from human presence and activity, new road 

construction, the spread of invasive, non-native plant species, and the threats of collision mortality of 

birds and bats. Under Alternative C, 127 turbines could be developed. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse 

outside of general and priority habitat could occur, but not to the extent as within priority and general 

habitat, described in Alternative A. Where wind development did occur, locating wind energy 

development at least five miles from active Greater Sage-Grouse leks could reduce disturbance to Greater 

Sage-Grouse by providing an adequate buffer distance to prevent eventual abandonment of lek habitat. 

This buffer distance would reduce the impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from perceived or actual overhead 

predation and the risk of collisions with wind turbines, power lines or other related infrastructure. 

Restrictions on MET towers would have the same impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse as in Alternative A.

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would prevent 

the impacts to thousands of acres of habitat from vegetation removal, habitat loss, the loss of contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat, predation, and displacement of grouse. 

Retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would ensure that management within 

these areas would protect sagebrush habitat with all of the BMPs and other designations, which could 

provide protection for Greater Sage-Grouse which inhabit these areas, and would provide greater 

protections than Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from acquisitions or conservation easements would be the same as 

Alternative B. Acquiring important private lands for possible expansion of ACECs and Forest Service 

Sage-Grouse Special Areas would provide greater protection to Greater Sage-Grouse from special 

management for the sagebrush habitat and Greater Sage-Grouse, as compared to Alternative B. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from not approving recommended withdrawal proposals unless the land 

management is consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures could provide focused 

protection of sagebrush habitat in areas where management for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush 

habitat would be most effective. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat (5,000,400 acres) could reduce 

the threats of livestock presence in sensitive lekking, nesting and early brood-rearing habitat, could reduce 

the threats of habitat loss or damage from over grazing, could improve the health and vigor of late broodrearing habitat where ESD is not being met, and could prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, nonnative plant species. Alternative C would provide the greatest protection to Greater Sage-Grouse from the 

impacts of livestock grazing. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for management of BLM-administered lands to meet 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands although it would occur only on Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat. In addition, Alternative C includes additional management for ESD in sage-grouse 

general habitat to provide for healthy, resilient, and recovering Greater Sage-Grouse habitat components 

which could provide a greater balance of livestock grazing practices within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Using ESD potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect against invasive, non-native plants 

could prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which can alter or 

degrade the native landscape and lead to habitat fragmentation in areas where native habitat is lost. In 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-307

areas without ESDs, Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat could benefit from the use of reference 

sites to identify appropriate vegetation communities and soil cover. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitat from reducing the procedures to retire grazing 

allotments would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from the 

retirement of grazing privileges would be the same as Alternative A. Identifying specific allotment(s) 

where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is potentially beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse would 

be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from management for drought and other 

conditions in livestock allotments would be the same as Alternative A. Additional priority for Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat during periods of drought would be the same as Alternative B, but would apply to 

general as well as priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from range improvement projects would be the same as described under 

Alternative B, but would apply to livestock grazing within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat since 

priority habitat would be closed to grazing under Alternative C. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

current livestock trailing practices would be the same as Alternative A; in addition, avoiding grazing and 

trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during periods of the year when these 

habitats are utilized by sage-grouse would prevent disturbance and possible habitat abandonment by 

grouse during sensitive periods of their life cycle. This management could prevent further losses of 

Greater Sage-Grouse from lack of breeding, loss of chicks, stress from fleeing or habitat abandonment, or 

starvation from inadequate forage sources. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from riparian habitat management in Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat would be the same as Alternatives A and B. In addition, Alternative C would provide additional 

habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse with the requirement of at least six inches stubble height. This 

management could affect aquatic, riparian or wetland habitat by preventing streambank erosion or 

channel alteration, habitat loss, or the spread of invasive, non-native plant species (University of Idaho 

Stubble Height Review Team 2004). Clary and Leininger (2000), recommend at least four inches of 

residual stubble as a starting point for riparian habitat management. This management could provide 

forage for grouse in important late brood-rearing habitat. Hot season livestock grazing would not apply 

under Alternative C.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from water developments would be the same as Alternative A. In 

addition, not authorizing new water developments in spring and seep habitat would protect important 

areas used by Greater Sage-Grouse for foraging (Connelly et al. 2000). This management could protect 

sensitive spring and seep habitat from trampling from wildlife or livestock (in general habitat) 

surrounding the water development, could prevent breeding of mosquitoes and the possible spread of 

West Nile virus, and could prevent the introduction or spread of invasive non-native plant species. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from modifying springs, seeps and associated water developments to 

maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would 

be the same as Alternative B. In addition, dismantling water developments in wet meadows and riparian 

areas would provide habitat protection of important summer-late brood-rearing habitat and habitat critical 

to Greater Sage-Grouse for late-growing season foraging (Crawford et al. 2004). Removing water 

developments could protect sensitive spring and seep habitat from trampling from wildlife or livestock 

surrounding the water development. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from not allowing any exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs 

in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would include Greater 

Sage-Grouse general habitat to affect more of the planning area. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-308 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Maximizing the avoidance of impacts from oil, gas, or geothermal activity could reduce habitat loss and 

fragmentation and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat 

protects Greater Sage-Grouse from human and other disturbance and is necessary for grouse to breed, 

migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and 

development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species which can force Greater Sage-Grouse to abandon habitat and relocate 

to areas with less disturbance. Removing disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling 

operations, and human disturbance from oil, gas or geothermal development would remove a majority of 

stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where 

future leases could occur under the other action alternatives. 

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, 16,878,220 acres, 

would reduce habitat loss for Greater Sage-Grouse and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat, 

and would close 16,006,440 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the 

same as described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, 11,126 oil, gas and CBNG wells are 

predicted to be developed, 5,285 fewer wells as compared to Alternative A. This alternative would allow 

for the greatest number of acres to be protected from habitat loss due to oil and gas development and 

could provide the largest protection of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat as compared to Alternative A.

Not issuing new geophysical exploration permits within priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would prevent impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse associated with geophysical exploration. Allowing 

exceptions for geophysical exploration would impact Greater Sage-Grouse the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Applying 

COAs and mitigating or reducing the impact to Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat during lease 

development would have impacts the same as described under Alternative B. Impacts to Greater SageGrouse from not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from completing Master Development Plans and requiring unitization 

within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater SageGrouse from requiring full reclamation bonds would be the same as Alternative B.

Prohibiting the construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater 

could prevent impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the spread of West Nile virus. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership 

(federal surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative B.

Exploring options to amend, cancel, or buy out leases in ACECs and Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would not have any impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse until leases were amended, canceled, 

or bought out. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from coal leasing in lands outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from granting no new underground 

mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of the priority 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse if all lands recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat were withdrawn would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-309

Greater Sage-Grouse from 5,000,400 acres being closed to mineral material sales, exploration, and free 

use permits would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from restoring salable 

mineral pits within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in priority Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Seasonally prohibiting camping and other non-motorized recreation within four miles of active Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks could prevent disturbance from noise or human presence to Greater Sage-Grouse during 

lekking and nesting. Preventing disturbance of lekking or nesting could reduce stress to grouse from 

human presence, prevent nest abandonment, prevent interruption of lekking activities, prevent the spread 

of invasive, non-native plant species and alteration of some habitat components from the presence of 

invasive plant species, or physiological stress from human presence during sensitive life stages. 

Under Alternative C, Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas and Audubon Important Bird Areas 

would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs, 6,423,370 acres. Impacts from 

this management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from designating all OHV “open” areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat areas as limited to designated roads and trails (not including the sand dune portions of these areas) 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails at a minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete would be the same as 

Alternative B. Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of the perimeter of active Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks would help reduce habitat fragmentation around leks. Buffers around leks can provide 

undisturbed corridors for females to move from the lek to nesting areas. Areas of habitat connectivity are 

imperative for Greater Sage-Grouse survival. Walker et al. (2007) recommends large areas with extensive 

stands of sagebrush of approximately four or more miles around leks to allow breeding populations of 

Greater Sage-Grouse to return to the lek. The availability of large, uninterrupted areas of sagebrush 

habitat for sage-grouse to forage and nest is likely to influence the size of the breeding populations and 

persistence of leks (Swenson et al. 1987, Ellis et al. 1989, Schroeder et al. 1999, Leonard et al. 2000, 

Smith et al. 2005). Prohibiting road construction in these areas will help reduce vehicle collisions with 

grouse, and help prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Road corridors 

are desirable hunting areas for predatory animals; the buffer areas would reduce the threat of predation on 

Greater Sage-Grouse. Avoiding new road construction in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general 

habitat would impact Greater Sage-Grouse as described above where roads were not constructed. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from not upgrading existing routes in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Mitigating impacts using methods that have been 

demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could provide sagebrush 

habitat for future use by Greater Sage-Grouse. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from limiting route 

construction to realignments of existing routes in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would 

be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area, 11,531,340 acres compared to 

5,000,400 acres in Alternative B. Mitigating impacts using methods that have been demonstrated to be 

effective to offset the loss of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could provide sagebrush habitat for future use 

by Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans 

within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater SageGrouse from reseeding closed roads or trails in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-310 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area (priority and general habitat). In addition, 

the use of native seed and transplanted sagebrush could provide additional forage and habitat could 

restore important habitat components for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from not reducing sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% during fuels 

treatment in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, with some exceptions, would be the same 

as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area (priority and general). Impacts to Greater SageGrouse habitat from the use of fuel breaks in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area (priority and general habitat). 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from vegetation treatments in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area (priority and general 

habitat). Mitigating impacts using methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss 

of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could provide sagebrush habitat for future use by Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from not allowing fuels treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

range would be the same as Alternative B.

Avoiding (not conducting) sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would protect sagebrush habitat from removal or 

reduction of priority habitat components critical for Greater Sage-Grouse forage, cover, or breeding. 

Many scientific studies do not recommend sagebrush treatments for forage increase due to the likelihood 

of impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat loss and abandonment of habitat post-treatment (Beck 

and Mitchell 2000, Cagney et al. 2010, Connelly et al. 2000). Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

habitat reclamation in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (2009a) would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Rehabilitating exotic seedings to recover sagebrush in areas to expand Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat could provide Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, forage, and cover within these areas within 15 

to 25 years for sagebrush, but much shorter term for forbs and grasses. Initial treatments could cause 

displacement of Greater Sage-Grouse from human and vehicle activities which could move grouse into 

less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and habitat 

uses. Treated areas are vulnerable to the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Careful monitoring would be necessary to prevent or limit invasive, non-native plant species within the 

treated areas. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from prioritizing restoration projects and the use and allocation of native 

seed within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would also 

encompass Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, a total of 11,531,340 acres. Altering existing seedings of 

perennial grasses where appropriate to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area (11,531,340 

acres). Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed 

production for fire prone areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Including pretreatment data on existing habitat conditions in plans for vegetation treatments would 

provide valuable data when conducting monitoring post-treatment and could lead to improved habitat 

conditions for treated areas. 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. Beck and Mitchell (2000) recommend that seeded areas 

should be rested at least two growing seasons or longer to prevent sagebrush seedlings from being 

trampled by livestock. Rested areas could provide Greater Sage-Grouse with new vegetation for cover 

habitat and forage without competition with livestock during the rest period. Long term monitoring of 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-311

vegetation treatments can provide important data on post-revegetation conditions. Data collected could be 

used in future revegetation projects, could provide feedback on the success or needs for improving of the 

methods being used in revegetation efforts, and document when or if Greater Sage-Grouse returned to the 

area. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the management of wild horses with the consideration of Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

conducting land health assessments for HMAs, and the management of wild horses in priority Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from designing and implementing fuels treatments, the use of prescribed 

fire, and post fuels management in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B (5,000,400 acres), except the management would apply to a larger area (11,531,340 acres). 

Within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, managing lands to be in the good or better 

ecological condition to help minimize adverse impacts of fire could provide vital habitat components for 

sage-grouse forage or cover. Minimizing the impacts of fire could provide protection of sagebrush habitat 

which can take up to 40 years to recover from fire. Managing lands to be in the good or better ecological 

condition could prevent the introduction or spread of invasive, non-native plant species prior to or 

following catastrophic fire events. 

Fuels treatments that focus on interfaces with human habitation or significant existing disturbances within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, could reduce impacts of fuels treatments in other habitat 

where Greater Sage-Grouse are more likely to be found. Fuels treatments resulting in vegetation 

removal, surface disturbance, and the presence of humans, vehicles and equipment may cause less 

disturbance to sage-grouse in areas of human habitation interfaces than if treatments were to occur in 

more remote habitat.

Establishing adequately sized exclosures (free of livestock grazing) for post fire recovery that can be used 

to assess recovery within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat could protect recovering 

habitat from livestock grazing while vegetation is re-establishing. Allowing vegetation to become reestablished without livestock could allow for faster habitat recovery and provide a baseline of how the 

treated area recovers compared to areas within Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat where grazing occurs. 

Excluding or closing areas within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat from livestock grazing 

after prescribed burns could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and until woody and 

herbaceous plants achieve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives would be beneficial to Greater SageGrouse and sagebrush habitat recovery. Resting or closing 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. Beck and Mitchell (2000) 

recommend that seeded areas should be rested at least two growing seasons or longer to prevent 

sagebrush seedlings from being trampled by livestock. 

Mowing of grass in any fuelbreak fuels reduction project (roadsides or other areas) Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority and general habitat could reduce total loss of sagebrush habitat from common fuelbreak 

techniques, which can include bulldozing fire lines. Mowed areas still retain seeds and rooted plants 

which could grow back over time, returning habitat to the area. The disturbance could still fragment 

habitat and cause Greater Sage-Grouse to abandon the area.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from using fire suppression to protect Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would be the same as Alternative B.
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-312 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from managing the level of density of disturbance within Greater SageGrouse connectivity habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from a 

3% limit of disturbance per section (640 acres) when permitting APDs on existing leases within Greater 

Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat areas would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface 

disturbing activity and related activities that are disruptive to Greater Sage-Grouse, including vehicle 

traffic and other human presence during nesting and early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority, general and connectivity habitat could be reduced as compared to Alternative A. Alternative C 

could allow more contiguous, uninterrupted habitat, which could buffer Greater Sage-Grouse from human 

and other disturbance and is necessary for sage-grouse to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete 

their life histories. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from conservation measures within Greater SageGrouse winter concentration areas would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat from limiting noise would be the same as Alternative B.

4.14.6 Alternative D 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

The impacts on special status species resulting from restricting utility structures within Greater SageGrouse core habitat areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except new transmission 

projects would be allowed only within a designated two mile wide transmission corridor and within 0.5 

miles either side of existing 115kV or larger transmission lines. Impacts to special status species habitat 

from new construction within existing ROWs could have impacts to vegetation within the ROW corridors 

where the land within a two mile wide pathway may have been previously disturbed from prior facility 

construction. Special status species that use early successional habitat such as mountain plover, longbilled curlew or white-tailed prairie dog could be impacted by development within an existing corridor. 

Construction activities could disturb other nearby special status species causing species to vacate the area 

and move to lower quality habitat. Moving from desirable habitat can result in stress, mortality or lower 

reproductive rates and offspring survival. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of 

noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the 

original area provided. New utility towers could provide perch sites for raptors and other bird species, but 

power lines may also cause mortality to bats or birds from collisions or electrocution. 

If construction of new ROW corridors were to occur, the resulting fragmentation of formerly intact 

habitat could affect special status species populations by severing migration routes to seasonal habitat 

areas and parturition habitat. New projects would have seasonal stipulations that would help prevent 

disturbance to special status species during those timeframes. Management for construction would 

consider impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and be designed to minimize impacts through 

project design and mitigation. The considerations could reduce the impacts from disturbance and habitat 

loss by habitat avoidance or timing of construction. Surface disturbance from construction of new ROWs 

would remove vegetation resulting in fragmentation of formerly intact habitat. Fragmenting habitat could 

affect special status species populations by severing migration routes or forcing special status species 

away from areas of early seral growth. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious 

weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original 

area provided which could affect special status plant species. 

Impacts to special status species from managing 5,141,340 acres of ROW exclusion areas within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B; however, the density of disturbance limit 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-313

for this alternative is 9%, allowing greater disturbance of habitat from development activities before 

mitigation would be made necessary. 

Allowing Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat to be available for new ROWs or SUAs subject to BMPs, 

with 1,211,030 acres of avoidance areas (1,249,310 fewer acres than Alternative A) could impact special 

status species from direct habitat loss and fragmentation of habitat. If construction of new ROW corridors 

were to occur, the resulting fragmentation of formerly intact habitat could affect special status species 

populations by severing migration routes and loss of habitat. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to 

invasion or spread of non-native plant species and diminish habitat function, can out compete with native 

forage, and prevent the area from restoring with special status, native or desirable plant species. New 

utility towers could provide perch sites for raptors and other bird species, but power lines may also cause 

mortality to bats or birds from collisions or electrocution. 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. However, overhead structures could provide perches for hunting raptors or other 

predatory birds. 

Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in short term disturbance of special status 

species from human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts would be minimal. 

Impacts to special status species from the development of wind energy would be the same as 

Alternative C within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. General Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would 

continue to be open to wind energy development where 980 turbines are expected to be developed, 274 

fewer than Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from the development of wind energy in 

Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat would be reduced compared to Alternative A. The development of 

wind energy could cause habitat loss, and both short and long-term impacts to special status wildlife or 

plants. Large wind energy fields also involve surface disturbance, which could permanently change the 

habitat structure, affecting special status wildlife or plants. Disturbance during installation of towers, 

roads, and infrastructure could force special status wildlife away from habitat. 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. However, overhead structures could provide perches for hunting 

raptors or other predatory birds. These impacts would occur under Alternative D in Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat but to a lesser degree than under Alternative A, due to the reduced number of turbines 

projected to be developed. 

Restrictions on MET towers would have the same impacts to special status species as in Alternative A.

Retaining ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat unless other economic or other benefits are 

determined would affect special status species the same as under Alternative B, unless the parcel was not 

retained. Impacts to special status species from disposal of core habitat would depend on which agency or 

party acquired the land and the type of management was planned for the parcel. 

Impacts to special status species from acquisitions or conservation easements would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Acquiring lands based on a variety of economic resource criteria could have limited effects to special 

status species depending on the lands acquired or exchanged. 

Impacts to special status species from livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A.

Working cooperatively with permittees, leasees, and other landowners to develop grazing management 

strategies on an allotment-by-allotment basis to improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could affect special 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-314 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

status species from possible habitat improvement. It is unknown, however, what level of long-term 

protection of habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each permittee’s, leasee’s or landowner’s 

discretion. If permittees, leasees, or landowners agree to develop grazing management strategies, there 

could be a reduction of habitat loss in sagebrush or Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, or could be seasonal 

closures. 

Impacts to special status species from adjusting livestock grazing management would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from livestock grazing permit renewals would be the same as 

Alternative A. In addition, within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, incorporating site specific sagegrouse habitat objectives could provide habitat components or a greater focus on sagebrush habitat within 

grazing allotments that could provide improved habitat for special status species. 

Impacts to special status species from developing Conservation Plans to meet seasonal Greater SageGrouse habitat requirements in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitats would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from authorizing retirement of grazing allotments in Greater SageGrouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative A, although under Alternative D, a limit of 15% of 

a planning unit would constrain how much land could be retired or rested. Temporary use of retired 

allotments to rest other allotments could allow sagebrush habitat in those rested allotments time to restore 

and provide greater habitat and forage values for special status species. 

Impacts to special status species from considering drought conditions in livestock grazing management 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from evaluating range improvements would be the same as 

Alternative B, but would also apply to Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat as well as core/priority 

habitat. 

Impacts to special status species from livestock trailing management would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to special status species from riparian area management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from water developments would be the same as Alternative A, but would 

apply to the entire planning area. 

Impacts to special status species from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, there would be 964,860 acres administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, 

93,080 more acres as compared to Alternative A; and 15,769 wells are predicted to be developed, 642 

fewer than under Alternative A. Impacts to special status species would be similar to Alternative A, but 

would occur within fewer acres, reducing impacts from habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, vegetation 

removal, soil loss and erosion, noise, human disturbance, or the introduction of invasive, non-native plant 

species such as cheatgrass, which can alter the composition of native species, and lead to the loss of 

forage and cover for special status species. 

Impacts to special status species from geophysical operations would be the same as Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-315

Impacts to special status species from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to 

special status species from working with proponents holding valid existing leases would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from working with project proponents (including those within 

BLM/Forest Service) to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive resources would 

be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from using unitization would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership 

(federal surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from coal lease development and exploration would be the same as 

Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 234,230 acres would be closed to non-energy, solid leasable mineral 

leasing, the same as Alternative A. In addition, mitigation measures in project planning could provide 

some type of protection to sagebrush habitat or special status species. Possible measures could reduce 

initial disturbance, provide rehabilitation of sites, and/or create other areas sagebrush habitat. Allowing 

projects that meet compliance of surface occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations could reduce 

fragmentation of habitat, and may reduce other impacts from surface disturbance or habitat fragmentation 

from using existing infrastructure. 

Impacts to special status species from locatable and salable mineral activities would be the same as 

Alternative A and 1,677,420 acres would be closed (withdrawn) for locatable minerals and 274,860 acres 

would be closed for salable minerals, the same as Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from 

salable mineral pits would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to special status species from approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation Special Use 

Authorizations would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from managing open OHV areas would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from limiting motorized travel to existing roads and trails would be the 

same as Alternative A.

New road construction would avoid areas within 0.25 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater SageGrouse leks within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, the same as Alternative A. The management would 

provide minimal buffer distances for special status species that use lek or sagebrush habitat such as swift 

fox, long-billed curlew, mountain plover, and burrowing owl from the presence and construction activities 

of roads. This alternative provides the smallest buffer distance and the least protection of the action 

alternatives to special status species from the impacts from the building and presence of roads within 

Greater Sage-Grouse lek habitat. Road construction can create barriers in migration corridors, 

fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction. Human presence and 

vehicles may force special status species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable 

habitat. Collisions of special status species with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed 

within wildlife habitat. Road corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals to hunt, such as 

ferruginous hawk and swift fox, but these areas may be avoided by prey species, such as pygmy rabbit or 

white-tailed prairie dog, which may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. 

Impacts to special status species from upgrading roads would be the same as Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-316 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Allowing natural deterioration of roads not designated in travel management plans within Greater SageGrouse core and general habitat could prevent effects from short-term impacts during reclamation efforts, 

such as displacement from human and vehicle activities, which could move special status species into less 

desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and uses. 

Vehicle routes are vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds which could spread during the natural 

deterioration of the road. 

Natural reseeding within Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat would allow for succession of 

native plant species to revegetate undesignated roads or routes. In Greater Sage-Grouse core and general 

habitat, many areas would naturally reseed with Wyoming big sagebrush, or other sagebrush species, and 

associated forbs and grasses. Natural reseeding could be effective if there is enough precipitation to allow 

germination of the seedbank, and the area is not already dominated by invasive, non-native plant species 

(WGFD 2010, Lambert 2005). Special status species could benefit long term from the regrowth of 

sagebrush habitat for habitat and forage. 

Within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, managing for vegetation composition and structure that reflects 

the desired plant community or comparable standard would affect special status species the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from vegetation treatments for sagebrush habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat would be the same as described in Alternative A. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A 

would support more specific reclamation of sagebrush habitats, and could allow for more effective 

restoration of functional habitat for special status species. Working collaboratively with partners to 

maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could provide additional resources to apply to 

sagebrush management and could affect sagebrush obligate special status species with enhanced habitat 

and forage. A 9% disturbance cap could further prevent habitat loss and disturbance to special status 

species. Mitigation to offset exceeding the nine percent cap could provide habitat for special status 

species, but revegetation of effective sagebrush habitat can take 15 or more years, depending on soil 

conditions, climate and weather, viability of seed and/or transplants, and ongoing maintenance to prevent 

invasive, non-native plant species from taking over the area. 

Treated areas that are not rested from livestock grazing may not provide time for effective seed 

germination and growth. In areas where vegetation is protected, plants regenerate faster and can spread 

more effectively (Shaw et al. 2005). Within sagebrush habitat, grazed areas do not regenerate as densely 

as ungrazed areas, which could be as a result of trampling (Shaw et al. 2005). Impacts to special status 

species could be habitat loss or fragmentation, or displacement which could lead to successful relocation 

if nearby habitat is available, or a move to lower quality habitat where survival or reproduction could be 

diminished from physiological stress or lack of forage and cover (Blickley et al. 2012). 

Impacts to special status species from reclamation of sage-grouse habitat would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from weed-free seed and mulch, desirable non-native species or sterile 

perennials, or reclaiming to native site plant composition for reclamation projects would be the same as 

Alternative A. In addition, under Alternative D within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, the use of native 

and non-native plant seeds would benefit special status species and could provide additional habitat for 

forage and cover. Short-term impacts to special status species could occur from restoration activities from 

human and vehicle presence, noise, surface disturbance or longer term impacts of the possible 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Where restoration activities were 

successful, additional sagebrush habitat could benefit special status species. Giving priority for 

implementing specific the use of native seeds or other non-native seeds based on the probability of 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-317

success or benefits to special status species habitats could allow for effective restoration of sagebrush 

habitat. Attempting to use native seeds not only provides appropriate vegetation for the climate and 

conditions, the use also can prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species 

which can alter habitat and render it unusable to special status species. Non-native seeds can provide 

cover while native vegetation is being established and are also helpful in preventing the spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species. 

Impacts to special status species from habitat restoration projects in annual grassland would be the same 

as Alternative B 

Impacts to special status species from grasshopper and cricket control would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from wild horse population management would be the same as 

Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from prioritizing appropriate management levels (AML) 

in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species 

from prioritizing and conducting land health assessments in BLM HMAs in Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to special status species from rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland fires would be the same 

as Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire 

suppression techniques would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to from using fire suppression 

techniques and AMR would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from the use of monitoring plans would be the same as Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, management would not allow more than three locations of energy production to 

occur within 640 acres. In addition, the combined value of the disturbance (existing and proposed) may 

not exceed nine percent loss of sagebrush habitat. Allowing a density of three energy production 

facilities/structures per 640 acres could displace special status species, and the possible long-term habitat 

deterioration could eliminate potential habitat that may provide refuge for wildlife species displaced from 

current territories. Conversion of large areas to early seral stage vegetation or cheatgrass could occur as 

well pads are reclaimed. Conversion of large expanses to early seral vegetation could result in additional 

habitat loss from large plant cover, but could increase desired browse vegetation for special status species. 

The spread of cheatgrass or other invasive, non-native plant species could diminish habitat quality and 

availability of native plant species for forage and cover. In addition, not including other disturbances such 

as coal and trona mines, and buried pipelines and power lines in the density calculations would, in some 

cases where these sites occur, increase actual disturbance density above three per 640 acres and further 

increase impacts to special status species. 

For connectivity areas, impacts from management under Alternative D would be the same as described 

above, except there is no limitation to the number of disruptive activities per 640 acres, but the combined 

nine percent limit of disturbance per 640 acres would be in effect. 

Impacts to special status species from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A, but would 

apply to Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. The 9% disturbance threshold would limit the level of 

disturbance within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat; however, the impacts to special status species from 

disturbance would not change. 

Impacts from implementing restrictions on surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy within 0.25 

miles of lek habitat (Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat), would be similar to 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-318 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

those described under Alternative A (excluding Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek). Under this 

alternative, habitat fragmentation is likely to continue and habitat effectiveness would be decreased. The 

greater the impacts to sagebrush habitat from oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activity, the greater the 

impacts to sagebrush obligate and other sagebrush dependent species from habitat loss and disturbance 

from human activity, noise and invasive, non-native plant species. Special status plant species that are 

found within sagebrush habitat include divergent wild buckwheat, Ownbey’s thistle, narrow-leafed 

bladderpod, and Swallen Mountain ricegrass. Special status plant species could be impacted by vegetation 

loss or damage, erosion and soil loss, and the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species. 

Applying seasonal restrictions on surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity during nesting and early 

brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat could protect habitat 

within two miles of a lek and the special status species which use or occur within the identified area 

during March 15 to June 30. This management could allow for fewer disturbances to special status 

species from noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, and the introduction and spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species, which can force special status wildlife to move from high quality 

habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity areas from November 15 to 

March 14 would affect special status species as described under Alternative A.

Implementing the strategies and techniques outlined in Appendix F for predators would provide 

protection to special status prey species, such as white-tailed prairie dog, Idaho pocket gopher, or pygmy 

rabbit by removing habitat and attractive areas where predators feed and hunt. Some of these areas, such 

as perching sites and edge habitat (roads and development sites), are associated with oil and gas 

development and can be an additional factor to the disruption of special status wildlife habitat. Reducing 

non-native or over-populated predators could allow for native predators such as swift fox or hawk species 

to have less competition from those predators considered pest species (WGFD 2005d). 

Impacts to special status species from noise minimization would be the same as Alternative A.

Greater Sage-Grouse–Alternative D 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Restricting utility structures within Greater Sage-Grouse core and connectivity habitat areas would be 

similar to those identified in Alternative A, except new transmission projects would be allowed only 

within a designated 2-mile wide transmission corridor and within 0.5 miles either side of existing 115kV 

or larger transmission lines. Where existing ROWs occur, disturbance to important sagebrush habitat 

would likely be minimal due to the conditions of ROW corridors where the land has been previously 

disturbed from prior facility construction. Construction activities could disturb Greater Sage-Grouse if 

they were to occur within two miles of occupied habitat, possibly causing birds to vacate the area into 

lower quality habitat. Seasonal stipulations prohibiting construction within lekking (March 15 to June 30) 

and winter concentration areas (December 1 to June 30) could allow less disturbance to Greater SageGrouse during these timeframes, and could prevent abandonment of critical habitat areas. Disturbed areas 

would be more vulnerable to invasion or spread of non-native plant species and diminish habitat function, 

can out compete with native forage, and prevent the area from restoring with native or desirable plant 

species. Utility towers could provide perch sites for raptors that prey on Greater Sage-Grouse, possibly 

resulting in increased predation. In addition, if grouse experience or perceive a greater threat of 

harassment and/or predation, they might avoid areas with overhead structures. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-319

If new transmission projects were constructed in areas where it is demonstrated that declines in Greater 

Sage-Grouse would not be caused, impacts could be minimal to Greater Sage-Grouse. Management for 

construction would consider impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse populations and be designed to minimize 

impacts through project design and mitigation. The considerations could reduce the impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse from disturbance and habitat loss by habitat avoidance or timing of construction. 

Construction of new transmission projects could cause vegetation loss, habitat degradation, and invasion 

of exotic plant species. If construction of new ROW corridors were to occur, the resulting fragmentation 

of formerly intact habitat could affect Greater Sage-Grouse populations by severing migration routes to 

seasonal habitat areas, such as winter habitat and nesting or early brood rearing areas. Disturbed areas 

would be more vulnerable to invasion or spread of non-native plant species and diminish habitat function, 

can out compete with native forage, and prevent the area from restoring with native or desirable plant 

species. Utility towers could provide perch sites for raptors that prey on Greater Sage-Grouse, possibly 

resulting in increased predation or could cause mortality from collisions or electrocution. If grouse 

experience or perceive a greater threat of harassment and/or predation, they could avoid areas with 

overhead structures. 

There would be 5,141,340 acres of ROW exclusion areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, 

4,855,410 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as 

Alternative B; however, the density of disturbance limit for this alternative is 9%, allowing greater 

disturbance of habitat from development activities before mitigation would be made necessary. Allowing 

Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat to be available for new ROWs or SUAs subject to BMPs, with 

1,211,030 acres of avoidance areas (1,249,310 fewer acres than Alternative A) could impact Greater 

Sage-Grouse from direct habitat loss and fragmentation of habitat. If construction of new ROW corridors 

were to occur, the resulting fragmentation of formerly intact habitat could affect Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations by severing migration routes to seasonal habitat areas such as winter habitat and nesting or 

early brood rearing areas. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion or spread of non-native 

plant species and diminish habitat function, can out compete with native forage, and prevent the area from 

restoring with native or desirable plant species. Utility towers could provide perch sites for raptors that 

prey on Greater Sage-Grouse, possibly resulting in increased predation or could cause mortality from 

collisions or electrocution. If grouse experience or perceive a greater threat of harassment and/or 

predation, they could avoid areas with overhead structures. Maintenance and upgrades of existing 

structures could result in short term disturbance of Greater Sage-Grouse from human and vehicle activity, 

but long term impacts would be minimal. 

The development of wind energy would be prohibited within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, 5,000,400 

acres, 4,563,280 more acres as compared to Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the 

same as Alternative C for areas closed to wind energy development. General Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would continue to be open to wind energy development where 980 of turbines are expected to be 

developed. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse to the development of wind energy in Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat would be reduced compared to Alternative A. The development of wind energy would 

cause habitat loss, and both short and long-term impacts to habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. Disturbance 

during installation of towers, roads, and infrastructure could force Greater Sage-Grouse away from habitat 

within at least 0.25 miles of the construction. 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 al. 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 al. 2011). 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. These impacts 

could occur under Alternative D in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat but to a lesser degree than under 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-320 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative A, due to the reduced number of turbines projected to be developed. Restrictions on MET 

towers would have the same impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse as in Alternative A.

Retaining ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat unless other economic or other benefits are 

determined would affect Greater Sage-Grouse the same as Alternative B, unless the parcel was not 

retained. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from disposal of core habitat would depend on which agency or 

party acquired the land and the type of management was planned for the parcel. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from acquisitions or conservation easements would be the same as 

Alternative A. Acquiring lands based on a variety of economic resource criteria could have limited effects 

to Greater Sage-Grouse depending on the lands acquired or exchanged. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A. 

Working cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners to develop grazing management 

strategies on an allotment-by-allotment basis to improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could affect Greater 

Sage-Grouse from possible habitat improvement. It is unknown, however, what level of long-term 

protection of habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each permittee’s, leasee’s or landowner’s 

discretion. If permittees, leases, or landowners agree to develop grazing management strategies, there 

could be a reduction of habitat loss in sagebrush or Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, or could be seasonal 

closures. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from adjusting livestock grazing management would be the same as 

Alternative A; in addition, prioritizing oversight and effectiveness monitoring of grazing activities could 

ensure that ongoing permit compliance and Wyoming Land Health Standards are being met and that 

habitat and cover is being maintained and available for Greater Sage-Grouse. Impacts to Greater SageGrouse from livestock grazing permit renewals would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, within 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, incorporating site specific sage-grouse habitat objectives could provide 

habitat components or a greater focus on sagebrush habitat within grazing allotments. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from developing Conservation Plans to meet seasonal Greater SageGrouse habitat requirements in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitats would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from authorizing retirement of grazing allotments in Greater SageGrouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative A, although under Alternative D, a limit of 15% of 

a planning unit would constrain how much land could be retired or rested. Temporary use of retired 

allotments to rest other allotments could allow sagebrush habitat in those rested allotments time to restore 

and provide greater habitat and forage values for Greater Sage-Grouse. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse 

from considering drought conditions in livestock grazing management would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from evaluating range improvements would be the same as 

Alternative B, but would also apply to Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat as well as core/priority 

habitat. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock trailing management would be the same as 

Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from riparian area management would be the same as 

Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from water developments would be the same as 

Alternative A, but would apply to the entire planning area. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Impacts from oil and gas leasing would be similar to those described under Alternative A; however they 

would occur within fewer acres, reducing the overall impacts to special status species. Slightly fewer 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-321

wells, 15,769, are predicted to be drilled under Alternative D as compared to Alternative A; 642 fewer 

than Alternative A. Under Alternative D, there would be 964,860 acres administratively unavailable to oil 

and gas leasing, 93,080 more acres as compared to Alternative A. A lower number of acres would be 

disturbed over the short and long term under Alternative D as compared to Alternative A (4,039 acres 

fewer short term, 1,026 acres fewer long term). Exceptions to lease stipulations, conditions of approval 

(COAs) and terms of conditions (T&Cs) considered on a case-by-case basis for Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in all field offices could allow impacts to sagebrush and Greater Sage-Grouse if oil and gas 

development were to occur near important habitat areas. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

geophysical operations would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from working with proponents holding valid existing leases would be the same as 

Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from working with project proponents (including those 

within BLM/Forest Service) to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive resources 

would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from using unitization would be the 

same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership 

(federal surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from coal lease development and exploration would be the same as 

Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 234,230 acres are closed to non-energy, solid leasable mineral 

leasing, the same as Alternative A. Applying Criterion 15 upon receipt of a coal lease application in 

Greater Sage-Grouse core areas to determine that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not 

have a significant long-term impact on the Greater Sage-Grouse could prevent or reduce impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from coal development. If special conditions are required as identified during the 

leasing process to protect Greater Sage-Grouse resources, additional steps could be taken to reduce 

impacts such as noise, surface disturbance, fragmentation of habitat from roads or other linear features, or 

the spread of invasive, non-native plant species—all of which could force Greater Sage-Grouse to 

abandon habitat. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from non-energy leasable minerals would be the same as Alternative A. 

In addition, mitigation measures in project planning could provide some type of protection to sagebrush 

habitat or Greater Sage-Grouse. Possible measures could reduce initial disturbance, provide rehabilitation 

of sites, and/or create other areas sagebrush habitat. Allowing projects that meet compliance of surface 

occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations could reduce fragmentation of habitat, and may 

reduce other impacts from surface disturbance or habitat fragmentation from using existing infrastructure. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from locatable and salable mineral activities would be the same as 

Alternative A and 1,677,420 acres would be closed (withdrawn) for locatable and 274,860 acres would be 

closed for salable, the same as Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from salable mineral pits 

would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs would be the 

same as Alternative A, and impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from managing open OHV areas would be 

the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails would be the same as Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-322 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

New road construction would avoid areas within 0.25 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater SageGrouse leks within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, the same as Alternative A. The management would 

provide buffer distances for Greater Sage-Grouse from the presence and construction activities of roads, 

but not a sufficient buffer distance to prevent population declines from the presence of roads and 

disruptive activity (Walker et al. 2007). Holloran (2005) determined that 1.9 miles from a main haul road 

was the minimum distance from leks where population declines did not occur, depending on traffic 

volume. Lower volume roads require a buffer distance recommended by Holloran (2005) of 0.6 miles, 

which is greater than the proposed 0.25 buffer distance for all new roads under Alternative D. Increased 

predation and collisions with vehicles are other threats to Greater Sage-Grouse from new road 

construction. Habitat loss and the barrier of the road could further impact sage-grouses’ ability to migrate 

from leks to nesting and early brood rearing habitat. Availability of edge habitat from roads for predators 

within 0.25 miles of occupied leks could increase the threat of predation. Collisions of Greater SageGrouse with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

This alternative provides the smallest buffer distance and the least protection of the action alternatives to 

protect Greater Sage-Grouse from the impacts from the building and presence of roads within lek habitat. 

Road upgrades within Greater Sage-Grouse core and priority habitat could cause vegetation loss, habitat 

degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species. Upgrades would not create new linear disturbances, so 

new threats of fragmentation of formerly intact habitat would likely not affect Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations by severing migration routes to seasonal habitat areas the way new road construction would. 

Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion or spread of non-native plant species and diminish 

habitat function, can out compete with native forage, and prevent the area from restoring with native or 

desirable plant species. Human presence, vehicles, and equipment would cause disturbance and noise, 

which could force Greater Sage-Grouse to abandon the area either temporarily or permanently. Habitat 

abandonment could lead to successful relocation if nearby habitat is available, or a move to lower quality 

habitat where survival or reproduction could be diminished from physiological stress or lack of forage 

and cover (Blickley et al. 2012). 

Allowing natural deterioration of roads not designated in travel management plans within Greater SageGrouse core and general habitat could prevent effects to Greater Sage-Grouse from human presence, 

vehicles, and equipment during reclamation efforts. Disturbed areas and vehicle routes are vulnerable to 

invasion of noxious weeds, which could spread during the natural deterioration of the road. Natural 

deterioration could allow for continued reclamation from surrounding plant species, which in Greater 

Sage-Grouse core and general habitat would likely be Wyoming big sagebrush, or other sagebrush species 

and associated forbs and grasses. 

Natural reseeding within Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat would allow for succession of 

native plant species to revegetate undesignated roads or routes. In Greater Sage-Grouse core and general 

habitat, many areas would naturally reseed with Wyoming big sagebrush, or other sagebrush species, and 

associated forbs and grasses. Natural reseeding could be effective if there is enough precipitation to allow 

germination of the seedbank, and the area is not already dominated by invasive, non-native plant species 

(WGFD 2010c, Lambert 2005). Greater Sage-Grouse could benefit long term from the regrowth of 

sagebrush habitat for habitat and forage. 

Within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, managing for vegetation composition and structure that reflects 

the desired plant community or comparable standard would affect Greater Sage-Grouse the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from vegetation treatments for sagebrush habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat would be the same as described in Alternative A. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A 

would support more specific reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, and could allow 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-323

for more effective restoration of functional habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. If the protocol is followed, 

soil erosion and introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could be minimized and the landscape 

could be reclaimed to the original habitat components and structure to the extent possible. While the 

initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, sagebrush habitat could be restored over the long term; 

although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original conditions 

due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may also provide 

opportunities for invasive plant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to restore 

sagebrush habitat with native species in some areas. Working collaboratively with partners to maintain 

and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could provide additional resources to apply to sagebrush 

management and could affect Greater Sage-Grouse with enhanced habitat and forage. A 9% disturbance 

cap could further prevent habitat loss and disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse. Mitigation to offset 

exceeding the nine percent cap could provide habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, but revegetation of 

effective sagebrush habitat can take ten or more years, depending on soil conditions, climate and weather, 

viability of seed and/or transplants, and ongoing maintenance to prevent invasive, non-native plant 

species from taking over the area. 

Treated areas that are not rested from livestock grazing may not provide time for effective seed 

germination and growth. In areas where vegetation is protected, plants regenerate faster and can spread 

more effectively (Shaw et al. 2005). Within sagebrush habitat, grazed areas do not regenerate as densely 

as ungrazed areas, which could be as a result of trampling (Shaw et al. 2005). Impacts to Greater SageGrouse could be habitat loss or fragmentation, or displacement, which could lead to successful relocation 

if nearby habitat is available, or a move to lower quality habitat where survival or reproduction could be 

diminished from physiological stress or lack of forage and cover (Blickley et al. 2012). Impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse from reclamation of sage-grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from weed-free seed and mulch, desirable non-native species or sterile 

perennials, or reclaiming to native site plant composition for reclamation projects would be the same as 

Alternative A. In addition, under Alternative D within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, the use of native 

and non-native plant seeds would benefit Greater Sage-Grouse and could provide additional habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse forage and cover. Short-term impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse could occur from 

restoration activities from human and vehicle presence, noise, surface disturbance or longer term impacts 

of the possible introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Where restoration activities 

were successful, additional sagebrush habitat would benefit Greater Sage-Grouse. Giving priority for 

implementing specific the use of native seeds or other non-native seeds based on the probability of 

success or benefits to Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could allow for effective restoration of sagebrush and 

eventual Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Attempting to use native seeds not only provides appropriate 

vegetation for the climate and conditions, the use also can prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species that can alter habitat and render it unusable to Greater Sage-Grouse. Non-native 

seeds can provide cover while native vegetation is being established and are also helpful in preventing the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species that can alter habitat and render it unusable to Greater SageGrouse. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat restoration projects in annual grassland would be 

the same as Alternative B 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from grasshopper and cricket control would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from wild horse population management would be the same as 

Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from prioritizing AMLs and prioritizing and conducting 

land health assessments in BLM HMAs in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-324 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland fires, using wildland 

fire, prescribed fire, fire suppression techniques, and AMR would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the use of monitoring plans would be the same as Alternative B.

Within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, management would not allow more than three locations of 

energy production to occur within 640 acres. In addition, the combined value of the disturbance (existing 

and proposed) may not exceed nine percent loss of sagebrush habitat. Holloran’s (2005) study showed 

that the number of males on leks declined when the density of wells reached more than five wells within 

1.9 miles; and when density was between one and three wells per 1.9 miles, numbers of male birds on 

leks did not decline. The density of disruptive activities under Alternative D for Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat would allow for greater density of disturbance as compared with Alternative B, and would exceed 

the recommended density of disturbance by Holloran (2005) and Walker et al. (2007). 

Allowing a density of three energy production facilities/structures per 640 acres could displace Greater 

Sage-Grouse, and the possible long-term habitat deterioration could eliminate potential habitat that may 

provide refuge for Greater Sage-Grouse displaced from current territories. Conversion of large areas to 

early seral stage vegetation or cheatgrass could occur as well pads are reclaimed. Conversion of large 

expanses to early seral vegetation could result in additional habitat loss and the resulting population 

decline of Greater Sage-Grouse if this occurred within severe winter range or nesting habitat (Doherty et 

al. 2008; Holloran et al. 2005). In addition, female Greater Sage-Grouse are known to have a high fidelity 

to their natal nesting habitat; it could be 5–9 years before the nesting population response to a gas field 

development is realized (Holloran 2005). Yearling female Greater Sage-Grouse displaced from their natal 

habitat have been found to have a lower nest initiation rate than those that remained, perhaps because of 

unfamiliarity with the habitat (Kaiser 2006). Over time, female Greater Sage-Grouse chose nest sites 

farther from active drilling rigs and producing gas wells, suggesting a long-term avoidance of active 

natural gas developments (Holloran 2005). Inglefinger (2001) found that for lands within 328 feet of a 

road or well pad, the density of sagebrush obligate birds drops by 50% regardless of the amount of 

activity on the road. Not including other disturbances such as coal and trona mines, and buried pipelines 

and power lines in the density calculations would, in some cases where these sites occur, increase actual 

disturbance density above three per 640 acres and further increase impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse and 

their habitat. 

For connectivity areas, impacts from management under Alternative D would be the same as described 

above, except there is no limitation to the number of disruptive activities per 640 acres, but the combined 

nine percent limit of disturbance per 640 acres would be in effect. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A, but would 

apply to Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. In addition, conducting mitigation within the same population 

area where the impact occurs if possible could provide habitat components for Greater Sage-Grouse in 

proximity to the population impacted by the development. The initial mitigation disturbance could result 

in habitat loss, sagebrush habitat could be restored over the long term; although some areas of habitat, 

such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original conditions due to the composition and size 

of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may also provide opportunities for invasive plant species 

(e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to restore sagebrush habitat with native species in some 

areas. Mitigation to offset exceeding the nine percent cap could provide habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

but revegetation of effective sagebrush habitat can take 10 or more years, depending on soil conditions, 

climate and weather, viability of seed and/or transplants, and ongoing maintenance to prevent invasive, 

non-native plant species from taking over the area. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-325

Impacts from implementing restrictions on surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy within 0.25 

miles of lek habitat (Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat), would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A (excluding Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek). Under this 

alternative, habitat fragmentation is likely to continue and habitat effectiveness would be decreased. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from applying seasonal restrictions from March 15 to June 30 on surface 

disturbing and/or disruptive activity during nesting and early brood-rearing season in Greater SageGrouse core, general, and connectivity habitat could prevent disturbance two miles of a lek during their 

sensitive nesting and early brooding period. This management could allow for fewer disturbances to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from noise, human presence, vehicles, and machinery, protecting nesting success 

and the development of young grouse (Blickley et al. 2012). Disturbance could cause females to abandon 

their nests, or move to less desirable/lower quality habitat for nesting. Moving to lower quality habitat 

and/or nest abandonment can result in lower reproductive success and lead to the further decrease in 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity areas from November 15 to 

March 14 would affect Greater Sage-Grouse as described under Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from minimizing impacts from predators are the same as Alternative A. 

In addition, implementing the strategies and techniques outlined in Appendix F for predators could 

provide more protection to Greater Sage-Grouse by removing habitat and attractive areas where predators 

feed and hunt; possibly reducing the threat of predation. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from noise minimization would be the same as Alternative A.

4.14.7 Alternative E 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Impacts to special status species from development of transmission projects would be the same as 

Alternative D. In addition, including transmission lines outside of transmission corridors in the 5% 

disturbance calculation could affect special status species from habitat loss and fewer disruptions in 

habitat connectivity. Disturbance and development can create travel or migration barriers which can alter 

distribution patterns, increasing stress, energy loss, and fitness for special status species. 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. Buffer distances of 0.6 

miles from occupied leks could prevent perceived or actual threats to special status species from overhead 

predation from raptors or other predatory birds. Seasonal restrictions and buffer distances for agricultural 

and residential electrical distribution lines surface occupancy and surface disturbing activity within 0.6 

miles from an occupied lek, or within March 15 to June 30 could provide special status species some 

protection from habitat loss and disturbance. 

Issuing new ROWs or SUAs outside of existing designated ROW corridors could result in future 

disturbing activities; however constraints, density limitations, demonstrating no declines, and other 

protective measures could reduce the impacts to special status species from habitat loss, disturbance, 

fragmentation, predation, and results of linear corridor development. 

Within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, there would be 285,930 acres of ROW exclusion areas, the same as 

in Alternative A. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-326 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to special status species from removal, modifying or burying existing power lines, reclaiming 

linear features such as roads or fences would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from wind energy development would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts to special status species from MET towers would be the same as Alternative A, but would be 

applied to all Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. There would be additional restrictions to wires for MET 

tower supports, which would provide additional protection to special status prey species by preventing the 

perching of raptors and marking collision obstacles. A larger buffer distance of two miles from active leks 

for new temporary MET towers could reduce the perceived and actual threat of overhead predation to 

small special status species. 

Impacts to special status species from retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from identifying areas where 

acquisitions or conservation easements for Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could occur would be the 

same as Alternative B.

Utilizing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitats could provide habitat management for Greater Sage-Grouse on 

parcels acquired by BLM/Forest Service. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the evaluation of non-mineral withdrawals for consistency with 

Greater Sage-Grouse conservation would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to special status species from working cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other 

landowners to develop grazing management strategies would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to 

special status species from management of rangelands, vegetation, and livestock grazing would be the 

same as Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from livestock grazing permit renewals would be 

the same as Alternative D. Impacts to special status species from evaluating land health standards to 

evaluate land health standards in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could identify where lands are or are 

not meeting standards. This could lead to future improvements to sagebrush or other habitat desirable to 

special status species. Impacts to special status species from authorizing retirement of grazing allotments 

in Greater Sage-Grouse core would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from 

considering drought conditions in livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to special status species from livestock trailing management would be the same as Alternative C. 

Impacts to special status species from managing livestock grazing in riparian/wetland habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species habitat from water development would be the 

same as Alternative A, but would apply to all Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. 

Impacts to special status species from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Under Alternative E, there would be 892,090 acres administratively unavailable to oil, gas and CBNG 

leasing, the same as Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from oil and gas leasing would be the 

same as those described under Alternative A. Applying a minimum lease size could provide a more 

contiguous, uninterrupted habitat which could allow for unfragmented migration pathways between 

habitat areas, and could protect special status species from human presence and other disturbance or 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-327

disruptive activities. Impacts to special status species habitat from geophysical exploration would be the 

same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to 

special status species from working with proponents holding valid existing leases would be the same as 

Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from working with project proponents (including those 

within BLM/Forest Service) to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive resources 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from considering or encouraging Master Development Plans and 

unitization within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to 

special status species from requiring reclamation bonds would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to special status species from CBNG produced water would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species habitat from applying conservation measures to split-estate land 

ownership (federal surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from coal surface mining would be the same as Alternative D. Impacts to 

special status species from coal surface and underground mining and coal exploration would be the same 

as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from leasing non-energy leasable minerals would be the same as 

Alternative D. Impacts to special status species from locatable mineral activities and salable mineral pits 

would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from salable mineral activities 

would be the same as Alternative A. 

Approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs would be the same as Alternative A; however, in 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, those impacts would have to be mitigated for permits to be approved. 

Mitigation actions could be reduction of noise and habitat disturbance, re-locating an event or changing 

the time when and event could occur—all of which could reduce disturbance or disruption to special 

status species. 

Impacts to special status species from not designating new ACECs/SIAs for Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation would be the same as Alternative D. 

Impacts to special status species from OHV “open” areas would be the same as Alternative B, except for 

the Poison Spider OHV Park, which would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from limiting motorized travel would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from avoiding areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks for 

new and primary roads, and 0.6 miles for other new roads would be similar to Alternative B. These areas 

are not prohibited from construction; roads could be built inside the buffers if deemed appropriate, which 

would impact the special status species inhabiting those areas. Road construction can create barriers in 

migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction. Human 

presence and vehicles may force special status species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-328 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

habitat. Road corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, but these areas may be avoided by prey 

species which may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. 

Impacts to special status species from road upgrades would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from limiting route construction to realignments of existing routes in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species 

habitat from restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans within Greater SageGrouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species habitat from 

reseeding closed roads or trails in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to special status species habitat from using ESD potential vegetation composition and structure 

within Sage-Grouse core and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would apply to a 

larger area (Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat–11,531,340 acres) than Alternative B 

(5,000,400 acres). 

Impacts to special status species habitat from vegetation treatments that would not reduce sagebrush 

canopy cover to less than 15% in nesting and winter habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B. Limiting this to northeast Wyoming could ensure that this management would 

be appropriate to the conditions inherent to the local environment and could allow for effective results 

from vegetation treatments and providing varied structure of sagebrush habitat. 

Impacts to special status species from vegetation treatments for sagebrush habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat would be the same as described in Alternative D.

Reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (2009a) 

would provide sufficient restoration of habitat following oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activities, 

the same as Alternative A. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A could guide the specific reclamation of 

Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, providing restoration of habitat for special status species, 

and soil erosion or introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could be minimized. Special status 

plant species could be protected from vegetation loss or damage, erosion and soil loss, and the 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. The landscape would be reclaimed to the 

original habitat components and structure to the extent possible. While the initial disturbance would result 

in habitat loss, some sagebrush habitat could be restored over the long term; although some areas of 

habitat, such as Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original conditions due 

to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may also provide 

opportunities for invasive plant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to restore 

sagebrush habitat with native species in some areas. The use of Appendix A for vegetation treatments 

would provide the same benefits for sagebrush habitat. 

Impacts to special status species from resting treated areas from grazing would be the same as 

Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from restoration of sagebrush habitat would be the same 

as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from the use of native and non-native plants and seeds 

would be the same as Alternative D. Impacts to special status species from managing post ES&R and 

BAER areas and altering existing seedings would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from giving priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat 

restoration and establishing seed harvest areas would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special 

status species from vegetation treatment planning would be the same as Alternative C.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-329

Impacts to special status species from grasshopper and cricket control would be the same as 

Alternative A; however, working collaboratively with partner agencies to maintain and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could reduce the effects to special status species 

from treatment for insects. 

Impacts to special status species from wild horse management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to special status species from designing and implementing fuels treatments within Greater SageGrouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from restoring 

and recovering burned areas and fuels treatments within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the 

same as Alternative B and impacts to special status species from managing post fuels management areas 

within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would also be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special 

status species using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire suppression techniques would be the same as 

Alternative A. Impacts to special status species from fire suppression within Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to special status species from the use of monitoring 

plans within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Under Alternative E, the BLM and Forest Service could limit the density of oil and gas or mining 

activities to no more than an average one disruptive activity to occur within 640 acres within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat; the combined value of surface disturbance (existing and proposed) may not 

exceed 5% loss. This level of density and development could allow for a minimal amount of disturbance 

of special status species from disruptive activities and prevent decreases in populations from displacement 

and habitat loss and fragmentation. For Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, all surface disturbance 

(any program area) would be limited to no more than 5% of the Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat per 640 

acres using the DDCT process described in Appendix I. For connectivity areas, density of development 

could exceed one within 640 acres in these areas. Leks have been shown to go inactive when well pad 

densities exceed one per 640 acres. Managing for density of disturbance could provide for greater habitat 

connectivity for special status species, but doesn’t reduce the density as much as Alternative B, and 

Alternative A does not have management to restrict density within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. The 5% 

disturbance cap in Alternative E is based on using the DDCT calculation method, which is a more finescale process. The 3% disturbance cap is based on the Knick et al 2013 disturbance calculation model that 

is based on a larger landscape area of disturbance. As a result the 5% disturbance cap using the DDCT 

method actually translates into a 2-3% disturbance using the Knick model methodology. Due to the 

different calculation methodologies between the WY DDCT method and the Knick, 2013 disturbance 

calculation presented in the COT report; the actual percent represented are not that different between 

Alternative B and E. 

Impacts to special status species from using mitigation would be the same as described in Alternative A. 

Under Alternative E, surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy would be prohibited within 0.6 

miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks inside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity 

habitat areas, which could protect up to 304,970 acres of habitat. This alternative could protect up to 

236,420 more acres of habitat for special status species habitat than Alternative A, reducing impacts from 

habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, vegetation removal, soil loss and erosion, noise, human disturbance, or 

the introduction of invasive, non-native plant species such as cheatgrass, which can alter the composition 

of native species, and lead to the loss of forage and cover for special status species. 

Surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy would be prohibited or restricted on or within 0.25 miles 

of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat 

areas, in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, which could protect up to 21,950 acres of habitat. Impacts 

to special status species would be similar to Alternative A, but would occur within fewer acres, reducing 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-330 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impacts from habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, vegetation removal, soil loss and erosion, noise, human 

disturbance, or the introduction of invasive, non-native plant species such as cheatgrass, which can alter 

the composition of native species, and lead to the loss of forage and cover for special status species. 

Applying seasonal restrictions during March 1 to June 30 to surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity 

during nesting and early brood-rearing season within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would allow for 

no disturbance or disruption to occur in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat during this timeframe. This 

management could prevent stress from noise and human presence to special status species. Applying 

seasonal restrictions during March 1 to June 30 to surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity during 

breeding, nesting and early brood-rearing season within four miles of a lek in Greater Sage-Grouse 

connectivity habitat could prevent habitat loss and disturbance within the four mile buffer during that 

timeframe. Special status species within the buffered area would benefit from the seasonal closure to 

disturbance and protection from noise and human activities. The same seasonal restrictions would apply 

to Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, except there would be a two mile buffer around leks, providing 

less protection than described above, the same as described under Alternative A. 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. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration 

areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat areas from December 1 to March 14 would 

affect special status species as described under Alternative A.

Impacts to special status species from minimizing impacts from predators are the same as Alternative D.

Noise restrictions at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek to not exceed 10 dBA above background noise could 

reduce disturbance to special status species and could prevent special status wildlife from abandoning 

habitat and moving to less desirable areas. Noise minimization can reduce stress responses, prevent a 

reduction in reproductive success, and prevent decreased immune response (Pater et al. 2009). 

Greater Sage-Grouse–Alternative E 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from development of transmission projects would be the same as 

Alternative D. In addition, including transmission lines outside of transmission corridors in the five 

percent disturbance calculation could affect Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat loss and fewer disruptions 

in habitat connectivity. Disturbance and development can create travel or migration barriers which can 

alter distribution patterns, increasing stress, energy loss, and fitness for Greater Sage-Grouse. Requiring 

all new transmission and distribution towers/structures to be designed to include raptor perching 

deterrents could protect Greater Sage-Grouse from predation by raptors, ravens or crows. Buffer distances 

of 0.6 miles from occupied leks could prevent perceived or actual threats to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

overhead predation from raptors or other predatory birds. Seasonal restrictions and buffer distances for 

agricultural and residential electrical distribution lines surface occupancy and surface disturbing activity 

within 0.6 miles from an occupied lek, or within March 15 to June 30 could provide Greater Sage-Grouse 

some protection from habitat loss and disturbance; however, 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). 

Issuing new ROWs or SUAs outside of existing designated ROW corridors could result in future 

disturbing activities; however constraints, density limitations, demonstrating no declines, and other 

protective measures could reduce the impacts from habitat loss, disturbance, fragmentation, predation, 

and results of linear corridor development. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-331

Within Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, there would be 285,930 acres of ROW exclusion areas, the same as 

in Alternative A. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from removal, modifying or burying existing power lines, reclaiming 

linear features such as roads or fences would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from wind energy development would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from MET towers would be the same as Alternative A, but would be 

applied to all Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. There would be additional restrictions to wires for MET 

tower supports, which would provide additional protection to Greater Sage-Grouse by preventing the 

perching of raptors and marking collision obstacles. A larger buffer distance of two miles from active leks 

for new temporary MET towers could reduce the perceived and actual threat of overhead predation to 

Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from retaining public ownership and acquisitions or conservation 

easements of Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Utilizing Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat requirements to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition within Greater SageGrouse core habitats could provide habitat management for Greater Sage-Grouse on parcels acquired by 

BLM/Forest Service. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the evaluation of non-mineral withdrawals for 

consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from working cooperatively with permittees, leases, and other 

landowners to develop grazing management strategies would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock grazing permit renewals would be the same as Alternative D. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from evaluating land health standards to evaluate land health standards in 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could identify where lands are or are not meeting standards. This could 

lead to future improvements to sagebrush or other habitat desirable to Greater Sage-Grouse. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from authorizing retirement of grazing allotments and considering drought 

conditions in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from livestock trailing management would be the same as Alternative C. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from managing livestock grazing in riparian/wetland habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from water development would be the 

same as Alternative A, but would apply to all Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would be the 

same as Alternative A. 

Under Alternative E, there would be 892,090 acres administratively unavailable to oil, gas, and CBNG 

leasing, the same as Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from oil and gas leasing would be the 

same as those described under Alternative A. Applying a minimum lease size could provide a more 

contiguous, uninterrupted habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse, which would allow for unfragmented 

migration pathways between habitat areas, and could protect birds from human presence and other 

disturbance or disruptive activities. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from geophysical exploration 

would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from offsite mitigation would be the 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-332 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

same as Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from working with proponents holding valid 

existing leases would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from working with project proponents (including those within 

BLM/Forest Service) to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts to sensitive resources would 

be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from considering or encouraging Master 

Development Plans, unitization, and requiring reclamation bonds within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from produced water would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from applying conservation measures to split-estate land 

ownership (federal surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from coal surface mining would be the same as Alternative D. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from underground coal mining and coal exploration in Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat would be the same Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from leasing non-energy leasable minerals would be the same as 

Alternative D.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from locatable mineral activities and salable mineral pits would be the 

same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from salable mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A. 

Approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation Special Use Authorizations would be the same as 

Alternative A; however, in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, those impacts would have to be mitigated 

for permits to be approved. Mitigation actions could be reduction of noise, habitat disturbance, re-locating 

an event or changing the time when and event could occur—all of which could reduce disturbance or 

disruption to Greater Sage-Grouse life cycles. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from not designating new ACECs/SIAs for Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation would be the same as Alternative D. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from OHV “open” areas would be the same as Alternative B, except for 

the Poison Spider OHV Park which would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails would be the same as Alternative A.

Restrictions on the construction of new collector roads within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied 

Greater Sage-Grouse leks, and prohibiting other new roads within 0.6 miles of the perimeter of occupied 

leks would provide sufficient buffer distances to prevent population declines from the presence of roads. 

Holloran (2005) determined that 1.9 miles from a main haul road was the minimum distance from leks 

where population declines did not occur, depending on traffic volume. Lower volume roads require a 

smaller buffer distance recommended by Holloran (2005) of 0.6 miles. Sage-grouse may avoid suitable 

habitat as the density of roads increases (Walker et al. 2007). Increased predation and collisions with 

vehicles are other threats to Greater Sage-Grouse from new road construction. Buffer distances would 

help protect Greater Sage-Grouse from impacts from roads, but habitat loss could impact Greater Sage-
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-333

Grouse ability to migrate from leks to nesting and early brood rearing habitat. Availability of edge habitat 

from roads for predators within 0.6 miles of occupied leks could increase the threat of predation. 

Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or 

following road construction. 

Impacts from avoiding areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks for 

new and primary roads, and 0.6 miles for other new roads would provide sufficient buffer distances to 

prevent population declines from the presence of roads. Holloran (2005) determined that 1.9 miles from a 

main haul road was the minimum distance from leks where population declines did not occur, depending 

on traffic volume. Lower volume roads require a smaller buffer distance recommended by Holloran 

(2005) of 0.6 miles. Sage-grouse may avoid suitable habitat as the density of roads increases (Walker et 

al. 2007). Increased predation and collisions with vehicles are other threats to Greater Sage-Grouse from 

new road construction. Buffer distances would help protect Greater Sage-Grouse from impacts from 

roads, but habitat loss could impact Greater Sage-Grouse ability to migrate from leks to nesting and early 

brood rearing habitat. Availability of edge habitat from roads for predators within 0.6 miles of occupied 

leks could increase the threat of predation. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, nonnative plant species may also occur during or following road construction. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from road upgrades would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse from limiting route construction to realignments of existing routes in Greater SageGrouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. The 5% disturbance limit would apply under 

Alternative D, which could result in further habitat loss and fragmentation, leading to inadequate forage, 

shelter or breeding habitat. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse could also occur from displacement and 

physiological stress from human presence and activity during sensitive life stages. Roadways provide 

thoroughfares and areas that attract predators, which could increase predation on sage-grouse (Connelly 

2004). 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management 

plans, reseeding closed roads or trails within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from using ESD potential vegetation composition and structure 

within Sage-Grouse core and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would apply to a 

larger area 11,531,340 acres (Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat), than Alternative B 

(5,000,400 acres). 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from vegetation treatments that would not reduce sagebrush 

canopy cover to less than 15% in nesting and winter habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B. Limiting this to northeast Wyoming could ensure that this management would 

be appropriate to the conditions inherent to the local environment and could allow for effective results 

from vegetation treatments and providing varied structure of sagebrush habitat. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from vegetation treatments for sagebrush habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat would be the same as described in Alternative D.

Reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (2009a) 

would provide sufficient restoration of habitat following oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activities, 

the same as Alternative A. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A would support more specific 

reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, providing restoration of functional habitat for 

Greater Sage-Grouse. If the protocol is followed, soil erosion and introduction of exotic or invasive plant 

species could be minimized and the landscape could be reclaimed to the original habitat components and 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-334 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

structure to the extent possible. While the initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, sagebrush 

habitat could be restored over the long term; although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could 

be difficult to restore to original conditions due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. 

Surface disturbance may also provide opportunities for invasive plant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to 

establish, making it difficult to restore sagebrush habitat with native species in some areas. Working 

collaboratively with partners to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could provide 

additional resources to apply to sagebrush management and could affect Greater Sage-Grouse with 

enhanced habitat and forage. Monitoring the treatments could provide feedback to whether the treatments 

were successful and if changes should be made in the approach to methods or timing in the area. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from resting treated areas from grazing would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Developing and implementing monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and populations to assess the 

effectiveness of conservation measures would provide valuable information in showing whether 

conservation efforts are succeeding in ensuring the health and vitality of Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

within the planning area. Keeping track of the effectiveness of the protective measures implemented in 

the RMP Amendments and other management implemented throughout the state would provide current 

information that would inform wildlife managers if more stringent management is necessary to protect the 

species, or if the new management is sufficient to prevent listing the species to the Endangered Species 

List. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from restoration of sagebrush habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B. Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the use of native and non-native plant seeds would 

be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from managing post ES&R and BAER areas and altering existing 

seedings would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from giving priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat 

restoration and establishing seed harvest areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from vegetation treatment planning would be the same as Alternative C.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from grasshopper and cricket control would be the same as 

Alternative A; however, working collaboratively with partner agencies to maintain and enhance Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could reduce the effects to Greater Sage-Grouse 

from treatment for insects. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from wild horse management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from designing and implementing fuels treatments, restoring and 

recovering burned areas and fuels treatments, managing post fuels management, and fire suppression 

areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire suppression techniques 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from the use of monitoring plans within Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Special Status Species 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-335

Under Alternative E, the BLM and Forest Service could limit the density of oil and gas or mining 

activities to no more than an average one disruptive activity to occur within 640 acres within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat; the combined value of surface disturbance (existing and proposed) may not 

exceed 5% loss. Holloran’s (2005) study showed that male Greater Sage-Grouse were negatively 

influenced when well densities exceeded one per 699 acres. This level of density and development should 

allow for a minimal amount of disturbance of Greater Sage-Grouse from disruptive activities and prevent 

decreases in populations from displacement and habitat loss and fragmentation. For Greater Sage-Grouse 

connectivity areas, all surface disturbance (any program area) would be limited to no more than 5% of the 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat per 640 acres using the DDCT process described in Appendix I. For 

connectivity areas, density of development could exceed one within 640 acres in these areas. Leks have 

been shown to go inactive when well pad densities exceed one per 640 acres. This would result in birds 

abandoning leks or other habitat and relocating to other, possibly lower quality habitat. Habitat 

fragmentation could also occur from the possible higher well density, preventing the movement of 

Greater Sage-Grouse between seasonal habitat areas. 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from using mitigation would be the same as described in Alternative A. 

Under Alternative E, surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy would be prohibited within 0.6 

miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks inside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity 

habitat areas, which could protect up to 304,970 acres of habitat. 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). 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). 

Surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy would be prohibited or restricted on or within 0.25 miles 

of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat 

areas, in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, which could protect up to 21,950 acres of habitat. Impacts 

to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as Alternative A. It is assumed that most of the desirable lek 

habitat is within the Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, so reducing restrictions outside Greater SageGrouse core habitat would provide lower impacts than within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. 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). While Alternative E provides a buffer area from surface disturbance or 

occupancy; it is not of a distance that is recommended by current science and may force sage-grouse 

away from leks to other areas of lower quality habitat and smaller populations of lekking birds. The result 

of lek disturbance and abandonment is lower reproductive rates of Greater Sage-Grouse, and reduction of 

sage-grouse populations. These differences in lek area protections is one piece of the Wyoming Statewide 

core area strategy that weaves the many on-going existing land uses and activities with the new science, 

information, and data to conserve the Greater Sage-Grouse in Wyoming. In many instances the areas 

considered general habitat have many existing activities and disturbances located within the breeding, 

nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering habitats, and these same areas within core habitats do not to the 

same degree of disturbances. Implementing a larger lek NSO in an area that is already developed will 

only achieve the protections to development for new activities. Those leks are still subjected to ongoing 

existing disturbances due to human presence. Therefore the protections of a larger NSO on leks not 

experiencing as much existing disturbance will have a higher success rate. 
Chapter 4—Special Status Species Draft EIS

4-336 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Applying seasonal restrictions during March 1 to June 30 to surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity 

during breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing season within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would 

allow for no disturbance or disruption to occur in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat during this timeframe. 

This management could prevent stress from noise and human presence to support Greater Sage-Grouse in 

successful nesting and hatching rates, and raising healthy chicks. Female Greater Sage-Grouse will avoid 

nesting in areas of development or where disturbing or land-clearing activities occur; such as oil and gas 

development, roads, urban areas, or cropland (Aldridge and Boyce 2007). Applying seasonal restrictions 

during March 1 to June 30 to surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity during breeding, nesting, and 

early brood-rearing season within four miles of a lek in Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity habitat could 

prevent habitat loss and disturbance within the four mile buffer during that timeframe. Greater SageGrouse within the buffered area would benefit from the seasonal closure to disturbance and protection 

from noise and human activities. The same seasonal restrictions would apply to Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat, except there would be a two mile buffer around leks, providing less protection than 

described above, the same as described under Alternative A. 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. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration 

areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat areas from December 1 to March 14 would 

affect Greater Sage-Grouse as described under Alternative A.

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from minimizing impacts from predators would be the same as 

Alternative D.

Managing noise restrictions at the 0.6-mile perimeter of the lek to not exceed 10 dBA above background 

noise could reduce disturbance to Greater Sage-Grouse. Studies conducted on Greater Sage-Grouse 

indicate that noise could adversely affect the communication abilities of strutting males (LaGory et al. 

2001; Dantzker et al. 1999). Holloran (2005) and Blickley et al. (2012) suggest that noise emitted from 

drilling operations could reduce lek attendance. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Transportation and Access Management 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-337

4.15 TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT

This section presents potential impacts on transportation and access from implementing management 

actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning transportation and access are described in 

Chapter 3.

The BLM’s transportation program manages legal access to and across public lands utilized for 

recreation, renewable and nonrenewable energy development, range management, public access, and 

communication site management. This section describes impacts to transportation and access issues, 

including OHV use, from the decisions described in Chapter 2 that would amend the RMPs in the 

planning area for the protection of sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. Specifically, this analysis will 

determine whether the implementation of management actions influences or modifies the location, size, or 

design of a potential transportation or access proposal or, in some cases, precludes a proposal from being 

approved. 

4.15.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on travel and transportation management are as follows: 

• Change in the types of allowable transportation activities 

• Change in the acreages designated as open, limited, or closed to motorized travel 

• Change in the number of acres where new authorized road development would be allowed. 

4.15.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• ROW applications for energy-related transportation facilities (e.g., roads, pipelines) are 

anticipated to increase. 

• Interest in community expansion and transportation needs is anticipated to increase. 

• Casual OHV use will continue to increase. 

• Lands would be open to motor vehicle access for emergency purposes such as search and rescue 

and fire-fighting, regardless of the OHV designation or other restrictions. 

4.15.3 Alternative A 

Development of transmission lines within new and existing utility corridors would reduce the visual 

quality of the landscape, potentially deteriorating views and the open character of the landscape, which is 

part of the experience sought after by many OHV enthusiasts. 

Allowing wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that are currently 

unavailable for such development (Map 2-29) could increase traffic and congestion in those areas from 

maintenance and construction vehicles. Visual impacts from wind turbines could also deteriorate views 

sought after by OHV enthusiasts, making some areas less popular for travel. 

Land tenure adjustments, such as acquisitions, could serve to benefit the overall management of the 

transportation and access program. These actions would help facilitate transportation systems by 

providing for a more contiguous public land base. 
Chapter 4—Transportation and Access Management Draft EIS 

4-338 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Management actions that allow range improvement projects, such as modifying or building fences and 

water developments could promote access to areas not previously available through road construction for 

these improvements. 

Implementing management actions for vegetation and soils would place land use restrictions on some 

areas. Achieving high species diversity and the Standards for Rangeland Health (BLM 1997a) for 

vegetation and preventing or minimizing soil erosion could result in the relocation or redesign of 

transportation systems. These potential impacts would be small scale and localized in sensitive vegetation 

and sensitive soils areas. 

The minerals program would have a very large impact on the transportation and access program. The 

development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas, and mineral development would 

increase travel and access in those areas. In addition, areas closed to mineral materials (274,860 acres), 

locatable minerals (1,677,420 acres) and non-energy, solid leasable minerals (234,230 acres) could limit 

or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing roads and 

trails. Minerals management actions, because they are so numerous in specific parts of the planning area, 

would potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems. 

Allowing dispersed camping and other recreation-related demands on public lands could increase the 

need for access to these areas. 

Areas open to OHV use would provide motorized access to much of the decision area. While most 

motorized use within these areas would use the designated roads that are present on the ground, the 

availability of cross-country use would allow motorized access regardless of the presence of a route. 

Limiting use to designated routes would reduce the ability to access any area using motorized means. 

However, the designated routes in these areas would provide for motorized access to most of these areas, 

while non-motorized access would allow access to areas beyond the designated routes. 

Areas where surface disturbing activities are prohibited (Map 2-1), including buffer areas around sagegrouse leks, nesting areas, and other sensitive areas, would limit travel and access to designated roads and 

trails. Surface disturbing activities under this alternative are prohibited on 68,550 acres and restricted on 

437,680 acres. 

4.15.4 Alternative B 

ROW management actions that allow access to valid existing rights (including new ROWs or SUAs 

associated with valid existing rights) which cannot be accessed by existing roads, would allow 

development of new roads. Although new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard 

necessary, allowing construction of new roads would increase access to areas that may not have been 

previously accessible by motorized vehicles. 

Impacts from land tenure adjustments, such as acquisitions, would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternative A.

Impacts from management actions that allow range improvement projects would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A.

Impacts from implementing management actions for vegetation and soils would be the same as those 

described in Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Transportation and Access Management 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-339

As with Alternative A, the minerals program would have a very large impact on the transportation and 

access program. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas, and mineral 

development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to mineral materials 

(5,000,400 acres), locatable minerals (5,002,170 acres) and non-energy solid leasable minerals (5,000,400 

acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to 

existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, the number of acres closed to minerals activities 

is much larger, expanding the area where impacts could occur. Minerals management actions, because 

they are so numerous in specific parts of the planning area, would potentially affect the location of 

subsequent transportation systems. 

Impacts from recreation management would be the same as those described in Alternative A.

Impacts from travel management would be the same as those described in Alternative A, except that 

roads, primitive roads, and trails in priority habitat not designated in travel management plans would be 

restored, removing them from travel and access uses. 

Not allowing upgrading of existing routes within priority sage-grouse habitat that would change route 

category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless it is necessary for motorist safety, or eliminates 

the need to construct a new road, could limit travel and access, especially in areas where use of these 

roads is increasing. 

Impacts from management of fish and wildlife habitat and Special Status Species would be the same as 

those described in Alternative A.

4.15.5 Alternative C 

Impacts from ROW management actions that allow access to valid existing rights would be the same as 

those described in Alternative B.

Impacts from land tenure adjustments, such as acquisitions, would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternatives A and B. 

Impacts from management actions that allow range improvement projects would be the same as those 

described in Alternatives A and B. 

Impacts from implementing management actions for vegetation and soils would be the same as those 

described in Alternatives A and B. 

As with Alternatives A and B, the minerals program would have a very large impact on the transportation 

and access program. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, gas, and 

mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to mineral materials 

(5,000,400 acres), locatable minerals (1,002,170 acres) and solid leasable minerals (5,000,400 acres), 

could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to existing 

roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, areas closed to minerals activities are much larger, 

expanding the area of impact. Minerals management actions, because they are so numerous in specific 

parts of the planning area, would potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems. 

Impacts from recreation management would be the same as those described in Alternatives A and B. 

Designating large ACECs to preserve, protect, conserve, restore and sustain sage-grouse populations and 

their habitat could restrict travel and access in these areas, depending on where they are located and the 

specific management actions that would be employed for each ACEC. 
Chapter 4—Transportation and Access Management Draft EIS 

4-340 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts from travel management would be the same as those described in Alternative B except that 

prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks, and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse priority and general habitat, would restrict travel and access in these areas. 

Not allowing upgrading of existing routes within priority and general sage-grouse habitat that would 

change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or capacity unless, it is necessary for motorist safety, 

or eliminates the need to construct a new road, could limit travel and access, especially in areas where use 

of these roads is increasing. 

Applying a seasonal restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface‐disturbing activities during 

the nesting and brood‐rearing season in all occupied sage‐grouse habitat, including vehicle traffic and 

other human presence, would limit travel and access to these areas at the specified times. This also applies 

to areas outside priority habitat and connectivity habitat areas. 

4.15.6 Alternative D 

Development of transmission lines within new and existing utility corridors would reduce the visual 

quality of the landscape, potentially deteriorating views and the open character of the landscape, which is 

part of the experience sought after by many OHV enthusiasts. 

Impacts from ROW management actions that allow access to valid existing rights would be the same as 

those described in Alternatives B and C. 

Impacts from land tenure adjustments, such as acquisitions, would have the same impacts as those 

described in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Impacts from management actions that allow range improvement projects would be the same as those 

described in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Impacts from implementing management actions for vegetation and soils would be the same as those 

described in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

As with Alternatives A, B, and C, the minerals program would have a very large impact on the 

transportation and access program. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, 

gas and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to mineral 

materials (274,860 acres), locatable minerals (1,677,420 acres) and solid leasable minerals (234,230 

acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be limited to 

existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, acres closed to minerals activities are the same. 

Minerals management actions, because they are so numerous in specific parts of the planning area, would 

potentially affect the location of subsequent transportation systems. 

Impacts from recreation management would be the same as those described in Alternatives A, B, and C. 

Impacts from travel management would be the same as those described in Alternative A and B except that 

prohibiting new road construction within one-quarter mile, rather than four miles in Alternative B, of 

active sage-grouse leks, and avoiding new road construction in sage-grouse core and general habitat, 

would restrict travel and access in these areas. 

Allowing upgrading of existing routes within core and general sage-grouse habitat would contribute to 

increased travel and access within these areas. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Transportation and Access Management 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-341

Allowing natural deterioration of roads within core and general sage-grouse habitat would eventually 

limit travel and access, however the use of, and need for, travel and access in these areas would dictate the 

rate at which these roads would deteriorate. 

4.15.7 Alternative E 

Impacts from development of transmission lines within new and existing utility corridors would be the 

same as those described in Alternatives A and D. 

Impacts from ROW management actions that allow access to valid existing rights would be the same as 

those described in Alternatives B, C and D. 

Impacts from land tenure adjustments, such as acquisitions, would have similar impacts as those 

described in Alternatives A, B, C and D. 

Impacts from management actions that allow range improvement projects would be the same as those 

described in Alternatives A, B, C, and D. 

Impacts from implementing management actions for vegetation and soils would be the same as those 

described in Alternatives A, B, C, and D. 

As with Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the minerals program would have a very large impact on the 

transportation and access program. The development of roads and transportation systems required for oil, 

gas, and mineral development would increase travel and access in those areas. Areas closed to mineral 

materials (274,860 acres), locatable minerals (5,002,170 acres) and non-energy, solid leasable minerals 

(234,230 acres), could limit or restrict travel and access in those areas. Travel in these areas would be 

limited to existing roads and trails. Compared with Alternative A, acres closed to minerals activities are 

very similar, with the exception of locatable minerals. Minerals management actions, because they are so 

numerous in specific parts of the planning area, would potentially affect the location of subsequent 

transportation systems. 

Impacts from recreation management would be the same as those described in Alternatives A, B, C, and 

D.

Impacts from travel management would be the same as those described in Alternative A. In addition, 

prohibiting primary and secondary roads within 1.9 miles of active sage-grouse leks and avoiding new 

road construction in sage-grouse core and general habitat, could restrict travel and access in these areas. 

Not allowing upgrading of existing routes within core sage-grouse habitat would contribute to decreased 

travel and access within these areas. 

Allowing natural reclamation of roads within core sage-grouse habitat would eventually limit travel and 

access, however the use of, and need for, travel and access in these areas would dictate the rate at which 

these roads would be reclaimed. 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-342 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.16 VEGETATION

This section presents potential impacts on vegetation and vegetation management from implementing 

management actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning vegetation communities and 

vegetation management are described in Chapter 3. 

4.16.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on vegetation resources are as follows: 

• Acres and condition of native vegetation communities 

• Degree/magnitude/level of connectivity between sagebrush communities 

• Degree/magnitude/level of surface disturbance and vegetation removal 

• Amount and condition of riparian and wetland vegetation 

• Change in the likelihood for noxious weed or invasive annual grass introduction or spread 

• Change in the amount or density of noxious weed or invasive annual grasses. 

4.16.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Current trends in plant succession and vegetation health would continue. 

• Long-term vegetation impacts are considered a 20 year or longer time frame. 

• Grassland and shrubland communities would be maintained with a mix of species composition, 

cover, and age classes. 

• As more monitoring and survey data become available, it is possible that additional populations 

of existing special status plant species may be found. 

• Management of listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered plant species is subject 

to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 

4.16.3 Alternative A 

Vegetation resources would primarily be impacted by different forms of surface disturbance and 

disruptive activities that would be allowed within the planning area. Examples of such activities include, 

but are not limited to, oil and gas development, wind energy development, access road construction, solid 

mineral development, recreational activities, and livestock grazing. These types of activities would result 

in both short-term and long-term impacts to small localized areas as well as possibly larger areas from the 

removal or degradation of vegetation resources. Examples of these impacts include, disturbed soil, soil 

compaction, soil removal, vegetation removal, fractured vegetation communities, modified plant 

community structure and diversity, increased soil erosion, decreased vegetation cover, increased dust on 

plants (reducing photosynthesis), and increased surface runoff. These impacts would result in various 

levels of decreases to plant community health, diversity, and impact habitats that are susceptible to 

invasive/noxious weeds. Increases in invasive and noxious weeds would result in a decline in native 

species, compromising the overall habitat health (through ecological processes). Long-term impacts 

would mostly be associated with the installation of access routes, permanent structures and vehicle travel. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-343

Within the planning area, 285,930 acres would be managed as ROW exclusion areas (Map 2-9) and 

2,460,340 acres would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, which would reduce surface disturbing 

activities in these areas that could degrade plant community health and continuity. Prohibiting new 

corridor designations in Bates Hole (Casper Field Office) and South Bighorns/Red Wall MA (Casper 

Field Office), and restricting new transmission lines to existing routes and designated corridors within 

sage-grouse habitat would maintain vegetation health by reducing surface disturbance activities 

associated with ROW development such as roads development, vehicle travel, and ROW maintenance 

activities within these areas. Surface disturbances by wind energy development would be restricted on 

3,888,930 acres and closed on 437,120 acres (Map 2-29), thus reducing potential damage to vegetation 

habitat. Surface disturbing activities and associated impacts from wind energy would occur from the 

projected development of the 27,970 wind energy turbines to be constructed across the planning area 

through 2020. The surface disturbing activities for wind energy development would directly reduce 

vegetation and reduce plant community health through habitat fragmentation, and possibly introduce or 

spread noxious weeds. Where surface disturbance would be allowed to occur, mitigation measures 

associated with such actions would reduce potential impacts and maintain ecological processes necessary 

for plant community health. Reclamation efforts would provide additional measures to reduce the overall 

impacts caused by surface disturbance. In addition, the BLM and Forest Service would work with project 

proponents to locate their projects in sites that minimize impacts to sensitive resources. Avoidance buffers 

for new meteorological towers (MET) could reduce surface disturbing activities that degrade or remove 

vegetation in sagebrush obligate species’ habitats and near occupied sage-grouse leks. 

Vegetation objectives as set forth in the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997a) and 

Forest or Grassland Management Plans (Forest Service) would be achieved by adjusting distribution, 

intensity, and stocking rates for livestock. Construction of water developments would aid in livestock 

distribution and improve watershed condition and sage-grouse habitat through reducing impacts from 

cattle grazing, such as loss of plant biomass, trampling of vegetation, soil compaction, and invasive 

species introduction. Allowing stock driveways (SDWs) to provide emergency use for relief from fire, 

drought, and other natural causes and/or to meet management objectives could also increase or maintain 

vegetative community health as impacts from grazing would be distributed over a larger area and possibly 

in areas more resistant to grazing. Allowing livestock trailing use to occur only within 0.5 miles of the 

mapped centerline of SDWs would increase surface disturbance from livestock along the half mile as well 

as reduce impacts from grazing outside of the mapped centerline (Kemmerer Field Office). Prohibiting 

placement of salt and/or other supplements for livestock near water, wetlands, and riparian areas (distance 

and types vary by Field Office/National Forest/National Grassland) could reduce vegetation loss or 

degradation from livestock grazing and wildlife in these sensitive areas, as well as improve distribution of 

grazing and associated impacts across allotments. Modifying fencing standards could reduce the amount 

of surface disturbance and vegetation loss caused when installing new fences or modifying existing 

fencing to meet fencing standards. Livestock grazing would be reduced for two years (one year before 

treatments for Rock Springs Field Office) following vegetation treatments, which could increase 

vegetation growth and forage for wildlife. 

Vegetation would be removed or degraded initially on approximately 130,330 acres and would be 

impacted over the long term on 39,050 acres from the projected development of 13,653 oil and gas wells 

and 2,758 CBNG wells. This development would be throughout the planning area except in 871,780 acres 

of sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat that are unavailable for leasing (Map 2-4), which would 

restrict these surface disturbing impacts and help maintain vegetation connectivity near these areas. 

Allowing oil and gas leasing development would increase surface disturbing activities such as the use of 

heavy equipment during well development or maintenance, which could remove/damage vegetation, 

compact soil, and increase surface runoff. Forest Service fluid mineral lease sizes could be reduced when 

minimum lease sizes are not applied in sage-grouse core habitat areas. These leases could be smaller and 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-344 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

could increase the amount of vegetation impacted directly by surface disturbing activities in these areas as 

more could occur within a given area. 

Exploration and development associated with oil and gas activities, and the development of associated 

facilities such as power lines, compressors, pipelines, and fuel tanks would increase surface disturbance 

and the use of heavy equipment in sage-grouse habitat areas which would reduce plant community health 

by directly removing vegetation and fragmenting habitat. These surface disturbing activities would 

contribute to the modification of the composition and structure of vegetation communities within the 

developed areas. Additionally, the use of equipment would increase the chance for noxious weed 

proliferation. 

Exploration and development of coal resources, other solid leasable minerals, and mineral materials 

would create similar impacts on vegetation through increased surface disturbing activities that would 

remove and reduce plant community health. Under this alternative, 234,230 acres would be closed to nonenergy, solid mineral development, and 274,860 acres would be closed to mineral material sales and 

permits (Maps 2-24, 2-19, and 2-14), which would reduce surface vegetation loss and compaction from 

surface disturbing activities. Based on the coal screening process and CDPA, coal leasing would be open 

in Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices as well as the BTNF Planning 

Unit, which would result in surface disturbing activities that would remove and degrade vegetative 

resources. 

Portions of sage-grouse core habitat would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This would eliminate 

surface disturbing activities associated with locatable mineral development in these areas and help 

maintain plant community health. In areas that currently have development within the core area boundary 

and are subsequently exceeding the 5% disturbance thresholds, strategies to eliminate or reduce those 

disturbances and perhaps encourage faster reclamation. These strategies should be discussed with the 

project proponent before additional disturbance may be authorized. In these instances the BLM/Forest 

Service and the State of Wyoming will work with the project proponent to determine the course of action 

that should be taken. Allowing sage-grouse core habitat areas to be open to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits (as shown on Map 2-14) would increase the potential for vegetation 

removal/degradation, as surface disturbing activities could increase in these areas. Surface disturbing 

activities could occur in sage-grouse core habitat areas and could increase negative impacts to vegetation 

in areas where leasing of non-energy leasable minerals would be considered. Sodium and phosphate 

leasing would not be considered in the Raymond Mountain WSA, Rock Creek/Tunp and Bear River 

Divide management areas. These restrictions would reduce surface disturbing activities from sodium and 

phosphate development and reduce associated impacts to vegetation resources. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations could potentially allow for surface disturbing activities that would 

otherwise be prohibited or restricted. Increased surface disturbing activities associated with mineral 

development, would impact vegetation through use of mechanical equipment, causing the loss of 

vegetation from activities such as ground clearing. These activities would also likely impact vegetation 

through soil compaction, soil erosion, dust, and habitat fragmentation associated with surface disturbing 

activities and development. 

Reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation 

Policy (BLM 2009a) would help to maintain and improve the overall health and function of vegetation 

communities in disturbed areas. The reclamation process for sagebrush could take 20-30 years to reach 

the pre-disturbance state. This would directly impact vegetation by decreasing surface disturbing 

activities that remove vegetation and fragment habitat, and would reduce ecological functions by 

providing mitigation measures intended to promote healthy diverse vegetation communities. Using 

certified weed free seed to rehabilitate areas would positively impact vegetative communities by reducing 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-345

the open niches available to noxious/invasive plant species. Vegetation treatments for rehabilitation and 

restoration would focus on native plant composition, protection, and sustainable ecosystems. These 

treatments could increase overall vegetative community health and resistance to surface disturbance 

impacts. 

Fuel treatments using fire, mechanical, chemical, and biological methods would be used to reduce fuel 

load and convert decadent stands of brushlands (Rawlins RO and Rock Springs). These treatments could 

have negative impacts from surface disturbing activities as more ground is disturbed and surface runoff 

increases. Positive impacts on vegetation by fuel treatments would include the reduction in fuel loads that 

cause high intensity fires and converting brushlands to other preferred vegetative groups. Impacts from 

surface disturbing activities associated with fire suppression would be reduced by prohibiting the use of 

earth moving equipment in paleontological/cultural areas and limiting equipment and techniques to 

existing roads and trails in riparian/wetland, big game crucial winter range, sage-grouse leks, areas of 

highly erosive soils, and special plant species habitat (Casper Field Office, Rock Springs Field Office, 

MBNF and TBNG). 

Change in Vegetative Cover and Change in Vegetative Composition ESR in burned areas is a stop gap 

measure to manage post-fire threats to human life and safety and to preclude further damages to critical 

natural and cultural resources as a result of wildfire damages. Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

(ESR) are planned actions performed by burned area emergency response teams within 1 year of wildfire 

containment to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation of natural and cultural resources, to 

minimize threats to life or property from the impacts of a fire, or to repair, replace, or construct physical 

improvements to prevent degradation of land or resources. Burned area rehabilitation is undertaken within 

3 years of wildfire containment to repair or improve fire-damaged lands unlikely to recover naturally to 

management approved conditions, or to repair or replace minor facilities damaged by fire (BLM 2004i). 

Following a wildfire, ESR stabilizes and prevents unacceptable degradation of natural and cultural 

resources. Post-wildfire ESR assists in stabilizing soils, replenishing the seed bank, and addressing weed 

threats. These activities are typically designed to restore the vegetative cover and to assist post-fire 

recovery. Post wildfire cheatgrass conversion is one of the biggest challenges across the planning area. If 

successful, ESR will reduce erosion, aid in reducing cheatgrass invasion, and maintain appropriate fire 

return intervals. ESR benefits both upland and riparian vegetative communities. 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat and general habitat restrictions do not apply. ESR would be guided 

by individual field office’s fire management plans and LUPs. A greater acreage of sagebrush may be 

burned under this alternative and thus require ESR. More sagebrush may be removed by fire and replaced 

by early seral species. 

The lands within the OHV “open” areas within Rawlins, Rock Springs, and Casper field offices are 

primarily devoid of vegetation as they are either sand dunes or reclaimed mining areas. OHV use in these 

areas would have minimal if any impact on vegetation. Allowing cross-country OHV use in these areas 

could attract more OHV users over other areas, which could likely decrease the amount of surface 

disturbances on vegetation within the planning area. Surface disturbing impacts from motorized travel 

could be reduced as motorized travel would be limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails, until 

such time as travel management planning is complete and routes are designated or closed. Additionally, 

the use of OHVs could also result in an increase in the proliferation of invasive weeds, further altering 

and degrading the vegetative community and ecological processes. Reclaiming and/or closing 

unauthorized, redundant, unnecessary and/or roads/trails eroded beyond a reasonable level would reduce 

negative surface disturbance impacts from recreation and other uses on these roads and trails and help 

protect vegetation in these areas (Casper Field Office, Rawlins Field Office, and Rock Springs Field 

Office). 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-346 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities within one-quarter mile (0.75 miles for Bates hole and Fish 

Creek/Willow Creek and two miles for Medicine Bow National Forest from March 1 – June 30) of 

occupied sage-grouse leks within the Pinedale Field Office, Newcastle Field Office, Rawlins Field Office, 

Jack Morrow Hills area of the Rock Springs Field Office (68,550 total acres), Medicine Bow National 

Forest, and Thunder Basin National Grasslands (two mile buffer and only for oil and gas) would reduce 

the overall level of degradation to plants from surface disturbances resulting from new permitted 

activities. 

Avoiding surface disturbing and disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing 

habitat from March 15 (March 1 in the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Offices) through July 15 (and 

prohibiting such activities in the Jack Morrow Hills area of the Rock Springs Field Office from March 15 

through July 15) within two miles of sage-grouse leks would reduce the level of development in these 

areas during this time which would reduce impacts to plants during the critical part of the growing season 

(Map 2-1). Prohibiting construction, gravel mining operations, and drilling of water wells within two 

miles of active display grounds from March 1 to June 15 (TBNG) and within two miles of sage-grouse 

breeding complexes from March 1 to June 30 (MBNF) would reduce surface disturbing activities, this 

would reduce soil erosion, the spread of noxious weeds, and impacts to overall ecosystem health by 

eliminating new surface disturbing activities during the winter and spring when vegetation growth is most 

important. 

4.16.4 Alternative B 

Impacts from ROW management actions would be similar to those under Alternative A, except vegetation 

removal, degradation, and compaction would be reduced in all sage-grouse priority habitat areas, as they 

would be managed as ROW/SUA exclusion areas (5,263,764 acres; Map 2-10), and all sage-grouse 

general habitat areas would be managed as ROW/SUA avoidance areas (6,390,010 acres; Map 2-10). 

However, there is the potential that vegetation health could be reduced from maintenance activities and 

upgrading of existing transmission structures. Excluding new BLM ROWs and Forest Service SUA 

permits as well as relocating (if possible) existing designated ROW corridors within or crossing sagegrouse priority habitat would eliminate surface disturbance impacts from ROWs in sage-grouse priority 

habitat, which would increase vegetation quantity and enhance habitat quality in these areas. If relocation 

is not possible, co-locating ROWs or SUAs within existing ROWs or SUAs would minimize new surface 

disturbances and associated impacts. 

Impacts from wind energy development would greatly be reduced compared to those under Alternative A, 

as areas closed to wind energy development would increase to 5,000,400 acres. It is projected that 127 

wind turbines could be built under these management actions which could reduce vegetation through 

surface removal and habitat fragmentation. 

Impacts on vegetation from livestock grazing would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as a light 

grazing strategy would be incorporated (20-30 percent forage allocation for livestock) on allotments not 

meeting standards within sage-grouse priority habitat as well as using conservation plan development to 

modify grazing management to meet seasonal sage-grouse habitat requirements, which would reduce the 

negative impacts from grazing. This would be accomplished by changing grazing season of use, timing, 

number of AUMs, and cattle distribution, which could also decrease rehabilitation time. Impacts from 

grazing in sage-grouse priority habitat could be reduced in allotments where retirement of grazing 

privileges would be an option, when the current permittee would be willing to retire grazing on all or part 

of an allotment, which would reduce grazing numbers and associated impacts. Including terms and 

conditions (e.g. season of use, numbers of livestock, distribution of livestock) on grazing permits/leases to 

assure plant growth requirements are met would reduce impacts from livestock grazing and could 

maintain vegetative community health. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-347

Impacts from riparian management actions would be similar to Alternative A as riparian areas and wet 

meadows within sage-grouse priority and general habitat would be managed to meet proper functioning 

condition (or similar methodology for the Forest Service) and to maintain a component of forbs with 

diverse species richness relative to site potential. Water developments for diversion from springs or seep 

sources in sage-grouse priority habitat could reduce surface disturbances from grazing and wildlife 

around springs and seeps by redistributing them around the diversions. Impacts from grazing would also 

be eliminated for two years following vegetation treatments (unless vegetation recovery dictates 

otherwise) to help vegetation regenerate and increase in overall health. Vegetation rehabilitation in sagegrouse priority habitat would be similar to Alternative A with intensive rehabilitation and restrictions for 

sage-grouse priority habitat and surrounding areas. Not allowing grasshopper or cricket control in priority 

habitat unless it is beneficial to sage-grouse could increase negative impacts to vegetation from pests in 

priority areas compared to Alternative A as more vegetation could be lost to pests. 

Maintaining sagebrush canopy cover to 15 percent or more (unless fuels management required less) could 

reduce the amount of sagebrush habitat treated which could maintain vegetation health but could allow 

untreated areas with weeds to continue to deteriorate. Vegetation habitat would be preserved through fuel 

treatments which would be allowed when it positively impacts sage-grouse habitat (e.g. protection, 

enhancement, recovery of burned areas, ESR), but would only be allowed in priority habitat within 

precipitation zones of 12 inches or more. Post fuels management actions could preserve or improve 

vegetation habitat through temporary or long-term management changes in livestock grazing, with other 

activities to achieve and maintain desired conditions. In priority habitat, fires would be suppressed to 

conserve habitat. Fewer acres of sagebrush habitat would be converted to an early seral stage than under 

Alternative A, thus fewer acres may require ESR. The emphasis on native seed and reestablishment of 

species-appropriate sagebrush seed would improve habitat quality. In the absence of fire or fuels 

treatments, this alternative may result in more decadent sagebrush stands with depleted understories. 

However, the risk of catastrophic fire as a result of fire suppression or exclusion could lead to larger ESR 

projects for Alternatives B, C, D, and. E 

Impacts on vegetation due to oil and gas exploration and development within sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas would be similar to those identified under Alternative A, except the projected level of well 

development and associated surface disturbances would substantially decrease helping to reduce damage 

and loss to vegetation habitat. Vegetation removal and habitat fragmentation would be eliminated in 

priority sage-grouse habitat, which would be unavailable to fluid mineral leasing (6,809,580 acres), and in 

areas in which surface occupancy is prohibited (2,082,140 acres; Map 2-5). Under Alternative B, 11,555 

oil and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells are projected to be drilled within the planning area (1,423 and 

167 respectively within sage-grouse priority habitat). Such development would create an initial 

disturbance of approximately 104,050 acres and a long-term surface disturbance impact of 33,540 acres, 

which is a substantial reduction compered to Alternative A. Additionally, the BLM and Forest Service 

would also work with valid existing lease holders to ensure measurable sage-grouse conservation 

objectives are included in all project proposals, further reducing impacts on vegetation. 

Impacts from geophysical operations could be reduced compared to Alternative A by allowing 

exploratory information to be obtained in sage-grouse priority habitat areas only by using helicopterportable drilling, wheeled or traced vehicles on existing roads, or other approved methods, which would 

reduce surface disturbances and vegetation loss. Impacts on vegetation would also be reduced by not reoffering for lease existing oil and gas leases once they expire in sage-grouse priority habitat areas, thus 

eliminating activities that degrade vegetation habitat. Impacts on vegetation from coal and other solid 

mineral leases and mineral materials exploration such as soil compaction, vegetation removal, habitat 

fragmentation, and habitat loss would be eliminated compared to Alternative A, as new projects would 

not be considered within sage-grouse priority habitat. These actions would also reduce the level of surface 

disturbing activities and associated impacts on vegetation and vegetative communities. 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-348 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The closure of areas to solid minerals leasing and mineral material disposal and the withdrawal of lands 

from mineral location would reduce surface disturbance activities from solid mineral exploration and 

development, compared with Alternative A. Approximately 5,000,400 acres would be closed to nonenergy, solid leasable development activities, and mineral materials sales and permits and 5,002,170 acres 

would be closed to locatable mineral development, which would reduce habitat fragmentation and loss 

compared to Alternative A (Maps 2-25, 2-20, and 2-15). 

Impacts on vegetation could be reduced compared to Alternative A, through the development of 

landscape-scale conservation strategies that would protect habitat from fragmentation and conserve 

ecological processes. Vegetation treatments would enhance vegetation health and composition throughout 

the planning area by reducing noxious weeds and increasing species richness. Retaining public ownership 

of sage-grouse priority habitat and seeking to acquire state and private lands with intact subsurface 

mineral estate could reduce impacts to vegetation by reducing habitat fragmentation and protecting 

habitat with surface disturbing restrictions. 

Prohibiting new connector roads and other roads within 1.9 miles and 0.6 miles, respectively, of the 

perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks could result in reduced road development, which would maintain 

sagebrush habitat continuity and encourage community sagebrush health. Road restoration would be 

conducted on non-designated roads, primitive roads and trails in priority habitat, which would reduce the 

impacts from invasive plant species proliferation, soil compaction, and surface water run-off caused by 

construction, maintenance and the use of the roads for these activities. However, there is a potential that 

in an effort to avoid lek buffers, the length of some roads may increase. This would impact vegetation by 

increasing surface disturbances associated with roads and by increasing the potential for invasive species 

proliferation. 

The impacts on vegetation resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing activities within sagegrouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would be similar to those described under Alternative A, 

except the restricted area would be increased and the total human-caused surface disturbances would 

cover less than three percent (up to 19.2 acres per 640 acres) of total sage-grouse habitat and connectivity 

areas. Surface disturbance activities would not be permitted in sage-grouse priority and connectivity 

habitats where the surface disturbances exceed 3% until habitat has been restored. Placing a limit on the 

average amount of allowable surface disturbance could result in the relocation or the redesign of new 

development projects, and in some cases preclude such projects, to ensure they do not exceed the density 

restrictions which could reduce impacts to vegetation. Prohibiting surface disturbing activities and surface 

occupancy within mapped sage-grouse winter concentration areas throughout the planning area would 

eliminate surface disturbances resulting from new permitted activities within these areas. Because these 

restrictions are not part of Alternative A, the level of surface disturbance would be reduced resulting in 

the decreased potential for impacts on vegetation caused from surface disturbing activities. This would 

reduce habitat fragmentation and help maintain overall vegetation habitat health and ecological processes. 

The impacts on vegetation resulting from restricting surface disturbing and disruptive activities within 

sage-grouse nesting and early brood-rearing habitat would be similar to those identified in Alternative A,

except surface disturbing activities would be restricted during the early brood-rearing season in priority 

habitat (versus within two miles of a sage-grouse lek from March 1 through July 15 under Alternative A). 

This would also reduce the extent of disturbed areas and the number of potential impacts on vegetation 

communities caused from surface disturbing activities. 

Impacts on vegetation communities from reclaiming surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats would 

be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except reclamation efforts would require the 

implementation of methods for restoring or augmenting functional sage-grouse seasonal habitats to mirror 

healthy vegetative communities. These actions would reduce the proliferation of invasive species and 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-349

increase the degree to which the health and function of vegetation communities would be maintained and 

improved compared to Alternative A. 

The impacts on vegetation from OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be similar to those 

identified in Alternative A, except the non-sand dune portions of these areas would be managed as 

“limited to designated roads and trails” which could reduce overall vegetation loss and damage from 

OHV use. Upgrading of existing routes within sage-grouse priority habitat would not be allowed unless 

the upgrading would have minimal impact on sage-grouse priority habitat, which would further reduce the 

potential for damage to vegetation resources, the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, and habitat 

fragmentation. 

4.16.5 Alternative C 

Impacts to vegetation from ROW management actions would be similar to Alternative B, except all sagegrouse priority and general habitat areas would be managed as exclusion areas for ROWs and SUAs 

(11,531,340 acres; Map 2-11) which would decrease vegetation removal, habitat fragmentation and other 

impacts from surface disturbing activities compared to Alternative A. 

Surface disturbing activities such as land clearing, vegetation removal, road development, and 

maintenance from wind energy development would be reduced compared to Alternative A as wind energy 

development would be prohibited on 11,531,340 acres within sage-grouse priority and general habitat 

(Map 2-31) and a total of 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed. Surface disturbing 

activities would be reduced as wind energy developments would be sited five miles away from active 

leks. Industrial solar developments would be prohibited in ACECs and occupied sage-grouse habitats. 

Overall livestock grazing management actions would be more restrictive and reduce total acreage for 

grazing, compared to Alternative A, by prohibiting grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat, which 

would eliminate impacts from grazing within these areas. Avoiding grazing and trailing within sagegrouse lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during periods of the year when these habitats 

are utilized by sage-grouse would reduce herbivory and plant compaction in and help maintain sagebrush 

canopy cover in these areas. 

Oil, gas, and/or geothermal activity could be reduced compared to Alternative A as it would be conducted 

to maximize avoidance of impacts to resources, which could reduce development activities and associated 

impacts to vegetation habitat. Fluid mineral developments would be reduced compared to Alternative A, 

by increasing closed areas to 16,878,220 acres and NSO areas to 2,082,140 acres. This could eliminate 

surface disturbing impacts from oil, gas, and/or geothermal activities within sage-grouse general and 

priority habitats. Vegetation habitat impacted by surface disturbing impacts would be reduced, as the 

number of wells would be reduced to 9,533 projected oil and gas wells and 1,594 CBNG wells and 

associated short-term and long-term surface disturbance acres would be reduced to 85,140 acres and 

27,030 acres, respectively. Including COAs in permits when approving exploration of development for 

existing leases could reduce surface disturbing impacts from exploration and development in sage-grouse 

habitat areas, which would preserve vegetation habitat or reduce impacts to vegetation. Prohibiting 

construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs that hold produced water from CBNG activities 

would reduce surface disturbing activities in these areas and reduce associated negative impacts on 

vegetation resources. 

The impacts on vegetation resources resulting from placing restrictions on surface disturbing activities 

within sage-grouse winter concentration areas would be the same as those identified in Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, the restrictions on surface disturbing activities within winter concentration areas 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-350 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

would apply year-round, but would only apply to federal leases and within sage-grouse priority habitat. 

These restrictions and management actions would reduce the total amount of area where surface 

disturbing activities could occur. Restrictions addressing sage-grouse priority and general habitats and 

would restrict the total permitted surface disturbance activities to less than 3%, which would reduce the 

total area where impacts could occur. 

Impacts from vegetation management actions would be similar to Alternative A except in sage-grouse 

priority and general habitats; sagebrush canopy would not be reduced to less than 15% unless required by 

fuels management objectives. In addition, within sage-grouse priority and general habitat, vegetation 

treatments would create landscape patterns to benefit sage-grouse. These landscape patterns would 

increase overall vegetative community health by reducing monocot species stands. Fuels treatments in 

sage-grouse winter habitat would not be allowed unless they are designed to reduce wildfire risk and 

maintain habitat quality, which would help to maintain vegetation resources. 

Impacts to vegetative resources from riparian management action would be reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as sage-grouse priority and general habitats would maintain six inches of stubble height on 

all riparian/meadow areas and herbaceous species, which could help maintain ecological functions. In 

addition, the wet meadow complexes would be maintained and managed to maintain a component of 

perennial forbs with diverse species richness, which would increase resistance to invasive species. 

The impacts to vegetation from lands and realty actions would be similar to Alternative B, except they 

would be reduced as there would be no exceptions for disposal in sage-grouse priority habitat, which 

could help retain more land under the management of BLM/Forest Service and maintain larger contiguous 

vegetative communities. 

Vegetation health could increase and the proliferation of invasive plant species could be reduced as fire 

management actions in sage-grouse priority and general habitats would implement fuels treatments with 

an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. Sage-grouse priority and general habitats 

would not use fire to treat sagebrush in areas with less than 12 inches of annual precipitation, which 

would reduce the potential for large fires. Noxious weeds could be reduced and ecological functions 

increased within sage-grouse priority and general habitats, as fuels management actions would ensure 

long-term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native plants. Excluding livestock grazing (by fencing or 

closure) from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives 

would positively impact vegetation in areas affected by burns, as newly treated areas would have longer 

to recover before grazing disturbances resume. Mowing of grass could be used during fuelbreak fuels 

reductions, which would increase short-term surface disturbances, but would reduce fuel loads that feed 

large-intensity fires, remove vegetation, and increase potential for invasive species establishment. In 

priority and general habitats, fires would be suppressed to conserve habitat. Depending on individual field 

office’s fire management plans, fewer acres would require full suppression under Alternative B than 

Alternative C, thus a greater number of acres may require ESR. ESR guidance would be the same for both 

priority and general habitats and would require livestock exclusion from the treated areas.

Impacts from recreation management would be same as Alternative B, except camping and other nonmotorized recreation would be prohibited within four miles of active sage-grouse leks. This could reduce 

the level of recreation activities in the planning area and reduce vegetation habitat that is degraded from 

such activities. 

Overall, travel management actions and related impacts on vegetation resources would be the same as 

Alternative B, except new road construction would be prohibited within four miles of active sage-grouse 

leks, new road construction would be avoided in priority and general habitat, and upgrading of existing 

routes would not be allowed, which would reduce the area impacted by surface disturbing activities 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-351

compared to Alternative A. Route construction could be limited to realignments of existing designated 

routes and could eliminate the need to construct new roads and reduce the total area potentially impacted 

by travel management actions and associated surface disturbing activities. 

4.16.6 Alternative D 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to vegetation in sage-grouse core and connectivity 

habitats would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as new transmission projects could be allowed 

within existing designated utility corridors, the new proposed two mile wide corridor from July 1- March 

14, or 0.5 miles of either side of existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines. Vegetation impacted would 

be reduced compared to Alternative A, as ROW exclusion areas would be increased to 5,141,340 acres. 

Wind energy development would be prohibited in sage-grouse core habitat, which would reduce the areas 

in which vegetation would be impacted compared to Alternative A. The impacts from surface disturbing 

activities would be from the development of 980 turbines projected to be constructed within the planning 

area. 

Many riparian management impacts would be similar or the same as those in Alternative A, except the 

majority of differences would be found in sage-grouse core habitat, as grazing would be balanced 

between riparian habitat and upland habitat to promote production and availability of beneficial forbs in 

meadows, mesic habitat, and riparian pastures for livestock, wildlife, and wild horses. This could increase 

plant production in riparian habitat and reduce impacts from grazing. Considering changes to season of 

use in riparian wetland areas before or after the hot growing could redistribute livestock, reduce the 

impacts from grazing on vegetation to other areas within the planning area. 

Vegetation management would be similar to that in Alternative A, as vegetation treatment areas would 

not be rested from grazing and, as a result, impacts from grazing could increase compared to 

Alternative A. Impacts to grassland areas in sage-grouse core and general habitat could decrease 

compared to Alternative A, as grasslands would be prioritized commensurate with its threat to the region, 

which could allow for more resources to be used to protect and improve habitat within these areas. 

Impacts from fluid mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A, except the level of intensity 

would be reduced because projected well development would be reduced to 13,083 oil and gas wells and 

2,686 CBNG wells. The total overall impact by surface disturbing activities would be reduced in the short 

term to 122,910 acres and reduced in the long term to 37,720 acres. This represents a 6% decrease in 

short-term surface disturbance and a three percent decrease in long-term surface disturbance compared to 

Alternative A. 

Non-energy management actions would be the same as in Alternative A, as exploration licenses and 

prospecting permits would be considered with appropriate mitigation and all non-energy leasable 

activities would be considered in sage-grouse core if they can comply to surface occupancy and 

disturbance and density stipulations from the DDCT process. These management actions could potentially 

increase the extent of surface disturbing activities within sage-grouse core habitat which could increase 

impacts to vegetation resources. 

Impacts to vegetation from locatable and salable mineral actions would be the same as those identified 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from surface occupancy or surface disturbing activities within and outside sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitats would be restricted within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks (Map 2-2). This 

would reduce surface disturbing activities compared to Alternative A, which could help preserve plant 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-352 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

community health and continuity. Disruptive activities would be restricted within 0.25 miles of occupied 

sage-grouse leks from March 15 – May 15. This seasonal stipulation would increase the total amount of 

area restricted, compared to Alternative A, during the time of year when plant production is at its most 

important. 

Impacts from surface disturbing energy production activities (excluding coal and trona mining and buried 

pipelines or power lines) would be similar but reduced compared to Alternative A, as energy production 

locations and/or transmission structures would not exceed an average of three per 640 acres and the 

combined value of existing and proposed disturbances would not exceed nine percent loss of sagebrush 

habitat. 

Impacts from travel management actions would be similar to Alternative A, except avoiding new road 

construction within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within sage-grouse core habitat would reduce 

the total area affected by surface disturbing activities and reduce habitat fragmentation. Allowing for the 

natural deterioration of roads not designated in travel management plans would increase the positive 

impacts of travel management and decrease habitat fragmentation compared to Alternative A. 

Impacts to vegetation from wildland fire and fuels management actions would be the same as those 

identified under Alternative A.

4.16.7 Alternative E 

Impacts to vegetation (surface disturbance) from new transmission lines would be similar to those under 

Alternative D except they would be reduced as new transmission lines would only be allowed within a 2-

mile corridor, thus reducing the area where impacts could occur. ROW management actions and 

associated impacts to vegetation in sage-grouse core and connectivity habitats would be reduced 

compared to Alternative A, as ROW avoidance areas would be increased to 6,065,960 acres. 

Impacts from fluid mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A, except the level of intensity 

would be reduced because projected well development would be reduced to 12,355 oil and gas wells and 

2,462 CBNG wells. The total overall impact by surface disturbing activities would be reduced in the short 

term to 112,330 acres and reduced in the long term to 35,340 acres. This represents a six percent decrease 

in short-term surface disturbance and a three percent decrease in long-term surface disturbance compared 

to Alternative A. Negative impacts from geophysical exploration projects would increase compared to 

Alternative C and could be similar to those from Alternatives A and B by allowing projects that are 

designated to minimize habitat fragmentation within sage-grouse core habitat, except were prohibited or 

restricted by existing LUP decisions. 

Livestock grazing management and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative A, except in the 

case of the development of grazing strategies which would be similar to Alternative D. Impacts to 

vegetation from livestock grazing permits and/or grazing preference relinquishments would be the same 

as those listed under Alternative A within sage-grouse core habitat areas, but instead of a temporary 

exception there would be no time limit, which could reduce grazing levels over longer periods. Overall 

management actions for drought conditions are very similar to Alternative D, except management actions 

would not be limited to season of use or stocking rate changes. This could allow greater ability to reduce 

impacts from livestock grazing. 

Direct vegetation removal through herbivory could be reduced as supplemental feeding would be 

authorized where appropriate. This could also cause higher concentrations of cattle in these areas and 

increase the levels of vegetation and soil compaction. Impacts to vegetation resulting from the placement 

of mineral and salt supplements would be reduced, compared to Alternative A, as the distance for 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Vegetation 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-353

placement of these supplements would be increased from 500 feet to 0.6 miles of water sources and 

occupied lek locations, which would distribute livestock over more area or into areas more resistant to 

grazing. Impacts from surface disturbing activities for livestock trailing would be reduced compared to 

Alternative A, as authorized trailing plans would be designed to avoid sensitive areas and/or time period. 

Riparian management actions and associated impacts would be the similar as those identified in 

Alternative A, except they would incorporate management to vary grazing between riparian habitat and 

upland habitat. This could reduce overall impacts to riparian habitat from livestock grazing and maintain 

or improve vegetative community health. Water development impacts to vegetation could be reduced 

compared to Alternative A, as more stipulations could restrict new developments across the entire 

planning area. Positive impacts from range improvements could be increased as new improvements would 

focus on achieving rangeland health standards that maintain and/or improve sage-grouse habitat. 

Vegetation management actions and impacts would be similar to those found under Alternative A, except 

vegetation would be managed to achieve not only sage-grouse objectives but also other resource 

objectives, which could reduce negative impacts to vegetation. Treatments and fire management actions 

on vegetation would be similar to Alternatives C and D, except the threshold for surface disturbances 

would be five percent. Fuel treatments would also be based on WGFD protocols for treating sagebrush to 

benefit sage-grouse, which could positively impact vegetation resources compared to the other 

alternatives. 

Impacts to vegetation associated with solid mineral leasing would be similar to Alternative A, except 

impacts would be reduced as mitigation and protective measures would be applied to sage-grouse habitat, 

which would reduce total area where surface disturbing activities could occur. Coal exploration 

management actions and associated impacts to vegetation would be similar to Alternative A, but could be 

reduced due to the need to comply with surface occupancy, disturbance, and density stipulations analyzed 

through the DDCT process. 

Impacts on vegetation resources from locatable mineral development would be the same as those 

identified under Alternative B.

Impacts from saleable mineral actions would be similar to Alternative A, except all salable mineral 

activities within core habitat areas would be considered provided they can be completed in compliance 

within surface occupancy, seasonal restrictions, and disturbance and density stipulations analyzed through 

the DDCT process. Positive impacts from closure and restoration of saleable mineral pits no longer in use 

to meet sage-grouse habitat conservation objectives would increase over those in Alternative A as more 

area would be reclaimed and vegetation would be restored. 

Travel management actions and associated impacts on vegetation would be the same as Alternative A, 

except new primary and secondary roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks within core habitat, and other new roads would avoid areas within 0.6 miles of sagegrouse leks. This would reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities from new roads in these areas 

but could increase new road distances if they are constructed to go around these areas. Vegetation would 

be restored in more areas compared to Alternative A, as the number of unauthorized or redundant and 

unnecessary roads that would be reclaimed could be increased. Impacts from surface disturbances would 

be reduced compared to Alternative A, as the disturbance threshold would be set at five percent. Road and 

trail reclamation actions and impacts would be similar to those in Alternative D, except they would only 

apply in sage-grouse core habitat. 

Fuels management actions under this alternative would consider multiple tools for fuels reduction. These 

management actions could increase impacts to vegetation by allowing more surface disturbing activities, 
Chapter 4—Vegetation Draft EIS 

4-354 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

but could also reduce impacts from fires. Impacts in Alternative E would be similar to Alternative B, with 

greater protections in place to protect priority habitats from wildfires with the placement of green strips 

and/or fuel breaks and the development of wildfire prevention plans would be developed. 

Restrictions and management actions would reduce the total amount of area where surface disturbing 

activities could occur. Overall surface disturbance would be limited to no more than five percent of the 

sage-grouse core habitat using the DDCT process. Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities 

would be prohibited or restricted within 0.25 miles radius of occupied sage-grouse leks, which would 

increase the amount of area protected throughout the planning area and reduce surface disturbing 

activities and impacts compared to Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-355

4.17 VISUAL RESOURCES

This section presents potential impacts on visual resources from implementing management actions 

presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning visual resources are described in Chapter 3.

The purposes of visual resource management (VRM) within the BLM and the Scenery Management 

System (SMS) Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) and/or Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) within the 

Forest Service are to manage the quality of the visual environment and to minimize the visual impact of 

development activities, while maintaining the viability of all resource programs. Much of the planning 

area contains natural settings with limited development, open spaces with panoramic vistas, and scenic 

views. 

During an RMP revision, impacts to visual resources would be compared against a Visual Resource 

Inventory (VRI) as the baseline, while VRM classes are being considered. In this RMP amendment, since 

new VRM classes are not being considered, impacts to visual resources will be compared against the 

existing VRM decisions that have been made in the nine RMPs/LRMPs. 

4.17.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on visual resources are as follows: 

• The amount of surface disturbance and vegetation removal 

• The amount of human structures visible on the landscape 

• The amount of movement visible on the landscape 

• The amount of light pollution in the night skies. 

4.17.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• All alternatives would conform with visual resource decisions in existing land use plans. Contrast 

rating analysis completed during project implementation and future activity plans would consider 

Greater Sage-Grouse management actions in this plan. 

• VRM/SIO/VQO objectives would be achieved. 

• VRM/SIO/VQO objectives provide for varying degrees of change (impact) to the visual quality 

of the landscape. 

4.17.3 Alternative A 

The combined impacts to visual resource from Alternative A would be the greatest of all the alternatives. 

Surface disturbing activities such as oil and gas leasing, mining activities including coal and trona, other 

solid mineral leasing, mineral materials exploration and sales, wind energy development, utility facility 

development, and transmission line development would reduce the quality of visual resources throughout 

much of the planning area. The removal of vegetation and soil changes the color, form, and texture of the 

landscape. Buildings and structures change the color and form of the landscape. Linear scars such as 

transmission lines, roads, and buried pipelines change the line of the landscape. All of these activities 

create noticeable patterns that impact the natural visual values in the planning area. Actions such as 

mineral closures and surface disturbance restrictions designed to protect Greater Sage-Grouse (discussed 

in more detail below) would prevent some of the impacts listed above. Some Greater Sage-Grouse impact 
Chapter 4—Visual Resources Draft EIS 

4-356 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

deterrents (e.g., fence markers and power line basketballs) would increase the visibility of fences, power 

lines, towers, and other man-made structures, which would increase the contrast created by such visual 

impacts. However, most actions that protect sage-grouse also protect visual resources. 

Oil and gas leasing would be allowed within core and general sage-grouse habitat (Map 2-4) with 13,653 

oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells projected during the planning period. This would cause an 

estimated 130,330 acres of short-term surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of long-term disturbance. 

Impacts to visual resources from oil and gas exploration include the short-term placement of tall drilling 

rigs, which break the skyline and create massive intrusions to otherwise natural visual settings. Over the 

long term, roads and ROWs needed for drilling operations are the most visible, breaking the line and form 

of natural settings. Long-term oil and gas facilities are often nestled into hillsides or painted to blend with 

the natural visual environment. There is still an impact where such facilities are seen, but mitigation 

techniques and restoration efforts minimize the overall effect. Oil and gas leasing would be compatible 

with VRM class IV, SIO Low, and VQO Modification and could be compatible with VRM Class II and 

III, SIO Moderate, and VQO Partial Retention depending on design features. 

Coal leasing; non-energy leasable minerals (Map 2-24); withdrawing locatable mineral from entry 

(Map 2-19); and closing mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-14) all have 

similar impacts upon visual resources as oil and gas leasing. Surface coal mines and mineral borrow pits 

remove the top-most layer of vegetation and soil across wide areas. These denuded areas impact scenery 

due to changes in form, color, and texture. Such changes would only be compatible in VRM class IV, SIO 

Low, and VQO Modification areas. 

Efforts to protect sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat through prohibiting surface-disturbance on 68,550 

acres of the planning area and avoiding surface-disturbance on 437,680 acres would reduce the overall 

level of surface disturbance resulting from new permitted activities, which would preserve and protect 

visual resources from the impacts listed in the previous three paragraphs. Site-specific conservation and 

mitigation objectives, such as BMPs could help reduce visual impacts that occur. Measures such as 

topographic screening, color matching and camouflaging, and measures that reduce the footprint on-theground would reduce contrast with natural scenic elements of the landscape. In addition, reclamation of 

surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 

2009a) could effectively remove the most of the visual contrast created by surface disturbance. Replacing 

denuded areas with native vegetation and other reclamation practices would eventually restore native 

colors, shapes, lines, and forms to match surrounding natural scenery. The restoration of unused roads or 

redundant routes in some BLM/Forest Service areas would remove linear visual features from the 

landscape over the long term. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs considered on a case-by-case basis would temporarily 

increase the ability to develop oil and gas leases, which would result in short-term, increased development 

throughout the planning area. This would increase visual impacts described above, associated with 

surface-disturbing activities. 

Vegetation treatments such as Integrated Vegetation Management to control noxious weeds, prescribed 

burns, and other fuels reduction practices would impact visual resources by removing vegetation, which 

changes the color and texture of the visual environment. Prescribed burns create a very noticeable, shortterm change in color from naturally green vegetation from sagebrush and grasses to black burn scars over 

large areas. As sagebrush can take decades to reestablish fully, long-term changes to landscape color and 

texture may be visible for the duration of the planning period. Vegetation treatments would be compatible 

with VRM class IV, SIO Low, and VQO Modification and possibly class III if a natural-looking mosaic 

pattern can be created. Only minor vegetation changes would be compatible with VRM class II. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-357

ROW exclusion (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (2,460,340) (Map 2-9) within core habitat and 

limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas would serve to 

consolidate utility ROWs and structures. This would reduce the extent of disturbed areas and eliminate 

many visual impacts. Linear impacts from ROWs and power lines would be eliminated in many areas, 

which would improve visual quality across the planning area. Designating specific corridors along 

existing roads or in areas that are already disturbed would help reduce visual impacts in areas where 

visual quality may be more sensitive. 

Allowing wind energy development in sage-grouse core and general habitat areas, except in areas that are 

currently unavailable for such development (Map 2-29), would increase the number of man-made 

structures that disrupt horizons and break up natural landscape views. Wind energy development entails 

tall, vertical structures, painted reflective white, with moving blades that can be seen for many miles, a 

visual impact that would be incompatible with all VRM classes except class IV. Through the year 2020, 

1,254 wind turbines are projected in the planning area. Because current Federal Aviation Administration 

guidelines do not allow color screening, wind turbines must be white for visibility and aviation safety. 

The towers affect the line, color, and texture of views across the landscape, most often breaking the 

horizon line. The moving, spinning nature of the towers also attracts attention. Any towers placed in 

VRM classes I through III would be incompatible with objectives for that class. Across the planning area, 

437,120 acres would be closed to wind development and 3,888,930 acres would have restrictions on wind 

development. This would limit or eliminate visual impacts in these areas. 

Avoiding new MET towers within 1 mile of occupied habitat could reduce the appearance of tall visual 

obstructions in some areas, although the total number of towers in the planning area may not change. 

Land disposals identified within core habitat could remove land from public ownership, which would 

remove VRM, SIO, and VQO designations and the visual resource protections accompanying them. This 

could result in new landowners making changes to the visual environment. Conversely, the pursuit of land 

acquisitions in the Bolton Creek Drainage and Bates Creek could add lands to federal ownership. 

Depending on VRM categories assigned to these areas, visual resources could receive protection against 

changes to the landscape and natural settings. 

Range improvements and wild horse and burro water developments would add ponds, fences, and other 

structures that would be visible from great distances on otherwise natural rangeland visual environments. 

Fences add linear features to the visual setting and ponds change the shape, texture, and color. The visual 

contrast from range improvements would likely be compatible with VRM classes III and IV, SIO 

Moderate and Low, and VQO Partial Retention. 

“Open” OHV areas (i.e. Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area) could create new trails and tracks on the ground that would 

deteriorate visual resources through changes in color and line that would contrast with the natural scenery. 

On sandy or rocky terrain, an “open” OHV designation would not create as much visual contrast across 

the landscape. On vegetated areas, however, such as grass or small shrubs, line and texture changes across 

the landscape would become noticeable enough to conflict with VRM class II objectives. Moving 

vehicles and associated dust clouds on dirt roads and dusty areas would also temporarily decrease visual 

quality through changes to landscape texture and an increase in regional haze. “Open” OHV areas would 

be most compatible with VRM classes III and IV. 

4.17.4 Alternative B 

Impacts to visual resource from Alternative B would be the least of all the alternatives except 

Alternative C. Surface disturbing activities such as oil and gas leasing, mining activities including coal 
Chapter 4—Visual Resources Draft EIS 

4-358 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

and trona, other solid mineral leasing, mineral materials exploration and sales, wind energy development, 

utility facility development, and transmission line development would have a similar impact as 

Alternative A, but across less total area. Oil and gas leasing would be unavailable on 6,809,580 acres 

under Alternative B (Map 2-5), which would reduce the short-term surface disturbance by 20% from 

Alternative A to 104,050 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 14% to 33,530 acres. These 

closures, as well as NSO restrictions, would nearly eliminate visual impacts within sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas. Overall, 11,555 oil and gas wells (15% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,154 CBNG wells 

(22% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under Alternative B. Unitization 

requirements on priority habitat would further reduce visual impacts by grouping impacts from multiple 

wells onto a single site, which would limit the distribution of visual impacts. 

Finding coal leasing unsuitable; closing non-energy leasable minerals, withdrawing locatable mineral 

from entry, and closing mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits in priority habitat areas 

would eliminate visual impacts from coal in those areas. Impacts from the development of these minerals 

in other areas would have the same impact on visual resources as described under Alternative A. 

Restoring saleable mineral pits that are no longer in use could reduce the visual contrast created by pits. 

In the long term, native vegetation could blend the areas back into the surrounding visual landscape. 

Managing sage-grouse priority areas as exclusion areas and limiting all surface disturbance in priority 

sage-grouse habitat to 3% of the total area would reduce the overall level of surface disturbance, which 

would preserve and protect visual resources from impacts from all sources as described under 

Alternative A within these areas. 

Site-specific conservation and mitigation objectives, lease stipulations, consolidation of infrastructure on 

existing leases, required design features, and BMPs would continue to reduce visual impacts that occur, 

the same as under Alternative A. Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in 

accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same effect on visual 

resources as Alternative A. Extending the restoration of roads to all undesignated routes would extend the 

effects described under Alternative A to more areas. 

Disallowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs within priority habitat areas would 

decrease the ability to develop oil and gas leases in these areas. This would decrease impacts to visual 

resources from oil and gas development described above. Outside priority habitat areas, impacts would be 

the same as under Alternative A.

Limiting vegetation treatments to 15% cover reduction and reducing fuel treatments in sage-grouse winter 

range would reduce the impacts described under Alternative A. Reducing the overall footprint of 

vegetation treatments would be more compatible with VRM class III, SIO Moderate, and VQO Partial 

Retention than under Alternative A. 

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority sage-grouse habitat, expanding avoidance to all general 

habitat, and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors throughout the planning 

area would eliminate impacts to visual resources described under Alternative A within priority habitat 

areas and reduce visual impacts within general habitat areas. 

Wind energy development would be eliminated within priority habitat and limited within general habitat 

(Map 2-30). The removal and reduction of potential wind energy development would have a significant 

effect compared to Alternative A. The increase in areas unavailable for wind energy development 

(5,000,400 acres closed compared to 437,120 acres under Alternative A and 6,530,940 acres restricted 

compared to 3,888,930 acres under Alternative A) reduces the number of projected wind turbines 

especially in areas of high potential for wind development. Based on these restrictions, 127 wind turbines 

could be developed across the planning area through 2020. Compared to Alternative A, 1,127 fewer wind 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-359

turbines (or 90% fewer) would be a significant decrease. Impacts to visual resources from wind energy 

development would be mostly eliminated compared to Alternative A.

Removing or burying power lines within sage-grouse priority habitat could remove linear visual impacts 

from the landscape. However, trenching required to bury power lines could create more visual contrast 

than leaving them above ground. This impact could be mitigated depending on the method used to bury 

the lines. Trenchless methods would remove almost all visible landscape scars. 

Prohibiting MET towers within core habitat would eliminate the impacts described under Alternative A. 

Outside these areas, impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

Retaining public ownership of lands, with a few exceptions, within priority habitat would eliminate the 

impacts described under Alternative A. Outside these areas, impacts would be the same as Alternative A. 

Identifying land acquisitions that benefit sage-grouse habitat would expand the effects of increased VRM 

management described under Alternative A to any additional areas acquired. 

Range improvements and wild horse and burro water developments would have similar impacts to visual 

resources as under Alternative A.

Eliminating OHV “open” areas except the sand portions of those areas and only allowing travel on 

designated routes would minimize impacts described under Alternative A. The sandy areas do not impact 

visual resources the same as vegetated areas, because it is the loss of vegetation that creates changes to 

line and color associated with vehicle travel. Impacts still occur on the designated routes, but are 

eliminated everywhere else. 

4.17.5 Alternative C 

Impacts to visual resource from Alternative C would be the least of all the alternatives. Surface disturbing 

activities would have a similar impact as described in Alternative A, but across less total area. 

Alternative C would have the least surface disturbance of all the alternatives, creating the fewest such 

visual impacts. Oil and gas leasing would not be open on any areas within core and general sage-grouse 

habitat under Alternative C (Map 2-6). This would remove impacts discussed under Alternative A for all 

except valid existing leases. This would reduce the short-term surface disturbance by 35% from 

Alternative A to 85,140 acres and reduce the long-term disturbance by 31% to 27,030 acres. NSO 

restrictions on existing leases in priority habitat (same as Alternative B) would nearly eliminate related 

visual impacts within these areas. Overall, 9,533 oil and gas wells (30% fewer than Alternative A) and 

1,594 CBNG wells (42% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the plan under 

Alternative C. Unitization requirements would have the same effect as under Alternative B.

Impacts from coal leasing; non-energy leasable minerals, locatable mineral entry, and mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits would be the same as under Alternative B. Restoring saleable 

mineral pits that are no longer in use would have the same effect as Alternative B. Managing both priority 

and general habitat areas as exclusion areas would reduce the impacts described under Alternative A 

within these areas. 

Site-specific conservation and mitigation objectives, lease stipulations, consolidation of infrastructure on 

existing leases, required design features, and BMPs would continue to reduce visual impacts that occur, 

the same as under Alternative A. Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in 

accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same effect on visual 

resources as Alternative A. Extending the restoration of roads to all undesignated routes would have the 

same effects as described under Alternative B. Prohibiting new road construction within 4 miles of active 
Chapter 4—Visual Resources Draft EIS 

4-360 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

leks and avoiding new roads in priority and general habitat would reduce the creation of new linear visual 

contrasts throughout the planning area and eliminate them within 4 miles of active leks. 

Disallowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs within priority habitat areas (same as 

Alternative B) and general habitat areas (expanded from Alternative B) would decrease the ability to 

develop oil and gas leases in these areas. This would decrease impacts to visual resources from oil and 

gas development described above. Outside priority and general habitat areas, impacts would be the same 

as under Alternative A.

Expanding the 15% cover reduction limitation under Alternative B to include both priority and general 

habitat areas would reduce the impacts described under Alternative A, more so than under Alternative B.

Expanding ROW exclusion to include all priority and general sage-grouse habitat (11,531,340 acres, 

expanded from Alternative B) (Map 2-11) and limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated 

corridors (same as Alternative B) would eliminate impacts to visual resources from ROWs within priority 

and general habitat areas except in designated corridors. 

Wind energy development would also be eliminated within priority habitat and general habitat (expanded 

from Alternative B with 11,531,340 acres closed compared to 437,120 acres under Alternative A) 

(Map 2-31). Based on these restrictions, 127 wind turbines could be developed across the planning area 

through 2020, the same significant impact as under Alternative B, except areas in which wind turbines 

could be built would be even more limited. The removal and reduction of potential wind energy would be 

a significant change over Alternative A. Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied 

habitat would eliminate potential impacts from solar developments in these areas. Impacts from facilities 

and mirrors required for solar developments include large structures and vast areas where mirrors reflect 

the sun. Such structures change the color, reflectivity, form, and texture of the visual environment. 

Denying such development in these areas, however, would likely only move the impacts to other areas. 

Removing or burying power lines within sage-grouse priority habitat would be the same as under 

Alternative B.

The impact from MET towers would be the same as described under Alternative A.

Retaining public ownership of lands within priority habitat without exceptions mentioned under 

Alternative B would have similar effects described under Alternative B, only in more areas. Impacts from 

identifying land acquisitions would be the same as under Alternative B.

Avoiding structural range improvements could reduce visual impacts described under Alternative A. This 

alternative could prevent such improvements as cattle guards, fences, and corrals, which would eliminate 

impacts that would create lines or add form to visual characteristics. Wild horse and burro water 

developments would have similar impacts to visual resources as under Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV use, particularly in areas designated as “open” under Alternative A would be the same 

as described under Alternative B.

4.17.6 Alternative D 

Impacts to visual resource from Alternative D would be the greatest of all the alternatives except 

Alternative A. Surface disturbing activities would have a similar impact as described in Alternative A, but 

across less total area. Areas closed to oil and gas leasing would be expanded to include Raven Creek in 

the Newcastle Field Office and three areas in the Pinedale Field Office. This would reduce impacts from 

minerals management on visual resources from Alternative A, but not by nearly as much as Alternatives 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-361

B and C. Estimated short-term surface disturbance would be reduced by 6% from Alternative A to 

122,910 acres and long-term disturbance would be reduced by about 3% to 37,720 acres. In addition, 

density limitations of three locations per 640 acres and a 9% disturbance cap within core habitat would 

limit how much surface disturbance would occur. The NSO restrictions will not be used, which could 

increase surface disturbance and thus visual impacts. Overall, 13,083 oil and gas wells (4% fewer than 

Alternative A) and 2,686 CBNG wells (3% fewer than Alternative A) are projected over the life of the 

plan under Alternative D. Unitization requirements would have the same effect as under Alternative B.

Impacts from coal leasing would be of the same type as described under Alternative A, but on less area. 

Coal leasing would occur on more area than Alternatives B and C, thus the impacts on visual resources 

would be greater than those alternatives. Non-energy leasable minerals would be allowed on much the 

same area as Alternative A, but with more mitigation aimed at protecting sagebrush habitat, which would 

reduce impacts to visual resources as well. Locatable mineral entry, mineral material exploration, sales, 

and free use permits would be the same as under Alternative A. With all of these activities, density 

limitations of three locations per 640 acres and a 9% disturbance cap within core habitat would apply in 

sage-grouse core areas. This would limit visual impacts in those areas and reduce potential sources of 

visual contrast in line, form, shape, color, and texture. 

Site-specific conservation and mitigation objectives, lease stipulations, consolidation of infrastructure on 

existing leases, required design features, and BMPs would continue to reduce visual impacts that occur, 

the same as under Alternative A. Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in 

accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same effect on visual 

resources as Alternative A. Allowing undesignated routes to reclaim naturally would have the same 

effects as described under Alternative C, although it may take longer than manually reclaiming the routes 

before the visual contrast begins to diminish and the routes blend in with their surroundings. Avoiding 

occupied leks with a quarter-mile buffer would have little effect towards reducing visual impacts and 

could create greater visibility for new roads. Avoiding leks could cause roads to be built in more 

prominent locations, with great visual impact from greater distance. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impacts as under Alternative A.

Impacts from vegetation and fuels management would be the same as described under Alternative A, 

except that some types of fuels treatment, such as prescribed burns could be limited in core sage-grouse 

habitat. Reduction of prescribed burns and the use of other means of fuels treatments in these areas would 

reduce short-term impacts to the visual environment from fire. Changes in color and texture would be less 

noticeable, and thus more acceptable even possibly within VRM class II, SIO High, and VQO Retention. 

Managing core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas (5,141,340 acres) (Map 2-12) would reduce the 

impacts described under Alternative A. Inside core areas, impacts to visual resources would be the same 

as Alternatives B and C, but in general habitat areas, impacts would be similar to Alternative A. The 

management of ROW corridors would be the same as Alternative A. 

Limiting wind turbines in core habitat unless it can be shown that sage-grouse would not decline would 

reduce the total number of wind turbines in the planning area (Map 2-32). Compared to Alternative A, the 

increase in areas unavailable for wind energy development (5,000,400 acres [the same as Alternative B]) 

would reduce the number of projected wind turbines especially in areas of high potential for wind 

development. Based on these restrictions, 980 wind turbines could be developed across the planning area 

through 2020. Compared to Alternative A, this is 274, or 22%, fewer wind turbines. However, compared 

to Alternatives B and C, this would be nearly eight times as many turbines allowed, mainly because of 

reduced areas outside core habitat where there would be wind energy restrictions (501,830 acres 
Chapter 4—Visual Resources Draft EIS 

4-362 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

compared to 3,888,930 acres under Alternative A). Impacts to visual resources would thus be less than 

Alternative A, but still much greater than Alternatives B and C. 

The impact from MET towers would be the same as described under Alternative A.

Retaining public ownership of lands within priority habitat would be the same as under Alternative B. 

The effects from identifying land acquisitions would be the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from range improvements and wild horse and burro water developments would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV use would be the same as Alternative A.

4.17.7 Alternative E 

Impacts to visual resource from Alternative E would be the greater than Alternatives B and C, but less 

than Alternatives A and D. Surface disturbing activities would have a similar impact as described in 

Alternative A, but across less total area. Restrictions on oil and gas leasing (e.g., NSO and CSU 

stipulations) would be greatly increased compared to Alternative A, which would further protect visual 

resources. Estimated short-term surface disturbance would be reduced by 14% from Alternative A to 

112,330 acres and long-term disturbance would be reduced by about 9% to 35,430 acres. In addition, 

density limitations of one location per 640 acres with no more than 5% disturbance maximum will limit 

how much surface disturbance will occur. This would reduce visual impacts more than Alternatives A and 

D within core habitat, though less than Alternatives B and C, which would be closed to oil and gas for the 

same area. NSO restrictions would be increased from Alternative A, which would reduce many of the 

surface disturbing impacts that reduce the quality of the visual environment. Overall, 12,355 oil and gas 

wells (10% fewer than Alternative A) and 2,462 CBNG wells (11% fewer than Alternative A) are 

projected over the life of the plan under Alternative E. Unitization requirements would have the same 

effect as under Alternative B.

Impacts from coal leasing and non-energy leasable minerals would be the same as Alternative D. 

Pursuing some withdrawals for locatable mineral entry and requiring stipulations for mineral material 

exploration, sales, and free use permits would reduce visual impacts compared to and as described under 

Alternative A. In core sage-grouse habitat, density limitations of one location per 640 acres and a 5% 

disturbance cap would limit the visual impacts for all of these resources as well. Restoring saleable 

mineral pits that are no longer in use would be the same as under Alternative B.

Site-specific conservation and mitigation objectives, lease stipulations, consolidation of infrastructure on 

existing leases, required design features, and BMPs would continue to reduce visual impacts that occur, 

the same as under Alternative A. Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in 

accordance with the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same effect on visual 

resources as Alternative A. Allowing undesignated routes to reclaim naturally would have the same 

effects as described under Alternative D, except affects would be extended to wilderness study and 

characteristics areas. Reclaiming unauthorized roads and two-track routes would further reduce the visual 

impacts described above from roads over the long term. Avoiding occupied leks with a 1.9-mile buffer 

within core habitat (0.6 miles within general habitat) would reduce visual impacts more than under 

Alternative D, which has a quarter-mile buffer, due to visual distance of roads being harder to see at 

greater distance. However, rerouting of roads around occupied leks could still create greater visibility for 

new roads. Avoiding leks could cause roads to be built in more prominent locations, with great visual 

impact from greater distance. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Visual Resources 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-363

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would have the same impacts as under Alternative A.

Impacts from vegetation and fuels management would be the same as Alternative B. 

The management of ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) and avoidance areas (6,065,960 acres) (Map 2-

13) within core and general habitat would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative A, except 

that there would be fewer avoidance areas, which could increase visual impacts from ROWs. The 

management of ROW corridors would be the same as Alternative A. Removing or reclaiming 

developments from existing authorizations, ROWs, or SUAs that are expired or no longer in use could 

remove existing visual impacts through removing structures that contrast with the natural landscape. 

The development of wind energy would have a similar impact as Alternative B (Map 2-33), except there 

would be 5,002,520 acres closed to wind development (compared to 5,000,400 acres under Alternative B 

and 437,120 acres under Alternative A). There would be 127 wind turbines developed across the planning 

area through 2020 (the same as Alternatives B and C). Compared to Alternative A, there would be 1,127 

fewer wind turbines (or 90% fewer). This would be a significant impact compared to Alternative A.

Avoiding placing MET towers within two miles of active sage-grouse leks within core habitat would have 

a similar impact as Alternative A, except right around leks. The total number of towers across the 

planning area would likely remain the same. 

Retaining public ownership of lands within priority habitat would be the same as under Alternative B. 

The effects from identifying land acquisitions would be the same as under Alternative A.

Impacts from range improvements and wild horse and burro water developments would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from OHV use would be the same as Alternative A, except on non-sand dune portions of “open” 

areas within sage-grouse core habitat, which would become limited to existing roads and trails. Such 

areas could see fewer visual impacts from prohibiting motorized travel off of areas that aren’t already 

previously disturbed. 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-364 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.18 WATERSHED AND WATER QUALITY

This section presents potential impacts on watershed resources and water quality from implementing 

management actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning watershed resources and 

water quality are described in Chapter 3.

4.18.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on water resources are as follows: 

• Amount of land subject to surface disturbance 

• Vegetation cover (measured by acres in which vegetation would be removed/degraded or 

protected/maintained) 

• Water quality. 

4.18.2 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• The State of Wyoming has primacy with regard to water quality and quantity. The BLM and the 

Forest Service manage the public lands within the analysis area. The management of these lands 

can affect the quality and timing of flows of the waters through them. Because the state must 

comply with federal laws, compliance with state laws includes compliance with federal rules and 

regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Colorado River Salinity Compact, Safe Drinking 

Water Act, and others. Therefore, it is assumed that any discharged water would meet water 

quality standards at the point of discharge. 

• Water flows down gradient. The faster water flows, the more and bigger the material it can carry. 

• Management actions that mitigate adverse impacts to soil and vegetation resources will help 

minimize management-related soil erosion and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to 

water bodies. 

• Degradation of stream channel and land health conditions can be quite rapid. Recovery is often a 

much slower process. It is generally more efficient to prevent degradation in the first place rather 

than to recover a degraded system. 

• As mineral development continues to expand, there will be an increase in produced water 

volumes that will decrease as the rate of development decreases and the aquifers are drained. 

4.18.3 Alternative A 

Surface disturbing activities can result in removal of vegetative cover, soil compaction, and increased 

erosion rates due to the exposure of soil particles to wind and water. There is a close correlation between 

the condition of soil and vegetation and water quality. Removal of vegetation generally increases the rate 

at which water flows off the land. Substantial disturbance to soil, including compaction of soil or changes 

in vegetative cover that result in decreased surface coverage, root depth, or root density, would increase 

water runoff. Soil disturbance would also alter timing and duration of runoff, reduce infiltration capacity, 

and accelerate erosion, sedimentation, and the addition of nutrients and sediment loads to stream 

channels, thereby degrading water quality, channel structure, and overall watershed health. As the amount 

of surface disturbance increases, the ability of a watershed to buffer high flows, filter water and sediment, 

and provide habitat, such as stream cover, decreases. The degree of impact attributed to any one 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-365

disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by several factors, including location within the 

watershed, time and degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and precipitation. 

Surface disturbance restrictions apply to activities related to fluid mineral leasing/oil and gas activities on 

new leases (including development of associated infrastructure), development associated with linear and 

non-linear ROWs (some of which are related to oil and gas, wind energy, and solar energy development 

and some of which are not), construction of MET towers, development of other leasable minerals and 

mineral materials, livestock grazing management and range improvements, wildfire, fuels and large 

vegetation treatments, and disruptive activities that require a Special Use Permit. 

A reduction in surface occupancy and disturbances would decrease vegetation removal, soil compaction, 

overland flow, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, and maintain the health 

and function of watershed resources and water quality in both the short term and long term. 

Limiting 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 

core habitats would maintain the health and function of watershed resources and water quality in the 

short-term as no new roads would be constructed, and no off road travel would be allowed. Roads affect 

the movement of water, changing the drainage system by acting both as dams and as a superimposed set 

of ephemeral channels, redirecting water from natural drainage patterns. 

Limiting ROWs and transmission projects to designated corridors in some areas would result in increased 

short-term soil erosion and sediment loading to nearby streams and rivers until the disturbed area was 

successfully reclaimed. Increased channelization of surface runoff would occur in ruts, road ditches, and 

areas of compacted soil. However, these restrictions would concentrate the locations of surface 

disturbance within designated ROWs in the long-term, which would limit widespread soil erosion and 

runoff throughout the planning area. 

Managing portions of sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas (285,930 acres) would 

result in no associated surface disturbing activities in these areas, and managing portions of sage-grouse 

general habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas (2,460,340 acres) would result in a low likelihood of 

associated surface disturbance occurring within these areas (Map 2-9). Vegetation removal, soil erosion, 

overland flow, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies within these habitats 

would be reduced. However, these projects may be shifted outside of habitat areas, which would shift 

water impacts and could create instances of increased erosion and runoff to water bodies if these projects 

occur in areas with sensitive or less stable soils. 

Wind energy development activities involve land-clearing and surface disturbances. Allowing wind 

energy development in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that would be closed to 

development, would remove and disturb vegetation and result in short-term soil erosion and overland 

flow, until these areas were stabilized and vegetated. Wind energy development would potentially occur 

in all sage-grouse core habitat areas, except for 437,120 acres that would be closed (Map 2-29). 

Approximately 1,254 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the entire planning area. 

Within the closed areas, no land-clearing and surface disturbance associated with the development of new 

wind turbines or their access roads would occur, which would in turn reduce the amount of overall soil 

disturbance and vegetation removal associated with this activity. This would decrease the amount of soil 

erosion, runoff, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies that would occur as a result of wind energy 

development. 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-366 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Authorizing the construction of MET towers in certain areas, and on a case-by-case basis, could result in 

short-term surface disturbance, soil erosion, compaction, and increased overland flow, if authorized. If not 

authorized, these water impacts associated with the construction MET towers would not occur. 

Livestock grazing and range improvements involve localized surface disturbance, including vegetation 

removal and soil compaction, from activities such as concentrated grazing, water development and salt 

block and mineral supplement placement, and construction of fences. These activities near wildlife habitat 

and riparian areas would all lead to short-term soil compaction, erosion, and excess sediment runoff 

directly into riparian and water habitats, and potential long-term surface disturbance in areas where 

livestock congregate, particularly around salt blocks, which could lead to constant soil compaction and 

erosion in these areas. 

Enforcement of proper grazing management practices, including managing lotic and lentic 

wetland/riparian areas toward PFC and utilization of BLM and Forest Service guidance to evaluate land 

health standards (i.e., monitoring) are needed. Maintenance of functioning uplands and riparian areas 

would enhance and maintain riparian and wetland vegetation communities, stream channels, soils, water 

balance, and water quality in the long-term. Livestock water development projects could result in surface 

disturbance, but could also alleviate pressure from grazing in riparian areas, which would reduce the 

amount of erosion and compaction caused by grazing, thereby decreasing the amount of water runoff and 

excess sediment and nutrient loading into nearby water bodies. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing within sage-grouse core habitat areas throughout the planning area (except 

in areas that are closed [871,780 acres] and where restricted by no surface occupancy [NSO] [40,980 

acres] and controlled surface use [CSU] [5,015,210 acres]) stipulations (Map 2-4) would increase 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and runoff. Under this Alternative, 13,653 BLM or Forest Service oil 

and gas wells and 2,758 coalbed natural gas (CBNG) wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core 

habitat areas, resulting in 130,330 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before reclamation), 

and 39,050 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). Fluid mineral leasing 

activities would involve land-clearing and surface disturbances, such as the construction of well pads, 

roads, and pipelines in sage-grouse core habitat areas. These actions remove and disturb vegetation, 

expose soils to the erosive forces of water and wind, and can alter and accelerate overland flow, resulting 

in increased transport of sediment, salt, and excess nutrients to water bodies both in the short-term, during 

construction activities, and long-term, as permanent structures, such as well pads, pits, and roads are 

maintained. 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. 

Continuation of exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions for sage-grouse on a 

case-by-case basis throughout the planning area could allow for more surface disturbance from oil and 

gas development activities overall. These exceptions would be considered on a case-by-case basis, and 

would need to be consistent with applicable RMPs, but any additional surface disturbances would lead to 

short-term and long-term vegetation disturbance, increased overland flow, soil erosion, and sediment, salt, 

and excess nutrient transport to water bodies. 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas may result in a greater number of 

smaller-sized leases within these areas. A greater number of leases and associated access roads and well 

pads could result in a greater amount of surface disturbances, vegetation removal, and subsequent soil 

erosion, runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-367

Mitigation of oil and gas activity would lessen the impacts associated with oil and gas activities, including 

surface disturbance from construction of wells, well pads, roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. And, 

requiring reclamation bonds before any drillings or surface disturbing activities occur would help to 

ensure reclamation is completed, which would decrease soil erosion and sediment, salt, and excess 

nutrient loading. 

Treating and disposing of produced water from CBNG in the Pinedale Field Office would increase water 

quality of both surface water and ground water. 

Surface and underground coal operations involve land-clearing, road development, construction of mining 

facilities, and surface disturbances. Surface coal mining in the Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale, Rawlins, 

Rock Springs Field Offices, Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF), and Thunder Basin National 

Grassland (TBNG), allowing for coal exploration activities and considering leasing of non-energy 

leasable minerals within sage-grouse core habitat areas (Map 2-24) would remove and disturb vegetation 

and could result in short-term and long-term soil erosion, stream sedimentation, salt and excess nutrient 

loading, groundwater contamination, and augmented water flows. The magnitude of long-term soil 

erosion, sedimentation, and augmented water flows from these activities would depend on the duration of 

activity, as well as the type of reclamation efforts implemented and how long it would take for disturbed 

areas to become stabilized and vegetated. The amount of stream sedimentation would depend on 

proximity of the operation to a stream. 

Alternatively, withdrawing core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (Map 2-19) would decrease the 

amount of surface disturbing activities associated with mineral entry, thereby maintaining vegetation, soil 

stability, and local surface water quality. 

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permit operations in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

(except areas that are unavailable), as well as geophysical surveys where allowed, would also lead to 

surface disturbances that would result in short-term and long-term soil erosion and sediment, salt, and 

excess nutrient loading to water bodies (Map 2-14) depending on the actual location of disturbances, as 

well as design features utilized to mitigate impacts. The magnitude of long-term soil erosion and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies from mining activities and mineral exploration 

would depend on the duration of activity, as well as the type of reclamation efforts implemented and how 

long it would take for disturbed areas to become stabilized and vegetated. 

Continuing to have saleable mineral pits that are not in use remain available for other uses could result in 

continued runoff into the pit, in turn degrading the water quality within the pit. These impacts would 

likely be concentrated to the water within the mineral pits, but could affect groundwater quality if 

depending on the local water table. 

Allowing dispersed recreation and special use permits, such as development of recreational trails, both 

motorized and non-motorized, holding one-time outfitting, guiding, and OHV events, and allowing 

camping could result in short-term localized surface disturbance, resulting in soil compaction, erosion, 

and increased localized runoff of sediment, salt, and excess nutrients into water bodies. Long-term 

impacts could also result, including stream channel degradation due to dispersed camping along streams, 

ATV and other vehicles fording channels, fecal runoff from humans and animals into stream channels 

(increasing nutrients and bacteria), creation of multiple foot and livestock trails from campsites to and 

along streams, and loss of riparian vegetation and subsequent loss of stream shading and bank stability. 

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area within the Casper, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices, respectively, as OHV “open” areas would result in short-term and long-term impacts to 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-368 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

vegetation and soil conditions. A one-time disturbance resulting from OHV use (excluding the “open” 

sand dune areas devoid of vegetation) could cause physical damage to these vegetated areas by breaking 

stems and branches and may disturb the soil surface depending on soil conditions, slope, and ground 

cover. Usually, with a one-time disturbance, plants and disturbed areas would recover. However, with 

repeated use, new trails would be established, and long-term loss of vegetation and soil compaction would 

occur, resulting in increased overland flow, channelization of overland flows, and decreased stream bank 

stability, soil erosion, and increased turbidity and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water 

bodies. The use of OHVs during periods of high soil moisture, such as early winter and spring, would also 

accelerate soil erosion and vegetation damage. 

Applying vegetation treatment measures and management, including use of prescribed fire, rehabilitation, 

and restoration measures, resting treated areas in certain locations, and restricting surface disturbance in 

wintering range would maintain and increase the overall health and function of vegetation communities. 

Robust vegetation reduces soil erosion and overland flow. Application of these measures could result in 

short-term vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion and excess sediment loading during treatment 

activities, but would maintain localized water quality over the long-term. 

Closing and reclaiming roads, two-track routes, and trails, and reclamation of surface disturbances in 

sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), Forest 

Service Manual (FSM) 2500, and the Clean Water Act (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 

[Public Law 92-500], as amended in 1977 [Public Law 95-217] and 1987 [Public Law 100-4]) could 

result in short-term vegetation removal and altered water flows, due to surface disturbing activities as part 

of the reclamation process, but would result in long-term improved vegetation health and function, 

unaltered water flows, and subsequent reductions in salt, sediment, and excess nutrient loading into 

nearby streams and rivers. 

Applying distance prohibitions (68,5450 acres) and restrictions (437,680 acres) on surface occupancy and 

disturbance activities near occupied sage-grouse leks inside and outside core habitat and connectivity 

areas would reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities resulting from newly permitted activities 

(Map 2-1) A reduction in surface occupancy and disturbances would decrease vegetation removal, soil 

compaction, overland flow, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, and maintain 

the health and function of watershed resources and water quality in both the short-term and long-term. 

Seasonal avoidance of surface disturbing and disruptive activities within sage-grouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat inside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, and inside sagegrouse winter concentration areas would decrease the amount of vegetation removal occurring, as specific 

areas would be completely closed to newly permitted activities during this time period. The reduction in 

removal of vegetation would reduce soil compaction, overland flow, and sediment, salt, and excess 

nutrient transport to water bodies. The effects would be short-term during the four months that 

prohibitions and restrictions are in effect, but could also be long-term if overall surface disturbance and 

occupancy decline. 

4.18.4 Alternative B 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 could result in short-term 

vegetation loss, soil erosion, and increased overland water flow, but would in the long-term improve the 

overall health and function of vegetation communities, compared to Alternative A, which would in turn 

reduce soil erosion and help to maintain local surface water quality over the long-term. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-369

Working with proponents to ensure 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, would result in improved vegetation health, which would 

also reduce runoff and sediment loading in the short-term and long-term within sage-grouse habitat inside 

and outside of core habitat areas, compared to Alternative A. 

Limiting 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 

core habitats would result in impacts to soils similar to Alternative A. However, once travel management 

planning is complete, any additional routes designated would result in increased surface disturbance, soil 

erosion, and increased sediment, soil, and nutrient loading to nearby water bodies, while areas closed to 

motorized travel would result in a decrease of surface disturbance, soil erosion, and increased runoff to 

nearby water bodies. 

No ROW and transmission projects would be authorized within sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat 

areas, both inside and outside existing corridors. All sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be managed 

as exclusion areas and all general sage-grouse habitat areas as avoidance areas for new BLM ROW or 

Forest Service Special Use Authorization (SUA) permits (Map 2-10). Watershed resources and water 

quality within sage-grouse core habitat areas would not be impacted, as surface disturbances resulting 

from utility corridor development would not occur. Relocating corridors outside of priority habitat would 

decrease impacts to watershed resources and water quality from surface disturbance inside the core and 

connectivity habitat, but could result in greater surface disturbance and subsequent impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality outside of core and connectivity habitat, if those corridors were to be 

developed. 

As a ROW action, wind energy development as discussed under Alternative A would also be prohibited 

inside sage-grouse core habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) and restricted within sage-grouse general habitat 

areas (6,530,940 acres) (Map 2-30). This would result in larger prohibited and restricted areas, relative to 

Alternative A. Approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 

90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the amount of soil erosion, 

runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies associated with wind energy 

development activities, compared to Alternative A. 

Prohibiting the construction of MET towers in sage-grouse priority habitat areas would further reduce the 

amount of short-term soil erosion, runoff, and overland flow from these activities, compared to 

Alternative A, because MET towers would be prohibited in sage-grouse priority habitat areas throughout 

the planning area. 

Incorporating a light grazing management strategy in sage-grouse priority habitat utilizing a 20-30% 

forage allocation for livestock would result in restrictions to grazing and associated surface disturbance, 

so the impacts to watershed resources and water quality from grazing would be similar to Alternative A. 

Designing new structural range improvements and locations of supplements in sage-grouse priority 

habitat to conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat through an improved grazing management 

system relative to sage-grouse objectives would reduce impacts to watershed resources and water quality, 

compared to Alternative A, as these activities would be designed to minimize surface disturbing activities. 

Planning and monitoring for invasive species due to these improvements would also reduce impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, as a healthy vegetative community 

would decrease soil erosion and runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies. 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-370 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Managing riparian areas and wet meadows for proper functioning condition or other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only) within sage-grouse priority habitats would further reduce impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, as these objectives would enhance the vegetation 

communities in these areas, thereby reducing soil erosion and overland flow to surface water. Authorizing 

new water development in sage-grouse priority habitats for diversion from spring or seep source only 

when priority sage‐grouse habitat would benefit on both upland and riparian habitat from the 

development or there are no negative impacts to sage-grouse would reduce the extent of impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, as less water developments would 

likely be authorized, resulting in less surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and soil erosion. However, 

water quantity in the area could be impacted by creating the diversion, if the spring or seep fed into 

nearby surface water. Modifying water developments within sage-grouse priority habitat, including 

dismantling of water developments could result in short-term impacts to watershed resources and water 

quality from surface disturbance associated with the dismantling. 

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for sage-grouse would not be considered within sagegrouse priority habitat. Vegetation loss, and subsequent soil erosion and sediment, salt, and excess 

nutrient transport to water bodies in the planning area would decrease, relative to Alternative A, as 

potential additional surface disturbances resulting from these exceptions would not occur. 

Priority sage-grouse habitat would be closed to new fluid mineral leasing under this 

Alternative (6,809,580 acres) and NSO stipulations would be applied on 2,082,140 acres (Map 2-5), 

which would be a 32% increase in closed areas compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 11,555 

BLM or Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core 

habitat and connectivity habitat areas, resulting in 104,050 acres that would be disturbed over the shortterm (before reclamation), and 33,530 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after 

reclamation). The number of wells anticipated would be approximately 16% less than the amount of wells 

anticipated under Alternative A. Activities associated with oil and gas leasing, such as construction of 

well pads, roads, pipelines, and other surface disturbances would be reduced, as would the potential for 

groundwater withdrawal and injection in these areas. Vegetation removal, soil erosion, increased overland 

flow, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport, both in the short term and long term, would 

decrease and protections to watershed resources and water quality would increase relative to 

Alternative A. Runoff and sediment transport would continue to decline as existing leases would not be 

re-offered once they expire. 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A.

Allowing geophysical exploration within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would increase impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, because surface disturbing activities 

would be allowed within sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would remove vegetation, destabilize 

the soil, and allow for greater runoff and sediment transport to local surface water bodies. 

Applying conservation objectives throughout sage-grouse priority habitat would further reduce water 

resource impacts associated with oil and gas activity, compared to Alternative A, because the objectives 

would be more intensive, and Conditions of Approval, minimization of impacts to priority habitat through 

project design, and mitigation requirements would be applied. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on existing federal fluid mineral leases within priority habitats 

would help to maintain the vegetation in these areas, which would minimize soil erosion, runoff, and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies. However, surface disturbance could occur if 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-371

the lease is entirely within priority habitat, in which case localized vegetation loss and increased water 

runoff could occur. 

Requiring unitization when necessary for proper development and operation of an area within sage-grouse 

priority habitat would result in less surface disturbance in the long-term, as operations equipment would 

be condensed into one unit. This would result in less soil erosion and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient 

transport over the long-term. In the short-term, there may be localized increases in soil erosion and runoff 

associated with the construction of the unit. 

Requiring a full reclamation bond specific to the site in accordance with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3, and 

3104.5 would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A.

The effects to watershed resources and water quality associated with treating and disposing of produced 

water from CBNG in the Pinedale Field Office described in Alternative A would not occur, as produced 

water could continue to be untreated and disposed of via current methods. 

Finding all surface coal mining unsuitable within sage-grouse priority habitat would prohibit surface 

disturbing activities associated with surface coal mining within all the priority habitat in the planning 

area, as opposed to smaller, specific areas outlined in Alternative A, so impacts to watershed resources 

and water quality would be reduced, compared to Alternative A. Additionally, granting no new 

underground coal mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside 

of the sage-grouse priority habitat area would decrease the impacts to watershed resources and water 

quality within priority habitat, compared to Alternative A, as no surface disturbing activities could occur. 

However, this could increase the amount of mining activity and associated surface disturbance outside 

priority habitat areas, compared to Alternative A. Additionally, if new facilities associated with existing 

leases cannot be located outside the sage-grouse priority habitat area, co-locating new facilities or 

building them to the absolute minimum standard necessary would decrease impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, as the surface disturbing activities would be more 

concentrated, resulting in less vegetation removal, soil erosion, and overland flow. Also, no coal 

exploration or new leases for other non-energy leasable minerals would be allowed inside sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas, which would reduce these impacts to watershed resources and water quality, 

relative to Alternative A where coal exploration would be allowed within this habitat. 

Withdrawing sage-grouse priority habitat from locatable mineral entry based on the risk to sage-grouse 

and its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development would result in impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A (Map 2-20). If they are not withdrawn, 

there would be an increase in surface disturbing activities, which would result in an increase of vegetation 

removal, soil erosion and overland flow, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport in the shortterm. In the long-term, these areas would be mitigated, and the impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would be closed in sage-grouse core habitat 

areas, subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-15). A reduction in these operations would reduce the 

amount of associated surface disturbance, and subsequently reduce soil erosion and overland flow, and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport, compared to Alternative A. 

Restoring saleable mineral pits no longer in use would decrease impacts to watershed resources and water 

quality compared to Alternative A, because localized vegetation would be established, and soil erosion 

and runoff into any surface water within the pits would decrease in the long-term. 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in priority habitat that have neutral or beneficial effects 

to priority habitat areas would decrease the extent of impacts to watershed resources and water quality, 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-372 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

compared to Alternative A, in priority habitat, as maintaining soil health and stability would be a 

beneficial effect to reducing erosion and overland flow into surface water bodies. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to designated roads 

and trails, including the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and continuing to manage the sand dune portions of 

these areas where roads to do not exist as “open,” would result in less surface disturbance, soil erosion, 

sediment transport, and overland flow compared to Alternative A.

Using existing roads within priority habitat, and not allowing upgrading of existing routes that would 

change route category or capacity would minimize overland water flow. However, if new roads are 

constructed, or necessary route upgrades would occur, short-term loss of vegetation and subsequent soil 

erosion and runoff would occur, until mitigation efforts were successful in revegetation and soil 

stabilization. Restoration of roads, primitive roads, and trails not designated in travel management plans 

within priority habitat would result in similar impacts to Alternative A, but to a larger extent as all priority 

habitat would be subject to this action. 

Management of vegetation in sage-grouse priority habitat would increase the overall health and function 

of vegetation communities, compared to Alternative A, because a larger area of the planning area would 

be managed. Measures to not reduce sagebrush canopy cover in priority habitat to less than 15% unless 

required would maintain vegetative cover, which would in turn maintain soil stability and reduce soil 

erosion, thereby maintaining the water quality of streams and water bodies in the area, compared to 

Alternative A. 

Only allowing for vegetation treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat in priority 

habitat, including restoration of burned areas, ensuring long-term persistence of native plants within 

priority sage-grouse habitats, and not using prescribed fire in less than 12 inch precipitation zones, and 

resting treated areas for two full growing seasons would increase long-term localized surface water 

quality, compared to Alternative A, because a larger area (entire priority habitat) would be subject to this 

action. Requiring treatments in known sage-grouse winter range to maintain habitat quality would reduce 

the impacts to water quality from these treatments, compared to Alternative A, as the entire winter range 

within the planning area would be subject to this requirement. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) and FSM 2500 would have the same impacts discussed under 

Alternative A. Identifying areas within sage-grouse priority habitat for vegetation restoration would 

establish vegetative cover, thereby reducing the amount of soil erosion, overland water flow, and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading that occurs in both the short-term and long-term. 

Managing discrete anthropogenic disturbances within sage-grouse priority and connectivity habitat areas 

would increase protection to watershed resources and water quality within these areas over the long-term. 

Density of disturbance on the landscape would not exceed 3% disturbance within the total sage-grouse 

habitat, and an average of 3% disturbance per 640 acres (within sage-grouse connectivity habitat areas). 

These limits would reduce the amount of surface disturbance in these areas, which would reduce 

vegetation removal and soil erosion, help maintain watershed health by reducing the amount of sediment, 

salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within sage-grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat, 

including winter concentration areas, would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

similar to Alternative A, except the prohibited area would increase. If a lease is located entirely within 

priority habitat, a 4-mile perimeter would apply with a limit to one disturbance per section, and with no 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-373

more than 3% surface disturbance in that section. This increased area of restrictions would limit the 

amount of surface occupancy and soil disturbance in these areas, and also decrease resulting soil erosion, 

runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, relative to Alternative A.

Prohibiting surface disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season within all sagegrouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat and winter concentration areas inside priority habitat areas, and 

within sage-grouse winter concentration areas would reduce vegetation removal, erosion, runoff, and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading compared to Alternative A, as the prohibitions would expand 

to a larger area. 

4.18.5 Alternative C 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 would have the same 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Working with proponents to ensure 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, would have the same impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, until travel 

management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed within sage-grouse core 

habitats would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as under Alternative A.

The impacts associated with utility corridor designations discussed in Alternative A would not be 

realized. Relocating corridors outside of priority habitat would result in impacts to watershed resources 

and water quality as similar to Alternative B.

Managing sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA 

permits (Map 2-11) would decrease impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to 

Alternative A, because 11,245,410 more acres would be excluded from surface disturbance associated 

with ROW or SUA permits. 

Impacts to watershed resources and water quality from managing sage-grouse general habitat areas as 

ROW avoidance areas discussed in Alternative A would not be realized. 

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited inside sage-grouse priority and general habitat 

areas (11,531,340 acres) (Map 2-31), which would be a greater prohibited area, relative to Alternative A. 

Approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 90% fewer 

turbines than under Alternative A. These prohibitions would reduce the amount of surface disturbance, 

vegetation removal, overland flow, and subsequent sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water 

bodies associated with wind energy development activities, compared to Alternative A.

Authorizing the construction of MET towers in certain areas, and on a case-by-case basis would have the 

same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A. 

Industrial solar projects result in short-term surface disturbance associated with solar field construction, 

panel placement, and transmission lines. Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied 

sage-grouse habitats would result in increased protections to watershed resources and water quality in 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-374 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

these areas, because no increased vegetation removal, soil erosion, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient 

transport to water bodies associated with surface disturbing activities would occur. However, this action 

could result in a higher concentration or size of industrial solar projects outside these areas, which would 

result in increased surface disturbance and associated impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

outside ACECs and occupied sage-grouse habitats. 

Prohibiting livestock grazing within sage-grouse priority habitat and avoiding new structural range 

developments in sage-grouse priority and general habitat would decrease impacts to watershed resources 

and water quality, compared to Alternative A. No surface disturbing activities associated with livestock 

grazing would occur, so vegetation would be maintained, soil compaction would be minimized, and 

excess runoff and overland flow would not occur in this area and range developments would be less likely 

to occur due to avoidance stipulations, and the area of these stipulations would be larger. 

Ensuring that soil cover and native herbaceous plants are at their ESD within sage-grouse habitat would 

help to maintain vegetation health and minimize soil erosion, runoff, and excessive sediment, salt, and 

nutrient transport to water bodies. 

Managing riparian areas and wet meadows for proper functioning condition or other similar methodology 

(Forest Service only) within sage-grouse priority habitats would further reduce impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality, as these objectives would enhance the vegetation communities in these areas, 

thereby reducing soil erosion and overland flow to surface water. Additionally, within sage-grouse 

priority and general habitats, wet meadows would be managed to maintain a component of perennial forbs 

with diverse species richness and productivity relative to site potential (e.g., reference state) and at least 

six inches of stubble height would remain on all riparian/meadow area herbaceous species at all times, 

which would further stabilize soil, preventing runoff and excess sediment, salt and nutrient transport to 

nearby surface water, compared to Alternative A. Not authorizing any new water developments for 

diversion from spring or seep sources within sage‐grouse priority and general habitats would decrease 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, as there would be less 

surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and soil erosion within priority and general habitat. However, 

water quantity in the area could be impacted by creating the diversion, if the spring or seep fed into 

nearby surface water. Modifying water developments within sage-grouse habitat, including dismantling of 

water developments would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed 

under Alternative B.

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs for sage-grouse would not be considered within sagegrouse priority and general habitat. Vegetation loss and subsequent soil erosion, runoff, and sediment, 

salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies would decrease, relative to Alternative A, as potential 

additional surface disturbances resulting from these exceptions would not occur. 

Closing priority sage-grouse habitat to fluid mineral leasing would result in 16,878,220 acres that would 

be closed, an increase of nearly 20 times the area closed under Alternative A (Map 2-6). Impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality would be reduced, compared to Alternative A, as vegetation 

removal, soil erosion and runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies would 

greatly decrease. Under this alternative, 9,533 BLM or Forest Service oil and gas wells and 1,594 CBNG 

wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, 32% less than 

Alternative A. This would result in 85,140 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before 

reclamation), and 27,030 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-375

Not allowing any new geophysical exploration within sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas 

would decrease impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, in the longterm because no new geophysical exploration and associated surface disturbance would be allowed within 

sage-grouse priority habitat areas. 

Applying conservation objectives throughout the planning area would further reduce water resource 

impacts associated with oil and gas activity, compared to Alternative A, because the objectives would be 

more intensive, and COAs, minimization of impacts to priority habitat through project design, and 

mitigation requirements would be applied. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on existing federal fluid mineral leases within priority habitats 

would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Requiring unitization when necessary for proper development and operation of an area within sage-grouse 

priority habitat would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality discussed under 

Alternative B.

Requiring a full reclamation bond specific to the site in accordance with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3, and 

3104.5 would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A.

Prohibiting the construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold CBNG wastewater would 

have impacts similar to Alternative A, but with a greater magnitude as this prohibition would be required 

throughout the planning area. 

Finding all surface coal mining unsuitable and not allowing new leases for other non-energy leasable 

minerals within sage-grouse priority habitat would prohibit surface disturbing activities associated with 

these activities throughout the habitat, as opposed to smaller, specific areas outlined in Alternative A, so 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality would be reduced, compared to Alternative A. 

Additionally, granting no new underground coal mining leases unless all surface disturbances 

(appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of the sage-grouse priority habitat area would decrease the 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality within priority habitat, compared to Alternative A, as no 

surface disturbing activities could occur. However, this could increase the amount of short-term surface 

disturbance outside priority habitat areas, compared to Alternative A. Additionally, if new facilities 

associated with existing leases cannot be located outside the sage-grouse priority habitat area, co-locating 

new facilities or building them to the absolute minimum standard necessary would decrease impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, as the surface disturbing activities 

would be more concentrated, resulting in less vegetation removal, soil erosion and runoff, and sediment, 

salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry based on risk to the sage-grouse and its habitat from 

conflicting locatable mineral potential and development (Map 2-21) would result in the same impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would be closed in sage-grouse core habitat 

areas, subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-16). A reduction in these operations would reduce the 

amount of associated surface disturbance, and subsequently reduce soil erosion, runoff, and sediment, 

salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, compared to Alternative A. 

Restoring saleable mineral pits no longer in use would decrease impacts to watershed resources and water 

quality compared to Alternative A, because localized vegetation would be established, and soil erosion 

and runoff into any surface water within the pits would decrease in the long-term. 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-376 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in priority habitat that have neutral or beneficial effects 

to priority habitat areas would decrease the extent of impacts to watershed resources and water quality, 

compared to Alternative A, in priority habitat, as maintaining soil health and stability would be a 

beneficial effect to reducing erosion and overland flow into surface water bodies. 

Managing the OHV use in the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and 

a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area as “open,” in addition to managing all other OHV 

“open” areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as “limited to designated roads and trails,” would 

result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A. If recreational riders 

avoided these areas, vegetation would return, soil stability would improve, and soil erosion would 

decrease. 

Limiting route construction to realignments of existing designated routes within priority and general 

habitat, not allowing upgrading of existing routes that would change route category or capacity unless 

necessary, and mitigating any impacts with demonstrated methods to offset the loss of sage-grouse habitat 

would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative B, but to a lesser 

extent as these requirements would apply to a greater area (priority and general sage-grouse habitat, as 

compared to only priority habitat under Alternative B). Restoration of roads, primitive roads, and trails 

not designated in travel management plans within priority habitat would result in similar impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality discussed under Alternative A, but to a larger extent as all priority 

habitat would be subject to this action. 

Not reducing sagebrush canopy cover in priority and general habitat to less than 15% unless strategically 

required for habitat protection and conservation would in turn maintain soil stability and reduce soil 

erosion, thereby maintaining the water quality of streams and water bodies in a larger area, compared to 

Alternative A. 

Only allowing for vegetation treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore sage-grouse habitat in priority 

and general habitat would have similar effects to watershed resources and water quality as Alternative B, 

but to a greater extent, as the area managed would be larger. Requiring fuels treatments in known sagegrouse winter range to maintain habitat quality would reduce the impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality from these treatments, compared to Alternative A, as the entire winter range within the 

planning area would be subject to this requirement. And, avoiding sagebrush reduction/treatments in 

sage-grouse priority and habitat areas, and including plans to restore high-quality habitat in areas with 

invasive species would stabilize the vegetative community and minimize soil erosion, runoff, and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

discussed under Alternative A. Rehabilitating and restoring vegetation within sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat would stabilize soil, helping to prevent overland water flow and sediment transport, 

compared to Alternative B, because a larger area would be restored. 

Not using fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones, unless as a last resort, would 

result in less surface disturbance and associated impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

compared to Alternative A, because a larger area (priority and general sage-grouse habitat) would be 

restricted from use of prescribed fire. If fire is used as a last resort, impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-377

Ensuring long-term persistence of native plants, including sagebrush, within sage-grouse priority and 

general habitat, would have similar effects to watershed resources and water quality as those discussed 

under Alternative B, but to a greater extent, as a larger area would be included. 

Excluding livestock grazing from burned areas until woody and herbaceous plants achieve sage-grouse 

habitat objectives, and closing sage-grouse priority and general habitat to grazing until recovered, would 

protect surface water quality within sage-grouse priority and general habitat by allowing vegetation 

communities to become established, soil to stabilize, and excess sediment and salt transport to surface 

water to decrease. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy within sage-grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat, 

including winter concentration areas, would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

similar to Alternative A, except the prohibited area would increase. If a lease is located entirely within 

priority habitat, a 4-mile perimeter would apply with a limit to one disturbance per section, and with no 

more than 3% surface disturbance in that section. This increased area of restrictions would limit the 

amount of surface occupancy and soil disturbance in these areas, and also decrease resulting soil erosion, 

runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, relative to Alternative A.

Prohibiting surface disturbing and disruptive activities during the nesting and early brood-rearing season 

within all sage-grouse nesting/early brood-rearing habitat inside and outside priority, general, and 

connectivity habitat, and within sage-grouse winter concentration areas inside sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas would reduce soil erosion, runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, 

compared to Alternative A, as surface disturbance prohibitions would expand to a larger area. 

4.18.6 Alternative D 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 would have the same 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Working with proponents to ensure 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, would have the same impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality as discussed under Alternative B. 

Limiting 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 

core habitats would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under 

Alternative A.

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW exclusion areas for new ROW or SUA permits, and 

limiting ROWs and transmission projects in existing utility corridors within a designated two-mile wide 

corridor through sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas or within 0.5 miles on either side of 

existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines, between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and 

November 30 in winter concentration areas) would result in a greater area open for surface disturbances 

associated with these projects (Map 2-12). Impacts to watershed resources and water quality would 

decrease, compared to Alternative A, because 4,855,410 more acres would be excluded from surface 

disturbance and subsequent vegetation removal, soil erosion, and runoff associated with ROW or SUA 

permits. 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-378 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternatively, allowing general sage-grouse habitat areas to be available for new ROWs or SUAs, subject 

to BMPs, would result in increased impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to 

Alternative A, because these areas would be available for ROW utility placement, which would result in 

surface disturbance, vegetation removal, soil erosion, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to 

water bodies. 

Prohibiting wind energy development within sage-grouse core habitat, unless it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat 

populations, would result in 5,000,400 acres closed, and 501,830 acres restricted (Map 2-32). Impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality would be similar to Alternative A, as surface disturbance could still 

occur within sage-grouse core habitat and approximately 980 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be 

constructed, which would be only 22% fewer turbines than under Alternative A. 

Authorizing the construction of MET towers in certain areas, and on a case-by-case basis, would have the 

same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as under Alternative A. 

Utilization of BLM and Forest Service guidance to evaluate land health standards achievement would 

have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A. 

Continuing to evaluate and modify when necessary, existing range improvements associated with grazing 

management operations for reducing impacts on sage-grouse and its habitat within sage-grouse general 

and core habitat, would result in reduced impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to 

Alternative A, as these range improvement activities would be evaluated and modified to minimize 

surface disturbing activities. 

Balancing grazing in sage-grouse core habitats between riparian habitats and upland habitats would 

further decrease impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, because 

riparian and upland vegetation communities would be maintained in a larger area of the planning area, 

which would decrease the surface disturbance associated with livestock grazing, maintaining a larger area 

of upland and riparian vegetation communities, and in minimizing soil erosion and excess overland water 

flow to nearby surface water. Within sage-grouse core habitats, authorizing water developments as 

needed to support grazing objectives would decrease the extent of impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality, compared to Alternative A, as the likelihood of new water developments and subsequent 

surface disturbance would decrease. 

Continuing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions for sage-grouse within sagegrouse core and general habitat on a case-by-case basis would have the same impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing would have impacts to water resources similar to those discussed in 

Alternative A, except to a lesser extent, as more acres would be unavailable, compared to Alternative A. 

Under this Alternative, 964,860 acres would be closed and 2,117,990 acres would be managed with CSU 

stipulations (Map 2-7). Approximately 13,083 BLM or Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,686 CBNG 

wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, 4% less than in 

Alternative A, resulting in 122,910 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before 

reclamation), and 37,720 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). 

Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas would have the same impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts to watershed resources and water quality from geophysical surveys would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-379

Working with proponents during oil and gas leasing to promote measurable sage-grouse conservation 

objectives could reduce the impacts to watershed resources and water quality, if conservation objectives 

would include minimization of vegetation removal, stabilization of soil, and control of overland water 

flow and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies, compared to Alternative A.

Actions to minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including vegetation, and requiring reclamation bonds 

before any drillings or surface disturbing activities occur would result in the same impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A.

Using unitization for orderly development of an area within sage-grouse core habitat would have the same 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

The impacts associated with treating and disposing of produced water from CBNG in the Pinedale Field 

Office described in Alternative A would not occur. 

Surface mining could occur in sage-grouse core areas, but could not have a significant long-term impact 

on the sage-grouse. Therefore, surface disturbance, where it did occur, would have impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality similar to Alternative A, but the extent of impacts would be less. 

Underground coal mining and allowing for coal exploration activities within sage-grouse core habitat 

areas (Map 2-27) would also have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality discussed 

under Alternative A.

Consideration of all non-energy leasable mineral activities in sage-grouse core habitats would result in 

similar impacts to watershed resources and water quality if these activities were allowed. If they were not 

allowed, impacts to watershed resources and water quality would be reduced, compared to Alternative A, 

as surface disturbance associated with these activities would not occur. 

Withdrawing core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (Map 2-22), opening sage-grouse core 

habitat areas to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-17), and continuing to 

have saleable mineral pits not in use available for other uses would all result in the same impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative A.

Approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in sage-grouse priority habitat on a case-by-case basis 

would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A, except the area 

would be larger. If not approved, impacts to watershed resources and water quality would be the same as 

discussed under Alternative A.

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, part of the hill climb area in Section 33, T15 North, R114 West, 

Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area as 

OHV “open” areas would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality discussed 

under Alternative A.

New road construction would be avoided within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within sagegrouse core habitat areas. These restrictions would lessen the amount of surface disturbance and resulting 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies, 

but not to the same extent as Alternative A, as this would be an avoidance rather than a prohibition as in 

Alternative A.

Allowing road upgrades within sage-grouse core and general habitat could result in short-term impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A. Allowing natural deterioration of roads 

within sage-grouse core and general habitat would decrease impacts to watershed resources and water 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-380 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

quality, compared to Alternative A, but in the short-term the effects would not be as great as 

Alternative A, due to the lack of active restoration. In the long-term, effects would be greater than 

Alternative A because the area is larger. However, if vegetation could not be established, impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality would be greater than Alternative A, as non-maintained roads may 

produce more sediment and runoff if there are drainage issues, culverts are plugged, or slides are active in 

the area. 

Managing for vegetation composition and structure that reflects desired plant community or comparable 

standard within sage-grouse core habitat would increase the overall health and function of vegetation 

communities, thereby minimizing soil erosion and runoff to water bodies, compared to Alternative A, as a 

larger area of the planning area would be managed. 

Using the WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse for vegetation treatments in 

core habitat areas would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to 

Alternative B, except the effects would be more intense as treatment proposals would be subject to these 

additional protocols. 

Not resting treated areas could increase impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to 

Alternative A, because grazing could lead to surface disturbance, vegetation loss, soil compaction and 

erosion, and excess sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to nearby water bodies. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), rehabilitation and restoration measures that occur after wildland fire, 

and use of prescribed fire would all have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as 

discussed under Alternative A.

Managing the density of energy production (excluding coal and trona mining) and/or transmission 

structures (excluding buried pipelines or power lines) on the landscape inside sage-grouse core and 

connectivity habitat areas would increase impacts to watershed resources and water quality within the 

planning area long-term, compared to Alternative B. A limit of three energy production locations and/or 

transmission structures per 640 acres within the DDCT would be allowed under this Alternative, 

regardless of the percent disturbance in Alternative B, and a greater limit of sagebrush habitat loss (9 %) 

would be allowed under this Alternative, compared to the limit of 3% surface disturbance (and subsequent 

sagebrush loss) in Alternative B.

Prohibiting surface occupancy and disturbance around sage-grouse leks, including new road construction, 

inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat areas would result in impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality similar to Alternative A, except the area prohibited would decrease. Surface disturbing 

activity and surface occupancy would be prohibited within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks across 

the planning area. Surface disturbing activities from newly permitted activities would not be prohibited 

within the planning area, but would be restricted on 75,870 acres (Map 2-2). Compared to Alternative A 

(under which surface disturbance would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and restricted on 437,680 acres), 

these actions would allow for a greater area of surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation removal, 

soil erosion, runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies. 

Applying seasonal surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity restrictions within sage-grouse nesting and 

early brood-rearing habitat inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas 

during the sage-grouse nesting season, and prohibitions within sage-grouse winter concentration areas and 

areas supporting connectivity populations inside sage-grouse core habitat areas would increase 

protections to watershed resources and water quality, relative to Alternative A, as timing and area would 

be expanded. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-381

4.18.7 Alternative E 

Controlling, suppressing, and eradicating noxious weeds and working to restore and maintain native plant 

communities per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 would have the same 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Working with proponents to ensure 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, would have the same impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality as discussed under Alternative B.

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a minimum, until travel 

management planning is complete and routes are either designated or closed within sage-grouse core 

habitats would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as under Alternative A.

Allowing new transmission projects in existing utility corridors within a designated two-mile wide 

corridor through sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas, or within 0.5 miles on either side of 

existing 115 kV or larger transmission lines would result in the same impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality as discussed under Alternative A, but the intensity would be less, as new transmission 

projects in existing utility corridors would be subject to more surface disturbance stipulations and review 

designed to protect sage-grouse populations in sage-grouse core and connectivity habitat areas. These 

would include the use of the Framework for Sage-Grouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission 

Lines or other appropriate documents and prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities from 

March 1 5 to June 30. New ROW or SUAs could be issued in existing designated ROW corridors with 

appropriate sage-grouse seasonal timing constraints, which could reduce impacts to watershed resources 

and water quality, but not to the extent as in Alternative B, because surface disturbance associated with 

ROWs and SUAs would likely still occur, subject to timing requirements and demonstrations 

development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat populations. 

Managing sage-grouse core habitat areas as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or SUA permits 

(Map 2-13) would result in similar impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under 

Alternative A, except there would be more avoidance areas, which could increase the extent of impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality. 

Co-locating new ROWs/SUAs, where feasible, would result in decreased impacts to watershed resources 

and water quality, compared to Alternative A, because surface disturbance associated with new 

ROWs/SUAs would be in a concentrated area, which would minimize the amount of vegetation removal, 

soil compaction and erosion, and excess sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies associated 

with these activities. Timing restraints would have no effect because the surface disturbance could still 

occur at other times of the year. 

Prohibiting wind energy development within sage-grouse core habitat, unless it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that the development activity would not result in declines of sage-grouse core habitat 

populations, would result in 5,002,520 acres closed, and 6,528,810 acres restricted (Map 2-33). Impacts to 

watershed resources and water quality would be similar to Alternative A but to a lesser extent, as 

approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed, which would be 90% fewer 

turbines than under Alternative A, and less subsequent surface disturbance associated with this 

development. 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-382 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to watershed resources and water quality from MET tower construction would be reduced, 

compared to Alternative A, because the siting perimeter avoidance area would be larger. 

Utilization of BLM and Forest Service guidance to evaluate land health standards progress towards or 

achievement in sage-grouse core habitats would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water 

quality as discussed under Alternative A. Continuing to evaluate and modify when necessary, existing 

range improvements for impacts on sage-grouse and its habitat within sage-grouse general and core 

habitat, would result in reduced impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to 

Alternative A, as these range improvement activities would be evaluated and modified to minimize 

surface disturbing activities. Continuing to authorize mineral, salt, and nutritional supplements and 

supplemental feeding for livestock where appropriate would result in impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality as discussed under Alternative A.

Balancing grazing in sage-grouse core habitats between riparian habitats and upland habitats would 

further decrease impacts to watershed resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, because 

riparian and upland vegetation communities would be maintained in a larger area of the planning area, 

which would decrease the surface disturbance associated with grazing, maintaining a larger area of upland 

and riparian vegetation communities and their function, and reducing the amount of sediment, salt, and 

nutrient transport to nearby surface water. Evaluating and modifying water developments that have a 

negative effect on sage-grouse core habitat, would have the same impacts to watershed resources and 

water quality as discussed under Alternative B. 

Continuing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions for sage-grouse within sagegrouse core and general habitat on a case-by-case basis would have the same impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality as under Alternative A. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing would have impacts to water resources similar to those discussed in 

Alternative A, except to a lesser extent, as more areas would be unavailable, compared to Alternative A. 

Under this Alternative, 892,090 acres would be closed, 689,300 acres would be managed with NSO 

stipulations, and 6,146,970 acres would be managed with CSU stipulations (Map 2-8). Under this 

Alternative, 12,355 BLM or Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,462 CBNG wells would be anticipated 

in available sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas, 10% less than Alternative A. A total 

of 112,330 acres would be disturbed over the short-term (before reclamation), and 35,430 acres would be 

disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). The agencies would allow oil and gas leasing consistent 

and subject to the leasing stipulations analyzed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and density 

restrictions sections (Appendix I). 

Application of a minimum lease size of 640 acres within sage-grouse core habitat areas would help to 

prevent fragmentation and increased numbers of smaller-sized leases by reducing the potential for 

increased surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation removal and soil erosion and runoff to water 

bodies, relative to Alternative A. There would be exceptions for leases smaller than 640 acres, such as for 

regulatory compliance, but these exceptions would likely not be numerous enough to outweigh the 

reduction in runoff and nutrient loading from minimum lease sizes. 

Allowing geophysical exploration projects within sage-grouse core habitat, except where prohibited or 

restricted by existing LUP decisions, would reduce the extent of impacts to watershed resources and water 

quality, compared to Alternative A, because the projects would be designed to minimize habitat 

fragmentation within sage‐grouse core habitat, which would reduce the amount of surface disturbance, 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and excess overland flow and sediment transport to water bodies 

associated with these projects. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-383

Requiring any development within sage-grouse priority habitat to be placed in the area least harmful to 

sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features would have impacts to watershed 

resources similar to Alternative A, but to a greater extent within sage-grouse priority habitat areas. These 

requirements could reduce the amount of soil erosion, runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient 

transport to water bodies, relative to Alternative A, if projects are located in areas with the least sensitive 

and susceptible vegetation and soils vulnerable to erosion and runoff. However, soil erosion, runoff, and 

sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport would still occur from project-related surface disturbances, 

regardless of where the disturbance is located. 

Encouraging unitization within sage-grouse core habitat would have the same impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality as discussed under Alternative B where it is utilized. Areas within sagegrouse core habitat where unitization is not utilized could have increased impacts to watershed resources 

and water quality, compared to Alternative B, as more areas may be developed and undergo surface 

disturbance, vegetation removal, soil erosion, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water 

bodies. 

Requiring reclamation bonds or partial reclamation bonds commensurate with the scope, scale, size of the 

project within sage-grouse core habitat would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

similar to Alternative A. 

Treating and disposing of produced water from CBNG activity within the Pinedale Field Office would 

have the same impacts discussed under Alternative A.

Under this Alternative, surface mining and underground coal mining could occur in sage-grouse core 

areas (Map 2-28), but it could not have a significant long-term impact on the sage-grouse. Therefore, 

surface disturbance, where it did occur, would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality 

similar to Alternative A, but the long-term extent of impacts would be less. Allowing coal exploration 

activities in core habitat areas would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to 

Alternative A, as these activities could occur within sage-grouse core habitats, but the extent would be 

less due to surface occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations, which may reduce vegetation 

removal and subsequent soil erosion and excessive nutrient loading, if the analyses and potential 

mitigation measures result in revegetation and soil stabilization. 

Consideration of all non-energy leasable mineral activities in sage-grouse core habitats would result in 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A, if allowed. If they were not 

allowed, impacts to watershed resources and water quality would be reduced, compared to Alternative A, 

as surface disturbance associated with these activities, and subsequent vegetation removal, soil erosion, 

and excess sediment, salt, and nutrient transport to water bodies would not occur. 

Impacts to watershed resources and water quality from withdrawal of core habitat areas from mineral 

entry would be similar to Alternative A, if those areas considered for withdrawal are in fact withdrawn 

(Map 2-23). If they are not withdrawn, there would be an increase in surface disturbing activities, which 

would result in an increase of vegetation removal, soil erosion, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient 

transport to water bodies in the short-term. In the long-term, these areas would be mitigated, and the 

impacts watershed resources and water quality would be similar to Alternative A.

Impacts to watershed resources and water quality from mineral material exploration, sales, and free use 

permit operations (Map 2-18) would be similar to Alternative A, except in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

where restrictions to surface disturbance and disruptive activity may result in less surface disturbance, 

vegetation removal, soil erosion, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient transport to water bodies inside 
Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality Draft EIS 

4-384 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

these areas. However, these operations may be sited outside of the sage-grouse core habitat areas, in 

which case the impacts to watershed resources and water quality would be the same as Alternative A.

Considering closure and restoration of saleable mineral pits no longer in use would result in similar 

impacts to watershed resources and water quality as under Alternative A if the mineral pit is not restored, 

and would decrease impacts to watershed resources and water quality compared to Alternative A, if 

restored, as localized vegetation would be established, and soil erosion and runoff into any surface water 

within the pits would decrease in the long-term. 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in core habitat unless negative impacts to sage-grouse 

cannot be adequately mitigated would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to 

Alternative A, except in cases where BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs are approved, in which case 

surface disturbance would occur, and impacts to watershed resources and water quality would increase in 

the short-term, until those impacts were mitigated. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within sage-grouse core habitat areas as limited to existing roads and 

trails, and allowing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a 

portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and continuing to manage the sand dune portions of 

these areas where roads to do no exist as “open,” would result in greater protections to watershed 

resources and water quality, compared to Alternative A, if recreational riders avoided these areas, as 

vegetation would return, soil stability would be maintained, and soil erosion, runoff, and excess nutrient 

transport would decrease. 

Using existing roads, and not allowing upgrading of existing routes unless there would be minimal impact 

to sage-grouse core habitat, or is necessary, within core habitat would result in impacts to watershed 

resources and water quality similar to Alternative B, except the area of surface disturbance could be 

larger, because of the 5% limit, versus the 3% limit in Alternative B. If the disturbance is less than 5%, 

but greater than 3%, mitigation would not be necessary, which would then result in loss of vegetation, soil 

erosion, and increased overland water flow in the short term until mitigation efforts result in revegetation 

and soil stabilization. Allowing natural reclamation of roads and trails within sage-grouse core habitat 

would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A, except this action 

would also include those not designated in WSAs, and within lands with wilderness characteristics that 

have been selected to be managed to retain those characteristics for protection. 

Management of vegetation in sage-grouse priority habitat and deferring grazing on treated areas for two 

full growing seasons would increase the overall health and function of vegetation communities, compared 

to Alternative A, because a larger area of the planning area would be managed. Not conducting vegetation 

treatments in nesting and wintering core habitat would in turn maintain soil stability and reduce soil 

erosion, thereby maintaining the water quality of streams and water bodies in a larger area, compared to 

Alternative A. 

Using the WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse for vegetation treatments in 

core habitat areas would result in impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to 

Alternative B, except the effects, except the effects would be more intense as treatment proposals would 

be subject to these additional protocols. 

Reclamation of surface disturbances in sage-grouse habitats in accordance with the standard Wyoming 

Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), along with development of a monitoring plan for each reclamation 

project, would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as discussed under 

Alternative A. Identifying areas that could be identified for vegetation restoration could be both inside 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Watershed and Water Quality 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-385

priority habitat and outside would have the same impacts to watershed resources and water quality as 

Alternative A, but would comprise a larger area. 

Restoration of burned areas within core sage-grouse habitats would further enhance watershed resources 

and water quality, compared to Alternative A, because the restoration would occur within priority habitat 

throughout the entire planning area. 

Avoiding the use of prescribed fire in core habitat, and complying with WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse and Appendix A to avoid being considered a core habitat disturbance, 

would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to Alternative A, but not as 

extensive as these requirements would likely result in less prescribed fire and subsequent vegetation loss, 

soil erosion, and excess overland flow within core habitat. 

Ensuring long-term persistence of native plants, including sagebrush within sage-grouse core habitat, 

would have similar effects to watershed resources and water quality as those discussed under 

Alternative B, but to a greater extent, as it would include a larger area within the planning area, and soil 

erosion would be specifically controlled. 

Impacts to watershed resources and water quality from managing the density of surface disturbing 

activities to not exceed an average of one disruptive activity location per 640 acres (within sage-grouse 

core and connectivity habitat areas) and 5% loss of sagebrush habitat within sage-grouse core habitat and 

connectivity habitat areas would have impacts to watershed resources and water quality similar to 

Alternative B, but to a slightly greater extent as surface disturbance could occur within 5% of the core 

habitat, compared to 3% in Alternative B. 

Prohibiting surface occupancy and disturbance activities around sage-grouse leks inside and outside sagegrouse core habitat areas would increase protections to watershed resources and water quality, compared 

to Alternative A. Surface disturbing activities and occupancy would be prohibited within 0.6 miles of 

occupied sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas and restricted 

within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks outside core habitat and connectivity habitat areas (Map 2-

3). Primary and secondary (BLM route category) or Route Category level 4 and 5 (Forest Service) road 

construction within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks would also be avoided. Under 

this Alternative, 304,970 acres would be prohibited, and 21,950 acres would be restricted. This increased 

area of prohibitions around the sage-grouse leks would decrease the amount of surface disturbance and 

subsequent vegetative removal, soil erosion, runoff, and excess nutrient loading, relative to Alternative A, 

in which surface disturbance would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and avoided on 437,680 acres. The 

exception would be the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek areas within the Casper Field Office 

and the MBNF, where the 4-mile and 2-mile surface disturbance buffer around occupied sage-grouse leks 

(respectively) would be reduced to a 0.6-mile prohibition. Also, the restrictions on new primary and 

secondary or Route Category level 4 and 5 road construction may result in increased road construction 

outside of the prohibited areas, as longer roads may be constructed to circumvent the lek buffers, and 

stream crossing could increase, which could cause increased surface disturbance and subsequent soil 

erosion runoff, and sediment, salt, and excess nutrient loading to water bodies, but not to the extent as 

Alternative A. 

Applying seasonal prohibitions of surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities within sage-grouse 

nesting/early brood-rearing habitat inside and outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity areas, 

along with winter concentration areas, would increase protections to watershed resources and water 

quality, compared to Alternative A, as surface disturbance would be entirely eliminated in these areas for 

a longer time period. 
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-386 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

4.19 WILD HORSES

This section presents potential impacts on wild horses from implementing management actions presented 

in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning wild horses are described in Chapter 3. 

4.19.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on wild horses are as follows: 

• Management actions that lead to a change in oil and gas development, coal and other solid 

leasable mineral development, and locatable mineral entry activities in areas open to grazing 

• Management actions that change the quantity of vegetation production, the structure of the overall 

plant community, or the forage conditions in areas open to grazing 

• Management actions that change the quantity of livestock permitted to graze in areas accessible to 

wild horses. 

4.19.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• The number of wild horses would increase about 18% annually and be maintained by periodic 

removals. 

• 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. 

• Wild horse gathers would use existing trap locations for the most part. About 30 acres have been 

disturbed from the development of existing traps. 

• Wild horse management would be in compliance with the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burro 

Act of 1971. 

• Within the planning area, active HMAs are located within the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field 

Offices (Map 3-25), and approximately 1,488,260 acres of sage-grouse priority habitat areas are 

located within these HMAs. 

4.19.3 Alternative A 

Requiring that utility structures be placed near existing facilities and limiting the designation of new 

corridors within sage-grouse core habitat areas (excluding the Newcastle Field Office) would result in 

increased short-term surface disturbance, including loss of vegetation and forage resources, and an 

increase in the potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds. However, these 

restrictions would concentrate the locations of surface disturbance within designated ROWs in the longterm, which would decrease widespread forage loss. These limitations would also help to control human 

presence, which would help maintain the free-roaming nature of wild horses. 

Under Alternative A, 285,930 acres of sage-grouse core habitat areas would be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas (Map 2-9), which would prevent surface disturbing activities related to ROW 

development occurring within the exclusion area, which would prevent forage loss from ROW 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wild Horses 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-387

development in these areas. Under Alternative A, 2,460,340 acres of general sage-grouse habitat would be 

managed as ROW avoidance areas (Map 2-9), which would reduce surface disturbing activities related to 

ROW development from occurring within the avoidance areas, which would reduce forage loss from 

ROW development in these areas. 

Allowing wind energy development in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that would be 

closed in order to protect sensitive resources, would increase vegetation disturbance and loss of available 

forage. All sage-grouse priority habitat areas within HMAs would be available for wind energy 

development activities, except for 437,120 acres within some areas of HMAs that would be closed for the 

protection of sensitive resources (Map 2-29). Approximately 1,254 2-MW wind turbines are projected to 

be constructed across the entire planning area. Wind energy development activities involve land-clearing 

and surface disturbances. These actions could remove and disturb vegetation and result in a short-term 

loss of forage resources, as well as a decline in the health of vegetative communities, until these areas 

were stabilized and revegetated. Wind energy development activities could temporarily increase human 

presence, which would reduce the free-roaming nature of wild horses. Within the areas closed to wind 

energy development, the amount of land-clearing and surface disturbance associated with the 

development of new wind turbines would be eliminated, which would in turn reduce the amount of 

overall vegetation disturbance and forage removal. However, impacts to wild horses would only occur 

where development occurs within HMAs. It is not known where wind energy development would take 

place, so the quantification of surface disturbance associated with wind energy development within 

HMAs is not possible. 

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 by removing vegetation or causing 

disturbance. Managing rangelands to meet Standards and Guides would continue to provide forage 

needed for wild horses, livestock, and wildlife. Livestock and wildlife grazing could result in some sitespecific cases of increased competition for, or overuse of, forage and water. The extent of the competition 

or overuse would vary based on the time between monitoring of findings and adjustments to livestock and 

wildlife grazing use or wild horse populations. Monitoring of grazing use by all grazing animals would 

reduce these impacts on wild horses by reducing the time between the identification of the problem and 

the implementation of a solution. There are 188 allotments not meeting the standards due to livestock 

grazing. 

Adjusting grazing practices during times of drought would occur across the Casper Field Office, BridgerTeton National Forest (BTNF), and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG). This would reduce 

flexibility in grazing management (e.g., limiting season of use), which could potentially result in more 

growing season use, and areas of heavy and severe use, leading to loss of perennial vegetative cover and 

increased soil erosion. This could lead to short-term and long-term decreased habitat conditions for wild 

horses. 

Structural range improvements (including but not limited to: cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or 

other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc.) would potentially 

alter grazing management practices and increase surface disturbing activities in the short-term. 

Construction of range improvements would serve to improve livestock distribution and allow livestock to 

utilize more of the rangeland, which could consequently lead to short-term and long-term decreased 

habitat conditions for wild horses. Prohibiting the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements 

within 500 feet in the Rock Springs Field Office (and within 0.25 miles in the Casper, Kemmerer, and 

Pinedale Field Offices, and MBNF) to two miles in the TBNG, from water, wetlands, and riparian areas 

would draw wild horses away from sensitive riparian areas and result in maintaining or improving 

riparian conditions and water quality, which would enhance forage conditions and provide water sources 

for wild horses. Controlling surface occupancy on fragile soils would reduce vegetation removal and help 
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-388 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

to conserve available forage in these areas. Projects designed to enhance watershed health would enhance 

vegetation resources by reducing erosion and improving water quality, thereby increasing forage levels 

for wild horses. 

Allowing fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas throughout the planning area, except in 

unavailable areas (Map 2-04) would result in increased forage loss and decreased vegetative health. 

Approximately 871,780 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 40,980 acres would be managed as 

NSO areas, and 5,015,210 acres would be managed as CSU areas. Under this alternative, 13,653 

BLM/Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,758 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core 

habitat through 2020, resulting in 130,330 acres that would be disturbed over the short-term (before 

reclamation), and 39,050 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term (after reclamation). Oil and gas 

development activities would involve land-clearing and surface disturbances, such as the construction of 

well pads, roads, and pipelines in sage-grouse core habitat areas. These actions remove and disturb 

vegetation and increase the potential for the introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds, subsequently 

decreasing the overall health of available forage both in the short term during construction activities, and 

long term, as permanent structures, such as well pads, pits, and roads are maintained. Also, fluid mineral 

development activities could increase the potential for harassment and loss from vehicle collisions. Not 

applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat areas under this alternative may result in a 

greater number of smaller leases within these areas. A greater number of leases could result in temporary 

displacement and decrease of free-roaming areas for wild horses. 

Allowing for solid leasable mineral leasing within sage-grouse core habitat areas, except areas that are 

unavailable (234,230 acres), would result in land-clearing and surface disturbances from mineral 

extraction and excavation, associated road construction, and construction of surface mining facilities, 

which remove and disturb vegetation and result in subsequent short-term and long-term loss of forage 

available for grazing. The magnitude of long-term vegetation removal and reduction in available forage 

from mining activities and mineral exploration would depend on the duration of activity, as well as the 

type of reclamation efforts implemented and how long it would take for disturbed areas to become 

stabilized and vegetated. These activities would also increase human presence which would reduce the 

free-roaming nature of wild horses. 

Withdrawing portions of core habitat areas (1,677,420 acres) from locatable mineral entry (Map 2-19) 

would decrease the amount of surface disturbing activities associated with mineral entry, thereby 

maintaining vegetation for wild horses. 

Mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permit operations in sage-grouse core habitat areas 

(except areas that are unavailable) would also lead to surface disturbances that would result in short-term 

and long-term loss of forage (Map 2-14). There would be 274,860 acres of sage-grouse core habitat areas 

closed to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits. 

Managing the Poison Spider OHV Park, Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the 

Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area, and within the Casper, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices, respectively, as OHV “open” areas would result in short-term and long-term impacts to 

vegetation and forage conditions. The entire Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area within the Rock 

Springs Field Office includes an area overlapping an HMA, but impacts would occur to wild horses if the 

area managed as “open” is located within that HMA. A one-time disturbance resulting from OHV use 

could cause physical damage to vegetation by breaking stems and branches. Usually, with a one-time 

disturbance, plants and disturbed areas would recover. However, with repeated use, soil compaction 

occurs and new trails would be established, resulting in long-term loss of vegetation and forage available 

for grazing, if these activities occur within HMAs. These activities could also increase human presence 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wild Horses 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-389

which would reduce the free-roaming nature of wild horses and could result in temporary displacement of 

the horses. 

Vegetation management actions designed to enhance vegetation production, age class, structural diversity, 

and plant community vigor would benefit wild horses by increasing forage availability. Applying 

vegetation treatment measures in the TBNG Planning Unit where shrub canopy cover of sagebrush is less 

than 15%, and in areas less than 80 acres and no more than 20% of the sagebrush stands in wintering 

habitat for TBNG, would increase the overall health and function of vegetation communities. Application 

of these measures could result in short-term vegetation loss and subsequent grazing impacts during 

treatment activities, but would improve vegetation health and available forage for wild horses over the 

long-term. Additionally, vegetation treatment areas within the Pinedale and Rock Springs/Green River 

Field Offices would be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two full growing seasons after 

treatment, and one full year prior to treatment in the Rock Springs/JMH Field Office. Protecting 

vegetation treatments from livestock forage consumption in the short-term following the treatment, would 

increase the grass available in these areas, which could increase the quantity and quality of forage 

available for wild horses. 

Water developments to improve herd distribution and manage forage utilization would enhance 

vegetation resources by better distributing the resource across the range, thus better distributing the herd 

and increasing available forage levels. 

Wildfires and prescribed fires would displace wild horses and cause a short-term reduction in available 

forage. Suppressing wildfires would help maintain vegetation cover and conserve forage in the shortterm. Suppression activities, such as fire lines and staging areas, would result in surface disturbance and 

short-term losses in forage. Vegetation in areas of continued fire suppression would convert to late seral 

vegetation, decreasing grass production in the long-term. In addition, continued long-term suppression 

could increase the potential for larger, more intense fires, and a substantial loss of forage. 

Prescribed fire would be used in areas having greater than 10-inch precipitation zones to reduce or 

rejuvenate shrub cover and increase the herbaceous forage available for grazing animals. Over the longterm, this action would increase management flexibility and improve grazing distribution. Prescribed fire 

would result in the short-term deferment of grazing to allow for vegetation recovery. However, for a 

period of time after a fire, enhanced forage availability and production would be realized as herbaceous 

vegetation would temporarily replace woody shrub species. 

Within HMAs, prohibiting surface disturbing activities (which could include the construction of new 

roads) within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within the Pinedale Field Office, Rawlins Field 

Office, and the Jack Morrow Hills planning area within the Rock Springs Field Office (68,550 acres) and 

restricting surface disturbing activities within one-quarter mile of occupied sage-grouse leks within the 

Casper Field Office (and within 4 miles of sage-grouse leks within the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow 

Creek areas), and the Kemmerer, Newcastle, and Rock Springs Field Offices (437,680 acres) would 

reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities resulting from newly permitted activities, such as 

blading and grading, and therefore reduce the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss. However, 

these avoidances may result in increased road construction outside of the avoided areas, as longer roads 

may be constructed to circumvent the lek buffers, which could cause increased surface disturbance and 

subsequent vegetation removal and loss of forage in these areas. 

Prohibiting the construction of new oil and gas facilities within a quarter mile of active sage-grouse 

display grounds within the TBNG and MBNF (from March 1 through June 30), and permitting short-term 

disturbances to improve habitat within two miles of sage-grouse breeding habitat would decrease the 

amount of surface disturbance occurring over the four month season. Disturbances occurring to improve 
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-390 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

habitat would remove vegetation and decrease forage levels over the short-term. However, over the longterm the improvements would enhance vegetative conditions and likely increase forage production. 

4.19.4 Alternative B 

No new transmission corridors or above-ground transmission structures would be authorized within sagegrouse priority and connectivity habitat areas throughout the planning area, both inside and outside 

existing corridors. Vegetation and forage within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would not be impacted, 

as resulting surface disturbances from utility corridor development would not occur. 

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat (5,000,400 

acres) and restricted (avoidance area) in sage-grouse general habitat areas (6,530,940 acres). This would 

result in less development inside sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would decrease surface 

disturbance in the short-term and long-term, relative to Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the 

amount of vegetation removal and forage loss associated with wind energy development activities, 

compared to Alternative A, in which only 437,120 acres are closed from development. Approximately 

127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed through 2020 across the entire planning area, 

which would be 90% fewer turbines than Alternative A. However, impacts to wild horses would only 

occur where such development occurs within HMAs. It is not known where such development would take 

place, so the quantification of surface disturbance within HMAs is not possible. 

Allotments managed by the BLM not meeting the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands within all 

sage-grouse priority habitat would require a 20-30% forage allocation reduction for livestock under this 

alternative compared to Alternative A. This requirement would reduce competition for vegetative 

resources between livestock and wild horses compared to Alternative A. Retiring specific livestock 

allotments and/or permits could occur under this alternative as well, which would also increase available 

forage for wild horses compared to Alternative A. However, post-drought vegetation recovery 

management would occur within all priority sage-grouse habitat areas, which would further reduce 

grazing management flexibility compared to Alternative A, and thus potentially lead to both short- and 

long-term decreased habitat conditions for wild horses. 

Impacts associated with new structural range improvements, such as cattle guards, fences, exclosures, 

corrals or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc., would be 

the same as those described in Alternative A, except they would only occur across all priority sage-grouse 

habitat and thereby reduce the extent of associated impacts, as structural range improvements are more 

restricted under Alternative B. 

Under this alternative, additional water developments would only be authorized when priority sagegrouse habitat would be conserved, enhanced, or restored to sage-grouse, thus fewer impacts to wild 

horses 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. 

Priority sage-grouse habitat areas would be closed to oil and gas leasing, unless there is an opportunity for 

the BLM and Forest Service to influence conservation measures where surface and/or mineral ownership 

is not entirely federally owned (Map 2-5). 6,809,580 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing and 

2,082,140 acres would be managed as NSO areas. Under this alternative, 11,555 BLM/Forest Service oil 

and gas wells and 2,154 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse priority habitat areas through 

2020, resulting in 104,050 acres that would experience short-term disturbance, and 33,530 acres that 

would be disturbed over the long-term. The number of wells anticipated would be 16% less than 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wild Horses 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-391

Alternative A. This would reduce the amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for wild 

horses, compared to Alternative A. Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas would have the same impacts to wild horses as Alternative A. Under Alternative B, oil and gas 

leasing would be prohibited within priority habitat (with the exception that if the lease is entirely within 

priority habitat, a 4-mile NSO would be applied around the lek), which would maintain vegetation for 

wild horses because no new vegetative disturbances would occur as a result of oil and gas development 

on new leases. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (3,442,120 acres) based on risk to the sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development would reduce the impacts to wild 

horses, compared to Alternative A, if those areas recommended for withdrawal (3,442,120 acres vs. 

117,370 acres in Alternative A) are actually withdrawn (Map 2-20). 

Vegetation removal and loss of forage availability from non-energy, solid leasable mineral development 

would be reduced, relative to Alternative A (Map 2-25). 5,000,400 acres would be closed to solid mineral 

development compared to 234,230 acres closed in Alternative A. New coal leases and coal exploration 

licenses within sage-grouse priority habitat areas would be prohibited, and additional screening processes 

would be implemented outside sage-grouse priority habitat areas. No new leases for other solid leasables 

or mineral exploration by prospecting permits or licenses would be allowed inside sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas, and mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would also be closed in sagegrouse priority habitat areas, subject to valid existing rights (Map 2-15). A reduction in these operations 

would reduce the amount of associated surface disturbance, and subsequently reduce the amount of 

vegetation removal and loss of forage availability. 

All sage-grouse priority habitat areas (5,000,400 acres) would be closed to mineral material exploration, 

sales, and free use permits, compared to 274,860 acres closed in Alternative A(Map 2-15). Reclamation 

of mineral pits no longer in use would return the grazing lands to the production levels found prior to 

development. 

Managing the OHV use in the Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the Greater 

Sand Dunes Recreation Area as “open” would result in surface disturbance and forage loss similar to 

Alternative A if this disturbance was located within an HMA, except the non-sand dune portions of these 

areas would be managed as “limited to designated roads and trails.” Because recreational OHV users 

would remain on designated roads within these areas, vegetation would return, and forage would increase 

in the long-term. 

Prohibiting new road construction within all priority sage-grouse habitat (5,000,400 acres), unless valid 

existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, would further reduce the amount of surface 

disturbing activities associated with road development compared to Alternative A, in which surface 

disturbing activities are prohibited within 68,550 acres and restricted within 437,680 acres. The 

restoration of roads and trails would include reseeding and transplanting sagebrush, which over the longterm could increase available forage for wild horses. 

Impacts to wild horses from not reducing sagebrush shrub canopy cover to less than 15% and resting all 

vegetation treatment areas for two full growing seasons, except for the offices that don’t rest vegetation 

treatments (the only offices that rest are the ones mentioned in Alternative A), would be similar to 

Alternative A, except they would occur within all priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Impacts associated with wild horse management activities would be the same as Alternative A, but with 

additional management considerations for sage-grouse habitat. Consideration of additional management 

goals specific to achieving sage-grouse habitat objectives could potentially cause short- and long-term 
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-392 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impacts to wild horses if these considerations were to ever restrict wild horses from grazing in sagegrouse priority habitat, thereby increasing the extent of the impacts. 

The long-term enhancements in forage availability and production produced by wildland fire would have 

similar impacts to livestock grazing as Alternative A, but would be realized over more acres. Post fuels 

management projects would be designed to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment native 

plants which could cause temporary or long-term changes in grazing management. Prescribed fire would 

be used in areas having greater (>12-inch) precipitation zones compared to Alternative A, in which a 10-

inch or greater precipitation zone is required. 

Managing the existing levels of density of disturbance on the landscape within sage-grouse priority 

habitat and connectivity habitat areas would increase protection to forage levels within these areas over 

the long-term. Density of disturbance on the landscape would not cover more than 3% of the total sagegrouse priority habitat regardless of ownership (and would not exceed 3% habitat disturbance per 640 

acres inside sage-grouse connectivity areas). In priority habitat where the 3% disturbance threshold is 

already realized, no further disturbances would be permitted and an additional designation would ensure 

that no more than 3% of the total priority habitat is disturbed within 10 years. These limits would reduce 

the amount of surface disturbance in these areas, which would reduce vegetation removal, and 

subsequently maintain the overall health and function of forage. These limitations would also limit human 

presence, which would maintain the free-roaming nature of wild horses, compared to Alternative A in 

which surface occupancy and disturbance activities would be prohibited on 68,550 acres and restricted on 

437,680 acres, with no threshold values. 

4.19.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, 11,531,340 acres of priority and general sage-grouse habitat areas would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas, which would provide additional forage areas for wild horses compared 

to Alternative A. Site reclamation to restore the habitat would be the same as the impacts described in 

Alternative B.

Wind energy development activities (including industrial solar projects) would not be allowed both inside 

and within five miles of sage-grouse priority habitat areas. This would result in less development inside 

sage-grouse priority habitat areas, which would decrease surface disturbance in the short-term and longterm, relative to Alternative A, in which only 437,120 acres are closed from development. Approximately 

127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed across the entire planning area, which would be 

90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A. These restrictions would reduce the amount of vegetation 

removal and forage loss associated with wind energy development activities, compared to Alternative A. 

However, impacts to wild horses would only occur where such development occurs within HMAs. It is 

not known where such development would take place, so the quantification of surface disturbance within 

HMAs is not possible. 

Livestock grazing would be entirely prohibited within sage-grouse priority habitat compared to 

Alternative A, in which only the allotments managed by the BLM not meeting the Wyoming Standards 

for Healthy Rangelands would be prohibited from livestock grazing. Reseeding with native species could 

maintain overall structure and resiliency of vegetation health and thereby improve or increase long-term 

forage for wild horses. These impacts would not be realized under any of the other alternatives. Impacts 

associated with management decisions to retire specific allotments and/or permits, and post-drought 

management would have similar impacts as Alternative B.

All new structural range improvements, such as cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals or other 

livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc., would be avoided in sage-
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wild Horses 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-393

grouse priority and general habitat unless beneficial to the species, thus potentially reducing the amount 

of surface disturbing activities that would occur and resulting impacts to wild horses in the short-term 

compared to Alternative A. Prohibiting new water developments under this alternative would decrease 

surface disturbing activities associated with development, thus maintaining current available forage for 

wild horses in the short-term. However, enhancements to riparian vegetation and water quality, which 

would provide forage and water sources for wild horses, would not be realized over the long-term. These 

impacts would only be realized in general habitat as priority habitat is prohibited from livestock grazing. 

Closing priority and general sage-grouse habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing, which will prevent the 

construction of new oil and gas wells, unless there is an opportunity for the BLM or Forest Service to 

influence conservation measures where surface and/or mineral ownership is not entirely federally owned, 

would reduce the amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for wild horses, compared to 

Alternative A (Map 2-6). 16,878,220 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing and 2,082,140 acres 

would be managed as NSO areas. Under Alternative C, 9,533 BLM/Forest Service oil and gas wells and 

1,594 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse priority habitat areas through 2020 resulting in 

85,140 acres that would experience short-term disturbance, and 27,030 acres that would be disturbed over 

the long term. The number of wells anticipated would be 32% less than Alternative A, thus reducing the 

amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for grazing compared to Alternative A. Under 

Alternative C, agencies would explore options to amend, cancel, or buy out leases in ACECs and sagegrouse priority and general habitat, which would reduce oil and gas drilling and thus reduce forage loss 

for wildlife. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1,442,120 acres) based on risk to the sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development (Map 2-21) would result in the 

same impacts to wild horses as discussed in Alternative B.

Impacts to wild horses from coal and other solid leasable mineral development, as well as non-energy 

leasable mineral leasing, mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would all be the same 

as those described under Alternative B.

The use of OHVs in the Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices would result in the same 

impacts to wild horses as Alternative B.

Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of active sage-grouse leks, and avoiding new road 

construction in sage-grouse priority and general habitat would reduce impacts to wild horses compared to 

Alternative A, in which prohibitions occur within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within specific 

parts of the planning area. A larger buffer zone around sage-grouse leks under this Alternative would 

reduce the amount of surface disturbing activities from new road construction and therefore reduce the 

amount of vegetation removal and forage loss compared to Alternative A. Route construction would be 

limited to realignments of existing routes and mitigating efforts would be required if these efforts had 

impacts, thus reducing additional surface disturbing activities compared to Alternative A. Impacts 

associated with restoring roads and trails would be similar to those described in Alternative B.

Impacts to wild horses from not reducing sagebrush shrub canopy cover to less than 15% would be 

similar to Alternative A, except they would occur within all priority and general sage-grouse habitat, 

thereby increasing the extent of the impacts. Under this alternative, vegetation treatment plans would 

establish non-grazing exclosures, thus potentially resulting in site-specific cases of increased competition 

between livestock and wildlife for forage and water compared to Alternative A. Vegetation community 

and production recovery in treated areas would be enhanced, increasing the post-treatment grazing 

capacity of treated lands in the long-term. 
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-394 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts associated with wild horse management activities would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts resulting from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under 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 a stable forage source for wild horses. 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. 

Impacts to wild horses from managing the density of disturbance on the landscape inside sage-grouse 

connectivity areas would be the same as those described under Alternative B.

Surface occupancy and disturbance activity prohibitions around sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas would be the same as those described under Alternative B. All of the impacts 

described under Alternative A would not be realized for activities related to oil and gas activities. 

4.19.6 Alternative D 

Allowing new transmission projects in existing utility corridors within a designated two-mile wide 

corridor through sage-grouse core habitat areas and within 0.5 miles either side of existing 115 kV or 

larger transmission lines, between July 1 and March 14 (or between July 1 and November 30 in winter 

concentration areas) (Map 2-12), would exclude a larger area from surface disturbing activities (5,141,340 

acres), relative to Alternative A, in which 285,930 acres would be excluded. This could result in 

decreased vegetation removal and loss of forage for wild horses, as well as an increase in human 

presence, compared to Alternative A. However, 1,211,030 acres of general sage-grouse habitat areas 

would be managed as avoidance areas for new ROWs, compared to 2,460,340 acres avoided in 

Alternative A, which could potentially increase the amount of surface disturbing activities and resulting 

forage loss that could occur compared to Alternative A.

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within sage-grouse core habitat areas, 

(5,000,400 acres) and restricted within 501,830 acres, but would need to demonstrate that declines in 

sage-grouse populations could be avoided through project design and/or mitigation. These restrictions 

would reduce the amount of surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and loss of available forage 

associated with wind energy development activities, compared to Alternative A, in which only 437,120 

acres would be closed. However, fewer development activities would be restricted compared to 

Alternative A (3,888,930 acres), potentially increasing the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss 

associated with the decrease in restrictions compared to Alternative A. Approximately 980 2-MW wind 

turbines are projected to be constructed through 2020 across the entire planning area, which would be 

22% fewer turbines than under Alternative A. However, impacts to wild horses would only occur where 

such development occurs within HMAs. It is not known where such development would take place, so the 

quantification of surface disturbance within HMAs is not possible. 

Impacts to wild horses from livestock grazing management would be the same as those described under 

Alternative A, with the exception that the flexibility in grazing management would be further reduced, 

thus impacting short- and long-term habitat conditions for wild horses compared to Alternative A. Postdrought management impacts would be similar to Alternative A. 

Impacts associated with structural range improvements, such as cattle guards, fences, exclosures, corrals 

or other livestock handling structures; pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, etc., would be similar 

to Alternative A, except modifications would be made to existing range improvements. No new structural 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wild Horses 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-395

range improvements would occur under this alternative, which would decrease surface disturbing 

activities in the short-term. Authorizing water developments as needed within sage-grouse core habitats 

would further increase vegetative resources available for wild horses compared to Alternative A.

Oil and gas leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas would be administratively unavailable on 964,860 

acres and managed with CSU stipulations on 2,117,990 acres (Map 2-7). Under Alternative D, 13,083 

BLM/Forest Service oil and gas wells and 2,686 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse 

priority habitat areas through 2020, resulting in 44,050 acres that would experience short-term 

disturbance, and 9,160 acres that would be disturbed over the long-term. The number of wells anticipated 

would be 4% less than Alternative A. Not applying minimum lease sizes within sage-grouse core habitat 

areas would have the same impacts to wild horses as under Alternative A.

Withdrawing core habitat areas from locatable mineral entry (1,677,420 acres) (Map 2-22), opening sagegrouse core habitat areas to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits (Map 2-17), and 

continuing to have saleable mineral pits not in use available for other uses would all result in the same 

impacts to wild horses as discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts to wild horses from coal and other solid leasable mineral development, as well as non-energy 

leasable mineral leasing, would be the same as those described under Alternative A, except impacts 

would also occur in the areas that were previously unavailable for leasing. Thus, an increase in surface 

disturbing activities and subsequent forage loss would occur. These activities would also increase human 

presence which would reduce the free-roaming nature of wild horses. 

The use of OHVs in the Poison Spider OHV Park, part of the hill climb area in Section 33, Dune Pond 

Cooperative Management Area, and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation area would result in 

the same impacts to wild horses as Alternative A if the surface disturbance was located within an HMA. 

Avoiding new road construction within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within all sage-grouse 

core habitat areas would reduce impacts to livestock grazing compared to Alternative A, in which 

prohibitions only occur within 0.25 miles of occupied sage-grouse leks within specific parts of the 

planning area. The 0.25-mile restriction within all sage-grouse core habitat areas (an additional 129,510 

total acres) would result in less surface disturbance and subsequent forage loss, but to a lesser extent than 

Alternatives B or C. 

Treated areas would not be rested from grazing under this Alternative, thus an increase in the quantity and 

quality of forage available for wild horses would not be realized compared to Alternative A. Vegetation 

community and production recovery in treated areas would be poor, thus potentially decreasing the posttreatment grazing capacity of treated lands in the long-term. 

Impacts associated with wild horse management activities would be similar to those described in 

Alternative B.

The effects on wild horses resulting from fire management actions would be the same as those described 

under Alternative A. 

Managing the density of energy production (excluding coal mining) and/or transmission structures 

(excluding buried pipelines or power lines) on the landscape inside sage-grouse core habitat would 

increase forage loss and human presences within the planning area long-term, compared to Alternative B. 

A limit of three energy production locations and/or transmission structures per 640 acres within the 

project impact analysis area could occur, and an additional 9% of total sagebrush habitat loss would be 

allowed under this alternative, compared to the 3% total permitted in Alternative B.
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-396 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Restricting disruptive activity within a quarter mile radius of all occupied sage-grouse leks inside core 

habitat and connectivity habitat areas would not be applied as long as restrictions in Alternative A (14 

fewer days), resulting in forage losses sooner. The amount of acres in which surface disturbing activities 

are restricted would decrease by 68% (75,870 acres in Alternative D compared to 437,680 acres in 

Alternative A), thus increasing the amount of vegetation removal and forage loss resulting from surface 

disturbing activities compared to Alternative A.

4.19.7 Alternative E 

Restricting utility structures within sage-grouse core habitat areas would result in impacts to livestock 

grazing similar to Alternative A, except new transmission projects proposed outside of corridors would 

only be considered where it can be proven that sage-grouse populations could be avoided through project 

design and/or mitigation. Surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities for agriculture would be 

prohibited from March 15 to June 30, and on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of occupied 

sage-grouse leks. Surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and forage loss would likely decrease further, 

relative to Alternative A, due to these requirements. 

Wind energy development activities would be prohibited within 5,002,520 acres of sage-grouse core 

habitat and restricted within 6,528,810 acres of sage-grouse general habitat. Less development would 

occur within sage-grouse core habitat areas resulting in fewer surface disturbances and subsequent forage 

loss compared to Alternative A, in which only 437,120 acres would be closed and 3,888,930 acres would 

be restricted. Approximately 127 2-MW wind turbines are projected to be constructed through 2020 

across the entire planning area, which would be 90% fewer turbines than under Alternative A (Map 2-33). 

Impacts to wild horses from livestock grazing management would be similar to the impacts described in 

Alternative A.

Continuing to modify when necessary, existing range improvements (e.g., fences, watering facilities) for 

impacts on sage-grouse and its habitat within sage-grouse general and core habitat, would have reduced 

impacts to wild horses compared to Alternative A. Continuing to authorize supplements and supplemental 

feeding where appropriate would result in impacts to wild horses as discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts to wild horses from fluid mineral leasing in sage-grouse core habitat areas, except in areas that 

are unavailable, would be similar to those described in Alternative A. Fewer wells are anticipated (Map 2-

8), 892,090 acres would be closed to oil and gas leasing, 689,300 acres would be managed as NSO areas, 

and 6,146,570 acres would be managed as CSU areas. Under this alternative, 12,355 BLM/Forest Service 

oil and gas wells and 2,462 CBNG wells would be anticipated in sage-grouse core habitat areas through 

2020, resulting in 37,380 acres that would experience short-term disturbance, and 8,290 acres that would 

be disturbed over the long-term. The number of wells anticipated would be 10% less than Alternative A, 

thus reducing the amount of vegetation removal and loss of available forage for livestock grazing, 

compared to Alternative A. Application of a minimum lease size of 640 acres within sage-grouse priority 

habitat areas would help to prevent fragmentation and increased numbers of smaller-sized leases by 

reducing the potential for increased surface disturbance and subsequent forage loss, relative to 

Alternative A. There are exceptions for leases smaller than 640 acres, such as for regulatory compliance, 

but these exceptions would likely not be numerous enough to outweigh the reduction in vegetation 

removal and forage loss from minimum lease sizes. 

Proposing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (3,442,120 acres) based on risk to the sage-grouse and 

its habitat from conflicting locatable mineral potential and development would reduce the impacts to wild 

horses, compared to Alternative A, if those areas recommended for withdrawal (3,442,120 acres vs. 

117,370 acres in Alternative A) are actually withdrawn (Map 2-20). 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wild Horses 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-397

Impacts to wild horses from coal operations would be similar to Alternative A, except operations in sagegrouse core habitat areas (except in unavailable areas) would implement measures where possible to 

protect habitat, which would decrease vegetative disturbance and loss of forage from associated surface 

disturbances (Map 2-28). Exploration licenses and on-lease would not be considered until after NEPA 

analysis. These procedures may reduce vegetation removal and subsequent forage loss, if the analyses and 

potential mitigation measures result in revegetation and soil stabilization. 

Impacts to wild horses from solid leasable mineral operations could be less than Alternative A (Map 2-

28). Short-term disturbance to vegetation from solid leasable mineral operations would still occur inside 

sage-grouse core habitat areas (except in unavailable areas), but if revegetation efforts from mitigating 

measures were successful, long-term forage loss would be reduced. Human presence could also be 

reduced, which would increase the free-roaming nature of wild horses. 

Impacts associated with mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits would be the same as 

described in Alternative A, except in sage-grouse core habitat areas where restrictions to surface 

disturbance and disruptive activity may result in less surface disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

subsequent forage loss inside these areas (Map 2-18). However, these operations may be sited outside of 

the sage-grouse core habitat areas, in which case the impacts to grazing would be the same as 

Alternative A. Managing the OHV use as “open” would result in surface disturbance and forage loss 

would be similar to Alternative A, except the non-sand dune portions of Dune Pond Cooperative 

Management Area and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area would be managed as 

“limited to existing roads and trails.” If recreational riders remain on existing roads and trails, vegetation 

would return off-trail, and forage availability would increase. However, if recreational riders did not 

follow these designations, vegetation removal and forage loss would be equal to Alternative A.

Avoiding primary and secondary road construction within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied sagegrouse leks, and within 0.6 miles of the same perimeter for all other new roads would reduce the amount 

of surface disturbance associated with these activities compared to Alternative A, except the avoidance 

would only be applicable within the core habitat areas. Alternatively, these avoidances could potentially 

lengthen roads to avoid leks which would increase surface disturbing activities, increasing vegetation 

removal and the loss of forage where lengthened. Total surface disturbing activities would not exceed a 

5% total for the core habitat area under this alternative. These restrictions would lessen the amount of 

surface disturbance and resulting vegetation removal and forage loss, but not to the same extent as 

Alternative B or C. 

Impacts associated with wild horse management activities would be the same as Alternative B.

Management actions associated with the fire management program would include suppressing fire in 

areas where fire is not desired. This management action would provide supportive analysis in determining 

the highest priority areas in which full suppression will be used in order to limit fire growth. Compared to 

Alternative A, this management action would likely reduce the use of fire suppression, which could 

increase both short-term forage loss and long-term forage increases. In addition, there could be a decrease 

in forage loss as a result of suppression activities. In the long term, allowing fire in desired areas could 

increase vegetation cover and diversity, improving forage for wild horses. Vegetation treatments to 

increase forage availability would also increase the amount of forage for wild horses compared to 

Alternative A.

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, and a 5% loss of sagebrush habitat would be allowed under this alternative, compared to 
Chapter 4—Wild Horses Draft EIS 

4-398 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

the 3% total permitted in Alternative B. These limits would reduce the amount of surface disturbance in 

these areas, which would reduce vegetation disturbance and removal, and subsequently maintain the 

overall health and function of forage available for wild horses compared to Alternative B.

Restricting surface occupancy and disturbance would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, except 

the restrictions would cover a greater area. Surface disturbing activity and surface occupancy would be 

prohibited or restricted (depending on the activity and potential effects) within 0.6 miles of occupied 

sage-grouse leks inside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity areas, and within 0.25 miles of occupied 

sage-grouse leks outside sage-grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat areas (Map 2-3). Under 

Alternative E, 304,970 acres would be prohibited from surface occupancy and disturbance, compared to 

68,550 acres in Alternative A, an increase of 78%. These restrictions would decrease the amount of 

surface disturbance and subsequent vegetation removal and forage loss, relative to Alternative A. 

Compared to Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-399

4.20 WILDLAND FIRE AND FUELS

This section presents potential impacts on fire and fuels management from implementing management 

actions presented in Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning fire and fuels management are described in 

Chapter 3.

4.20.1 Impact Indicators 

Indictors of impacts on wildland fire management are as follows: 

• A change in the likelihood of human-caused wildfires 

• Changes to the composition of vegetation communities that affect wildland fire size, intensity, 

and frequency 

• Alteration of vegetative cover that results in a shift in fire regime condition class 

• Management actions that inhibit a response to wildland fire or appropriate treatments to prevent 

wildland fire. 

4.20.2 Assumptions 

The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 

• A direct relationship exists between density of human use within the planning area and the 

frequency of human-caused fires. 

• A direct relationship exists between fuel loads (standing and non-standing vegetation) and 

potential fire size and intensity. 

• Proper application of prescribed fire (as well as mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments) 

can reduce the fire hazards presented by an accumulation of fuel. The application of prescribed 

fire and the effects of prescribed fire on resource values will be considered in this section. 

• Projected levels of fuels and restoration treatments are to be identified. 

• WUI funding will be more stable than non-WUI funding. 

• National direction will continue to focus on cost containment for large fire activities and 

emphasize response to wildland fire. 

• RMP efforts should identify assumed levels of fuels treatment (to be used as the basis for the 

impact analysis). 

• Fire management budgets will be cyclical. 

4.20.3 Alternative A 

ROW infrastructure such as power lines, transmission towers, and communication towers could increase 

the potential for ignition sources and probability of wildland fire occurrence through human presence on 

roads, corridors, and during development or maintenance of ROW infrastructure. Excluding and avoiding 

ROWs on 285,930 and 2,460,340 acres, respectively, could reduce human presence and ignition sources 

such as vehicles and machinery that could cause wildland fires. ROW development and associated 

corridors could increase accessibility for fire suppression equipment and aid in fire containment as access 

roads and other areas cleared for development create fire breaks. 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels Draft EIS 

4-400 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Wildfire frequency could decrease in areas where wind energy development is prohibited (437,120 acres) 

or restricted (3,888,930 acres) by reducing surface disturbing activities and ignition source potential. The 

proliferation of invasive vegetation species could increase in areas disturbed by wind energy development 

activities, which would increase the potential for large fires. However, fuels may be reduced and fire 

breaks may be created during wind energy development, which could reduce fire size and intensity. Fire 

intensity could be reduced within the projected 1,254 wind energy turbine sites as fuel loads would be 

removed for construction. However, fire frequency could increase during the development stage as more 

ignition sources would be available from construction equipment and human presence. 

Grazing by livestock, wildlife, and/or wild horses could reduce fine fuels such as grasses that serve as 

ignition sources and fuel for wildland fires. Grazing can reduce native plant density and open niches for 

invasive species which would decrease resistance to wildland fires and increase fire frequency. 

Vegetation health could be improved through applying the Standards for Rangeland Health, which would 

promote healthy, diverse vegetation communities that generally fuel low-intensity fires and reduce the 

risk of large, high-intensity fires. This could result in a lower high-intensity fire frequency within the 

decision area and could encourage the natural fire regime. Stock driveways could be used to provide 

emergency relief from fire and drought in the Casper Field Office and Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

and to help maintain vegetation health and reduce wildfire potential and wildfire frequency. Grazing 

strategies to improve nesting cover in sagebrush stands within two to three miles of active display 

grounds in the TBNG could increase the native species composition there by reducing fire frequency, thus 

maintaining healthier vegetative communities that would be more tolerant to fire. Fire frequency could be 

reduced by allowing livestock trailing within the Kemmerer Field Office, which could increase grazing 

along the trail and reduce overall plant biomass and fuel loads within this area. Low intensity fires could 

be reduced as salt and mineral supplements would be placed at least 500 feet to 0.25 miles away from 

riparian habitat. The placement would draw grazing concentrations away from these areas and could 

reduce fine fuels in the grazed areas. Riparian habitat health and resistance to fire could increase as 

rangeland management and range improvement projects are implemented to improve riparian habitats 

within the planning area. 

Mineral exploration and development could increase fire frequency by increasing the potential for humancaused fire starts and the potential for fire starts from motorized vehicles used during construction. The 

threat of fire would also increase as surface disturbances could increase fire-prone invasive species 

establishment/proliferation and habitat fragmentation, thus reducing plant community health. However, 

mineral exploration and development could reduce the size and intensity of fires through surface 

disturbing activities that remove vegetation, reduce fuel loads, create fire breaks, and improve access for 

fire suppression activities. Such impacts would occur on 130,332 acres that would be disturbed by the 

development of 13,653 oil and gas and 2,758 CBNG wells. These impacts would be reduced or 

eliminated on 871,780 acres where development is prohibited or limited through stipulations. Fire 

frequency and intensity could also be reduced in areas that use techniques to minimize surface disturbing 

activities, such as twinning and directional drilling which could maintain plant community health. Fire 

potential could be reduced in areas where solid mineral development activities such as vegetation 

clearing, and associated risks of fire starts from motorized vehicles would be restricted (899,599 acres). 

Fires could be reduced by implementing restrictions for new coal leases within the Rock Creek/Tunp and 

Bear River Divide management areas, and closing numerous areas to solid mineral leasing in Bridger 

Teton National Forest (234,230 acres). Fire potential could increase as exceptions, waivers, and/or 

modifications to these management actions could be granted which could increase surface disturbing 

activities and the potential for human-caused fire starts associated with these activities and associated 

workers. 

Recreational opportunities attract increasing numbers of visitors, which increases the probability for 

unintentional fires from recreation users and the need for fire suppression activities. Because OHV use 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-401

allows visitors to access remote areas, human-caused fires such as those from motorized vehicles or 

unattended campfires could occur in areas that are difficult to access with fire suppression equipment. The 

routes that provide motorized access to public lands within the decision area could facilitate travel, and 

increase the distribution of visitors throughout the decision area, thus increasing the extent of related 

effects. Fire intensity could be reduced in areas of developed campsites which could act as safety zones 

and fuel breaks, but would also require additional protection in wildland fire events. Developing more 

recreation sites and facilities would concentrate ignition sources to areas of high use that have reduced 

vegetation and fuel loads which are less likely to burn. Within the planning area, 4,600 acres would be 

designated as “open” to OHV use. In designated OHV “open” areas, fire ignition sources from OHV use 

could occur but risk of human-caused fire starts and risk of fire starts from motorized vehicles would be 

very low as these OHV “open” areas are dunes which are inherently resistant to fires. The potential for 

human-caused fire starts would be reduced in the Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs field offices and 

BTNF as potential human-caused ignition sources are decreased by allowing unnecessary/redundant 

roads/trails to either be reclaimed/rehabilitated and/or closed, thus reducing travel within these areas. 

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. These activities would also modify the composition and structure of vegetation 

communities by creating mosaic vegetation patterns, natural fuel breaks, and by promoting healthy, 

diverse vegetation communities that generally fuel low-intensity fires. Specifically, efforts to reduce the 

incursion of non-native annual grasses (primarily cheatgrass), encroachment of shrubby vegetation, 

buildup of biomass in forested areas, and spread of noxious and invasive weeds would help to achieve this 

effect by using weed free seeds (native seed if possible) for rehabilitation. Habitat improvements for sagegrouse 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. 

Using wildland fire and prescribed fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources would reduce fuel 

loads and promote healthy, diverse vegetation communities, both of which would decrease the intensity of 

wildland fires and facilitate suppression efforts. Prescribed fires designed to reduce fuel loads and treat 

vegetation could occur throughout the planning area. Suppressing wildland fires in areas where fire is not 

desired such as areas with urban interface, industrial areas, oil and gas sites, high resource values, 

structures, cultural sites, and habitat for sensitive species, would occur throughout the planning area. Fire 

suppression may reduce fire size and intensity in these areas and increase the ability to control fires and 

protect important resources from fire damage. However, consistently maintaining small fire could limit or 

exclude fire from functioning in its natural role, resulting in further departure from the historic fire regime 

over the long term. Fire-dependent plant communities could deteriorate over the long-term if fires were 

prevented from occurring within these communities. 

Impacts from Fire Operations on Wildland Fire Ecology and Management Upward Shift in Fire Regime’s 

Condition Class, Reduced Flexibility to Respond to Wildfires Prioritization of wildland fire responses is 

based on values at risk and the ability to successfully complete any specific operation. Human life and 

safety will always take precedence for the wildland firefighting crews to respond to. Other things 

considered are improvements that, if damaged or destroyed, would have a great impact on not only the 

local area but also nationally, and areas that would directly impact human activities. 

Greater Sage-Grouse is a value at risk, not unlike municipal watersheds or a watershed that feeds an 

endangered fish habitat or a culturally significant site. With many equally competing values at risk to 

wildland fire, an implementation plan must stipulate how to prioritize wildland firefighting crews’ efforts. 

See Appendix J, Greater Sage-Grouse Wildland Fire and Invasive Species Habitat Assessment. 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels Draft EIS 

4-402 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

The ability to use wildland fire, whether planned or naturally ignited, removes one tool to manage a fire 

for firefighter safety: to benefit resources and return the vegetative community to a normal fire return 

interval. The use of such tactics is not only based on values at risk but also the firefighting resources 

available to perform this and other tactics successfully and in a timely manner. 

The use of fire to mimic a mosaic pattern and to return the natural state of the vegetative community is a 

tool in resource management outside of wildland fire management. The ability to use fire to manage a 

wildland fire may have far-reaching impacts on the responding firefighting crews’ ability to keep the 

wildland fire small, as well as for other resources to take advantage of a situation to help reduce 

vegetation cover, type, and composition. To suppress every fire takes firefighting resources, and values at 

risk outside of life and property also dictate what methods may be used. The use of heavy equipment in 

sagebrush is a successful method for constructing extensive fire lines in a comparatively short period. 

The aerial application of retardant is also a good method for slowing the spread of the fire, but it must be 

followed up with equipment or crews to completely remove the fuels from the fire’s path. These resources 

come at a financial cost. Transporting heavy equipment, training the operators, maintaining the 

equipment, and supplying the fuel are all costs associated with the equipment if agency owned. If it is 

contracted equipment, these are taken in as a factor when calculating the hourly operating cost. The same 

is taken into account for applying retardant. Both require firefighters to ensure that the fire does not cross 

the line. The equipment line must be rehabilitated to correct the vegetation damage done during 

suppression. Holding on to resources to reduce the threat of a fire escaping the control lines is an 

additional cost. Holding on to crews to mop-up (extinguishing or removing burning material near control 

lines, felling snags, and trenching logs to prevent rolling after an area is burned, to make a fire safe, or to 

reduce residual smoke) black next to unburned islands is a cost above what is the normal procedure for 

cleanup. All of this is a suppression cost and can add up quickly, extending the cost well beyond that of a 

similar fire using other methods of suppression. 

Post wildfire rehabilitation is vital to reduce post-fire potential of noxious weed invasion, including 

cheatgrass. Post-fire cheatgrass infestation can alter fire regimes dramatically by increasing the fire return 

intervals to every two to five years. Post-wildfire cheatgrass conversion is one of the biggest challenges in 

wildfire rehabilitation across the Great Basin, not just in Wyoming. The ESR actions in these Alternatives 

will help reduce the potential for cheatgrass invasion, thus maintaining FRCC. This not only includes 

seeding but those management actions that help areas achieve and maintain desired conditions of ESR 

projects to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Currently, there is variability in the degree, extent, and seed type of wildfire rehabilitation within Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat. Under this alternative, the current way of a case by case determination of ESR after 

wildfire would continue. Some post-wildfire temporary land management changes do occur to improve 

the probability of seedling establishment. 

4.20.4 Alternative B 

Surface disturbances and associated potential of human-caused fire starts from ROW construction 

activities would be reduced compared to Alternative A as new corridors would not be authorized (Map 2-

5) and ROWs would be prohibited on 5,141,340 acres and avoided on 6,390,010 acres, thus reducing 

development activities and associated fire potential. Fire potential would be reduced as surface 

disturbances and associated potential human-caused and motorized vehicle fire starts from designated 

ROW construction/maintenance could be reduced by relocating or removing designations to current 

corridors that cross sage-grouse priority habitat. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-403

Impacts from wind energy development would be similar to Alternative A, except areas closed to wind 

energy development would increase to 5,000,400 acres and restricted areas would increase to 6,530,940 

acres, thus reducing the surface area where surface disturbing activities and potential human-caused fire 

starts could occur. Fire potential would decrease as the number of projected wind turbines that would be 

constructed would be reduced compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from livestock grazing management and impacts to fire would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A, except grazing could be reduced in sage-grouse priority habitat to meet 20-30% forage 

allocations when rangelands in sage-grouse priority habitat are not meeting rangeland standards. This 

reduction in livestock grazing could increase fine fuel loads, which favor low-intensity fires, and increase 

overall plant community health. Fire potential could be reduced in sage-grouse priority habitat as 

livestock grazing practices would be used to help meet sage-grouse priority habitat requirements. In 

addition, fire potential could be reduced during drought periods as grazing allotments in sage-grouse 

priority habitats could be retired on all or part of an allotment, which could help maintain plant 

community and resistance to fire. 

Reducing fluid minerals development by increasing closed areas to 6,809,580 acres and increasing NSO 

areas to 2,082,140 acres compared to Alternative A, would reduce the potential for human-caused fire 

starts. Fire potential from surface disturbing activities and human-caused fire starts associated with fluid 

minerals development would be reduced as the projected oil and gas wells (11,555) and CBNG wells 

(2,154) would be fewer compared to Alternative A. These actions would not only reduce the number of 

disturbed well sites but they would reduce associated access roads to these areas and potential fire ignition 

sources associated with motor vehicle travel. 

The development of mineral materials and solid minerals would be prohibited on 5,000,400 acres, and 

5,002,170 acres would be withdrawn from mineral location, which would protect more acres from 

potential human-caused fire starts and the degradation of plant community continuity caused by 

development activities. Native fuel loads could increase within these closures and thereby enhance overall 

habitat health, function and resistance to changes in the fire return interval. 

Overall, fuel loads would increase in sage-grouse priority habitat as total surface disturbances would be 

limited to a three percent disturbance threshold, which could increase the fire potential. Conversely, fire 

potential could also be reduced due to the improvement of vegetation health that would result from 

reducing/eliminating habitat fragmentation and open niches used by fire-prone invasive species. Fire 

frequency could be reduced by implementing management actions to prohibit surface disturbing activities 

such as ground clearing in sage-grouse priority habitat during brood rearing or nesting periods which 

would reduce the probability of invasive species establishment during the time of year when invasive 

species are most active. 

Impacts to wildland fire from recreational activities would be reduced compared to those discussed under 

Alternative A. Fewer recreational activities or recreational activities in fewer areas could reduce impacts 

to fire management, as unintentional fires and ignition sources could be reduced. 

Potential fires would be similar to Alternative A, as many management actions and impacts from 

vegetation management would be the same; however, the potential for fires could be reduced in sagegrouse priority areas as vegetation treatments would be designed to reduce wildfire risk and maintain 

habitat quality. Fire frequency could return to the natural fire regime schedule with the use of native seeds 

for reseeding efforts where there is a good probability of native seed re-establishment success. Resting 

treated areas for two full seasons would allow natural seeds and plants to better regenerate and establish 

which could further reduce invasive species establishment. Fire frequency in sage-grouse priority habitat 

could be reduced compared to Alternative A, as fuel treatments would be focused on protecting existing 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels Draft EIS 

4-404 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

sagebrush ecosystems which would help maintain plant community health and reduce probability of fireprone invasive species establishment or expansion. 

Potential for wildland fires could decrease compared to Alternative A, as fire management would focus 

on using prescribed fire to protect, maintain, and enhance resources, reduce fuel loads, and promote 

healthy, diverse vegetation communities in sage-grouse priority habitat. Using prescribed fire in sagegrouse priority habitat could decrease the intensity and frequency of wildland fires and facilitate 

suppression efforts. The increase in sagebrush protection in these areas would increase coarse fuel loads 

and move sage-grouse priority habitat closer to the historical fire regime fuel loads and frequency. 

Potential wildland fires would be reduced as fuel loads and vegetation treatment impacts from using fire 

as a treatment method on sagebrush would be limited to areas with at least 12 inches or greater of annual 

precipitation. This alternative has the use of preferred native seed the priority for use in ESR project in 

priority habitat. Additionally, Alternative B may require the temporary or long-term changes in grazing, 

wild horse management, or travel management to ensure that the desired conditions of ESR projects meet 

Greater Sage-Grouse objectives. This would, overall, improve the success of seeding to protect post-burn 

areas from cheatgrass infestations, thus maintaining or improving FRCC. 

4.20.5 Alternative C 

Impacts from ROW management actions on wildland fire potential would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A, except they would be reduced as the exclusion area for new corridors would increase 

to include sage-grouse priority habitat and general habitat, which would decrease the area where the 

potential for ignition sources and probability of wildland fire occurrence (through human presence on 

roads, corridors, and during development or maintenance of ROWs) could occur. The acres of ROW 

exclusion areas would increase to 11,531,3407 acres under this alternative. However, areas where ROW 

development would be excluded, an increase in fuel loads could occur, which could increase the potential 

for more severe wildfires. Overall habitat health in these areas would be conserved compared to 

Alternative A and prescribed fire would not be used to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation 

zones. Prescribed fire could be used in precipitation zones with less than 12-inches of precipitation to 

reduce wildfire potential, as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities have been explored. 

The impacts on fire potential from wind energy development could be reduced in sage-grouse habitat as 

areas closed to development would increase to 11,531,340 acres, which would reduce the area where 

surface disturbing activities and ignition source potential could occur. However, the overall potential for 

wildfire from human-caused ignitions associated with wind turbine site construction and maintenance 

would be the same as Alternative B, with the same number of wind turbines projected (127 turbines) for 

the planning area. 

Impacts on wildland fire resulting from livestock grazing management would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B, except impacts would be eliminated in sage-grouse priority habitat, as 

livestock grazing would be prohibited in these areas. Managing sage-grouse habitat to achieve sagegrouse habitat objectives (composition, function, and structure of native vegetative communities would be 

consistent with the reference state of the appropriate ESD) would provide for healthy, resilient habitat that 

would lower the potential for wildfires in sage-grouse habitat. Management actions during droughts and 

range improvement projects could reduce wildfire potential as the focus on sage-grouse priority habitat 

would be to maintain or improve sage-grouse habitat. However, there would likely be few, if any range 

improvements in these areas since there would be no livestock grazing in core habitats. 

Impacts from fluid mineral development would decrease compared to Alternative A, as areas unavailable 

to fluid mineral development would increase to 16,878,220 acres and NSO acres would increase to 

2,082,140 acres which would restrict surface disturbing activities and human-caused fire ignitions 

associated with fluid minerals development. Fire potential would be reduced as fewer wells would be 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-405

developed within the planning area (9,553 oil and gas wells; 1,594 CBNG wells) compared to 

Alternative A, which would reduce the number of disturbed acres to 85,140 acres (short-term 

disturbances) and 27,030 acres (long-term disturbances). The reduction in fluid minerals development 

would reduce associated access roads and potential fire ignition sources from motor vehicle travel and 

construction activities. The impacts from the development of mineral materials, locatable minerals, and 

solid minerals would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B. 

Impacts from recreational activities on wildland fire potential would be similar and in many cases the 

same when compared to Alternative B, except impacts such as unintentional fires and vegetation removal 

would be reduced in sage-grouse general habitat as new roads would be prohibited and exceptions would 

only be allowed only outside of the 4-mile buffer around active sage-grouse leks. Road upgrades would 

not be allowed (unless for safety), which would reduce the number of ignition sources from construction 

vehicles and workers. The ACEC/SIA designation areas would increase compared to Alternative B to also 

include the Audubon Important Bird Areas as nomination areas, which could increase the protected 

habitat and reduce recreation activities and potential human-caused fire starts and risk of fire starts from 

motorized vehicles. 

Many management actions and impacts from vegetation management to fire potential would be the same 

as those in Alternative A, except fire potential could be reduced in sage-grouse priority and general 

habitat areas where vegetation treatments would be designed to benefit sage-grouse and retain sagebrush 

height. Fire frequency and intensity could be lower than in Alternative A as the focus of treatments would 

be increased and potential areas for treatments would cover sage-grouse priority and general habitats, 

which could improve plant community health. Unnatural wildfire frequency caused by fire-prone invasive 

plant species, such as cheatgrass, could be reduced as the natural fire regime would be encouraged with 

native seed use for plant restoration 

Impacts associated with fire ecology management would be the same as Alternative B, except 

management focus would be on sage-grouse priority and general habitat within the planning area which 

could reduce fire potential by increasing the focused area. This alternative would have the greatest impact 

on the potential success of post-fire ESR by even further limiting grazing until the conditions meet 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives. The priority to use native seed is the same as under Alternative B. 

This would prevent cheatgrass infestation to improve FRCC.

4.20.6 Alternative D 

Impacts from ROW management actions on wildland fire would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A, except they would be reduced because ROW exclusion areas would increase to 5,131,340 

acres. This would decrease the area in which ROW activities could result in unintentional human-caused 

fires. 

Impacts from wind energy development on wildland fire would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative B. Impacts from livestock grazing on wildland fire would be the same as those discussed 

under Alternative A, except grazing management would be modified similar to Alternative B to meet 

sage-grouse habitat requirements which could increase plant community health. Resultant reductions in 

grazing could increase fine fuel loads, which favor low-intensity fires. Fire potential could increase, as 

temporary use (which may be allowed during periods of drought and emergency) could reduce plant 

community health and fuel loads in these areas. During drought periods within sage-grouse core habitat 

and where appropriate, the season of use and stocking rates could be adjusted, which could reduce stress 

on plants, help maintain plant community health, and increase resistance to fires. Although compared to 

Alternative A, the potential for fires would still be low in riparian habitat even though fuel loads would 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels Draft EIS 

4-406 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

increase along with vegetation health as grazing management strategies would consider changes to season 

of use in riparian/wetland habitat. 

Impacts on wildland fire from minerals development could be slightly reduced compared to Alternative A 

by increasing the areas closed to oil and gas development to 964,860 acres and decreasing CSU areas to 

2,117,990 acres, which would restrict surface disturbing activities and human-caused fire starts associated 

with fluid minerals development. Impacts from fluid minerals development would be reduced when 

compared to Alternative A, as fewer oil and gas wells (13,083) and CBNG wells (2,686) would be 

developed, which would reduce the number of disturbed acres to 122,910 acres for short-term 

disturbances and 37,720 acres for long-term disturbances. The reduction in fluid minerals development 

would reduce associated access roads and potential fire ignition sources from motor vehicle travel and 

construction work. These well reductions, when compared to Alternative A, could increase native 

vegetation community health which could reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires. The impact from 

development of mineral materials, locatable minerals, and coal and other solid minerals would be 

equivalent to that in Alternative A. Compared to Alternative A, non-energy leasable mineral activities 

within sage-grouse core habitat would reduce fire potential by complying with surface occupancy and 

disturbance and density stipulations that would promote continuity among sage-grouse habitat and could 

increase overall health in these areas. Vegetation health and fire potential would also be reduced as more 

areas would be designated as new sage-grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs, which would decrease 

potential ignition sources by reducing surface disturbing activities in these areas. 

Impacts on wildland fire from recreational activities would be similar to those described under 

Alternative A, except SRPs/RSUAs could be approved on a case-by-case basis when they are consistent 

with resource values. This could reduce potential ignition sources and reduce the number of disturbed 

areas, which could reduce invasive/noxious weed establishment and resultant impacts on wildland fire. 

Fire potential could be reduced in sage-grouse core habitat where vegetation treatments would be 

designed to reflect DPC, which would increase plant community health and increase resistance to fire. 

Impacts to fire would be reduced in sage-grouse priority and general habitat areas as treatments would 

follow WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-grouse (WGFD 2011), which would 

reduce fine fuel loads. Fire potential would be reduced, as vegetation treatments would only be allowed if 

they didn’t contribute to exceeding the 9% threshold for disturbances in sage-grouse core habitat, which 

would reduce the area where invasive plant species could be established. Fire frequency and intensity 

could be lower than under Alternative A, as the focus of treatments (ID and implementation) would be in 

sage-grouse priority and general habitats as well as in annual grassland restoration where wildland fires 

are more prevalent. In addition, using native seeds could reduce the probability of fire-prone invasive 

species establishment and help fire frequency return to the natural fire regime. 

Impacts associated with fire ecology management would be the same as those discussed under 

Alternative A. 

4.20.7 Alternative E 

Surface disturbances and associated potential for human-caused fire starts from ROW construction would 

be similar to Alternative A, as the acreages of ROW exclusion and avoidance would be the same. 

However, impacts would be slightly reduced due to actions that would restrict new transmission projects 

to the proposed 2-mile wide transmission line corridor (sage-grouse core habitat) and within 0.5 miles on 

either side of existing 115kv or larger transmission lines. Fire potential would increase from surface 

disturbing activities and associated human-caused ignition source where new ROWs and SUAs would be 

issued outside of existing designated ROW corridors for buried utilities. Impacts to fire potential from 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-407

these actions could be reduced as new ROW/SUA designations would be considered where it can be 

demonstrated they would not negatively impact sage-grouse populations. 

Wind energy development would be prohibited on 5,002,520 acres and restricted on 6,528,810 acres, 

which would reduce the overall impact to fire potential compared to Alternative A by reducing surface 

disturbing activities that remove and degrade vegetation and increase the risk for human-caused fire 

starts. Fire potential would be reduced compared to Alternative A, as fewer wind turbines are projected 

(127), which would create fewer opportunities and potential for human-caused fire starts associated with 

construction activities. 

Impacts from livestock grazing would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except fire 

potential could be reduced as grazing management actions would be changed to address areas where 

grazing is impeding sage-grouse core habitat objectives. Drought management actions would reduce fire 

potential compared to Alternative A, as the season of use and stocking rates could be adjusted, which 

would reduce stress on plants, help maintain plant community health, and increase resistance to fires. 

Prohibiting the placement of mineral supplements within 0.6 miles of water sources and occupied leks 

would reduce grazing pressure in these areas and increase fine fuel loads. 

Impacts on wildland fire from fluid minerals development would be similar to those in Alternative A, 

except NSO acres (689,300) and CSU acres (6,146,570) would increase, which would reduce the potential 

for human-caused fire starts. The reduction in well numbers would also reduce the number of acres 

disturbed by fluids minerals development to 112,3230 acres in the short term and 35,430 acres in the long 

term, which would also reduce the number of access roads associated with well development and reduce 

the potential for human-caused fire starts. Although fuel loads could increase, the maintenance and 

enhancement of vegetation health would reduce fire potential. 

Impacts from mineral material disposals and solid mineral lease operations would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A. Impacts from coal surface mining would be similar to Alternative A, 

except they could be reduced by applying criterion 15 to make sure significant long-term impacts on sagegrouse do not occur. Impacts from non-energy leasable mineral development would be the same as those 

described under Alternative D. 

Recreational activities and impacts to fire potential would be similar and in many cases the same when 

compared to Alternative A, except the potential for human-caused fire starts would be reduced, as new 

primary and secondary roads and Route Category Level 4 and 5 roads would avoid areas within 1.9 miles 

of the perimeter of occupied sage-grouse leks within sage-grouse core habitat, while other new roads 

would avoid areas within 0.6 miles of sage-grouse leks within sage-grouse core habitat. This reduction in 

new road construction could reduce disturbed areas and the establishment of invasive/noxious weeds. 

Impacts to fire management in OHV “open” areas (non-sand dune portions) could be reduced as travel 

would be limited to existing roads and trails which would reduce the risk of motorized vehicle fire starts. 

Many management actions and impacts associated with vegetation management would be the same as 

those in Alternative D, except fire potential would be reduced because vegetation management actions 

would be applied to both sage-grouse core habitat and sage-grouse general habitat. Maintaining a canopy 

of at least 15% in sagebrush would increase fuel loads as well as could increase overall sagebrush 

community health and resistance to low-intensity fires. Fire potential would be reduced due to the 

enhancement of plant community health, as vegetation would be managed to reflect DPC within sagegrouse core and general habitat which could reduce invasive and noxious weeds as well as support a more 

natural fire regime. Impacts from grazing after vegetation treatments would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B, as grazing on treated areas would be deferred for two full growing seasons to allow 

for vegetation establishment and growth. Fire frequency and intensity could be lower than under 
Chapter 4—Wildland Fire and Fuels Draft EIS 

4-408 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative A, as the focus of vegetation treatments would be to protect sage-grouse priority and general 

habitats as part of annual grassland restoration efforts, which would increase areas where treatments are 

used. 

Impacts associated with fire management would be similar to those under Alternative A, except sagegrouse core habitat would be the priority area for suppression efforts (after firefighter and public safety) 

to conserve sage-grouse habitat. Fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems would refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-Grouse (WGFD 

2011). These actions would restore and recover burned areas that are within sage-grouse core habitats, 

which would reduce fires and reduce fuel loads in sage-grouse core habitat areas.

Across Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, fire rehabilitation would prioritize the use of native seed under 

Alternatives B, C, and E. Historically native seeds are often more expensive than nonnative seed used in 

fire rehabilitation. This prioritization of priority habitat among all fire rehabilitation may limit funding 

and resources for ESR on wildfires outside of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Depending on the severity 

and extent of the fire season nationwide, certain seed availability and prices can change. In years where 

lots of acres burn nationwide, the potential exists that some lower priority post-wildfire projects may not 

receive ESR funds. Also in these years the seeds needed for ESR, especially seed in high demand, may 

not be available. If native seed is available, the demand may be so high that seed prices will rise further, 

limiting the total acres of rehabilitation on BLM-administered and National Forest System land. There 

may only be a short-term effect on seed prices once the market adjusts to the demand. 

This alternative has impacts similar to Alternative B in prioritizing use of native seed during ESR on 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. Alternative E also looks to design post-fire land management to ensure 

persistence of seeded species or pre-burn natives. However, these post-burn changes in land management 

practices do not go to the extent that they do in Alternative C to ensure rehabilitation success. FRCC 

again would benefit from the emphasis on ESR to prevent conversion to cheatgrass and other invasive 

plant species. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-409

4.21 WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

This section presents potential impacts on wildlife and fisheries from management actions presented in 

Chapter 2. Existing conditions concerning wildlife and fisheries are described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.19). 

The main habitat type that would be impacted from implementation of the management actions presented 

in Chapter 2 is sagebrush or areas with mixed sagebrush habitat components. Other habitats such as 

forests, waterways, and riparian areas may occur inside Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat areas, 

but are either used very little or not at all in the case of forests and alpine areas. Species that use forested, 

riparian, wetland or waterways may benefit indirectly from management in Greater Sage-Grouse 

core/priority habitat areas. Without knowing where disturbing activities are going to occur in the future, 

making predictions of impacts to various habitats and the species that utilize them would be inaccurate. 

Because the focus of the amendments is on Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, the wildlife 

species included in this analysis will be mainly those that spend a major portion of their life history in 

sagebrush or mixed sagebrush habitats. Appendix M contains the Management Indicator Species Report 

for the Bridger-Teton National Forest, the Medicine Bow National Forest and the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland identifies the likely effects of management decisions associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Decision on population trends for respective Management Indicator Species for each of these 

Planning Units. In addition, the wildlife and botany report located in Appendix M identifies the likely 

effects of management decisions associated with the Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Decision, specifically 

for the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BT) on Forest Service Region 4 sensitive species and for the 

Medicine Bow National Forest (MB) and Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) on Forest Service 

Region 2 sensitive species. 

4.21.1 Impact Indicators 

Indicators of impacts on wildlife and fisheries are as follows: 

• Acres and condition of native vegetation communities 

• Degree/magnitude/level of connectivity between sagebrush and other native vegetation 

communities 

• Degree/magnitude/level of human presence 

• Degree/magnitude/level of surface disturbance and vegetation removal 

• Introduction or development of non-natural structures or items into the native habitat. 

4.21.2 Assumptions 

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Significant modifications to habitat suitability can impact the survivability and viability of 

populations (e.g., higher winter mortality, reduced reproductive success). 

• Crucial winter ranges, transitional ranges, and parturition areas are critically important wildlife 

habitat. 

• Fish and wildlife populations would continue to be managed by WGFD. BLM or Forest Service 

would continue to manage wildlife habitat. 

• Natural variability in wildlife health, population levels, and habitat conditions would continue. 

Periods of mild or severe weather as well as outbreaks of wildlife disease or insects/diseases that 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-410 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

impact habitat (e.g., mountain pine beetle, blister rust, mistletoe, and bleeding rust) could impact 

wildlife population levels. 

• Precise, quantitative estimates of impacts generally are not possible because the exact locations of 

future actions are unknown, population data for wildlife species are often lacking, or habitat types 

affected by surface-disturbing activities cannot be predicted. 

• Actions impacting one species have similar impacts on other species using the same habitats or 

areas. 

• The more acreage of habitat protected from surface disturbance or human presence, the greater 

the benefit to the targeted species. 

• Management actions in core/priority habitat areas for Greater Sage-Grouse that preclude or 

restrict development, including those not specifically aimed at conserving other wildlife species, 

are assumed to benefit wildlife where populations overlap with Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority 

habitat. 

• The health of fisheries within the planning area is directly related to the overall health and 

functional capabilities of riparian/wetland resources, which in turn reflect watershed health. 

• Any activities that affect the ecological condition of the watershed and its vegetative cover would 

directly or indirectly affect the aquatic environment. The degree of impact attributed to any one 

disturbance or series of disturbances is influenced by location within the watershed, time and 

degree of disturbance, existing vegetation, and hydrologic condition. 

• Impacts from management for oil and gas development would only apply to new leases; existing 

development or existing leaseholders would not be impacted by these alternatives, unless 

specifically described under the management actions. 

• Wildlife populations fluctuate, sometimes widely, in response to natural factors such as cycles in 

the abundance of prey base or extremes in seasonal weather (e.g., severe winters). It is often 

difficult to discern whether impacts on wildlife result from any specific management action or 

from population changes caused by natural factors. Changes to or stressors (e.g., increased human 

presence and noise) on habitat components such as vegetation, water, soil, or air are most likely 

to cause direct and indirect effects on wildlife and fish. 

4.21.3 Alternative A 

In the BLM Field Offices, MBNF, and within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat in BTNF, existing rightsof-way (ROW) would be used whenever possible for placement of new linear facilities. Exceptions could 

occur, and in those cases disturbance is to be limited and mitigated. If existing ROWs were used, 

disturbance to sagebrush habitat would likely be minimal due to the conditions of ROW corridors where 

the land has been previously disturbed from prior facility construction. Placing pipelines and power lines 

in already disturbed locations would reduce overall habitat loss and fragmentation of habitat. 

Some species associated with grassland areas, such as mule deer and western meadowlark, could be 

disturbed or forced to abandon habitat if development of areas under existing ROWs occurred. 

Construction activities could disturb other wildlife if construction were to occur within occupied habitat, 

possibly causing species to vacate the area to lower quality habitat. Moving from desirable habitat can 

result in reduced health of animals, making them susceptible to disease or predation. Disturbed areas 

would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of 

habitat function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. Some actions such as construction of 

pipelines, buried fiber-optic lines, and other subsurface actions likely would have short-term impacts, 

because proper reclamation should restore some level of habitat function in these areas that could be used 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-411

by wildlife. Because of the long time frames required for some disturbed sites to return to pre-disturbance 

vegetation cover or the re-disturbance of a ROW corridor, certain impacts could be long term. 

Aboveground ROW actions, such as communication sites and power lines, would have long-term 

potential for collision or electrocution of bats, raptors, and other avian species. 

In TBNG and in case-by-case situations within the planning area where new ROWs are allowed to be 

developed, vegetation loss, habitat degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species could occur. Loss or 

degradation of habitat would impact terrestrial wildlife species and could force wildlife to move to other 

less desirable habitat for foraging or cover. New linear disturbances would introduce additional 

fragmentation into the landscape. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is intersected, 

divided, or segmented by disturbing activities. 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). Displaced wildlife tend to use lower quality habitats 

or compete with existing herds and livestock for forage and use private lands to a greater extent. Density 

dependency thresholds of suitable habitats for these species could be met, which ultimately could 

decrease herd size and genetic variability and increase disease frequency. 

Closing Bates Hole and Sand Hills Management Area to new corridor designations would prevent habitat 

loss from linear ROW within the areas and could protect wildlife habitat from removal, loss, degradation, 

and invasion of exotic plant species. Wildlife species which use sagebrush habitat for food or shelter, such 

as pronghorn, northern sagebrush lizard and McCown’s longspur, would benefit from this management 

within the Bates Hole area (WGFD 2010c). 

Within the planning area, 285,930 acres are currently managed as ROW exclusion areas and 2,460,340 

acres are managed as avoidance areas. Lands within the exclusion and avoidance areas would be managed 

to prevent habitat loss from linear ROWs and could protect wildlife habitat from removal, loss, 

degradation, and invasion of exotic plant species. Prohibiting new above ground structures would also 

prevent new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle disruption, all of which would protect wildlife habitat. 

Linear corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as raptors and red fox; reducing these 

areas may be beneficial to prey species but would also reduce hunting corridors for the predators. 

Preventing overhead structures in these areas could reduce the risk of predation from overhead predators, 

but also prevent the construction of overhead perches for hunting raptors. The risk of collision or 

electrocution of bird and bat species could be reduced where overhead structures are not allowed. 

Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in short-term disturbance of wildlife from 

human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts would be minimal. 

To protect wildlife and avian species within the Kemmerer field office, new utility lines would be buried 

or anti-perching devices would be installed within sagebrush and/or semiarid shrub-dominated habitats. 

Anti-perch devices could protect small prey species from predation by raptors, ravens or crows. Buried 

utility lines would prevent collision or electrocution of avian species from suspended wires. 

Within the planning area, 1,254 wind turbines are projected to be developed. The development of wind 

energy could cause habitat loss, and both short- and long-term impacts to wildlife habitat. Large wind 

energy fields also involve surface disturbance, which could permanently change the habitat structure, 

affecting wildlife. Disturbance during installation of towers, roads, and infrastructure could force wildlife 

away from preferred habitat. Some smaller prey species will avoid and abandon areas where overhead 

structures such as power lines and towers are present due to the increased risk of avian predators. 

However, overhead structures could provide perches for hunting raptors or other predatory birds. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-412 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Initial construction may result in displacement of some wildlife and raptor species from breeding and 

foraging habitat within the construction area. Construction of wind turbines throughout the planning area 

may create collision hazards for raptors, bats, and multiple avian species. Studies have documented deaths 

of avian and bat species from wind turbines, although the levels of collision and death vary in the 

scientific research (Cohn 2008; Madders and Whitfield 2006). Collision levels fluctuate based on habitat, 

terrain, elevation and even weather conditions (Madders and Whitfield 2006). Prediction of accurate bird 

or bat losses from wind development is currently not available; however, it can be assumed that some 

losses of these species will occur. Bats most commonly found within wind farms with the highest 

mortality are the eastern red bat and hoary bat, both found within the planning area (Cohn 2008). 

Specific wildlife impacts from wind energy development have been shown for some big game species. 

Sawyer et al. (2006) determined that mule deer are displaced from suitable habitat by human activity 

related to the development and operation of gas wells in western Wyoming. While these studies suggest a 

potential displacement effect from the development of wind energy, the magnitude of the displacement 

effect from wind development may be different from other developments that use different technology 

and have more human activity associated with their operations. For example, a recent study regarding 

interactions of a transplanted elk population with an operating wind facility in Oklahoma found no 

evidence that turbines had a significant impact on elk use of the surrounding area (Walter et al. 2006). 

Similarly, Johnson et al. (2000) found no effect on pronghorn use of the Phase I and II Foote Creek Rim 

project in Wyoming. 

Restrictions on meteorological (MET) towers in Kemmerer and Rawlins could reduce impacts to smaller 

wildlife species by preventing the perching of raptors and removing collision obstacles for avian and bat 

species within sagebrush habitat. 

Land disposals within the Casper field office could impact wildlife species depending on the parcel of 

land and the entity which acquires the land. Most land disposals do not occur without review for major 

impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Land acquisitions within the Casper field office could impact 

wildlife species depending on the resources found on the parcel of land. Acquisitions could lead to 

obtaining valuable habitat for wildlife where possible. 

Using the 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 SageGrouse core habitat could identify where land health standards are not being met. If appropriate action is 

taken by issuing a decision to modify grazing, construct management facilities, or implement treatments, 

impacts to wildlife from livestock grazing could be reduced. Impacts from standards not being met 

include habitat loss or degradation, reduction of forage or cover vegetation for wildlife, and spread of 

invasive plant species. Soil erosion or compaction of soils may also lead to habitat loss and damage to 

water sources. Implementation of standards could reduce effects to wildlife habitat from the impacts 

described above. 

Adjustments in grazing use or management of BLM-administered lands to meet Wyoming Standards for 

Healthy Rangelands could also result in actions that would balance the impacts of grazing while 

sustaining wildlife species and their habitat. Making adjustments to grazing management as a result of 

monitoring could provide overall improvements in landscape health, prevent or reduce the spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species, provide additional forage, and allow for greater cover habitat for 

wildlife. 

Forest Service livestock grazing practices to provide adequate forage, cover and other habitat needs for 

Greater Sage-Grouse could provide forage and cover for other sagebrush dependent species such as 

pronghorn, mule deer, and ground nesting birds. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-413

Implementing conversions in kinds of livestock and grazing season could maintain a higher level of 

habitat function for wildlife and livestock use. Conversions in types of livestock could alter grazing 

patterns and vegetation use, which could benefit some wildlife and impact others depending on which 

types of livestock are introduced. There is a dietary overlap between elk and cattle (Hansen and Reid 

1975); there is a smaller dietary overlap between cattle and antelope and deer (Hansen and Reid 1975). 

However, the forage use varies between seasons; cattle graze pastures in the summer and fall, and elk and 

mule deer use similar pasture in the spring and summer (Taylor et al. 2004). Domestic sheep and cattle 

will directly compete for graminoid forage, especially in sagebrush habitat (Beck and Peek 2005). 

Water developments could also adversely affect wildlife habitat, particularly in winter and parturition 

ranges, through reductions in forage due to increased distribution of animals. However, implementation of 

the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands on BLM-administered lands would ensure that impacts 

were not significant. Adverse impacts of fences on wildlife within the planning area would be minimal 

because of requirements that fences are located so as not to impede wildlife movement, and that the 

fences be removed, modified, or reconstructed where documented conflicts with wildlife occurred. Future 

livestock conversions (sheep to cattle or vice versa) would be carefully analyzed. Sustainability reviews 

would be required before conversions, which would benefit the range. 

Management of livestock allotments within the Casper field office and BTNF and TBNG for drought 

conditions could provide wildlife forage and cover during periods of drought. 

Range improvement projects within the planning area could initially cause short term impacts from 

habitat loss or damage during the improvement construction or project timespan. Disturbed areas would 

be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat 

function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. Long term, many improvements could provide 

additional vegetation for forage or cover, increased access to the landscape, additional water resources, or 

access to mineral supplements. In TBNG and MBNF, where wildlife escape ramps are required in stock 

water troughs and tanks, the potential for drowning by birds and small mammals could be reduced or 

prevented. 

Fence modification, removal, or construction of new fences to BLM standards would provide varying 

impacts to wildlife species. Fences can provide wildlife with less competition from livestock for forage 

when fences exclude livestock from grazing habitat. Fences can also impact wildlife by creating travel 

barriers, altering distribution patterns, increasing stress and energy loss, and causing injury or death from 

entanglement. Modifying or constructing fences to BLM standards could reduce impacts to wildlife from 

fences by decreasing the chances of entanglement. Where fences are constructed with perch inhibitors for 

raptors, prey species would be less likely to be subject to hunting from predatory bird species; however, 

predatory birds would not benefit from hunting perches. Where fences were constructed with anticollision standards for special status species, wildlife would be less likely to be injured or perish from 

impact with fences. Removal of fences reduces threats of injury or death from impacts with fences, 

enhances travel corridors, and could allow access to additional forage and cover. 

In the Casper, Kemmerer, Pinedale, and Rock Springs field offices, prohibiting the placement of mineral 

supplements within one-quarter mile of lentic/lotic water and wetland/riparian areas, as well as Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks, would prevent stream bank erosion, vegetation loss, and nutrient loading in surface 

water, preserve aquatic habitats, and prevent the degradation of sensitive habitat. Mineral supplement 

blocks for livestock and wildlife use would be placed in locations that both promote proper grazing 

distribution and prevent inappropriate livestock use on riparian habitat, minimizing soil compaction and 

runoff near surface waters, and could decrease grazing pressure and competition for riparian vegetation. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-414 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Current management for livestock trailing in Casper, Kemmerer and Pinedale could impact wildlife from 

movement of herds through habitat, causing loss of vegetation for forage and cover, soil compaction, 

erosion, trampling of vegetation and habitat, and the spread of invasive non-native plant species. 

Managing riparian and wetland areas for PFC/WY Standards for Rangeland Health/improving habitat 

conditions could decrease runoff, sedimentation, and cementation of substrates in stream channels which 

would provide preferential habitat conditions for aquatic species for feeding, cover and reproduction. 

Maintaining or improving riparian areas and wetlands could improve water quality, reduce the likelihood 

of stream bank erosion, stream channel alteration, and loss of wetland or riparian vegetation. Wildlife 

habitat and forage could be enhanced from management of wetland and riparian areas by applying short 

duration grazing, preventing or limiting utilization of woody species, and seasonal use regimens. Because 

livestock tend to congregate near water sources, management focused toward riparian and wetland areas 

could reduce heavy impacts from soil compaction, erosion, and overgrazing of vegetation resources, 

which could improve overall habitat conditions in these areas for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife 

species. 

Where water developments are proposed or considered in sensitive wildlife habitat and are developed 

where wildlife could benefit from the development, short term impacts could occur from the initial 

construction, human presence, habitat disturbance, and vegetation loss. Wildlife could vacate the area 

until construction of improvements was complete. During this time, wildlife could be forced to inhabit 

lower quality habitat for forage or cover, which could impact health and reproduction until species could 

return to the area. Once construction was complete, habitat conditions in the area would return over time 

if grazing was monitored and over-use of the area by livestock did not occur. Access to water sources 

would be beneficial to terrestrial wildlife. However, water developments could also adversely affect 

wildlife habitat, particularly in winter and parturition ranges, through reductions in forage due to 

increased distribution of animals. However, implementation of the Wyoming Standards for Healthy 

Rangelands on BLM-administered lands could ensure that wildlife species are not severely impacted. 

Allowing exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions to be considered on a case-bycase basis for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could allow for additional surface disturbing activities in 

sagebrush habitat during the restricted time period, such as disturbance from roads, structures, power 

lines, and human activity, and could disrupt contiguous, uninterrupted habitat and result in overall habitat 

loss. It is unknown, however, what type or degree of exceptions would occur, because the outcome is 

dependent on each lease and the habitat where the lease is being developed. 

It is estimated that a total of 16,411 oil, gas, and CBNG wells would be developed under Alternative A 

within the planning area. There would be 130,330 acres of initial surface disturbance and 39,050 acres of 

long-term disturbance from oil and gas development. The primary impacts on wildlife species (especially 

big game) from minerals development within the planning area would be the reduction in usable wildlife 

habitat and disruption of migration corridors that link crucial habitats (winter range) and parturition areas. 

Reductions would be particularly severe in areas with continuous surface disturbance. As discussed by 

Bartmann et al. (1992), crowding of animals may have a density-dependent impact of reducing animal 

survival and damaging resources. Human disturbance of big game results in increased energy costs to the 

alerted animal (Bromley 1985). The disturbed big game animal incurs a physiological cost, either through 

excitement (preparation for exertion) or locomotion. A fleeing or displaced animal incurs additional costs 

through loss of food intake and potential displacement to poorer (lower) quality habitat. If the disturbance 

becomes chronic or continuous, these costs can result in reduced animal fitness and reproductive potential 

(Geist 1978). 

Making 871,780 acres closed to new oil and gas leasing could help protect these areas from future 

development. Making these areas unavailable to new oil and gas leasing would provide unfragmented 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-415

blocks of habitat and migration corridors between habitat areas, as well as reduce habitat loss and 

disturbance from humans and infrastructure. Under Alternative A, 40,980 acres would be managed as no 

surface occupancy (NSO), and 5,015,210 acres would be controlled surface use (CSU). Greater SageGrouse lek buffers for NSO and CSU restrictions could provide habitat protection in areas where the lek 

buffers overlap with big game habitat (Table 4-107).

Table 4-107. Big Game Habitat Overlap with Sage-grouse Lek Buffers 

Restriction Acres

Alternative A 

Acres

Alternative D

Acres

Alternative E

Pronghorn

NSO 48,770 - 477,080

CSU 5,653,000 2,507,340 2,472,170

Rocky Mountain Elk

NSO 22,860 - 186,820

CSU 2,241,110 947,130 913,600

Mule Deer

NSO 37,290 - 376,240

CSU 4,296,400 1,944,640 1,927,490

White Tail Deer

NSO 1,510 - 12,510

CSU 208,290 130,460 178,230

Moose

NSO 6,150 - 76,890

CSU 721,560 260,710 246,600

Bighorn Sheep

NSO 1,080 - 6,680

CSU 61,620 32,770 31,440

The Sublette Mule Deer Study was conducted between 1998 and 2003 by West Inc.; its goal was to 

determine whether natural gas development affected habitat selection patterns and, ultimately, the 

distribution of wintering mule deer in western Wyoming. Following 1 year of development, 17% of the 

study area classified as high use before development had changed to medium-low or low use, and by year 

3 of development, 40% of the study area classified as low use before development had changed to 

medium-high or high use areas. 

Further, research conducted by Sawyer et al. (2006) suggests winter habitat selection and distribution 

patterns of mule deer were affected by well pad development. Changes in habitat selection by mule deer 

appeared to be immediate (i.e., year 1 of development), and through 3 years of development, no evidence 

was found that suggested mule deer acclimated or habituated to well pads. These results reflect the ability 

of mule deer to avoid localized disturbances and habitat perturbations without completely abandoning 

their home ranges (Sawyer et al. 2006). These results were collected during the winter drilling programs 

by various oil and gas companies to indicate the effects of drilling during the crucial wintering periods. 

Thus far in the study, the results indicate that mule deer use patterns are changing not only because of 

changes in timing restrictions for surface-disturbing and human disruptive activities, but are a culmination 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-416 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

of habitat fragmentation, year-round human disruptive activities, and placement of development. Mule 

deer progressively used areas farther from well pads as development progressed, but only moved a 

defined distance, suggesting home ranges would not be completely abandoned (Sawyer et al. 2006). 

Further, Sawyer et al. (2006) suggests that reducing the level of human activity during the production and 

development phases, as well as limiting public access and developing road management strategies, would 

reduce disturbances to wintering mule deer. Natural gas development on the Pinedale Mesa has displaced 

mule deer to less suitable habitats. Within 3 years, the highest probability of mule deer use was 2.3 miles 

(3.7 kilometers) away from well pads. The research suggests that winter habitat selection and distribution 

patterns of mule deer are affected by well pad development and that changes in habitat selection appear to 

be rapid. 

WGFD estimates that 170 acres surrounding each well pad is the minimum area in which impacts on 

pronghorn would occur (WGFD 2004b). The greater mobility and adaptability of this species to human 

activity and disturbed areas likely would prevent long-term population impacts. However, it is feasible 

that pronghorn behavior or populations could be altered at some level of development. 

Disturbance of big game may contribute to reduced reproductive rates due to reduced feeding, feeding in 

poor quality habitats, or feeding on rough forage (Gillin and Irwin 1985). Research conducted by Gillin 

and Irwin (1985) in the Bridger-Teton National Forest found seismic activity caused displacement of elk 

within home ranges by an average of 0.75 miles and into dense (greater than 70% canopy) forests with 

reduced forage. Displacement was observed to be rapid on spring range when calves were less than 1 

month of age. Oil and gas exploration and field development in the Riley Ridge Project area was found to 

change elk distribution after drilling one well; after three wells were drilled, elk abandoned 6,000 acres of 

winter range. After drilling ceased, elk returned to the area. Further drilling activities in elk calving areas 

also caused elk to temporarily abandon the Lake Ridge calving area. Elk abandoned the Snider Basin 

calving area in 1984 and returned a year later when drilling activity left the basin. Elk have until now 

been able to find suitable, undisturbed habitats away from human activity; however, continued 

development could lead to abandonment of their historic ranges, in the last native winter foraging area on 

the Wyoming Range (Johnson 1985). A study conducted by Hayden-Wing Associates (1990) found a 

similar response in the Graphite Hollow/Rock Creek Winter Range where elk moved 0.5 to 2.4 miles 

away from a well site. 

Sawyer et al. (2007) indicate that the effectiveness of elk habitat in forested regions declines when road 

densities exceed one mile per square mile. Behavioral response to traffic is influenced by topography and 

forest canopy adjacent to roads, and in some cases, road closures have been shown to decrease elk 

movements and increase survival. 

As densities of wells, roads, and facilities increase, habitats within and near well fields become 

progressively less effective until most animals no longer use these areas. Although vegetation and other 

natural features may remain physically unaltered, wildlife make proportionately less use of areas near oil 

and gas facilities. Animals that remain within the affected zones are subjected to increased physiological 

stress. This avoidance and stress response impairs habitat function by reducing the capability of wildlife 

to use the habitat effectively. In addition, physical or psychological barriers lead to fragmentation of 

habitats, further limiting the availability of effective habitat. An area of intensive activity or construction 

becomes a barrier when animals cannot or will not cross it to access otherwise suitable habitat. These 

impacts are especially problematic when they occur within limiting habitat components such as crucial 

winter ranges and reproductive habitats (WGFD 2004b). 

As acreages of surface disturbance and human activity levels increase, the quality and quantity of wildlife 

habitats likely would be reduced. Habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is intersected, 

divided, or segmented by disturbing activities. Fragmentation causes a reduction in usable ranges and the 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-417

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). Displaced wildlife tend to use lower quality habitats 

or compete with existing herds and livestock for forage and use private lands to a greater extent. Density 

dependency thresholds of suitable habitats for these species could be met, which ultimately could 

decrease herd size and genetic variability and increase disease frequency. 

Forage loss and increased human activity from surface disturbance and other disruptive activities could 

result in reduced wildlife species diversity, modifications in population distribution or numbers, or 

possible habitat abandonment. Reclaimed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds 

and would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original area 

provided. 

Human disturbance near raptor nest sites could result in the abandonment of the nest, high nestling 

mortality from overheating, chilling, or desiccation when young are left unattended, premature fledging, 

and ejection of eggs or young from the nest. Raptors that successfully nest during a disturbance may 

abandon the nesting territory the following year. Responses of nesting raptors to human disturbance 

typically are determined by the type, duration, magnitude, noise level, and timing of activity relative to 

nesting phenology. Although some level of habituation to disturbance could occur, repeated flushing of 

adult raptors increases energy expenditure during foraging and decreases energy ingestion, depleting 

energy reserves and resulting in premature mortality during harsh conditions. Evidence suggests that 

some falcons, ospreys, and owls are generally more tolerant of human-induced disturbance and human 

environments; golden eagles, turkey vultures, northern harriers, Cooper’s hawks, and sharp-shinned 

hawks appear much less tolerant; and buteos exhibit a wide range of acceptance levels. Raptors are less 

tolerant of disturbance when populations of prey species are at low levels (Romin and Muck 2002). 

Geophysical exploration can impact wildlife in many ways. Use of vehicles for seismic projects or 

vibroseis trucks in the open landscape can crush vegetation, and human and vehicle presence can cause 

wildlife to vacate the area. During this time, wildlife could be forced to inhabit lower quality habitat for 

forage or cover which could impact health and reproduction until species could return to the area. Once 

exploration was complete, habitat conditions in the area would return over time, depending on habitat and 

weather conditions. Seismic lines from vibroseis trucks can open up corridors that could be used by 

predatory animals, and additional vehicle traffic could illegally use the pathway opened by the operation. 

Vehicles could cause mortality by crushing nesting birds or colliding with wildlife. Areas where 

geophysical operations were prohibited totally, through buffer distances, or seasonally (Pinedale, March 1 

to May 15; 8:00 am to 8:00 pm) would provide wildlife species protection from the impacts listed above. 

Offsite mitigation for oil and gas development could provide improvements to wildlife habitat for species 

which inhabit those areas being mitigated. The initial mitigation projects could displace wildlife species 

from human and vehicle presence, causing wildlife to flee to other, possibly lower quality habitat. 

Displacement could cause short term impacts from stress from fleeing or inadequate forage, shelter or 

breeding habitat. Long term, wildlife could benefit from mitigation of habitat with increased forage, 

shelter, or breeding habitat. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for wildlife that use or 

inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat 

protects wildlife from human and other disturbance and allows for corridors for migration and travel. 

Disturbance can result in wildlife moving from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. Abandonment of important habitat can lower reproduction and survival rates of the 

species and result in a decline in wildlife populations. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-418 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Requiring reclamation bonds for drilling or surface disturbance provides insurance that funding is 

available for reclamation and compliance of the lease terms, if a leaseholder abandons the project without 

conducting proper surface reclamation and other project requirements. Reclamation bonds could provide 

wildlife with habitat improvement and recovery in areas disturbed by oil, gas and other surface disturbing 

activities if project abandonment occurs. 

Disposal of produced water from coalbed natural gas can be treated and disposed of in several different 

ways in Wyoming, depending on location and quality of the water. If treated properly, disposal of water 

into waterways or through reinjection should not impact wildlife due to water quality. However, injection 

facilities have continued human presence and truck traffic. Careful placement of future water injection 

wells is essential for the continued protection of sensitive habitats and future wildlife population 

expansion. Discharge of produced water resulting from coalbed natural gas extraction to surface water 

features could affect aquatic habitat by altering local hydrologic conditions of receiving water bodies. If 

disposal pits are used for produced water, impacts to wildlife could occur if ponds were not managed 

properly. Produced water from natural gas wells can be highly alkaline and contain very high 

concentrations of salt (USFWS 2006b). If waterfowl were to enter the ponds, they could accumulate high 

concentrations of salt in their feathers, causing them to drown from the excess weight. If water was 

ingested by wildlife, the salts could accumulate in their tissues which could cause damage if toxic levels 

built up. 

Managing split estate lands within the Pinedale field office subject to the same stipulations as leased 

federal estate lands could provide additional protections to wildlife and wildlife habitat through federal oil 

and gas lease stipulations provided in the Pinedale RMP. Negotiating federal management for nonfederal 

minerals under federal ownership in MBNF could provide additional protections to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat through federal oil and gas lease stipulations provided in the MBNF LRMP. 

If coal lease applications were approved, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed. Effects to 

wildlife habitat could be extensive, depending on the type (surface/subsurface) and location of the coal 

development. Coal lease activities could cause displacement of wildlife from developed areas, avoidance 

of a larger area around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite 

impacts, including erosion and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Depending on the scale and 

location of the disturbance to critical wildlife habitats, the effects could be more immediate. Allowing 

coal exploration activities in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could cause short-term impacts to wildlife 

from human or vehicle presence, disturbance or removal of vegetation during exploratory drilling, and 

noise from vehicles and equipment, all of which could cause wildlife to abandon the area. 

Under Alternative A, 234,230 acres are closed to non-energy, solid leasable mineral leasing. Allowing 

prospecting for new leases could be considered on a case-by case basis. Most of the non-energy leasable 

mineral resources within the planning area are trona and phosphate. Trona mining occurs in primarily 

sub-surface mines where disturbance to wildlife habitat is low. Human presence and vehicle use from the 

mine to processing areas could cause displacement of wildlife from vehicles and noise, avoidance of a 

larger area around the development because of human presence, noise, and possible collisions from 

vehicles. Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators, which would benefit predators (raptors, coyote, red 

fox, raven) but would likely impact prey species (cottontail rabbit, wandering garter snake, and northern 

sagebrush lizard) by increasing predation. Impacts from phosphate would be similar although more 

habitat impacts from loss, disturbance and erosion could occur from open pit mining. 

The portions of the planning area in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry (1,560,050 acres) would continue to have protection of sensitive resources, and would prevent 

effects from mineral extraction to fish and wildlife habitat. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-419

Salable minerals within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would continue to be open where authorized. 

Impacts could include displacement of wildlife from exploration or pit areas, avoidance of a larger area 

around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite impacts, including 

erosion and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Currently, 274,860 acres are closed to 

mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits. These areas would not have impacts to wildlife 

from mineral material activity. 

Allowing salable mineral pits to persist after they are no longer in use could reduce short-term impacts of 

reclamation from human and vehicle presence; however, depending on how the area is used after minerals 

are no longer removed, impacts could be varied. If the area is allowed to naturally reclaim, impacts to 

wildlife habitat could be low, aside from the possible spread of invasive, non-native plant species and 

alteration of some habitat components from the presence of invasive plant species. If the area is used for 

recreation or does not naturally reclaim, erosion, sediment runoff, and spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species could occur, impacting wildlife species and habitat use. 

Dispersed recreation activities that increase human presence could have a localized impact on wildlife 

habitat. Displacement from human and vehicle activities moves animals into less desirable habitat and 

increases competition for available resources with other species and uses. Spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species and alteration of some habitat components from the presence of invasive plant species could 

occur from vehicles and human tracking from one area to another. Allowing special recreation permits 

(SRP) for large events or events that involve surface disturbing activity could lead to direct or indirect 

impacts on wildlife habitat, particularly in areas that contain known or potential populations and habitats. 

Impacts to wildlife occur from displacement and physiological stress from human presence and activity 

during sensitive life stages. Stipulations placed on SRPs in accordance with federal protections and BLM 

policy for water, soils, and special status species would minimize the potential for impacts to wildlife 

habitat. Restrictions of SRPs within 2.0 miles of active Greater Sage-Grouse display grounds from March 

1 to June 15 in the TBNG would reduce impacts to the habitat within and adjacent to those areas. 

“Open” OHV areas could impact wildlife from disturbance from human presence and noise, and from 

possible collisions with vehicles. The open OHV areas in the Casper, Rawlins, and Rock Springs field 

offices (Poison Spider OHV Park [285 acres]; Dune Pond Cooperative Management Area [3,736 acres]; 

and a portion of the Greater Sand Dunes Recreation Area [529 acres]) have large areas of sand dunes as 

the open use area, which is not a desired habitat for most wildlife species. Because these areas are existing 

use areas, it is likely that most wildlife have already abandoned use or avoid the area. Impacts to big game 

species, specifically pronghorn, would be moderate and include displacement and increased stress during 

critical time periods. Off road, open OHV use in areas outside of the dune areas can degrade vegetation 

and lead to erosion and habitat loss, reduced quality of habitat, and lead to the introduction and spread of 

invasive, non-native plants that can further degrade habitat quality and change habitat composition. 

Limiting 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 Greater SageGrouse priority habitat, could limit impacts to wildlife from vehicle use. The miles of routes that could be 

limited cannot be determined until transportation planning is completed, but limiting new roads, routes, 

and cross-country travel until the planning occurs could prevent some disturbance to wildlife habitat. 

Cross-country vehicle use can open up corridors that could be used by predatory animals, and additional 

vehicle traffic could use the pathway. Vehicles could cause mortality from crushing nesting birds or 

colliding with wildlife. Linear disturbances can create barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of 

habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species may also occur during or following vehicle passage. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-420 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Avoiding surface disturbing activities or occupancy within 0.25 mile of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse 

leks in Casper (except for Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek), Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale (in 

Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas), Rawlins, Rock Springs (including Jack Morrow Hills), 

and TBNG could prevent habitat loss or human presence within the buffered areas. The 0.25 mile area 

surrounding the lek would prevent habitat fragmentation and the impacts from surface disturbance such as 

vegetation and habitat loss, soil loss and erosion, or the introduction of invasive, non-native plant species 

such as cheatgrass, which can alter the composition of native species for forage and cover for special 

status wildlife. 

Management in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area of the Casper Field Office restricts or 

prohibits surface disturbing activity within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. In areas 

with over ten percent canopy cover, surface disturbing activities would be avoided within four miles of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The additional half mile distance from leks, as compared to the other 

areas under Alternative A, would allow for greater protection from surface disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and contiguous habitat areas. The four mile buffer in areas with over ten percent canopy cover would 

provide ideal habitat protection and connectivity, as well as allowing for minimal disturbance to wildlife 

within these areas. Birds in these protected areas are expected to remain/return to leks and continue 

reproductive activities to maintain or increase population numbers. 

Closing, rehabilitating or reclaiming unused roads or trails could provide fewer disturbances from 

occasional vehicle or human presence and could improve habitat conditions by removing linear 

disturbances, allowing for greater habitat connectivity, and providing additional vegetation resources for 

forage or cover. Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators (raptors, coyote, red fox, raven); prey 

species (cottontail rabbit, wandering garter snake, and northern sagebrush lizard) could benefit from the 

rehabilitation of unused roads or trails which could reduce the presence of predatory animals. In the 

Kemmerer field office, not upgrading designated roads could reduce surface disturbance from upgrading 

activities, preventing vegetation and soil loss, sedimentation, and possible displacement of wildlife from 

human and vehicle presence. 

Designing seed mixes or plantings for vegetation types that meet desired future conditions (DFC) for 

rehabilitation in the BTNF could lead to habitat re-establishment with appropriate species which could 

provide desirable habitat for wildlife species. Native species are ideal, but if the nutrition and habitat 

quality were commensurate with natives, vegetation could benefit wildlife and achieve DFCs. 

Vegetation treatments for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush within the planning area could provide 

sagebrush obligate wildlife habitat, forage, and cover within these areas. Initial treatments could cause 

displacement from human and vehicle activities which could move animals into less desirable habitat and 

could increase competition for available resources with other species and habitat uses. Limiting 

treatments within sagebrush habitat in the TBNG to 15% to 20% could prevent habitat fragmentation and 

provide varied vegetation structure within the greater habitat area. Limiting prescribed burns to specific 

canopy cover, vegetation composition, patch size, or amount of precipitation within sagebrush habitat 

could cause vegetation treatments to be maximized for the conditions and habitat structure. Wildlife could 

benefit from carefully managed prescribed burn treatments as described above. 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. Rested 

areas could provide wildlife with new vegetation for forage without competition with livestock during the 

rest period. Not allowing treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitat in the TBNG with the 

exception to strategically reduce wildland fire risk could protect habitat components important to 

sagebrush obligate species, especially those who use winter habitat such as sagebrush vole and pronghorn. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-421

Depending on the extent, location, severity, and seral type affected, unplanned ignitions would have 

short-term impacts on terrestrial wildlife species by removing or degrading habitat for some species, 

injuring or killing slow-moving species, causing habitat avoidance and changes in species movement 

patterns, or reducing population viability and increasing the potential to list a species under the ESA. In 

areas that are available for fuels treatments, changes in vegetation can result in negative impacts on 

terrestrial wildlife, such as direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disruption to species; however, it 

can also result in beneficial impacts, such as habitat restoration. 

A concern of resetting vegetation seral stage through fuels management is the invasion of undesirable 

plant species. Noxious and invasive weeds are often of lower value to wildlife and degrade wildlife 

habitat by reducing optimal cover or food. Sagebrush-steppe communities are among the ecosystems most 

vulnerable to invasion and degradation by invasive weeds. Cheatgrass invasion is also a threat to some 

treatment areas. Invasive non-native plants with little or no forage value for big game species are 

increasing in some areas. The greatest impacts have occurred to big game winter range areas with low 

precipitation rates. Not only can invasive species outcompete most native plants when moisture is limited, 

they can also change site-specific fire ecology and result in the loss of critical shrub communities. 

Cheatgrass would provide some short-term forage benefits to big game species while in early stages of 

growth; however, it lacks the ability to provide high quality forage during most of the year. 

Fire suppression removes vegetation and disturbs soil and can have both short- and long-term impacts on 

big game and other habitats. For example, using heavy equipment to construct fire lines can cause habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation in the short term. Moreover, if not rehabilitated, these fire lines can 

cause erosion and provide opportunities for the spread of undesirable plant species, thereby resulting in 

long-term adverse impacts on wildlife habitat; therefore, timely rehabilitation following fire is important 

to maintaining the quality of wildlife habitats. 

Although both planned and unplanned wildland fire adversely impacts wildlife habitats in the short term 

by removing vegetation and disturbing soil, the long-term benefits of wildland fire often outweigh the 

short-term adverse impacts. For example, prescribed fire can be used to restore conditions benefiting 

wildlife species favoring early plant succession stages and young age classes of woody plants (McAninch 

et al. 1984). Prolonged fire suppression has allowed fuels to build up to the point that an unplanned 

wildfire is likely to be much larger in size and greater in intensity. 

Some wildlife species thrive on the occurrence of fire. The herbaceous and woody plants that establish 

following a burn provide abundant leaves and seeds, which are used by small rodents and birds that, in 

turn, are important prey for a variety of avian and mammalian predators. Over the short-term, the wildlife 

community is changed dramatically by a fire, as taller and denser vegetation is replaced by a more open 

habitat. As the area gradually recovers, however, many of the pre-fire components become re-established, 

and the area again supports a community associated with denser forests. This cycle may take decades or 

centuries, depending on the dominant plant species, or it might never occur if climatic conditions are no 

longer suitable for the former dominant species. Wallmo (1980) suggests that fire improves the 

palatability of forage and causes browse plants to resprout close to the ground, putting the current 

season’s growth within reach of deer for several years. Additionally, wildland fire can improve the quality 

of wildlife habitat by releasing soil nutrients, reducing fuel load, or setting back trees encroaching into 

shrubland or grassland habitats. 

Fuels treatments could be beneficial for species that depend on younger seral stages. In the long term, 

wildlife would benefit from most wildfires and fuels management, due to an increase in vegetation 

productivity and to increased plant diversity and age classes. This would, in turn, provide additional 

forage, cover, and prey base. Mimicking natural periodic disturbance is often necessary in order to 

stimulate plant productivity, increase diversity, and increase nutritional value. Foraging opportunities for 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-422 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

big game and other herbivores would increase as understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs become reestablished. The benefits for mule deer and elk are likely to be long-term. Directly following application 

of fire there is generally more palatable browse available for wild ungulates. Improving vegetation in 

upland areas would provide more forage to big game species and other herbivorous species that occur in 

these areas and would result in direct beneficial impacts. In addition, fuels treatments in upland areas 

often result in increased forage production, which diverts livestock and wildlife use from riparian and 

wetland areas. This would increase the vigor and structural diversity of these plant communities. 

Following a wildfire, ESR is implemented to protect and conserve habitats that have sustained damage or 

degradation from catastrophic wildfire. Typically these activities are beneficial for terrestrial wildlife 

species and are designed to improve the overall condition of the area, which in turn improves habitat for 

wildlife. For example, weed-free seeding would stabilize soil and reduce the spread of noxious weeds. 

Additionally, replacing organic matter in disturbed areas would protect topsoil and provide a suitable bed 

for the restoration of a native vegetative community. 

The noise from heavy equipment and chainsaws could temporarily disperse bird species from breeding 

and nesting habitat and wildlife from occupied habitat. Prescribed burning could also disturb nesting bird 

species from smoke inadvertently drifting into occupied habitat. These activities could remove suitable 

habitat or other desirable vegetation. Disturbances from heavy equipment, chainsaws, and prescribed 

burning would be localized and short-term. Most wildlife species would move into adjacent untreated 

areas; however, direct mortality during the vegetation treatments is possible. Timing limitations (such as 

those for big game birthing areas, raptor nesting, and big game winter habitat), as well as site-specific 

COAs, could mitigate the short-term impacts resulting from the treatments. 

ESR treatments following a wildfire are effective in restoring wildlife habitat. However, equipment is 

often noisy, and noise may alter animal behavior or cause wildlife to leave an area during the disturbance 

period. These impacts would be short-term and not likely to have much effect on the long-term health and 

habitat use of wildlife in the treatment area. 

Alternative A would have the fewest restrictions for fuels management actions, with the most potential for 

vegetation disturbance. Additionally, Alternative A would not prioritize fire operations beyond what has 

already been determined in the fire management plans for the area; therefore, Alternative A would have 

the greatest impact on terrestrial wildlife. 

Reclamation of sage-grouse habitats, in accordance to the Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), 

could provide sufficient restoration of habitat following oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activities. If 

the policy is followed, prevention of erosion and the introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could 

be minimized. The landscape could be reclaimed to the original habitat components and structure to the 

extent possible. While the initial disturbance would result in habitat loss over the long term, sagebrush 

habitat could be restored; although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to 

restore to original conditions due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. 

Use of weed-free seed and mulch, desirable non-native species or sterile perennials, or reclaiming to 

native site plant composition for reclamation projects would reduce the risk of disturbed areas being 

inundated by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing the spread of invasive plant species could 

help the reclamation area restore to original site vegetation composition. Areas that restore with native 

plant composition provide habitat and cover for wildlife species and can support healthy wildlife 

populations. 

Working with stakeholders to control grasshoppers and Mormon crickets could impact many wildlife 

species, particularly mammals, because un-controlled infestations of insects can reduce the amount of 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-423

vegetation available for forage and cover. Impacts to wildlife from herbicide spraying can cause shortterm wildlife displacement from vehicle use and human presence. Pesticide spraying can also cause shortterm wildlife displacement and a loss of insects that could be a food source for birds, bats or other small 

mammals. 

In the Rock Springs Field Office, management of wild horses to consider wildlife, watershed, and other 

resource needs could provide wildlife with adequate forage, habitat cover and water, all of which wild 

horses directly compete for with wildlife species. Water developments to improve herd distribution and 

manage forage utilization for wild horses could reduce pressure on areas where wildlife frequent and 

could cause wild horses to locate elsewhere. 

Using wildfire for resource benefit can result in short-term impacts from habitat loss, habitat 

fragmentation, displacement of wildlife to less desirable, lower quality habitat, soil erosion and 

sedimentation. Invasive, non-native plant species can become established in disturbed areas, which can 

alter native plant composition, reducing forage and cover species for wildlife. When proper reclamation 

follows wildland fire use, strong, healthy native plant composition will return to burned areas, providing 

wildlife with preferred forage and cover vegetation. Rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland fires 

(Kemmerer, Newcastle and Rawlins) to prevent further resource damage could protect wildlife habitat 

from erosion and landslides that could result in habitat loss and runoff into riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems. Use of prescribed fire as a management tool can remove decadent or undesirable vegetation, 

promote new growth of fire-adapted plant species, or can be used for general fuels reduction in sensitive 

or at-risk areas. Prescribed fire can also introduce varied successional stages of plants within habitat 

areas. New growth and varied successional stages of vegetation provide wildlife with both forage and 

cover. Short-term impacts from prescribed fire are the same as described above for wildland fire use. 

Suppression techniques could impact wildlife in areas where they occur. Vegetation removal, crushing of 

habitat, the use of heavy equipment and fire retardant, and human presence could force wildlife from the 

area where these activities occurred to less desirable, lower quality habitat until these areas have 

recovered. 

Using monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous vegetation is maintained for nesting cover in Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat within Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek areas would provide additional 

habitat for sagebrush obligate wildlife species. 

Offsite mitigation for oil and gas development in the Pinedale Field Office could provide improvements 

to wildlife which inhabit those areas being mitigated. The initial mitigation projects could displace 

wildlife species from human and vehicle presence, causing wildlife to flee to other, possibly lower quality 

habitat. Displacement could cause short-term impacts from stress from fleeing or inadequate forage, 

shelter or breeding habitat. Long term, wildlife could benefit from mitigation of habitat with increased 

forage, shelter, or breeding habitat. 

Avoiding surface disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks in Casper 

(except for Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek), Kemmerer, Newcastle, and Rock Springs Field 

Offices (437,680 total acres; Map 2-1) and prohibiting surface disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks in the Pinedale (in Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas), 

Rawlins, and Rock Springs (Jack Morrow Hills area) field offices and TBNG (68,550 acres; Map 2-1) 

could prevent habitat loss or human presence within the buffered areas. The 0.25 mile area surrounding 

the lek could prevent habitat fragmentation and the impacts from surface disturbance, such as vegetation 

and habitat loss, soil loss and erosion, or the introduction of invasive, non-native plant species such as 

cheatgrass, which can alter the composition of native species for forage and cover for plants and wildlife. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-424 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Management in the Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek areas of the Casper Field Office restricts or 

prohibits surface disturbing activity within 0.75 miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. In areas 

with over ten percent canopy cover, surface disturbing activities would be avoided within four miles of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks. The additional half mile distance from leks, as compared to the other 

areas under Alternative A, would allow for greater protection from surface disturbing activities, habitat 

loss, and reduction of contiguous habitat areas. The four mile buffer in areas with over ten percent canopy 

cover would provide ideal habitat protection and connectivity and result in minimal disturbance to 

wildlife species within or nearby these areas. 

Avoiding surface disturbing and disruptive activities in suitable sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitats within two miles of an occupied lek, or in identified sage-grouse nesting and early broodrearing habitat outside the two mile buffer from March 15 to July 15 in the Casper, Kemmerer, 

Newcastle, and Pinedale (Traditional Leasing Areas and Unavailable Areas) field offices would provide 

uninterrupted corridors for wildlife species. The buffer would provide contiguous habitat, and protect the 

area from human disturbance and disruptive activities which could prevent animal displacement or habitat 

abandonment. Rock Springs, including Jack Morrow Hills, follows a similar protocol as the other field 

offices; however, their restrictions are on a case-by-case basis. 

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter habitats would be avoided 

from November 15 to March 14 in the Casper, Kemmerer, and Newcastle Field Offices. In the Bates Hole 

and Fish Creek/Willow Creek area, winter habitat is closed to surface use (CSU) for surface disturbing 

activities in sagebrush stands of more than 20% canopy cover. For Pinedale, Rawlins and Rock Springs 

Field Offices, winter protections occur within winter concentration areas. In Pinedale, Rawlins and Jack 

Morrow Hills within the Rock Springs Field Office, the timing is also from November 15 to March 14. 

Within the remainder of the Rock Springs Field Office, restrictions are on a case-by-case basis. Winter 

habitat contains specific areas of sagebrush which rise 10-14 inches above the snow where Greater SageGrouse can feed on sagebrush leaves and buds (BLM 2009). 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). The management 

would provide wildlife within this habitat protection from noise, human disturbance and habitat loss 

during the winter months. The impacts of human presence and disruptive activity on big game crucial 

winter range include loss of habitat and forage occurring from surface-disturbing activities at any time of 

the year, and displacement and physiological stress as a result of human presence and activity during the 

winter. 

Minimizing impacts from predators could affect prey species such as sagebrush vole, cottontail rabbit, or 

gopher snake by reducing predation to the species. However, there could be effects to the predators 

(raven, coyote, red fox) such as, in extreme cases, removal and death. 

Noise minimization could reduce disturbance to wildlife species (Kemmerer and Pinedale). Specific 

limitations such as limiting noise to 49 decibels (10 dBA above background noise) from March 1 to June 

15 or within two miles of a Greater Sage-Grouse lek (TBNG) could prevent wildlife from abandoning 

habitat and moving to less desirable areas. Mule deer exhibit a stress response to disturbances associated 

with noise and activity up to 0.29 miles from the source (Freddy et al. 1986). Noise minimization can 

reduce stress responses, prevent a reduction in reproductive success, and prevent decreased immune 

response (Pater et al. 2009). 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-425

4.21.4 Alternative B 

The following impacts apply to Alternatives B, C, D, and E: 

Implementing direct mitigation, utilizing BMPs and off-site compensatory mitigation would help 

maintain or improve sagebrush habitat and could minimize vegetation loss and soil erosion which would 

maintain or improve water quality. Maintaining or improving existing sagebrush habitat could provide 

consistent or increased forage and cover for terrestrial wildlife species. Utilizing Local Working Group 

(LWG) plans, analyses, and other sources of information to guide development of conservation objectives 

for local management of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats provides additional data and resources to aid in the 

protection and management of sagebrush habitat. These measures could protect or enhance sagebrush 

habitat where projects occur outside of BLM lands, providing additional areas of habitat connectivity. 

This management would support wildlife species that use sagebrush habitat within and outside the 

planning area. 

Application of appropriate seasonal restrictions when implementing vegetation management treatments 

for seasonal habitats in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could provide wildlife with habitat 

improvements and could reduce disturbance of wildlife that use the habitat during the same season as 

Greater Sage-Grouse, such as pronghorn, mule deer, and bird species. Monitoring the treatments could 

provide feedback to whether the treatments were successful and if changes should be made in the 

approach to methods or timing in the area. 

Ensuring site-specific, measurable, conservation and mitigation objectives are included in project 

planning within Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could help wildlife habitat recover after projects were 

completed and could assist in maintaining habitat and minimizing disturbance of wildlife during project 

development. 

Developing landscape-scale restoration/conservation and maintenance strategies, including special 

management of seasonal habitats and connectivity zones outside of Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority 

habitat areas, with voluntary partners and cooperating agencies could protect uninterrupted expanses of 

sagebrush habitat, providing wildlife species with fewer disruptions of habitat. Improvements made to the 

habitat would benefit wildlife with improved forage and cover. 

Using Integrated Vegetation Management per BLM Handbook H-1740-2 and Forest Service Manual 2080 

and designing all range projects to minimize potential for invasive species establishment could help 

prevent the spread and inundation of invasive, non-native plant species. Invasive, non-native plant species 

can proliferate in disturbed areas and permanently damage native ecosystems if not prevented or quickly 

eradicated. Most wildlife rely on native plant species for food and cover; when invasive, non-native plant 

species replace native habitat, wildlife must relocate in search of desired habitat. If wildlife must travel 

any distance to relocate, their systems can become stressed, and if large numbers of wildlife are forced to 

leave an area due to lack of forage or cover, the relocation area may not be able to support all of the 

relocating wildlife and animals could be impacted by lack of forage. Monitoring and treating invasive 

species associated with existing range improvements could also prevent the establishment and spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species. 

Applying required design features (RDF) (Appendix B) as mandatory stipulations/COAs within 

core/priority sage‐grouse habitat for fluid minerals, travel management, lands and realty, range 

management, wild horse and burro, solid minerals-coal, locatable minerals, West Nile virus, mineral 

materials, non-energy solid leasables, vegetation management, fire and fuels management, and noise 

where applicable, appropriate, and technically feasible, could ensure uninterrupted expanses of sagebrush 

habitat, providing wildlife species with fewer disruptions of habitat, improved forage and cover within 

Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat areas. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-426 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Sagebrush habitat could be protected or improved where operators agree to implement additional 

conservation measures for their approved leases within Greater Sage-Grouse core/priority habitat. The 

degree and scale depends on which measures are implemented. 

Incorporating new occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat into core areas for management as they are 

found would provide special management and protection to the wildlife habitat found within these areas. 

Continued ground-truth efforts for statewide Greater Sage-Grouse models could contribute data to 

provide more accuracy for the modeling effort. Using the sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework or 

best available assessment tool for evaluating Greater Sage-Grouse habitats would allow BLM or Forest 

Service wildlife biologists to survey for habitat value with the greatest accuracy and would provide rich 

data to support conservation, protection, and improvement of these habitats. Annual meetings and reviews 

of lek data with WGFD could provide continued communication and data transfer between agencies. 

Working with proponents holding valid existing leases to provide additional protections to sagebrush 

habitat could reduce habitat loss and disturbance to sagebrush dependent wildlife species and could allow 

for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. It is unknown, however, what level of long-term protection of 

habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s discretion. If leaseholders/project 

proponents agree to additional protections for their lease, there would be a reduction in 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. This would occur for all 

projects both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, which would allow for greater 

protections as habitat outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be included. 

Limiting 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 Greater SageGrouse core habitats could limit impacts to wildlife from vehicle use. The miles of routes that could be 

limited cannot be determined until transportation planning is completed, but limiting new roads, routes, 

and cross-country travel until the planning occurs could prevent some disturbance to wildlife habitat. 

Cross country vehicle use can open up corridors that could be used by predatory animals, and additional 

vehicle traffic could use the pathway. Vehicles could cause mortality from crushing nesting birds or 

colliding with wildlife. Linear disturbances can create barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of 

habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species may also occur during or following vehicle passage. 

Completing activity level travel plans within five 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 or other sensitive habitat. Designating routes during activity level planning in 

priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access only could 

reduce the level of road/route use. Reducing road/route use could decrease the level of disturbance from 

vehicle and human presence, or collisions with vehicles for wildlife. Assessing existing plans for 

consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives could allow the BLM and Forest Service 

to make changes to routes/roads that could reduce further impacts to wildlife and their habitat. 

The construction of roads to minimum design standards needed for production activities within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitats, in compliance with the DDCT, could reduce the amount of disturbance from 

road construction in some cases. Road construction can cause habitat and vegetation loss, erosion, 

sedimentation, and runoff. The spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or 

following road construction, which can further damage habitat. Human presence and vehicles may force 

wildlife species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat, creating additional 

stress for wildlife. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-427

Working with project proponents in siting projects in locations containing the least sensitive habitats to 

minimize impacts to sensitive resources could reduce loss of higher quality habitat for wildlife that use or 

inhabit these areas and may allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat 

protects species from human and other disturbance. Disturbance can result in wildlife moving from high 

quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Abandonment of important habitat can 

lower reproduction and survival rates of the species and result in a decline in wildlife populations. 

Developing EIS/project level adaptive management strategies in support of the population management 

objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of Wyoming (State of WY EO 2011-05) could 

provide wildlife additional habitat protection though additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitat. 

The following impacts apply only to Alternative B:

Under Alternative B, new transmission corridors would not be authorized within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority and connectivity areas, which would prevent habitat loss from linear corridors within the area. 

Prohibiting new above-ground structures would also prevent new habitat loss, disturbance, or life-cycle 

disruption, all of which would protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. Maintenance and upgrades of existing 

structures could result in short-term disturbance of wildlife from human and vehicle activity, but longterm impacts could be minimal. Linear disturbances can create barriers in migration corridors and 

fragmentation of habitat for wildlife. Disturbed corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such 

as raptors and fox; preventing the development of these areas may be beneficial to prey species but would 

also reduce hunting corridors for the predators. Preventing overhead structures in these areas could reduce 

the risk of predation from overhead predators, but also prevent the construction of overhead perches for 

predator hunting. The risk of collision or electrocution of bird and bat species could be reduced where 

overhead structures are not allowed. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in 

short-term disturbance of wildlife from human and vehicle activity, but long-term impacts would be 

minimal. 

In priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, relocating existing designated ROW corridors void of authorized 

ROWs or undesignating the corridor could prevent future disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitat from 

the construction of transmission lines or other linear ROW, as described above. 

Under Alternative B, 5,141,340 acres would be managed as exclusion areas for new ROW/SUA permits, 

which could protect 4,855,410 more acres than in Alternative A. Avoidance areas would encompass 

6,390,010 acres, 3,929,670 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife habitat in these areas would 

be the same as Alternative A, although greater areas would be managed as exclusion and avoidance areas 

as compared to Alternative A. Co-locating ROWs or SUAs could reduce overall disturbance to new 

habitat; however, disturbance would still occur during development within the existing corridor. Wildlife 

that use early successional habitat could be impacted by development within existing corridor. 

Construction could result in vegetation loss and erosion. The spread of invasive, non-native plant species 

may also occur during or following construction. Human presence and vehicles may force wildlife species 

away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles may also occur 

during construction. Corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as raptors and fox, but these 

areas may be avoided by prey species which may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. 

Removing, modifying or burying existing power lines, reclaiming linear features such as roads or fences, 

or removal of facilities and reclamation of well sites could provide benefits to wildlife species. Removing, 

modifying or burying existing power lines could reduce the risk of collision or electrocution of bats, 

raptors, and other avian species. Prey species would be less likely to be subject to hunting from predatory 

bird species; however, predatory birds would no longer benefit from overhead hunting perches. Removal 

of fences reduces threats of injury or death from impacts to fences, opens up travel corridors, and could 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-428 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

allow access to additional forage and cover. There would be short-term disturbance during reclamation 

and some initial habitat loss before vegetation returns. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to 

invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or 

cover that the original area provided. During reclamation, human and vehicle presence could cause 

species to vacate the area to lower quality habitat. Moving from desirable habitat can result in reduced 

health of animals, making them susceptible to disease or predation. 

Under Alternative B, wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be prohibited. In 

Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, 127 turbines are projected to be developed, 1,127 fewer than under 

Alternative A. The development of wind energy outside of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas 

would cause habitat loss, and both short- and long-term impacts to habitat. Impacts from wind 

development in Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat would be the same as described under Alternative A, 

but for fewer numbers of turbines. 

Restrictions on MET towers in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could prevent impacts to smaller 

wildlife species by preventing the perching of raptors and removing collision obstacles for avian and bat 

species within sagebrush habitat to a greater degree than in Alternative A.

Retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would ensure that management within 

these areas would protect sagebrush habitat with all of the BMPs and other designations, which could 

provide habitat protection and contiguous habitat for wildlife which inhabit these areas, and would 

provide greater protections than Alternative A. Mitigation measures for land disposals with similar 

protections could provide habitat protection for sagebrush obligate species. Acquisitions or conservation 

easements (in lieu of acquisitions) could allow for additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse, 

providing habitat protection for sagebrush obligate species. Seeking to acquire state and private lands 

with intact subsurface mineral estate or BLM-administered lands or National Forest System Lands that 

need subsurface mineral estate by donation, purchase or exchange could allow for additional management 

for Greater Sage-Grouse, providing habitat protection for sagebrush obligate species such as sagebrush 

vole, pronghorn, or northern sagebrush lizard. 

Not recommending withdrawal proposals not associated with mineral activity in Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat unless the land management is consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

measures could allow for additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse, providing habitat protection 

for sagebrush obligate species or other wildlife such as lark sparrow, gopher snake, and mule deer. 

Incorporating a light grazing strategy utilizing 20-30% forage allocation for livestock in allotments not 

meeting standards in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could allow habitat to restore for forage and 

cover for wildlife. 

Working cooperatively on integrated ranch planning within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could 

allow for coordinated planning between ranchers and federal agencies as single units, providing habitat 

protection for sagebrush obligate species or other wildlife, such as horned lark, black-tailed jackrabbit, 

and mule deer. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for management of rangelands, vegetation, and livestock 

grazing. In addition, Alternative B would require more stringent management from assessments to include 

indicators and measurements of structure, condition, and composition of vegetation specific to achieving 

sage‐grouse habitat objectives; using sage‐grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly et al. 2000b 

and Hagen et al. 2007, prioritizing completion of land health assessments, and using Ecological Site 

Descriptions (ESD) could provide additional forage and possible improvement of habitat features for 

wildlife species. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-429

Reducing the procedures to retire grazing allotments could allow for more rapid release of lands back to 

wildlife use and to recover from the use of livestock, which could provide additional habitat and forage 

for wildlife. 

Impacts to wildlife from Conservation Plan development to modify grazing management to meet seasonal 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from the retirement of grazing privileges would be the same as Alternative A, 

but could be applied to a larger area within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. Identifying specific 

allotment(s) where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is potentially beneficial to Greater SageGrouse could lead to future availability of land, habitat, or forage for wildlife. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from management for drought and other conditions in livestock allotments 

would be the same as Alternative A. Additional priority for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during periods of 

drought could also be beneficial to wildlife which also use sagebrush habitat for forage of cover. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from range improvement projects would be the same as Alternative A. In 

addition, designing any new structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to conserve, enhance, or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat through an improved grazing 

management system relative to Greater Sage-Grouse objectives and other considerations for range 

improvements within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could also be beneficial to wildlife that use 

sagebrush habitat for forage cover. Requiring Greater Sage-Grouse safe fence design could reduce 

impacts to wildlife from collisions. Perch inhibitors for raptors could prevent prey species from hunting 

from predatory bird species; however, predatory birds would not benefit from overhead hunting perches. 

Impacts to wildlife and fisheries habitat from management of riparian, springs, and seep areas would be 

the same as Alternative A. Additional management to reduce hot season grazing and for edge habitat in 

wet meadows could provide wildlife with improved habitat conditions during hot weather within riparian 

areas. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from water development would be the same as Alternative A; however, 

implementing development only where it would either benefit or have neutral impacts to Greater SageGrouse habitat could benefit wildlife habitat. 

Not allowing any exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs could prevent additional surface 

disturbing activities in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat which reduces disturbance from roads, structures, 

power lines, and human activity and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat supports migration corridors, provides forage or hunting areas (in the case of 

predators), and can also protect wildlife from human and other disturbance. 

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing (6,809,580 acres) would 

reduce habitat loss for wildlife and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat, and would close 

5,937,800 more acres than Alternative A. Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects wildlife from human 

and other disturbance and is necessary for wildlife to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete 

their life histories. Oil and gas exploration and development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle 

use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force 

wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing 

disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and 

gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for 

continued habitat connectivity. Allowing exceptions to the closure where Greater Sage-Grouse are shown 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-430 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

to not be impacted could have impacts to wildlife species as described under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative B, 2,082,140 acres would be managed with NSO stipulations, which is 2,041,160 more than 

Alternative A. 

Oil, gas, and CBNG leasing and development would still be available outside of Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat. Impacts from exploration and development activities would be the same as described 

under Alternative A for oil and gas development; however, 13,709 wells are predicted to be developed 

outside of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat under Alternative B, 2,702 fewer wells as compared to 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, only 33,530 acres of short-term disturbance would occur, 5,520 

fewer acres than Alternative A, and 104,050 acres of long-term disturbance would remain under 

Alternative B, 26,280 acres fewer than Alternative A. The lower number of acres disturbed by oil and gas 

development would provide even greater protections to wildlife habitat as compared to Alternative A.

Impacts from geophysical exploration on wildlife would be the same as Alternative A. Some impacts to 

wildlife could be reduced by using helicopter‐portable drilling or wheeled or tracked vehicles on existing 

roads in accordance with seasonal timing limitations and other restrictions that may apply. Using 

helicopters or existing roads for geophysical exploration could reduce linear disturbances to vegetation 

created by vibroseis, thereby preventing impacts to wildlife habitat from vegetation damage or loss and 

interruption of habitat and migration corridors. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, 

applying COAs, mitigating or reducing the impact to Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat during lease 

development would reduce habitat loss for wildlife and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. 

Contiguous, uninterrupted habitat protects wildlife from human and other disturbance and is necessary for 

wildlife to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life histories. Oil and gas exploration 

and development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to 

areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, 

drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and gas development would remove a majority of 

stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where 

future leases could occur under the other action alternatives. 

Working with proponents holding valid existing leases to promote measurable Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives could reduce habitat loss and disturbance to sagebrush dependent wildlife species 

and could allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. It is unknown, however, what level of long-term 

protection of habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each leaseholder’s discretion. If 

leaseholders/project proponents agree to additional protections for their lease, there would be a reduction 

in 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. This 

would occur for all projects both inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, which would 

allow for greater protections, as habitat outside Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be included. 

Working with project proponents in siting projects to promote measurable Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation objectives would impact wildlife the same as Alternative A. In addition, requiring 

development within priority habitat to be placed in the area least harmful to Greater Sage-Grouse based 

on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features could benefit wildlife species which use Greater SageGrouse habitat, such as pronghorn, sagebrush vole, and horned lark. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to oil 

and gas leasing (2,082,140 acres) could reduce habitat loss for wildlife and would allow for contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat. Oil and gas exploration and development can result in noise, human presence, 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-431

vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force 

wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing 

disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and 

gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for 

continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur under Alternative A. 

While a 4-mile buffer around a lek could reduce or prevent impacts to wildlife from noise, human and 

vehicle presence, and drilling activities in the buffer area, wildlife habitat could be still impacted from oil 

and gas development by surface disturbance, habitat loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species. Surface disturbance also disrupts contiguous habitat, which can inhibit wildlife travel and 

migration patterns, and could lead to reduced health and reproductive success in some wildlife species. 

Completing Master Development Plans during planning and review of projects involving multiple 

proposed disturbances within a lease or priority habitat area, without an exception for individual wildcat 

(exploratory) wells, could provide fewer impacts to wildlife from surface disturbance from consolidated 

planning of infrastructure within the development area. 

Requiring unitization within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat when deemed necessary for proper 

development and operation of an area (with strong oversight and monitoring) could consolidate 

development and infrastructure, reducing impacts to wildlife and habitat from surface disturbing activities 

(Marranzino et al. 2011). 

Requiring full reclamation bonds sufficient to restore lands to prior disturbance conditions (Connelly et 

al. 2000, Hagen et al. 2007) could provide wildlife with complete habitat improvement and recovery in 

areas disturbed by oil, gas and other surface disturbing activities if project abandonment occurs. Full 

restoration of habitat could benefit wildlife with native forage and cover depending on the habitat being 

restored. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership (federal 

surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative A, but on a 

larger scale for the entire planning area. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from coal leasing in lands outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, finding Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat unsuitable 

to all surface mining of coal under the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 3461.5 would prevent surface 

disturbance, habitat loss or damage, soil runoff, erosion, and the introduction or spread of invasive, nonnative plant species. Impacts such as displacement of wildlife from surface mining activities, avoidance of 

the area around the development because of human and vehicle presence and noise forcing wildlife to 

move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat could be avoided if surface 

mining for coal was found unsuitable. 

Granting no new underground mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are 

placed outside of the Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat area would reduce surface disturbance within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, creating a smaller amount of forage and habitat loss compared to 

Alternative A. Human presence and vehicle use to access the mine could cause displacement of wildlife 

from vehicles and noise, avoidance of a larger area around the development because of human presence, 

vehicles and noise, and possible collisions from vehicles. Vehicle routes are prone to use by predators, 

which would benefit predators (raptors, coyote, red fox, raven) but could impact prey species (cottontail 

rabbit, wandering garter snake, and northern sagebrush lizard) from predation. 

Allowing appurtenant facilities by co-locating them or building facilities to minimum standards could 

result in surface disturbance or habitat loss, soil loss or sedimentation, and the introduction or spread of 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-432 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

invasive, non-native plant species. The management could reduce overall disturbance to new habitat; 

however disturbance could occur within an existing corridor. Wildlife that use early successional habitat 

could be impacted by development within an existing corridor. Noise, human presence, vehicle use, and 

linear disturbances can cause wildlife to move to lower quality habitat, less desirable forage and cover 

during and following construction activities. 

Not allowing coal exploration in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would prevent the impacts 

described under Alternative A.

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat to non-energy leasable mineral leasing (5,000,400 acres) 

would prevent the impacts described under Alternative A.

If all lands recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

were withdrawn (3,442,120 acres), 3,324,750 more acres of wildlife habitat could be protected from 

disturbance and habitat loss as compared to Alternative A. Additional mitigation, seasonal restrictions, or 

making withdrawal areas subject to validity exams or buy out could reduce further habitat disturbance or 

damage, or in some cases, improvement in habitat. 

Under Alternative B, 5,000,400 acres would be closed to mineral material sales, exploration, and free use 

permits, 4,972,914 more acres as compared to Alternative A. Wildlife and their habitat within these areas 

would not be impacted by displacement from exploration or pit areas, abandoning habitat within the area 

around the development because of human presence and noise, and possible offsite impacts, including 

erosion, and spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Restoring salable mineral pits within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could cause short-term impacts 

to wildlife and wildlife habitat from restoration activities by human and vehicle presence, noise, or 

surface disturbance and runoff; however, restoring habitat for wildlife could have long-term beneficial 

impacts from additional forage and cover, especially for wildlife that use sagebrush habitat. 

Allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat that have neutral 

or beneficial effects to priority habitat areas, could reduce the impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat 

from recreational activities and human presence as compared to Alternative A.

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

ACECs/SIA, 5,000,400 acres. Wildlife and fisheries habitat would receive the benefits of management 

under an ACEC/SIA. This management would be focused on the protection of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat, which would also benefit wildlife, especially those which use sagebrush and associated habitat. 

Designating all OHV “open” areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat areas as limited to designated 

roads and trails (not including the sand dune portions of these areas) could prevent damage to wildlife 

habitat from off road vehicle use. Off road, open OHV use in areas outside of the dunes can degrade 

vegetation and lead to erosion and habitat loss, reduced quality of habitat, and the introduction and spread 

of invasive, non-native plants that can further degrade habitat quality and change habitat composition. 

Designating use as limited to roads and trails could reduce these impacts to wildlife habitat. The 

remaining open areas are sand dunes which are not desired habitat for most wildlife species. Because 

these are existing use areas, it is likely that most wildlife have already abandoned use or avoid the area. 

Limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would be the same as 

Alternative A. Completing activity level travel plans within five 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 or other sensitive habitat. Designating routes during activity level 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-433

planning in priority habitat with current administrative/agency purpose or need to administrative access 

only could reduce the level of road/route use. Reducing road/route use could decrease the level of 

disturbance from vehicle and human presence or collisions with vehicles for wildlife. Assessing existing 

plans for consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives could allow the BLM and Forest 

Service to make changes to routes/roads that could reduce further impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Not upgrading existing routes could reduce surface disturbance from upgrading activities, preventing 

vegetation and soil loss, sedimentation, and possible displacement of wildlife from human and vehicle 

presence. Any exceptions resulting in road upgrades could further fragment habitat, cause vegetation loss, 

erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Human presence and vehicles may force 

wildlife species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles 

may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife habitat. 

Using existing roads to access valid existing rights could prevent vegetation and soil loss, sedimentation, 

noise, and human, vehicle and construction equipment that are associated with road construction. New 

road construction can create barriers in migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat 

loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during 

or following road construction. Human presence and vehicles may force wildlife species away from 

desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles may also occur when roads 

are constructed within wildlife habitat. Road corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as 

raptors and foxes, but these areas may be avoided by prey species which may move to less desirable 

habitat to avoid predation. All of these impacts could be avoided by using existing roads. Increased use of 

roads during lease development could occur, which could increase impacts to wildlife from collisions 

with vehicles. If new roads were necessary, impacts to wildlife and habitat described above could apply. 

Mitigation could provide new habitat where habitat was lost during construction, but impacts from roads 

and construction would still affect wildlife. 

Restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat could provide fewer disturbances from occasional vehicle or human presence and could improve 

sagebrush habitat conditions by removing linear disturbances, allowing for greater habitat connectivity, 

and providing additional vegetation resources for forage or cover. Vehicle routes are prone to use by 

predators (raptors, coyote, red fox, raven). Prey species (cottontail rabbit, wandering garter snake, 

northern sagebrush lizard) could benefit from the rehabilitation of unused roads or trails, which could 

reduce the presence of predatory animals; although predatory wildlife could lose hunting habitat as roads 

and routes are reclaimed. 

Impacts to wildlife from use appropriate seed mixes and transplanted sagebrush for reseeding roads, 

primitive roads and trails within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative A. 

Managing for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site potential and within the 

reference state to achieve Greater Sage-Grouse seasonal habitat objectives within Greater Sage-Grouse 

priority habitat could provide sagebrush obligate wildlife habitat, forage, and cover within these areas. 

Initial treatments could cause short-term impacts from displacement from human and vehicle activities 

which could move animals into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available 

resources with other species and uses. Using ESD potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect 

against invasive, non-native plants could prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species that can alter or degrade the native landscape and force wildlife to move from high quality habitat 

to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Designing and limiting treatments within sagebrush habitat not to reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less 

than 15% could prevent habitat fragmentation and provide varied vegetation structure within the greater 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-434 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

habitat area, the same as Alternative A. Limiting prescribed burns to specific canopy cover, vegetation 

composition, patch size, or amount of precipitation within sagebrush habitat could cause vegetation 

treatments to be maximized for the conditions and habitat structure. Wildlife could benefit from carefully 

managed prescribed burn treatments as described above. Fuel breaks can provide barriers to wildland fires 

or contain prescribed fire. While fuel breaks remove vegetation, habitat and create linear disturbances, 

without them, catastrophic fires could occur, destroying habitat, and leaving areas of disturbance. 

Considering the use of fuel breaks in NEPA documents could allow decision makers to make an informed 

decision on the best course of action for each location. 

In Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat, allowing treatments that conserve, enhance, or restore Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat could provide sagebrush obligate wildlife habitat, forage, and cover within these 

areas. Initial treatments could cause displacement from human and vehicle activities which could move 

animals into less desirable habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other 

species and uses. 

Not allowing treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter range with the exception to strategically 

reduce wildland fire risk could protect habitat components to sagebrush obligate species, especially those 

who use winter habitat such as sagebrush vole and pronghorn. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from resting treated areas from livestock grazing for two years after prescribed 

burns would be the same as Alternative A, although it would apply to the entire planning area. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the 

Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would be the same as Alternative A.

Where restoration of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat occurs, the use of native seeds or other nonnative seeds to meet Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives, re-establish sagebrush cover and desirable 

understory plants, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns that most benefit Greater SageGrouse would provide habitat and forage for sagebrush obligate and other wildlife species. Attempting to 

use native seeds not only provides wildlife with ideal forage and cover, it also can prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species that can alter habitat and render it unusable 

to wildlife. While the initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, over the long-term, sagebrush habitat 

could be restored, although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to 

original conditions due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Prioritizing areas for 

restoration could benefit wildlife that use those areas which are restored. 

Prioritizing native seed allocation for use in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in years when preferred native 

seed is in short supply for Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) (BLM) and/or Burn Area 

Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) (Forest Service) projects is required and could reduce the risk of 

disturbed areas being inundated by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing the spread of invasive 

plant species could help the reclamation area restore to original site vegetation composition. Areas that 

restore with native plant composition provide habitat and cover for wildlife species and can support 

healthy wildlife populations. Managing post ES&R and BAER areas to ensure long-term persistence of 

seeded or pre-burn native plants using temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse 

and burro, and travel management, etc. could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and 

vegetation to mature to the point of withstanding pressure from grazing or other activities. Changing 

management in restored areas could provide wildlife with new vegetation for forage without competition 

or disturbance from other resource uses. 

Altering existing seedings where appropriate to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse could also benefit sagebrush 

obligate wildlife such as pronghorn, northern sagebrush lizard, and sagebrush vole, but could impact other 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-435

wildlife that are using the existing seedings from habitat loss. Short-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife 

habitat could occur from restoration activities by human and vehicle presence, noise, or surface 

disturbance and runoff, but the long-term impacts would benefit the wildlife that would use the restored 

habitat. Giving priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat restoration projects could impact 

wildlife similarly as the actions above. Wildlife using grassland habitat, such as mule deer, western 

meadowlark, and rough-legged hawk could be displaced as the habitat is converted, possibly to lower 

quality habitat or areas with more competition for resources. Alternative B would prioritize fire 

operations in priority habitat, immediately after life and property; therefore, the potential for disturbance 

to terrestrial wildlife within these habitats is lower under Alternative B than Alternative A.

Establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production for fire prone areas could ensure that 

seed is available for habitat restoration, providing habitat for sagebrush obligate wildlife or other wildlife 

species. 

Ensuring that grasshopper and Mormon cricket control could only occur in Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat where it can be demonstrated that it is beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse would reduce the impacts 

described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from the management of wild horses with the consideration of Greater Sage-Grouse populations 

within priority habitat could benefit wildlife habitat. Conducting land health assessments in all BLM 

HMAs and Forest Service WHTs within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could identify where habitat 

improvements could occur. Wild horses directly compete with wildlife species for forage, habitat, cover 

and water. Any management that could improve habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse could also benefit 

wildlife, especially those who are sagebrush obligate or those who use sagebrush for some part of their 

life cycle. Management of wild horses to consider wildlife, watershed, and other resource needs could 

provide wildlife with adequate forage, habitat cover and water, all of which wild horses directly compete 

for with wildlife species. 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. 

Designing and implementing fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush 

ecosystems in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could have short and long term impacts to wildlife 

habitat. The emphasis on protecting sagebrush ecosystems could protect sagebrush obligate habitat, 

forage, and cover within these areas. Impacts to wildlife from rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland 

fires would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to the Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

area and could receive additional recovery effort. 

Impacts to wildlife from the use of prescribed fire would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to 

the entire Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat area. The additional restriction to precipitation level could 

prevent long-term habitat loss from the use of fire in areas where the lack of rainfall makes revegetation 

and restoration prohibitive. Cheatgrass can also quickly recover from fire, and could continue to spread 

and out-compete native grasses, altering native habitat and creating monocultures. 

Managing post-fuels management areas to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native 

plants using temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management, wild horse and burro 

management, and travel management, etc. could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and 

vegetation to mature to the point of withstanding pressure from grazing or other activities. Changing 

management in restored areas could provide wildlife with new vegetation for forage without competition 

or disturbance from other resource uses. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-436 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to wildlife using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire suppression techniques would be the same 

as Alternative A.

Suppressing wildfires as quickly and safely as possible in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could 

prevent the loss of sagebrush habitat for wildlife species that use these areas. Fire suppression techniques 

could impact nearby wildlife in areas where they occur. Vegetation removal, crushing of habitat, the use 

of heavy equipment and fire retardant, and human presence could force wildlife from the area where these 

activities occurred to less desirable, lower quality habitat until these areas have recovered. 

The use of monitoring plans could provide benefits to wildlife within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

by studying the effectiveness of conservation efforts for Greater Sage-Grouse by either confirming that 

habitat is being improved or that current management is not meeting the objectives laid out in their 

projects. If Greater Sage-Grouse habitat is meeting objectives, then wildlife could be benefitting from the 

habitat as well. If the habitat is not meeting objectives, wildlife could be impacted, and through 

monitoring, improvements could be made which then could provide habitat benefits to wildlife. Making 

improvements could provide overall improvements in landscape health, prevent or reduce the spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species, provide additional forage, and allow for greater cover habitat for 

wildlife. 

Wildlife species are sensitive to density of disturbance as well as to proximity. Under Alternative B, 

management would not allow discrete anthropogenic disturbances to cover more than three percent of the 

total sage‐grouse habitat regardless of ownership within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat. The density 

of disruptive activities under Alternative B for Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would provide the 

lowest density of disturbance of habitat. If Alternative B were applied, wildlife could be affected by lower 

losses of habitat as compared to Alternative A. This alternative could provide for more contiguous, 

uninterrupted habitat. Development of anthropogenic features can result in noise, human presence, 

vehicle use, vegetation loss, and the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which 

can force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Capping disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human disturbance could 

remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for continued habitat 

connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur. 

Using mitigation to restore habitat to maintain the three percent disturbance limit could be effective for 

rehabilitating wildlife habitat and continuing to provide contiguous uninterrupted habitat with minimal 

disturbance. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

connectivity habitat to oil and gas leasing (2,082,140 acres) could reduce habitat loss for wildlife and 

would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Oil and gas exploration and development can result in 

noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species which can force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable 

habitat. Removing disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, drilling operations, and human 

disturbance from oil and gas development would remove a majority of stressors and disruption of habitat 

and would allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where future surface disturbance could occur 

under Alternative A. A 4-mile buffer around leks could reduce or prevent impacts to wildlife from 

disturbance from noise, human and vehicle presence, and drilling activities; however, wildlife habitat 

could be impacted from oil and gas development by surface disturbance, habitat loss, erosion, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Surface disturbance also causes barriers in contiguous 

habitat, which can disrupt wildlife travel and migration patterns and could lead to reduced health and 

reproductive success in some wildlife species. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-437

Applying a restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface disturbing activity during nesting and 

early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat could protect the habitat identified as 

suitable and the wildlife species which use or occur within the identified area. This management could 

allow for fewer disturbances to wildlife from noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, and 

introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can force wildlife to move from high 

quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas 

within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitats during any time of the year could prevent impacts to wildlife 

from surface disturbance, habitat loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species. 

Preventing surface disturbance could reduce barriers in contiguous habitat, preventing disruptions in 

wildlife travel and migration patterns, and could provide wildlife continued health and reproductive 

success, especially for those species which use winter concentration habitat such as sagebrush vole, mule 

deer, and pronghorn. 

Limitations on noise would have similar impacts on wildlife but on a larger scale, covering the entire 

planning area, as compared to Alternative A.

4.21.5 Alternative C 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from relocating existing designated ROW corridors would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from management of priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat as ROW 

exclusion areas would be the same as Alternative A but it would protect 11,531,340 acres, all as exclusion 

areas, 11,245,410 more acres than under Alternative A.

Amending ROWs to require features that enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat security (protective 

features) would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to a greater area, providing more 

protection to wildlife. Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures in BLM ACECs and Forest 

Service Special Areas could result in short-term disturbance of wildlife from human and vehicle activity, 

but long-term impacts would be minimal. 

Under Alternative C, wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 

prohibited. Closing 11,531,340 acres to wind energy development would protect wildlife habitat from 

surface disturbance, habitat loss, disturbance from human presence and activity, new road construction, 

the spread of invasive, non-native plant species, and the threats of collision mortality of birds and bats. 

Under Alternative C, it is estimated that 127 wind turbines would be developed. If wind development was 

allowed to occur (wind development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be 

prohibited), locating wind energy development at least five miles from active Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

could reduce disturbance to wildlife species which use lek habitat such as pronghorn, mule deer, or 

sagebrush vole. Restrictions on MET towers would have the same impacts to wildlife as in Alternative A.

Prohibiting industrial solar projects in ACECs and occupied Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would prevent 

the impacts to thousands of acres of wildlife habitat from vegetation removal, habitat loss, increased 

runoff and erosion, displacement, and the loss of contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-438 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would ensure that management within 

these areas would protect sagebrush habitat with all of the BMPs and other designations, which could 

provide habitat protection for wildlife that inhabit these areas, and would provide greater protections than 

Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from acquisitions or conservation easements and acquiring private lands would be the 

same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from not approving recommended withdrawal proposals unless the land management 

is consistent with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation measures could provide greater protection to 

sagebrush habitat and could provide habitat protection for wildlife that inhabit these areas, and could 

provide greater protections to functional habitat than Alternative A.

Prohibiting livestock grazing within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat (5,000,400 acres) would 

provide the greatest availability of habitat and forage for wildlife as compared to Alternative A, 

completely removing competition for resources with livestock. 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for management of BLM-administered lands to meet 

Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, although it would occur only on Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat. In addition, Alternative C includes additional management for Greater Sage-Grouse 

general habitat by providing healthy, resilient, and recovering habitat components which could give 

sagebrush obligate and other wildlife species additional habitat and forage within these areas. 

Using ESD potential in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat to help protect against invasive, non-native plants 

could prevent the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant species which can alter or degrade 

the native landscape and force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. In areas without ESDs, wildlife habitat could benefit from the use of reference sites to 

identify appropriate vegetation communities and soil cover. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from reducing the procedures to retire grazing allotments would be the same as 

Alternative B. Impacts to wildlife habitat from the retirement of grazing privileges would be the same as 

Alternative A. Identifying specific allotment(s) where permanent retirement of grazing privileges is 

potentially beneficial to Greater Sage-Grouse would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from management for drought and other conditions in livestock allotments 

would be the same as Alternative A. Additional priority for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat during periods of 

drought could also be beneficial to wildlife which also use sagebrush habitat for forage of cover and 

would include a larger area of habitat than under Alternative B (priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat). 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from range improvement projects would be the same as Alternative B, but 

would only apply to Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from current livestock trailing practices would be the same as Alternative A; in 

addition, avoiding grazing and trailing within lekking, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during 

periods of the year when these habitats are utilized by Greater Sage-Grouse could affect wildlife habitat 

by protecting it from the impacts described in Alternative A: loss of vegetation for forage and cover, soil 

compaction, erosion, trampling of vegetation and habitat, and the spread of invasive non-native plant 

species. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-439

Impacts to wildlife habitat from riparian habitat management in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat 

would be the same as Alternatives A and B. In addition, Alternative C would provide additional habitat 

for wildlife species with the requirement of at least six inches stubble height. This management could 

affect aquatic, riparian or wetland habitat by preventing streambank erosion or channel alteration, 

sedimentation, habitat loss, or the spread of invasive, non-native plant species (University of Idaho 

Stubble Height Review Team 2004). Hot season livestock grazing would not apply under Alternative C.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from water developments would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, not 

authorizing new water developments could affect wildlife habitat by not providing additional developed 

water sources and could protect sensitive spring and seep habitat from trampling from wildlife or 

livestock (in general habitat) surrounding the water development and the spread of invasive non-native 

plant species. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from modifying springs, seeps and associated water developments to maintain 

the continuity of the pre-development riparian area within sage‐grouse habitats would be the same as 

Alternative B. In addition, dismantling water developments could affect wildlife habitat by removing 

additional developed water sources and could protect sensitive spring and seep habitat from trampling 

from wildlife or livestock surrounding the water development. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from not allowing any exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would include Greater 

Sage-Grouse general habitat to affect more of the planning area. 

Maximizing the avoidance of impacts from oil, gas, or geothermal activity could reduce habitat loss for 

wildlife and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat. Oil, gas and geothermal exploration and 

development can result in noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, and the introduction and 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species, which can force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to 

areas of lower quality, less desirable habitat. Removing disturbance from roads, structures, power lines, 

drilling operations, and human disturbance from oil and gas development would remove a majority of 

stressors and disruption of habitat and would allow for continued habitat connectivity in areas where 

future leases could occur under the other action alternatives. 

Closing Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat areas to fluid mineral leasing (16,878,220 acres) 

would reduce habitat loss for wildlife and would allow for contiguous, uninterrupted habitat, and would 

close 16,006,440 more acres than Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife habitat would be the same as 

described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, 11,126 wells are predicted to be developed, 5,284 

fewer wells as compared to Alternative A. This alternative would allow for the greatest number of acres 

to be protected from habitat loss due to oil and gas development and could provide the largest protection 

of wildlife habitat as compared to Alternative A.

Not issuing new geophysical exploration permits within priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would prevent impacts to wildlife associated with geophysical operations in the entire planning area. 

Allowing exceptions for geophysical exploration would impact wildlife the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Applying COAs, 

mitigating or reducing the impact to Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat during lease development 

would have impacts the same as described under Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater 

Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to wildlife habitat from 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-440 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

completing Master Development Plans and requiring unitization within Greater Sage-Grouse priority 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from requiring full reclamation bonds would be the same as Alternative B.

Prohibiting the construction of evaporation or infiltration reservoirs to hold coalbed methane wastewater 

would provide wildlife greater protection as compared to Alternative A. Not allowing construction of 

reservoirs could prevent impacts to wildlife from contact with highly alkaline wastewater with very high 

concentrations of salt (USFWS 2006b). Alternative C would remove the impacts from waterfowl entering 

the ponds, accumulating high concentrations of salt in their feathers, and causing them to drown from the 

excess weight or by ingesting wastewater and having salts could accumulate in their tissues, causing 

damage if toxic levels built up. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership (federal 

surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative B.

Exploring options to amend, cancel, or buy out leases in ACECs and Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would not have any impacts to wildlife habitat until leases were amended, canceled, or 

bought out. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from coal leasing in lands outside of priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to wildlife habitat from granting no new underground 

mining leases unless all surface disturbances (appurtenant facilities) are placed outside of the priority 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat if all lands recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry within Greater 

Sage-Grouse priority habitat were withdrawn would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to wildlife 

habitat from 5,000,400 acres being closed to mineral material sales, exploration, and free use permits 

would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts to wildlife habitat from restoring salable mineral pits within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from allowing BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in priority Greater SageGrouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Seasonally prohibiting camping and other non-motorized recreation within four miles of active Greater 

Sage-Grouse leks could protect wildlife within the buffer area from impacts of recreation use, such as 

displacement of wildlife from human and vehicle activities, damage or loss of habitat, spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species and alteration of some habitat components from the presence of invasive plant 

species, or physiological stress from human presence during sensitive life stages. 

Under Alternative C, approximately 6,423,370 acres of Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat areas and 

Audubon Important Bird Areas would be designated as Greater Sage-Grouse conservation ACECs/SIAs. 

Impacts from this management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from designating all OHV “open” areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat areas as limited to designated roads and trails (not including the sand dune portions of these areas) 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails at a 

minimum, until such time as travel management planning is complete, would be the same as 

Alternative B.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-441

Prohibiting new road construction within four miles of the perimeter of active Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

would provide buffer distances for wildlife that use lek or sagebrush habitat from the presence of roads 

and the impacts of road construction. Road construction can create barriers in migration corridors, 

fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of invasive, 

non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction. Human presence and 

vehicles may force wildlife species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Collisions with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife habitat. Road 

corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as raptors and coyote, but these areas may be 

avoided by prey species which may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. Avoiding new road 

construction in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would impact wildlife as described 

above where roads were not constructed. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from not upgrading existing routes in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from limiting route construction to realignments of existing routes in Greater 

Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a 

larger area, 11,531,340 acres. In addition, mitigating any impacts to keep disturbance within three percent 

with methods that have been demonstrated to be effective to offset the loss of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat could benefit sagebrush obligate wildlife from additional loss of habitat, forage, and cover within 

these areas. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans within 

priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from reseeding closed roads or trails in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. In addition, the 

use of native seed and transplanted sagebrush could provide additional forage and habitat for sagebrush 

obligate wildlife such as pronghorn, northern sagebrush lizard, and sagebrush vole. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from not reducing sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15% during fuels 

treatment in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except 

it would apply to a larger area. Impacts to wildlife habitat from the use of fuel breaks in Greater SageGrouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger 

area. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from vegetation treatments in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from not allowing fuels treatments in known Greater Sage-Grouse winter range 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Avoiding (not conducting) sagebrush reduction/treatments to increase livestock or big game forage in 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, and including plans to restore high-quality habitat in 

areas where invasive species are present could affect wildlife species differently. Some big game may not 

benefit from increases in sagebrush forage as much as sagebrush obligate wildlife such as pronghorn, 

northern sagebrush lizard, and sagebrush vole, which could be affected by high quality sagebrush habitat 

for forage and cover. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in accordance to the 

Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a) would be the same as Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-442 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Rehabilitating exotic seedings to recover sagebrush in areas to expand Greater Sage-Grouse priority and 

general habitat could benefit sagebrush obligate wildlife such as pronghorn, northern sagebrush lizard, 

and sagebrush vole, but could impact other wildlife that are using the existing seedings from habitat loss. 

Short-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat could occur from restoration activities by human and 

vehicle presence, noise, or surface disturbance and runoff, but the long-term impacts could benefit the 

wildlife that would use the restored habitat. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from prioritizing restoration projects and the use and allocation of native seed 

within priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would also 

encompass Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat, affecting wildlife in a larger area. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from altering existing seedings where appropriate to benefit Greater SageGrouse in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, except it 

would apply to a larger area. 

Including pretreatment data on existing habitat conditions in plans for vegetation treatments would 

provide valuable data when conducting monitoring post-treatment and could lead to improved habitat 

conditions for wildlife. Excluding or closing areas to livestock grazing for at least three years following 

vegetation treatments could allow treated areas to revegetate, soils to stabilize, and for vegetation to 

mature to the point of withstanding grazing pressure. Rested areas could provide wildlife with new 

vegetation for forage without competition with livestock during the rest period. Long-term monitoring of 

vegetation treatments can provide data on post-revegetation conditions. Data collected could be used in 

future revegetation projects, and could provide feedback on the success or needs for improving of the 

methods being used in revegetation efforts, which could affect wildlife conditions from habitat 

improvements. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from the management of wild horses with the consideration of Greater SageGrouse populations would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from conducting land health assessments for HMAs, and the management of 

wild horses in priority Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from designing and implementing fuels treatments, the use of prescribed fire, 

and post-fuels management in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B, except it would apply to a larger area. 

Managing lands within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat to be in the good or better 

ecological condition to help minimize adverse impacts of fire could prevent the impacts of wildland fire 

on wildlife habitat. Managing lands to be in the good or better condition could also affect wildlife by 

providing healthy forage and cover and habitat void of invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing 

wildland fire could provide habitat protection for wildlife from habitat loss, soil damage, erosion, 

excessive runoff, and the spread of invasive, non-native plant species from catastrophic fire events. 

Fuels treatments that focus on interfaces with human habitation or significant existing disturbances within 

Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat, could reduce impacts of fuels treatments in other habitat 

where wildlife are more likely to be found. Since interfaces with human habitation are not ideal habitat 

for most native wildlife species, effects to wildlife from vegetation removal, surface disturbance, and the 

presence of humans, vehicles and equipment could be lower than in areas a mile or more away from 

human habitation. Alternative C would prioritize fire operations in priority and general habitat, 

immediately after life and property; therefore, the potential for disturbance to terrestrial wildlife within 

priority habitat is the same as Alternative B and is protected more than Alternative B in general habitat. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-443

With regard to fuels management, Alternative C is more restrictive than Alternative B since all of the 

management actions fall within priority and general habitats; therefore, impacts from fuels management 

on terrestrial wildlife are expected to be less than Alternative B. 

Establishing adequately sized exclosures (free of livestock grazing) for post-fire recovery that can be used 

to assess recovery within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat could protect recovering 

habitat from livestock grazing while vegetation is re-establishing. Allowing vegetation to become reestablished without livestock could provide habitat and forage for wildlife without the threats of 

competition from livestock. 

Resting or closing 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. Rested areas could provide wildlife with new vegetation for 

forage without competition with livestock during the rest period. 

Maintaining fuels treatments, such as mowed areas, within Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general 

habitat may reduce the need for destructive fire suppression techniques, such as bulldozed fire lines. 

Mowed areas could still be used by small wildlife for cover and by grazing animals for forage. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from using fire suppression to protect Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from managing the level of density of disturbance within Greater Sage-Grouse 

connectivity habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from a three percent limit of disturbance per section (640 acres) when permitting 

APDs on existing leases within Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from not allowing new surface occupancy on federal leases within Greater 

Sage-Grouse priority habitat and connectivity habitat areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from restrictions on exploratory drilling that prohibits surface disturbing 

activity and related activities that are disruptive to Greater Sage-Grouse, including vehicle traffic and 

other human presence during nesting and early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse priority, 

general and connectivity habitat, could be reduced as compared to Alternative A. Alternative C could 

allow more contiguous, uninterrupted habitat which could buffer wildlife from human and other 

disturbance and is necessary for wildlife to breed, migrate, forage, seek cover, and complete their life 

histories. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from conservation measures within Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration 

areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from limiting noise would be the same as Alternative B.

4.21.6 Alternative D 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

The impacts on wildlife species resulting from restricting utility structures within Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat areas would be similar to those identified in Alternative A, except new transmission projects 

would be allowed only within a designated two mile wide transmission corridor and within 0.5 miles 

either side of existing 115kV or larger transmission lines. Impacts to wildlife habitat from new 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-444 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

construction within existing ROWs could have impacts to vegetation within the ROW corridors where the 

land within a two mile wide pathway has been previously disturbed from prior facility construction. Some 

species associated with grassland areas, such as pronghorn and western meadowlark could be disturbed or 

forced to abandon areas of early seral growth which is desirable forage for big game if areas under 

existing ROWs were developed. Construction activities could disturb other nearby wildlife causing 

species to vacate the area and move to lower quality habitat. Moving from desirable habitat can result in 

stress, mortality or lower reproductive rates and offspring survival. Disturbed areas would be more 

vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially provide the same level of habitat 

function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. New utility towers could provide perch sites for 

raptors and other bird species, but power lines may also cause mortality to bats or birds from collisions or 

electrocution. 

If construction of new ROW corridors were to occur, the resulting fragmentation of formerly intact 

habitat could affect wildlife populations by severing migration routes to seasonal habitat areas and 

parturition habitat. New projects would have seasonal stipulations that would help prevent disturbance to 

wildlife species during those timeframes. Management for construction would consider impacts to 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations and be designed to minimize impacts through project design and 

mitigation. The considerations could reduce the impacts from disturbance and habitat loss by habitat 

avoidance or timing of construction. Surface disturbance from construction of new ROWs would remove 

vegetation resulting in fragmentation of formerly intact habitat. Fragmenting habitat could affect wildlife 

populations by severing migration routes or forcing wildlife away from areas of early seral growth, which 

are areas desired by wildlife. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and 

would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original area 

provided. 

Impacts to wildlife from managing 5,141,340 acres of ROW exclusion areas within Greater Sage-Grouse 

core habitat would be the same as Alternative B; however the density of disturbance limit for this 

alternative is nine percent, allowing greater disturbance of habitat from development activities before 

mitigation would be made necessary. 

Allowing Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat to be available for new ROWs or SUAs subject to BMPs, 

with 1,211,030 acres of avoidance areas (1,249,310 acres fewer than Alternative A), could impact wildlife 

from direct habitat loss and fragmentation of habitat. Allowing Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat to be 

available for new ROWs or SUAs subject to BMPs could affect wildlife in a variety of ways. Surface 

disturbance from construction of new ROWs would remove vegetation resulting in fragmentation of 

formerly intact habitat. Fragmenting habitat could affect wildlife populations by severing migration 

routes. Disturbed areas would be more vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds and would not initially 

provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original area provided. Construction 

activities could disturb other nearby wildlife causing species to vacate the area and move to lower quality 

habitat. Moving from desirable habitat can result in stress, mortality or lower reproductive rates and 

offspring survival. 

Maintenance and upgrades of existing structures could result in short-term disturbance of wildlife from 

human and vehicle activity, but long term impacts would be minimal. 

Impacts to wildlife from the development of wind energy would be the same as Alternative C within 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. General Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would continue to be open to 

wind energy development where 980 wind turbines are expected to be developed, 274 fewer than 

Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife to the development of wind energy in Greater Sage-Grouse general 

habitat would be the same as described in Alternative A. Restrictions on MET towers would have the 

same impacts on wildlife as in Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-445

Impacts to wildlife from retaining ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from acquisitions or conservation easements would be the same as Alternative A.

Acquiring lands based on a variety of economic resource criteria could have limited effects to wildlife 

depending on the lands acquired or exchanged. 

Impacts to wildlife from livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A.

Working cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners to develop grazing management 

strategies on an allotment-by-allotment basis to improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could affect 

sagebrush dependent wildlife species from possible habitat improvement. It is unknown, however, what 

level of long-term protection of habitat would occur, because the outcome is at each permittee’s, leasee’s 

or landowner’s discretion. If permittees, leasees, or landowners agree to develop grazing management 

strategies, there could be a reduction of habitat loss in sagebrush or Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, or there 

could be seasonal closures. 

Impacts to wildlife from adjusting livestock grazing leases, monitoring, and renewing livestock grazing 

permits would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from developing Conservation Plans to meet seasonal Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

requirements in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitats would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from authorizing retirement of grazing allotments in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as Alternative A, although under Alternative D, a limit of 15% of a planning unit 

would constrain how much land could be retired or rested. 

Impacts to wildlife from considering drought conditions in livestock grazing management would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from evaluating range improvements would be the same as Alternative B, but would 

also apply to Greater Sage-Grouse general habitat as well as core/priority habitat. 

Impacts to wildlife from livestock trailing management and water developments would be the same as 

Alternative A. In addition, avoiding Greater Sage-Grouse habitat could benefit wildlife that use these 

areas by reducing the degree of disturbance, habitat loss, soil compaction, erosion, sedimentation, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Impacts to wildlife from riparian area management would be 

the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and conditions would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, there would be 964,860 acres administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, 

93,080 more as compared to Alternative A, and 15,769 wells are predicted to be developed, 642 fewer 

than under Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife from oil and gas leasing would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife from geophysical operations and offsite mitigation 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from working with proponents holding valid existing leases would be the same as 

Alternative B.
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-446 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to wildlife from working with project proponents to site their projects in locations that minimize 

impacts to sensitive resources would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from using unitization would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership (federal 

surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from coal lease development and exploration would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to wildlife from non-energy leasable minerals would be the same as Alternative A (234,230 acres 

of closed areas). In addition, mitigation measures in project planning could ensure that viable and 

functional habitat would be restored to the project area. These objectives could reduce initial disturbance, 

speed up rehabilitation of sites, and/or create other areas as usable wildlife habitat. Allowing projects 

meeting compliance of surface occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations could reduce 

fragmentation of habitat, and may reduce other impacts from using existing infrastructure. 

Impacts to wildlife from locatable and salable mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A and 

could occur within 1,677,420 acres for locatable and 274,860 acres for salable, the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to wildlife from salable mineral pits would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to wildlife from approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service Recreation Special Use Authorizations 

would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from managing open OHV areas would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from limiting motorized travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails would be 

the same as Alternative A.

New road construction would avoid areas within 0.25 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater SageGrouse leks within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. The management would provide buffer distances 

for wildlife that use lek or sagebrush habitat from the presence and construction activities of roads, but 

not to the extent described under Alternative C. This alternative provides the smallest buffer distance and 

the least protection of the action alternatives to wildlife from the impacts from the building and presence 

of roads within Greater Sage-Grouse lek habitat. Road construction can create barriers in migration 

corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the spread of 

invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction. Human presence 

and vehicles may force wildlife species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less desirable habitat. 

Collisions of wildlife with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife habitat. 

Road corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals to hunt, such as raptors and foxes, but these areas 

may be avoided by prey species which may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. 

Impacts to wildlife from upgrading roads would be the same as Alternative A.

Allowing natural deterioration of roads not designated in travel management plans within Greater SageGrouse core and general habitat could prevent effects from short-term impacts during reclamation efforts, 

such as displacement from human and vehicle activities, which could move animals into less desirable 

habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and uses. Vehicle routes 

are vulnerable to invasion of noxious weeds which could spread during the natural deterioration of the 

road. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-447

Applying natural reseeding within Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat would allow for 

succession of native plant species to revegetate undesignated roads or routes. This could affect wildlife 

from the regrowth of plant species appropriate to the existing habitat, which would be consistent with the 

surrounding habitat already being used by wildlife species. 

Managing for vegetation composition and structure that reflects desired plant community or comparable 

standard Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could affect wildlife from vegetation management, depending 

on the location and habitat type. 

Impacts to wildlife from vegetation treatments for sagebrush habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as described in Alternative A. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A would support 

more specific reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, providing restoration of 

functional habitat for sagebrush obligate wildlife. If the protocol is followed, soil erosion and introduction 

of exotic or invasive plant species could be minimized and the landscape could be reclaimed to the 

original habitat components and structure to the extent possible. While the initial disturbance would result 

in habitat loss, sagebrush habitat could be restored over the long term, although some areas of habitat, 

such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to original conditions due to the composition and size 

of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may also provide opportunities for invasive plant species 

(e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to restore sagebrush habitat with native species in some 

areas. Working collaboratively with partners to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could 

provide additional resources to apply to sagebrush management and could affect sagebrush obligate 

wildlife with enhanced habitat and forage. 

Treated areas that were not rested from livestock grazing could affect wildlife from habitat loss, soil 

compaction, or spread of invasive, non-native plant species. Resting treated areas from grazing can allow 

treated areas to establish new vegetation, allow soils to stabilize, and prevent invasive, non-native plant 

species to be tracked into the treated area by livestock. 

Impacts to wildlife from reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from weed-free seed and mulch, desirable non-native species or sterile perennials, or 

reclaiming to native site plant composition for reclamation projects would be the same as Alternative A. 

Use of native and non-native plant seeds for vegetation seedings in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

could reduce the risk of disturbed areas being inundated by invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing 

the spread of invasive plant species could help the reclamation area restore to original site vegetation 

composition. Areas that restore with native plant composition provide habitat and cover for wildlife 

species and can support healthy wildlife populations. 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grassland restoration would be prioritized 

commensurate with its threat to the region within Greater Sage-Grouse core and priority habitat would 

affect wildlife from vegetation removal and human disturbance. Short-term impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat could occur from restoration activities by human and vehicle presence, noise, or surface 

disturbance and runoff, but the long term impacts would benefit the wildlife that would use the restored 

habitat. Wildlife using grassland habitat, such as big game, western meadowlark, and rough-legged hawk 

could be displaced as the habitat is converted, possibly to lower quality habitat or areas with more 

competition for resources. Restoration of sagebrush habitat could benefit sagebrush obligate wildlife such 

as pronghorn, northern sagebrush lizard, and sagebrush vole, but could impact other wildlife that are 

using the existing grassland from habitat loss. 

Impacts to wildlife from grasshopper and cricket control would be the same as Alternative A.
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-448 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to wildlife from wild horse population management would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from prioritizing AMLs and prioritizing and conducting land health assessments in 

BLM HMAs in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife from rehabilitation for areas burned by wildland fires, using wildland fire, prescribed 

fire, fire suppression techniques and AMR would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from the use of monitoring plans would be the same as Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, management would not allow more than three locations of energy production to 

occur within 640 acres. In addition, the combined value of the disturbance (existing and proposed) may 

not exceed nine percent loss of sagebrush habitat. Allowing a density of three energy production 

facilities/structures per 640 acres could displace wildlife, and the possible long-term habitat deterioration 

could eliminate potential habitat that may provide refuge for wildlife species displaced from current 

territories. Conversion of large areas to early seral stage vegetation or cheatgrass could occur as well pads 

are reclaimed. Conversion of large expanses to early seral vegetation could result in additional habitat loss 

from large plant cover, but could increase desired browse vegetation for ungulates and other grazing 

animals. The spread of cheatgrass or other invasive, non-native plant species could diminish habitat 

quality and availability of native plant species for forage and cover. In addition, not including other 

disturbances such as coal and trona mines, and buried pipelines and power lines in the density 

calculations would, in some cases where these sites occur, increase actual disturbance density above three 

per 640 acres and further increase impacts to wildlife and habitat. For connectivity areas, impacts from 

management under Alternative D would be the same as described above, except there is no limitation to 

the number of disruptive activities per 640 acres, but the combined nine percent limit of disturbance per 

640 acres would be in effect. 

Impacts to wildlife from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A, but would apply to 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat. The nine percent disturbance threshold would limit the level of 

disturbance within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat; however, the impacts to wildlife from disturbance 

would not change. 

Impacts from implementing restrictions on surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy within 0.25 

miles of lek habitat (Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat), would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A (excluding Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek). There would 

be a total of 75,870 acres within Greater Sage-Grouse core, general and connectivity habitat that would 

have surface disturbance restricted. 

Applying seasonal restrictions on surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity during nesting and early 

brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat from March 15 to 

June 30 could protect habitat within two miles of a lek and the wildlife species that use or occur within 

the identified area. This management could allow for fewer disturbances to wildlife from noise, human 

presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, and the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant 

species, which can force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in mapped Greater Sage-Grouse winter 

concentration areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity areas from November 15 to 

March 14 would affect wildlife as described under Alternative A.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-449

Impacts to wildlife from minimizing impacts from predators are the same as Alternative A. In addition, 

implementing the strategies and techniques outlined in Appendix F for predators would provide 

protection to wildlife by removing habitat and attractive areas where predators feed and hunt. 

Impacts to wildlife from noise minimization would be the same as Alternative A.

4.21.7 Alternative E 

See Alternative B for impacts common to Alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

Impacts to wildlife from ROW development would be the same as Alternative A, as 285,930 acres would 

be managed as exclusion areas. Impacts to wildlife would be the same as Alternative D from seasonal 

restrictions on project development. Requiring raptor perching deterrents could reduce the effects to prey 

species from hunting by predatory bird species; however, predatory birds would not benefit from hunting 

perches. Including transmission lines outside of transmission corridors in the five percent disturbance 

calculation could affect wildlife from habitat loss and fewer disruptions in habitat connectivity. 

Disturbance and development can create travel or migration barriers which can alter distribution patterns, 

increasing stress and energy loss and fitness in wildlife species. 

Impacts to wildlife from removing, modifying or burying existing power lines, and reclaiming linear 

features such as roads or fences would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from wind energy development would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts to wildlife from MET towers would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from retaining public ownership of Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the 

same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from identifying areas where acquisitions or conservation easements for Greater SageGrouse core habitat could occur would be the same as Alternative B.

Utilizing Greater Sage-Grouse habitat requirements to prioritize parcels for exchange or acquisition 

within core habitats could affect wildlife by providing habitat management for sagebrush obligate species 

such as sagebrush vole, pronghorn, or northern sagebrush lizard. 

Evaluation of withdrawals for consistency with Greater Sage-Grouse conservation could identify areas 

where additional habitat could be available for wildlife habitat in the future. 

Impacts to wildlife from livestock grazing management would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from working cooperatively with permittees, leasees and other landowners to develop 

grazing management strategies would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife from management of rangelands, vegetation, and livestock grazing would be the same 

as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from AMPs would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, within Greater SageGrouse core habitat, incorporating site specific Greater Sage-Grouse habitat objectives and management 

considerations could affect sagebrush obligate species such as sagebrush vole, pronghorn, or northern 

sagebrush lizard protection or improvement from sagebrush focused management. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-450 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to wildlife from evaluating land health standards in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could 

provide improvements to sagebrush or other habitat desirable to Greater Sage-Grouse. Habitat 

improvements could affect sagebrush obligate species such as sagebrush vole, pronghorn, or northern 

sagebrush lizard with protection or improvement from sagebrush focused management. 

Impacts to wildlife from authorizing retirement of grazing allotments in Greater Sage-Grouse core would 

be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from considering drought conditions in livestock grazing management would be the 

same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from range improvements would be the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to wildlife from livestock trailing management would be the same as Alternative C.

Impacts to wildlife from managing livestock grazing in riparian/wetland habitat and water development 

would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from exceptions to lease stipulations, COAs, and T&Cs would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Under Alternative E, there would be 892,090 acres administratively unavailable to oil and gas leasing, the 

same as Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife from oil and gas leasing would be the same as those described 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from oil, gas and CBNG development inside and outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would 

be similar to those described under Alternative A. A total of 14,817 wells would be developed under 

Alternative E, 1,594 fewer wells as compared to Alternative A. There would be 35,430 acres of shortterm disturbance and 112,330 acres of long-term disturbance from the development and infrastructure 

associated with oil and gas wells. 

Applying a minimum lease size could provide a more contiguous, uninterrupted habitat for wildlife which 

could allow for unfragmented migration or travel pathways between habitat areas, and could protect 

wildlife from human presence and other disturbance or disruptive activities. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from geophysical exploration would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from offsite mitigation would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to wildlife from 

working with proponents holding valid existing leases would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from working with project proponents to site their projects in locations that minimize 

impacts to sensitive resources would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from considering or encouraging Master Development Plans and unitization within 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from requiring reclamation bonds would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from produced water would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from applying conservation measures to split-estate land ownership (federal 

surface/private surface or federal surface/private minerals) would be the same as Alternative B.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-451

Impacts to wildlife from coal surface and underground mining and coal exploration would be the same as 

Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from leasing non-energy leasable minerals would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts to wildlife from locatable mineral activities would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife from salable mineral activities would be the same as Alternative A and could occur 

within 274,860 acres, the same as Alternative A. 

Impacts to wildlife from salable mineral pits would be the same as Alternative B. 

Approving BLM SRPs and Forest Service RSUAs in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat, unless negative 

impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse cannot be adequately mitigated, would be the same as Alternative A; 

however, those impacts would be mitigated, resulting in short- and long-term impacts to wildlife where 

impacts occur and where mitigation is applied. Displacement of wildlife as a result of both short- and 

long-term impacts from human and vehicle activities could lead to animals moving into less desirable 

habitat and could increase competition for available resources with other species and habitat uses.

Impacts to wildlife from no new ACECs/SIAs for Greater Sage-Grouse conservation would be the same 

as Alternative D. 

Impacts from OHV “open” areas would be the same as Alternative B, except for the Poison Spider OHV 

Park which would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from limiting motorized travel would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts from avoiding areas within 1.9 miles of the perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks for 

new and primary roads, and 0.6 miles for other new roads would be similar to Alternative B. These areas 

are not prohibited from construction; roads could be built inside the buffers if deemed appropriate, which 

would impact the wildlife species inhabiting those areas. Road construction can create barriers in 

migration corridors, fragmentation of habitat, and overall habitat loss. Vegetation loss, erosion, and the 

spread of invasive, non-native plant species may also occur during or following road construction. Human 

presence and vehicles may force wildlife species away from desired habitat to lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. Collisions with vehicles may also occur when roads are constructed within wildlife 

habitat. Road corridors are desirable areas for predatory animals, such as raptors and coyote, but these 

areas may be avoided by prey species that may move to less desirable habitat to avoid predation. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from road upgrades and limiting route construction to realignments of existing 

routes in Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from restoring roads or trails not designated in travel management plans within 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife habitat from reseeding closed roads or trails in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from using ESD potential vegetation composition and structure within SageGrouse core and general habitat would be the same as Alternative B, but would apply to a larger area 

(Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat) than Alternative B. 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-452 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Impacts to wildlife habitat from vegetation treatments that would not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to 

less than 15% in nesting and winter habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B. Limiting this to northeast Wyoming could ensure that this management would be 

appropriate to the conditions inherent to the local environment and could allow for effective results from 

vegetation treatments, providing varied structure of sagebrush habitat for use by sagebrush obligate 

wildlife such as sagebrush vole, pronghorn, or northern sagebrush lizard. 

Impacts to wildlife from vegetation treatments for sagebrush habitat in Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as described in Alternative D.

The protocol in Appendix A would support more specific reclamation of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

sagebrush habitats, providing restoration of functional habitat for sagebrush obligate wildlife. If the 

protocol is followed, soil erosion and introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could be minimized 

and the landscape could be reclaimed to the original habitat components and structure to the extent 

possible. While the initial disturbance would result in habitat loss, sagebrush habitat could be restored 

over the long-term, although some areas of habitat, such as winter habitat, could be difficult to restore to 

original conditions due to the composition and size of sagebrush in these areas. Surface disturbance may 

also provide opportunities for invasive plant species (e.g. cheatgrass) to establish, making it difficult to 

restore sagebrush habitat with native species in some areas. Working collaboratively with partners to 

maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats could provide additional resources to apply to 

sagebrush management and could affect sagebrush obligate wildlife with enhanced habitat and forage. 

Monitoring the treatments could provide feedback to whether the treatments were successful and if 

changes should be made in the approach to methods or timing in the area. 

Impacts to wildlife from resting treated areas from grazing would be the same as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from restoration of sagebrush habitat would be the same as Alternative B.

Use of native and non-native plants and seeds could reduce the risk of disturbed areas being inundated by 

invasive, non-native plant species. Preventing the spread of invasive plant species could help the 

reclamation area restore to original site vegetation composition. Areas that restore with native plant 

composition provide habitat and cover for wildlife species and can support healthy wildlife populations. 

Impacts to wildlife from managing post ES&R and BAER areas and altering existing seedings would be 

the same as Alternative B. Alternative E would give priority to fire operations in priority habitat, 

immediately after firefighter and public safety. However, this would happen only after other resource 

values managed by the BLM and Forest Service are considered and if an exemption is warranted. With 

regard to fuels management, Alternative C is more restrictive than Alternative E since all of the 

management actions fall within priority and general habitat; therefore, impacts from fuels management on 

terrestrial wildlife are less than Alternative B. Concurrently, Alternative E offers the same protective 

measures as Alternative B; however, it has the potential for more benefits to terrestrial wildlife than 

Alternatives B and C with the placement of green strips and/or fuel breaks and the development of 

wildfire prevention plans would be developed to revegetate green strips with native fire resistant/resilient 

species.

Impacts to wildlife from giving priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat restoration and 

establishing seed harvest areas would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from vegetation treatment planning would be the same as Alternative C.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-453

Impacts to wildlife from grasshopper and cricket control would be the same as Alternative A; however, 

working collaboratively with partner agencies to maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in 

Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat could reduce the effects to wildlife from treatment for insects. 

Impacts to wildlife from wild horse management would be the same as Alternative B.

Impacts to wildlife from designing and implementing fuels treatments within Greater Sage-Grouse core 

habitat would be the same as Alternative B. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A could provide 

treatment protocol for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, which could lead to functional habitat 

for sagebrush obligate wildlife from treatment activities. If the protocol is followed, habitat loss, soil 

erosion and introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could be minimized and the landscape could 

reclaim to the original habitat components and structure to the extent possible. 

Impacts to wildlife from restoring and recovering burned areas and fuels treatments within Greater SageGrouse core habitat would be the same as Alternative B. In addition, the protocol in Appendix A could 

provide treatment protocol for Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats, which could lead to 

functional habitat for sagebrush obligate wildlife from treatment activities. If the protocol is followed, 

habitat loss, soil erosion and introduction of exotic or invasive plant species could be minimized and the 

landscape could reclaim to the original habitat components and structure to the extent possible. 

Impacts to wildlife from managing post-fuels management areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat 

would be the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife using wildland fire, prescribed fire, and fire suppression techniques would be the same 

as Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from fire suppression within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

Impacts to wildlife from the use of monitoring plans within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat would be 

the same as Alternative B. 

Under Alternative E, the BLM and Forest Service could limit the density of oil and gas or mining 

activities to no more than an average of one disruptive activity to occur within 640 acres within Greater 

Sage-Grouse core habitat; the combined value of surface disturbance (existing and proposed) may not 

exceed five percent loss. For Greater Sage-Grouse connectivity areas, all surface disturbance (any 

program area) would be limited to no more than five percent of the Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat per 

640 acres, using the DDCT process described in Appendix I. 

Impacts to wildlife from using mitigation would be the same as described in Alternative A. 

Under Alternative E, surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy would be prohibited within 0.6 

miles of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks inside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity 

habitat areas, which could protect up to 304,970 acres of habitat. This alternative could protect up to 

236,420 more acres than Alternative A. 

Pronghorn and mule deer have the greatest overlap of lek acreages for all big game, and would likely be 

impacted the most from development activities within lek buffers and other sagebrush habitat. The greater 

the impacts to sagebrush habitat from oil, gas, and other surface disturbing activity, the greater the 

impacts to pronghorn, mule deer and other game species from habitat loss and disturbance from human 
Chapter 4—Wildlife and Fisheries Draft EIS 

4-454 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

activity, noise and invasive, non-native plant species. All big game species found within the planning area 

use Greater Sage-Grouse lek habitat for some portion of their life histories, some more than others. 

Surface disturbing activity or surface occupancy would be prohibited or restricted on or within 0.25 miles 

of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat and connectivity habitat. 

Impacts to wildlife would be the same as Alternative A.

Applying seasonal restrictions on surface disturbing and/or disruptive activity during breeding, nesting 

and early brood-rearing season in Greater Sage-Grouse core, general, and connectivity habitat from 

March 1 to June 30 could protect habitat within four miles of a lek and the wildlife species which use or 

occur within the identified area. This management could allow for fewer disturbances to wildlife from 

noise, human presence, vehicle use, vegetation loss, and introduction and spread of invasive, non-native 

plant species which can force wildlife to move from high quality habitat to areas of lower quality, less 

desirable habitat. Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A, but would provide more 

area of protection with the four mile buffer within Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat (except for Bates 

Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek). The same management would apply for nesting and early brood 

rearing habitat outside Greater Sage-Grouse core habitat except the buffer distance would be two miles 

from leks, which would also impact wildlife the same as Alternative A. 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. 

Prohibiting surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration 

areas within Greater Sage-Grouse core and general habitat areas from December 1 to March 14 would 

affect wildlife as described under Alternative A.

Impacts to wildlife from minimizing impacts from predators are the same as Alternative D.

Noise restrictions at the 0.6 mile perimeter of the lek to not exceed 10 dBA above background noise could 

reduce disturbance to wildlife species and could prevent wildlife from abandoning habitat and moving to 

less desirable areas. Mule deer exhibit a stress response to disturbances associated with noise and activity 

up to 0.29 miles from the source (Freddy et al. 1986). Noise minimization can reduce stress responses, 

prevent a reduction in reproductive success, and prevent decreased immune response (Pater et al. 2009). 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-455

4.22 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

This section defines cumulative impacts, describes the methodology used for assessing these impacts, 

describes projects and activities considered in this assessment, and presents the results organized by 

resource topic. 

Cumulative impacts are the effects on the environment that result from implementing any of the 

alternatives in combination with other actions outside the scope of these plan amendments, either within 

the planning area or outside it. The CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA define cumulative impacts 

as— 

“The impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless 

of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time.” (40 CFR §1508.7). 

The real effect of any single action cannot be determined by considering that action in isolation, but must 

be determined by considering the likely result of that action in conjunction with many others. The 

cumulative impact analysis for the Wyoming sage-grouse RMP and LRMP Amendments evaluates the 

potential impacts associated with the management alternatives in combination with the potential impacts 

associated with other relevant activities that have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur in the 

vicinity of the planning area. 

4.22.1 Impact Assessment Methodology 

Land use planning is BLM’s and Forest Service’s broadest level of decision-making. BLM and Forest 

Service planning-level decisions are programmatic decisions that allocate resources or specify allowable 

uses in all or portions of the planning area to emphasize certain management direction. Site-specific 

actions are rarely addressed in an RMP or LRMP. As a result, the cumulative impact analysis is also 

broad and general in nature. The analysis presents ranges and qualitative conclusions as opposed to 

bounded quantified details. These cumulative impacts will then be considered in subsequent NEPA 

documents that analyze specific projects or programs. 

Analysis and description of the identifiable effects of past actions are required to the extent they are 

relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable effects of the alternatives may have a 

continuing, additive, and significant relationship to those present effects. Based on scoping, agencies have 

discretion on what is useful concerning past action for the agency’s analysis of the effects of present 

action and its reasonable alternatives. Effects of past actions and activities on resources are manifested in 

the current condition of the resource, which is described in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) for 

resources on lands administered by BLM or Forest Service within the planning area. Specific information 

presented in Chapter 3 is not repeated here. 

CEQ guidance directs cumulative impact analysis to focus on important issues of national, regional, or 

local significance. This analysis focuses on LUP actions that, when combined with other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would collectively be significant. Not all issues identified for 

direct or indirect impact assessment in these RMP and LRMP Amendments are analyzed for cumulative 

effects. Because of the wide geographic scope of a cumulative impact assessment and the variety of 

activities assessed, cumulative impacts are commonly examined at a more qualitative and less detailed 

level than are direct and indirect impacts. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-456 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Public documents prepared by federal, state, and local government agencies are the primary sources of 

information regarding past, present, and future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Actions undertaken by private persons and entities are assumed to be captured in the information made 

available by such agencies. Speculative or uncommitted projects are not included in the projections. 

These projections are not planning decisions. Using them in this analysis does not constitute approval by 

BLM, Forest Service or any authorizing agency. These projections do not set a limit or cap on future 

BLM or Forest Service actions. Unforeseen changes in such factors as economics; public demand; and 

federal, state, and local laws and policies could result in different outcomes than those projected for this 

analysis. 

Potential cumulative impacts are described for each affected resource within a defined cumulative impact 

analysis area (CIAA). The CIAA covers different geographic areas depending on the specific resource 

being evaluated. The CIAAs are described in each of the resource sections below. CIAAs that extend 

beyond the planning area are largely for resources that are mobile or migrate, compared to resources that 

are stationary. For example, the air quality CIAA is large because it is based on the complex interaction 

between climatic factors, terrain, and the potential for significant impacts to occur in sensitive areas 

within the airshed. Smaller CIAAs were established for resources that are stationary such as cultural 

resources, minerals, and visual resources. In some cases, these CIAAs might be the same as the planning 

area boundary. Activities and development that occur within or outside the CIAAs have the potential to 

create cumulative impacts on the specific resource being analyzed. 

BLM and Forest Service considered the following factors in this cumulative impact assessment: 

• Federal, nonfederal, and private actions 

• The potential for effects to cross political and administrative boundaries 

• Other spatial and temporal characteristics of each affected resource 

• The comparative scale of cumulative impacts across alternatives 

• Scoping comments. 

Temporal and spatial boundaries used in the cumulative analysis are developed on the basis of resources 

of concern and actions that might contribute to an impact. The baseline date for the cumulative impacts 

analysis is 2012. The temporal scope of this analysis is a 20-year planning horizon. Land use planning 

documents are generally evaluated on a 5-year cycle. 

Spatial boundaries vary and are larger for resources that are mobile or migrate (e.g., migratory birds) 

compared with stationary resources. Occasionally, spatial boundaries could be contained within the 

planning area boundaries or an area within the planning area. Spatial boundaries were developed to 

facilitate the analysis and are included under the appropriate resource section heading. The cumulative 

effects analysis for all topics included an analysis of cumulative effects at the planning area level. 

4.22.2 Projects and Activities Considered 

The following activities were identified as having the greatest likelihood to generate potential cumulative 

impacts when added to activities associated with the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse RMP and LRMP 

Amendments alternatives: 

• BLM and Forest Service land management plans and activities in adjacent planning areas 

• Regional oil and gas development activities (e.g., exploration, production, and pipeline 

development) 

• Regional recreation activities (e.g., hunting, OHV use, dispersed recreation) 

• Economic development activities in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater counties. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-457

Activities and development that occur within the CIAAs have the potential to create cumulative impacts 

on the specific resource being analyzed. Oil and gas development presents the highest likelihood for 

impacts within the planning area and in southwest Wyoming as a whole. Anticipated oil and gas projects 

within the planning area are encompassed by the oil and gas RFD for each BLM field office and Forest 

Service unit within the planning area. Mineral development and other actions that would create the 

potential for cumulative impacts are listed Table 4-108. The projects listed in this table are not presented 

as an exhaustive list of actions, but every effort has been made to present a representative list of actions 

that could contribute to cumulative impacts. 

Table 4-108. Summary of Other Activities Considered 

Project Title Project Description

Casper Field Office

ADMB Project 

This purpose of this project is to monitor causes of mortality and predation 

rates of Greater Sage-Grouse in the Bighorn Basin. The project will radio 

hens prior to nesting to locate nests and monitor using trail cameras. Project 

will also monitor habitat use by grouse. 

Bates Creek Juniper Treatment Reducing Juniper in sagebrush areas.

Bates Creek Watershed WUI Multi-year ongoing project in coordination with WGFD for sagebrush burning.

Cheatgrass Treatments for 

Natrona and Converse Counties 

EA (2011)

The project authorizes the use of up 8 ounce/acre of Imazapic to control 

cheatgrass on up to 100,000 acres annually to benefit sagebrush obligate 

wildlife, including the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Converse County Oil and Gas 

Exploration EAs for Spearhead 

Ranch, Highland Loop, and East 

Converse

These are for horizontal exploratory drilling and include hydraulic fracturing. 

A combined total of 111 well pads/ locations with a range of 111 to 444 wells 

from the following EAs:

Spearhead EA = 56 well pads/ locations with a range of 56 to 224 wells;

Highland EA = 37 well pads/ locations with a range of 37 to 148 wells; and 

East Converse EA = 18 well pads/ locations with a range of 18 to 72 wells.

Denbury CO2 Pipeline Project 

(EIS) (Casper, Pinedale, Rawlins, 

Rock Springs)

Denbury Green Pipeline – Riley Ridge, LLC (Denbury) has submitted rightsof-way applications to the BLM to construct and operate a CO2 pipeline 

system. One application is for approximately a 160 mile pipeline system 

ranging from 16-inch to 24-inch diameter CO2 pipeline from the Riley Ridge 

Treatment Plant located in Sublette County, Wyoming to the Bairoil 

Interconnect Facility in Fremont County, Wyoming. The second proposal is for 

approximately an 83 mile 24-inch diameter CO2 pipeline from the Bairoil 

Interconnect Facility to the Natrona Hub Interconnect Facility in Natrona 

County, Wyoming. At the Natrona Hub, the carbon dioxide will be transported 

through the Greencore Pipeline, authorized in 2011, to the Bell Creek Unit oil 

field in southeast Montana where it will be used for enhanced oil recovery. 

Approximately 85% of the proposed 243 mile combined rights-of-way crosses 

federal public lands managed by five Wyoming BLM Field Offices – Pinedale, 

Rock Springs, Lander, Rawlins and Casper Field Offices. 

Gateway West Transmission Line

(Casper, Kemmerer, Rawlins, 

Rock Springs) 

The overall Gateway West Transmission Line Project consists of the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of approximately 1,150 miles of 

high voltage, above-ground, alternating current power lines with a capacity of 

approximately 3,000 megawatts (MW). An EA was completed in 2010, and 

EIS in 2011.

Greencore CO2 Pipeline Project

CO2 Pipeline Project 92% co-located within existing Cabin Creek Corridor.

Begins in Eastern Fremont County and continues through Central Wyoming 

across state line into Montana (36% federal surface).
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-458 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Hornbuckle 1 and 2 Oil and Gas 

Field Environmental 

Assessments

The action consists of drilling a maximum of 192 additional wells on the 48 

well pads previously approved and evaluated in the original Hornbuckle EA. 

Under the Proposed Action, some of the existing 48 pads could be used to 

drill up to six horizontal wells per pad resulting in up to 192 additional wells. 

Moneta Divide EIS

Rawlins Field Office and Casper Field Office intend to prepare an EIS 

regarding the proposed Moneta Divide Natural Gas and Oil Development 

Project. Proponent energy development companies (the companies) propose 

to develop up to 4,250 natural gas and oil wells within the proposed Moneta 

Divide Natural Gas and Oil Development Project area. The proposed 

development project area is located in Fremont and Natrona counties and 

encompasses approximately 265,000 acres of land, of which 138,000 acres 

are public land administered by the Lander Field Office. Approximately 31,500 

acres of the project area are public lands administered by the Casper Field 

Office. 

Zephyr Power Line (Casper, 

Kemmerer, Rawlins) Chugwater to Las Vegas 500 kV Power line.

Kemmerer Field Office

Bridger to Opal Pipeline Project 30 inch natural gas pipeline; ROW grant issued in 2006.

Carbon Basin Coal Lease 

Projected surface mine life of 11 years with a production rate of initially 1.2 

million tons per year, reaching a maximum of 4.2 million tons per year with 

total reserves of 31.1 million tons. Underground mine life would occur 

simultaneously with surface mining, lasting for about 17 years with an 

average reasonably foreseeable production of 6.6 million tons per year. Total 

underground mining production would be 118 million tons. Projected 

reasonably foreseeable surface disturbance would be 288 acres per year for 

a total of 4,896 acres of surface disturbance throughout the life of the mine. 

Total mine life for both surface and underground mining is expected to be 20 

years.

Coal Creek Riparian 

Enhancement Project

Kemmerer Field Office initiated an EA for a project to reduce sediment 

loading from Coal Creek Road (BLM Rd 4216). The project is located in 

Lincoln County near Cokeville, WY. Eleven locations along Coal Creek have 

been identified for stream/riparian enhancements and sediment /erosion 

control.

Commissary Ridge Whitebark 

Pine Sanitation and Thinning

Remove infested whitebark pine in approximately 250 acres on Commissary 

Ridge (Lincoln County, WY). This will also reduce the number of subalpine fir 

trees in the area.

Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) for the Cokeville 

Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge

USFWS is developing a CCP for the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

CCP for the Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge Completed in 2002.

Dawson Uinta County 3D 

Seismic Project

This project is proposed to encompass approx. 61,320 acres of BLM lands 

that would include both Rock Springs Field Office and Kemmerer Field Office 

with the majority of lands falling into the Kemmerer Field Office boundary. 

There would be approx. 3,240 acres of National Forest System Lands and 

35,280 private lands within the project area. The project is located South of 

Mountain View, WY. Vibe trucks, buggies and shot holes would be used to 

conduct this project. The EA is in process through a third party contractor. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-459

Project Title Project Description

Haystack Coal (State and

Private)

Haystack Coal Company (HCC) plans to construct and operate a surface coal 

mine in northern Uinta County. It will be located 20 miles south of Kemmerer; 

two miles west of US Hwy 189 and eight miles north of I-80. The site is known 

to contain an estimated 70 million tons of surface coal. The coal pit area will 

include a coal preparation plant and an over-the-road truck load out and shop 

facility. HCC plans to produce to up to 3 million tons of coal per year. The life 

expectancy of the mine is estimated at 25 to 30 years.

Haystacks Geophysical Project Geophysical operations in the Haystacks area. The project has been 

completed.

Livestock Trailing EA- South Trail 

Network

Kemmerer Field Office has initiated an EA to assess the impacts of livestock 

trailing and establish a process for issuing trailing permits for the south trails. 

The South Trail network is located south of interstate 80 to the Utah border. 

Miller Mountain (Thrash) 

Exchange (EA) (Kemmerer, 

Pinedale, Rock Springs)

Proposed land exchange for parcels in Pinedale Field Office, Kemmerer Field 

Office, and Rock Springs Field Office with private lands.

Moxa Arch Infill Drilling Project

Proposal to drill 1,861 wells from 1,861 well pads to supplement existing 

production in the Project Area. The Operators anticipate drilling infill wells to 

the Frontier and Dakota Formations at densities ranging from 4 to 12 well 

pads per section in the proven production area and approximately 2 well pads 

per section in the flank area. Wells would be drilled conventionally (i.e., with 

vertical well bores from individual well pads). All proposed wells would be 

drilled during an approximate 10-year period after project approval. Although 

actual operations are subject to change as conditions warrant, the Operators’ 

long-term development plan is to drill approximately 186 wells per year until 

the resource base is fully developed. The average life expectancy of a well is 

anticipated to be 40 years. 

Overland Pass Pipeline Project 

(Kemmerer and Rock Springs)

Project will construct and operate a 760-mile pipeline to transport natural gas 

liquids from Opal, Wyoming to Conway, Kansas. Project completed in 2008.

Ruby Pipeline Project

675.2 miles of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline, along with associated 

compression and measurement facilities, located between Opal, Wyoming 

and Malin, Oregon. The EIS was completed in 2010.

Ryckman Creek Storage Field 

Project

Ryckman Creek Resources, LLC (Ryckman) proposes to convert an existing 

partially depleted oil field, known as the Ryckman Creek (Nugget) Unit (Unit), 

into a new interstate natural gas storage field. Ryckman is seeking certificate 

authority to develop, construct, own, operate and maintain the Project 

approximately 15 miles northeast of Evanston in Uinta County, Wyoming. 

Tokewanna Timber Sale

Salvage/sanitation harvest of the dead and dying lodgepole pine trees, a 

reduction of conifer encroachment in intermingled aspen stands, a 

commercial thinning of the intermediate-aged lodgepole pine stands, and a 

pre-commercial thinning of 20 year old stands of young lodgepole pine on 

approximately 373 acres in Sections 4 and 10, T. 12 N., R. 117 W. Uinta 

County, Wyoming adjacent to the wildland urban interface Tokewana Estates 

summer home area.

Trailing for South Trail in 

Kemmerer Field Office (EA)

In September 2012, the Kemmerer Field Office decided to move forward with 

an EA for Livestock trailing for the southern half of the field office, the South 

Trail complex.

USFWS Cokeville Meadows 

Withdrawal/Transfer

The USFWS has submitted a petition/application for a withdrawal and transfer 

of jurisdiction of public lands located within the boundary of the Cokeville 

Meadows NWR.

Williams Uinta to Opal Pipeline 

Project

Proposed 20-24 inch diameter, 240 mile natural gas pipeline from Uinta 

County, UT to Lincoln County Wyoming. The NEPA analysis has not been 

initiated. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-460 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Newcastle Field Office

Teckla-Osage Transmission Line

A 240 kV overhead power line coming west from Rapid City, SD to Osage, 

WY. The line will cross through the Newcastle core area but not on federal 

lands. Black Hills, NF is lead for the EIS. DDCT calculations show project 

under acreage and density guidelines.

Thunderbird Oil and Gas 

Transmission Pipeline

A 12 inch pipeline from Alzada, MT to Hulett, WY that will essentially follow an 

existing corridor. A portion of the line will cross through defined sage-grouse 

connectivity habitat in Crook County. Montana BLM is the lead agency.

Pinedale Field Office

“AccessYes” walk-in areas and 

hunter management areas 

(WGFD)

Private acreage listed under the walk-in program is increasing and often 

provides access to enclosed BLM lands, as well as the private lands that are 

enrolled in the program.

Anticline Electrification Phase I

The proposed project consists of approximately 16 miles of double circuit 25 

kV distribution line and eight miles of other distribution lines. Located in the 

Pinedale Anticline from Gobblers Knob area down to Falcon Compressor area 

(DA’s 2, 3, 4, and 5). 

Aspen treatments

Project includes restoration of aspen communities, which will improve 

diversity and complexity of watersheds and provide a healthy environment for 

those dependent resources.

Boulder Landscape Plan

Project would include renewal of livestock grazing permits on 18 allotments 

covering 72,000 acres of public lands. Most of the Boulder landscape is 

located with sage-grouse Core Habitat Areas (90%). The landscape plan will 

consider wildlife habitat needs, including sage-grouse, as terms and 

conditions for livestock grazing permits are developed. No projects are 

currently included in the landscape plan.

Boulder South Communication 

Site

Project includes 150-foot cellular communication tower with 3 buildings. 

Located south of Boulder, just west of Highway 191. Project construction was 

planned to start in July 2011.

Boulder West Communication 

Site 

Proposed project; construction would not start until the Boulder South and 

Daniel Communication Sites are completed. Project includes 80-foot tower 

and 2 buildings. Located off Sublette County Paradise Road.

CCP for the National Elk Refuge

USFWS is developing a CCP for the National Elk Refuge on the north side of 

Jackson, Wyoming. The 25,000-acre refuge includes nearly 1,600 acres of 

open water and marsh lands, 47 different mammals, and nearly 175 species 

of birds. 

Countywide transportation 

development

Planning, development, reconstruction, and maintenance of the county road 

net in two counties in the planning area.

Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(CRCT) conservation population 

maintenance and enhancement 

project

Project includes the maintenance or restoration of watersheds, the spatial and 

temporal connectivity within and between watersheds, water quality or 

groundwater, and sediment regimes and transport.

CRCT passage and road 

drainage features

Project includes the reconstruction or removal of roads and drainages that 

pose risk to aquatic habitats, removal of culvert barriers, and removal of 

stream channel crossings.

Daniel Communication Site

Project includes 150-foot cellular communication tower with 3 buildings. 

Located just south of Ryegrass Road and approximately 2 miles west of 

highway 189. Construction was expected to start in the Fall of 2011.

Habitat Extension Services 

(WGFD) Habitat treatments on private lands to benefit wildlife.

Jonah Cryogenic Plant Cryogenic plant at terminus of the Jonah Field gas-gathering system.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-461

Project Title Project Description

Jonah 3D Geophysical Project The Jonah 3D Seismic Survey project area is approximately 170 square miles 

(108,356 acres)

LaBarge Platform Exploration 

and Development (EIS)

The Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices are developing an EIS for the La 

Barge Platform Project for 838 new natural gas and oil wells from 463 new 

well pads (vertical and horizontal) over a 40-year project life span. Drilling 

expected to occur over a 10-year period in the Upper Green River Basin, in 

Sublette and Lincoln counties in western Wyoming. The project area consists 

of 218,000 acres of federal, state, and private lands. The area is one of the 

oldest oil and gas fields in the region, dating back roughly 100 years.

Miller Mountain Wind Project Wind project; Type III status in 2011. On hold due to location within sagegrouse core habitat.

Native Fish Restoration (WGFD) Restore native fish to traditional waterways on private, state, or WGFD lands.

PacifiCorp Point of Rocks to 

Rock Springs Transmission 

Power line Project

The project is completed.

Paradise 230KV Power line 

project

ROW grants for a 230 kV transmission line, a 69 kV transmission line, and 

two 8-acre substations to be located north of Paradise Road and south of the 

Jonah Gas Field. The EA was completed in 2009.

Paradise to Bird Pipeline Project The ROW is pending. Pinedale Field Office lead.

Paradise North Distribution 

Power Line

Proposed 25kV single circuit power line from the Paradise substation to 

Shell’s North Liquids Gathering Facility. Construction was planned for late 

summer/early fall 2011.

Quantum Geophysical Project The project is completed.

Range-wide Three Species 

Conservation Agreement and 

Strategy

In progress. This plan will include the protection of habitat and populations of 

flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chubs. Activities will be 

outlined in the plan that will decrease impacts from federal and state 

management actions.

Rendezvous Phase VI Pipeline 

Project

Proposal to construct and operate the Rendezvous VI Pipeline, the Mesa 

Loop Pipeline, and ancillary facilities. The proposal would allow for 

transportation of natural gas from the Pinedale Anticline Project Area (PAPA) 

to markets in southwest Wyoming. The EA was completed in 2008.

Rock Creek riparian exclosures 

and habitat improvements

In progress. Designed to enhance riparian habitat and water quality in the 

Rock Creek corridor, which contains a CRCT core conservation population.

Sage-grouse Conservation Plans Prepared plans for recovery of the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Sublette Mule Deer Project (EA)

In response to declining mule deer numbers on the Pinedale Anticline and 

related ROD direction, is a series of habitat treatments to improve the quality 

and quantity of forage to enhance mule deer survival on and adjacent to the 

Anticline. Forecasted start date, September 1, 2013.

Warren Bridge Fish Habitat 

Structures

Completed/ongoing maintenance of instream structures that provide habitat 

for sport fish and native nongame fish species.

WY Range Mule deer project 

(EA)

The Wyoming Range Mule Deer Habitat Project entails 40,000 acres of 

rangeland treatments in crucial winter and transition mule deer habitat. This 

effort was proposed to the BLM Pinedale Field Office in February 2012 in 

response to the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Initiative. Ten thousand acres are 

in the Rock Springs Field Office so the ID team includes specialists from both 

offices. 

Rawlins Field Office

Adobe Town Salt Wells Wild 

Horse Gather (Rawlins and Rock 

Springs)

Gathering and removal of excess wild horses from the Adobe Town and Salt 

Wells HMAs; completed in 2010.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-462 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Catalina PODs G and I

The Double Eagle Petroleum Company proposed 48 coal bed natural gas 

wells and three injection wells across 4,242 acres of federal, state and private 

lands within boundaries of Atlantic Rim Project Area. Proposal also included 

new roads, pipelines and utilities. Portions of the project within crucial winter 

range for pronghorn antelope and mule deer.

Chokecherry/Sierra Madre EIS

The Power Company of Wyoming proposes 1,000 2-3 MW wind turbines, 

access roads, transmission lines and associated infrastructure across 

approximately 215,000 acres, including 100,000 acres of public land. Obama 

administration Priority Project to diversify the nation’s energy portfolio in an 

environmentally responsible manner, in addition to being sited in an area that 

minimizes impacts to the environment. EIS volume I is the VRM planning 

amendment; volume II is the project analysis volume.

Continental Divide-Creston (CDC) Natural Gas Development 

(EIS)

BP America Production Company main proponent, with 20 associated 

companies. Scoping was conducted in 2006. Proposed 8,950 wells across 1.1 

million acres of mixed federal, state and private land ownership. The project 

overlaps an area that has been producing oil and gas for decades.

Dead Ox Exclosure

The exclosure is designed to protect and enhance riparian plant communities 

and fishery habitats within an area in which sheep-to-cattle conversions 

occurred. The categorical exclusion (CX) was completed in 2011.

Desolation Flats Natural Gas 

Field Development Project 

(Rawlins and Rock Springs)

Conduct exploratory drilling and development of up to 592 wells during the 

next 20 years within the area known as Desolation Flats. The Desolation Flats 

Natural Gas Field Development Project area is approximately 233,542 acres 

and is located within the administrative jurisdictions of the BLM Rawlins and 

Rock Springs Field Offices in Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, south of 

Wamsutter, Wyoming. The EA was completed in 2003.

DKRW/Medicine Bow (EIS)

The Proponent is Medicine Bow Fuel and Power LLC. The Coal Gasification 

and Liquefaction process involves both coal mining (3.5 million tons yearly) 

and production of petroleum products from the coal, including gasoline 

(anticipated at 889,686 gallons per day). Originally filed with the Department 

of Energy (DOE) in 2005 to attempt to secure financing for the project, with 

DOE as lead agency. NOI for preparation of the EIS published by DOE in the 

Federal Register on November 27, 2009. DEIS prepared in March 2011, but 

not released for public comment. Proponent asked BLM to be lead agency in 

2013 and will prepare a new DEIS to reflect a new purpose and need for 

BLM.

Gateway South Power line 

Project 

500 kV alternating current overhead transmission line; 

250 foot right-of-way width; 400+ miles long. EIS currently being prepared.

Hay Reservoir 3D Geophysical 

Project (Rawlins and Rock 

Springs)

The project is a 3D seismic operation on public lands in the Rock Springs and 

Rawlins Field Offices. The revised project area covers 279 square miles. The 

project is approximately 24 miles by 19 miles and covers approximately 

178,560 acres. The EA was completed in 2003.

Hogback Ridge (Whirlwind 1) 

Wind Energy Project (EIS)

Whirlwind, LLC proposes to construct a wind energy facility consisting of 200-

300, up to 2.75 MW wind turbines, with a goal of producing 450-700 MW of 

electricity on 50,000 acres of land, including 28,000 acres of BLMadministered land, southwest of Rawlins. The project area is located just west 

of the Chokecherry/Sierra Madre wind project. A Cost Recovery Agreement 

has been signed by the proponent. The proponent chose an area southwest 

of Rawlins, WY as a primary site, based on wind potential, access to energy 

corridors, Interstate 80 and the railroad. 

Lost Creek Uranium In Situ 

Recovery (EIS)

Proposed project area of approximately 4,250 acres. No more than 324 acres 

would be subject to actual surface disturbance. Operations and startup/closure will take an estimated 12 years total.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-463

Project Title Project Description

Lower Bush Creek Coalbed 

Methane Exploratory Pilot Project

The proposal involves drilling and testing commercial CBNG production 

potential of the Big Red Coal with two pods of 10 exploratory wells on 160-

acre spacing. The EA was completed in 2003.

North Platte River Recreation 

Area Management Plan (EA)

A draft of the North Platte River Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) 

is currently being authored and is considering opportunities for action such as 

road improvements to access additional boat launches, boat ramp 

improvements, improvements of existing campsites, construction of a new 

boat-in campground, and maintenance and resurfacing of existing access 

roads. Recent public and agency meetings held in November and December 

of 2012 have generated strong support for the current proposed actions. The 

BLM has gained broad consensus from outfitters, interested 

agencies/municipalities, the general public, and internal specialists in 

establishing interest for which opportunities to pursue as proposed actions. 

The draft RAMP EA includes a set of Proposed Actions that are supported by 

the ID team and management. These Proposed Actions and a set of 

alternatives are currently being analyzed with an EA and other supplementary 

NEPA documents.

Northern 

Endurance/Barricade/Samson 

Road (EA)

Samson Resources Company and Mountain Gas Resources, LLC have 

notified the Rawlins Field Office, BLM of their desire to obtain a BLM ROW 

grant to construct a new access road, install one 16” and one 20” pipeline 

along the access road, construct two new compressor stations and install a 

high and low pressure loop pipeline in the Desolation Flats EIS project area, 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming.

Overland Pass Pipeline Project Project will construct and operate a 760-mile pipeline to transport natural gas 

liquids from Opal, Wyoming to Conway, Kansas. Project completed in 2008.

RMP/Visual Resource 

Management Amendment (EA)

VRM class decisions in the Rawlins RMP were remanded. Incorporates new 

VRM class decisions based on a new 2010 visual resource quality inventory. 

Approximately 3.5 million acres of public land surface and 4.5 million acres of 

federal mineral estate in Laramie, Albany, Carbon and eastern Sweetwater 

counties. Chokecherry/Sierra Madre Wind Energy Development Project VRM 

(742,000 acres) excluded.

Sand Hills/JO Ranch ACEC (EA)

The Rawlins Field Office is currently drafting a management plan for the Sand 

Hills/JO Ranch ACEC. The purpose of the plan is to protect the unique 

vegetation complex, wildlife habitat values, and recreational opportunities of 

the ACEC as well as the cultural values of the historic JO Ranch property.

Sand Hills Wind Farm (EA)

Removed from the national priority project list in Spring, 2012. Is working with 

Game and Fish and Fish and Wildlife to get enough data to prepare their 

ABPP. Expected to complete data collection by Winter, 2013. Has changed 

project managers.

Table Rock EA (Rawlins and 

Rock Springs)

The proposed project involves development of up to 88 wells over 14 years: 

33 shallow oil wells, 20 deep gas wells, and up to 35 water injection wells. 

Development of the EA is ongoing.

Trailing (EA) Trailing NEPA, one for all cattle trailing and five specific analysis for sheep 

trailing areas.

Transwest Express Power line 

Project

600 kV direct current overhead transmission line, 700+ miles long. EIS has 

been initiated. 

Upper Muddy Creek/Grizzly 

ACEC (EA)

The Rawlins Field Office is currently drafting the background, existing 

situation sections for the Upper Muddy Creek watershed SMA, with objectives 

and planned actions the next sections to write. 

Rock Springs Field Office

Baxter Natural Gas Exploratory 

Proposal EA

This is a proposal to drill two wells in the Little Mountain Area. The EA was 

completed in 2008 with one well drilled and one withdrawn.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-464 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Big Ridge Drift Fence

Project proposes to build a 4.9-mile fence constructed on Big Ridge on the 

south-west side of the Currant Creek drainage to stop cattle from drifting into 

Janes Meadow SUP and to facilitate rest from livestock grazing. The EA was 

completed in 2011.

Big Sandy and Little Sandy 

Rivers riparian exclosures

Designed to enhance riparian plant communities and fishery habitats as 

mitigation for sheep-to-cattle conversions.

Big Sandy Rock Sill Provides artificial habitat for increasing fish populations in the Big Sandy 

River.

Bird Canyon Field Natural Gas 

Development (EIS)

Crown Energy and Koch Exploration Company are proposing new 

development in the existing Bird Canyon Field. Development consists of up to 

371 new wells (234-Crown, 137-Koch) over 6-12 years with associated road 

development. The proposal is currently being revised.

Bitter Creek Shallow Oil and Gas 

Project

The project proposes to drill a maximum of 61 wells with an estimated 326 

acres of total surface disturbance. The total project area encompasses 

approximately 17,961 acres: 11,768 acres are federal surface and minerals 

and 6,193 acres are private surface and minerals. The EA was completed in 

2005.

Black Butte Coal Pit Expansion The EA was completed in 2010. An application was not received for additional 

expansion of Pit 15.

BLM Wild Horse Gathers BLM wild horse gathers from habitat management areas (HMA) in adjacent 

BLM offices.

Bone Draw Designed to increase game fish populations in the Big Sandy River.

Bridger Coal Lease Modification The lease was modified in 2010 to include 560 additional acres. 

Big Firehole Canyon Fuel 

Treatment Project The project proposes to conduct fuel treatments on 400 acres.

Browns Spring Fuel Treatment 

Project The project conducted fuel treatments on 250 acres in 2011.

Copper Ridge Shallow Gas 

Exploration and Development 

Pilot Project

The proposal involves drilling, completing, and operating a maximum of 89 

shallow gas wells and related production and water disposal facilities in the 

Copper Ridge Project Area. The project area includes a total of 24,953 acres. 

The CRPA overlies an area already developed by two existing oil and gas 

projects; the Brady and the Jackknife Springs Fields. The EA was completed 

in 2003.

Delaney Rim Wind Project Wind project; Type II status in 2011.

Desolation Road Exploratory Gas 

Project

The project involves construction of an access road to two proposed well 

sites, one on federal land and one on private land. EA in 2011.

Dickie Springs Placer Gold 

Exploration Project 

The project proposes placer gold exploration activities on existing mining 

claims in the Dickie Springs area located within the administrative boundary of 

the BLM field office. The EA was completed in 2005.

Eden/Farson Irrigation Project

Furnishes an irrigation water supply for 17,010 acres in the vicinity of the 

towns of Farson and Eden in southwestern Wyoming. Project features include 

improvements to and maintenance of the reservoirs and drainage systems.

FMC Grange Optimization 

Project Enhance solution mining capabilities at FMC Granger.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-465

Project Title Project Description

FMC’s Proposed Haul Road

Proposed project consisting of a paved haul road, six pipelines, and one fiberoptic line from FMC’s Westvaco mine/plant site to its Granger plant site. FMC

is requesting a 400-foot wide corridor for construction, with 200-foot wide 

segments during operations with certain exceptions (i.e., cut and fill areas), 

and two bridges (to cross over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and the 

Black's Fork River).

Great Divide Basin Wild Horse 

Gather

Gathering and removal of excess wild horses from the Divide Basin HMA; 

planned for 2011.

Green River RMP

Comprehensive land use plan focuses on similar resource issues and 

management to the south of the planning area. Green River RMP manages 

portions of the Pinedale planning area CIAAs for air, cultural, forestry, 

recreation, vegetation, VRM, watersheds, and wildlife management.

Henry’s Fork Colorado River 

Salinity Project

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has developed this plan and 

EIS to reduce 6,540 tons of annual salt loading to the Colorado River system 

by implementing conservation practices in the upper Henrys Fork project 

area.

Hiawatha EIS

The Operators propose to drill as many as 4,208 new wells within the Project 

Area, which represents a full development scenario. Development of the EIS 

is ongoing.

HLI South Farson Area Water 

Well Project

Involves projects that enhance multiple uses of natural resources, including 

livestock grazing, farming, recreation, oil and gas production, historic values, 

and wildlife habitat within the defined area

Horseshoe Basin 3D Seismic 

Project

A proposal to operate a combined heli-portable shothole/dynamite (60%) and 

vibroseis (40%) 3D seismic survey in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The 

outside perimeter of the proposed survey area encompasses about 30 square 

miles (18,784 acres) including 28 square miles (17,894 acres) of BLMadministered land, 0.07 square miles (44.80 acres) of state land, and 1.32 

square miles (844.80 acres) of private land. Completed in 2008.

Industrial Plant shut downs and 

overhauls

On a yearly basis, many of the Industrial Plants shut down a portion of their 

operations for overhauls. These shuts downs collectively can bring annually 

hundreds of workers into the County.

Jim Bridger Flue Pond Expansion 

Project The project is completed.

Jim Bridger Power Plant Retrofits to power plant units to accommodate EPA Haze rules

Jim Bridger Power Plant 3D 

Seismic Project

The proposed action is to conduct three-dimensional (3-D) and 

electromagnetic (EM) geophysical exploration in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming. The project area covers approximately 39,588 acres of federal, 

state, and private land. Completed in 2010.

Jim Bridger South Wind Project Wind project; Type II status in 2011.

Kinney Rim Wind Project Wind project; Type II status in 2011.

LaBarge Platform Exploration 

and Development (EIS)

Pinedale and Rock Springs Field Offices developing an EIS for the La Barge 

Platform Project for 838 new natural gas and oil wells from 463 new well pads 

(vertical and horizontal) over a 40-year project life span. Drilling expected to 

occur over a 10-year period in the Upper Green River Basin, in Sublette and 

Lincoln counties in western Wyoming. The project area consists of 218,000 

acres of federal, state, and private lands. The area is one of the oldest oil and 

gas fields in the region, dating back roughly 100 years.

Leucite Hills Samson Project This project involves a preliminary proposal from Samson to drill 25 wells

within the project boundary. The EA has not been initiated. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-466 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Little Monument Natural Gas 

Project

Burlington proposes to drill, complete, and produce approximately 31 

additional wells at 8 or more wells per section within the LMPA over the next 3 

years. The EA was completed in 2004.

Little Red Creek Fuel Treatment 

Project The project conducted 400 acres of fuel treatments in 2010.

Lonesome Bronco Wind Project Construction of 89 wind turbines. POD not received. Type II status in 2011.

Luman Rim EA

The proposed action is to drill 58 additional natural gas wells in the Luman 

Rim area of north central Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The EA was 

completed in 12/2010.

Marianne 3D Seismic Project

The project conducted three-dimensional (3D) geophysical exploration in the 

Horsethief Canyon and Bitter Creek area (Marianne 3-D Project) on federal, 

state, and private lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The project area 

covers approximately 59.37 square miles or slightly less than 38,000 acres. 

The EA and the project were completed in 2009.

Monell Arch Development (EA)

Proposal submitted by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to infill drill additional 

oil and gas wells in the Monell and Arch Units to facilitate product extraction, 

maximize the economic recovery of the resource, and extend the production 

life of the units. The Monell Arch area is located in southwestern Wyoming, 

and is comprised of 22,657 acres of mixed federal, state and private surface 

lands and 22,658 acres of mixed federal and state mineral lands in 

Sweetwater County. The operator has proposed approximately 105 new oil 

wells, 18 CO2 injector wells and two water injection wells that would be drilled 

within the project area.

Monell CO2 Pipeline Project

Proposed 32.7-mile Monell CO2 Pipeline. The purpose of the proposed 

pipeline is to transport CO2 gas from an existing valve terminal that is part of 

the Exxon/Mobil Shute Creek CO2 Distribution Pipeline System to the existing 

Monell Federal Unit Oil Field (Monell Field) and inject it to liberate some of the 

remaining oil resources from the existing oil field for tertiary recovery. The EA 

was completed in 2003.

Monell Enhanced Oil Recovery 

Project

Anadarko proposes to drill a maximum of 126 wells. The EA was completed in 

2005. Drilling began in 2006 and was planned for approximately three to six 

years.

National High School Rodeo Rock Springs Event Complex July 2013, 2014, 2015, potential increase in 

demand for motel rooms and R.V. spaces.

North Dutch John 2D Seismic 

Project

Geophysical operations consisting of a 2D seismic survey for oil and gas 

resources in the BLM Rock Springs Field Office was proposed by Azalea Oil 

Company, LLC (Azalea). The survey would consist of three seismic lines 

totaling 10.5 linear miles. The EA was approved in 2010; the project has not 

been completed.

NPL (Normally Pressured Lance) 

Project

The NPL Project Area, located about 68 miles northwest of Rock Springs, 

Wyoming, covers approximately 141,000 acres administered by the BLM 

Pinedale Field Office and Rock Springs Field Office. For all project 

components, the estimated total initial surface disturbance is estimated to be 

about 6,625 acres, or 4.7% of the NPL surface acreage. Up to 3,500 new 

wells would be drilled over a ten-year period starting in March 2013 at an 

average rate of up to 350 wells per year. 

Outside of the sage-grouse Core Area, drilling would occur on an average of 

four centralized, multi-well pads per section. Inside the sage-grouse Core 

Area, drilling would take place from one multi-well pad per 640-acre area (not 

section). Each multi-well drilling and completion pad would encompass up to 

approximately 18 acres per location and would support between 1 and 64 

wells.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-467

Project Title Project Description

Pacific Rim Shallow Gas 

Exploration and Development 

Project 

Project proposes to drill a maximum of 120 wells. The EA was completed in 

2004.

Pine Mountain Wind Project Wind project; Type II status in 2011.

Pit 14 Coal Lease 1,399 acres leased for coal development. The EIS was completed in 2007.

Puma Deep Prospect Area Gas 

Development Project

Davis Petroleum Corporation proposes to construct, drill, and complete 10 

wells in addition to the five already existing wells on the 8,800-acre federallyadministered minerals. The EA was completed in 2009.

OCI Railspur Proposed Railroad route. The NEPA analysis was completed in 2010.

Overland Intertie Power line 550 mile overhead high voltage power line proposal; construction planned to 

be completed by 2014. The NEPA analysis has not been initiated. 

Overthrust Loop Pipeline Project Line in service in 2010.

Overthrust Wamsutter Expansion 

Pipeline Project

Overthrust is proposing to install approximately 77.2 miles of new 36-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline facilities, two compressor stations, two receipt 

points, one delivery point, and three block valves, located within Lincoln and 

Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. The NEPA analysis was started in 2007.

Quantum Adobe Town 2D 

Geophysical Project

Conduct 2D geophysical operations along a 6.82-mile line. The EA was 

completed in 2002.

Rock Springs RMP Revision 

(EIS)

Revise Green River RMP; begin Comprehensive Transportation and Travel 

Management (CTTM) Plan to be incorporated into the RMP. Projected public 

release of Approved RMP/ROD: 2/12/2016

Rubicon 3D Seismic Project

The project conducted geophysical exploration operations consisting of heliportable 3D seismic surveys for oil and gas resources. The EA was 

completed in 2008 and the project has been partially completed.

Simplot Power line Mechanical 

Fuel Reduction Project

The project conducted mechanical fuel reduction efforts on 18 acres for power 

lines planned for 2010 and 2011.

Simplot - Reliability Project Expansion to increase plant capacity.

Simpson’s Gulch 3D Vibroseis 

Project

Vibroseis 3D geophysical project, covering 107 square miles in Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming. The EA was completed in 2004.

South Jonah 3D Vibroseis 

Project

The application covered 410 square miles in Sweetwater and Sublette 

Counties, Wyoming. The EA was completed in 2002.

Sweeney Ranch Wind Project 

The project involves constructing a wind development project with a maximum 

of 119 wind turbine generators within the Rock Springs Field Office boundary. 

Wildlife surveys were initiated in 2010/2011.

Sweetwater Wind Project Wind project; Type II status in 2011.

Ten Mile Rim Coal Lease Coal lease on the Ten Mile Rim Tract (WYW-154595); includes 2,242.18 

acres of federal coal lands. The EA was completed in 2004.

Tommy James Basin Sand and 

Gravel Sale

The proposed action would authorize the sale of 150,000 tons of sand and 

gravel from an area of approximately 10 acres including access in the Tommy 

James Basin of Sweetwater County. The EA was completed in 2008.

Vermillion Basin Natural Gas 

Exploratory and Development 

Project

Proposal to drill up to 56 natural gas wells in and around three existing, 

producing oil and gas units (Trail, Kinney Rim, and Canyon Creek). The EA 

was completed in 2002.

West Flank (Wild Bunch) 3D 

Geophysical Exploration Project

3D geophysical project, known as the West Flank (Wild Bunch) 3-D Vibroseis 

Project, covering 211 square miles in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The EA 

was completed in 2004.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-468 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

White Mountain Little Colorado 

Wild Horse Gather

Gathering and removal of excess wild horses from the White Mountain Little 

Colorado HMAs; planned for 2011.

White Mountain/Teton Wind 

Project

Construction of up to 240 turbines on White Mountain just northwest of Rock 

Springs. The project area encompasses approximately 13,165 acres, 

including 4,398 BLM-administered acres. The EA was nearly completed in 

2011; waiting on USFWS and Avian Protection Plan. Type III status in 2011.

Teton Wind Energy has proposed a commercial wind energy facility to be built 

on White Mountain. A revised proposal will consist of 52 turbines, access 

roads, gathering lines, transmission line and O and D Building. A revised final 

POD has not been submitted.

Bridger-Teton National Forest

Authorization to use wheeled, 

motorized vehicles year-round on 

Fall Creek Road - Triple R 

Ranch, LLC CE

Triple R Ranch, LLC is proposing to drive wheeled, motorized vehicles yearround on Fall Creek Road from Red Top Meadows (Forest Service#31000) to 

their ranch to reach private property. They are also requesting to plow the 

road and do routine maintenance.

Continental Divide Trail 

Reconstruction - Leeds Creek 

Project CE

Relocation, realignment, and reconstruction of approximately 5 miles of 

existing non-motorized Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

Desert Homestead Road 

Easement & Water Development 

Authorization CE

Road easement authorization for Desert Homestead Road and Ditch 

Association (4 private inholdings) located 4 mi. northwest of Lower Green 

River Lake. Special use permit authorization for existing headgate, ditch, and

above-ground pipe within Osborn Ditch1.

Dime and Mystery Lakes 

Fisheries Project EA

Authorize Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. to use rotenone to remove 

introduced trout species from Dime Lake and Mystery Lake in the Teton 

Wilderness.

Exxon/Mobil Lake Ridge Well EA Authorize a Surface Use Plan of Operation to drill one natural gas exploratory 

well on an existing unit and lease.

Exxon/Mobil North Lake Ridge 

Unit, Exploration Well No. 1-34 

EA

Authorize a Surface Use Plan of operations to drill one natural gas exploratory 

well on an existing unit and lease.

Fish Creek Stabilization and 

Wildlife Enhancement Project EA

The project would enhance moose, big game, sage-grouse and wetland 

habitats above the confluence of Fish Creek and Gros Ventre River. The 

project could also create trumpeter swan habitat.

Fontenelle Fire Fence 

Reconstruction Project CE

Reconstruction of about 15 miles of the boundary and pasture fence that were 

damaged in the 2012 Fontenelle Fire. Trees that pose a safety threat or are 

susceptible to falling on the fence would be cut.

Fontenelle Fire Timber Salvage 

EA

Harvesting fire killed trees on approximately 1,200 acres from the Fontenelle 

fire of 2012 and opening two gravel pits for road surfacing material.

Green River Corridor- Recreation 

and Watershed Enhancement 

Project EA

Inventory, development and implementation of a management plan to 

address resource concerns regarding dispersed recreation use and roaded 

access within the Green River corridor; including camping restrictions and 

travel management updates.

Grouse Mountain Area 

Vegetation Management EA

Thinning competing trees and/or prescribed fire to investigate enhancement 

of whitebark pine survival and regeneration on 400 acres within the upper 

Spread Creek drainage.

Hams Fork Vegetation EA

Proposed project addresses hazardous fuels; safety hazards associated with 

standing dead trees; the vitality of aspen, whitebark pine and lodgepole pine; 

and recovery of merchantable value of beetle-killed timber.

Hobble Creek Road Crossing CE

The Kemmerer Ranger District proposes to replace an existing ford with a 

bridge on Hobble Creek and install fish-friendly bank stability structures 

upstream to protect the newly built road structure.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-469

Project Title Project Description

Kemmerer Grazing and 

Rangeland Vegetation 

Management EIS

Authorization of grazing on 16 sheep allotments - Porcupine, Lower Salt, 

Buckskin Knoll, Lake Alice, Smiths Fork, Aspen Springs, Basin Creek, Devil's 

Hole, Elk Creek, Green Knoll, Indian Creek, Lake Mountain, Pole Creek, 

Sams Allen Creek, So Fontenelle, Spruce Creek

Labarge Vegetation Restoration 

EA

Combination of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire to restore conifer 

encroached aspen stands, restore white bark pine stands, and salvage bugkilled timber. The 2012 Fontenelle Fire burned within the project area. 

Conditions are being assessed

Lower Valley Energy - Lot 86 –

Power line Burial CE

Burial of 68' of power line to bring power from National Forest System Lands

to private property. A trench that is 68' long, 24" wide and 42" deep will be 

dug to bury the line. A vault will be installed on National Forest System Lands

to carry the power from an existing primary conductor.

Oil and Gas Leasing Decision --

44,720 Acres in the Wyoming 

Range -- Supplemental Analysis 

EIS

The January 2011 decision not to authorize BLM to lease the acres at this 

time has been withdrawn to allow further analysis and consideration. 

Supplemental analysis and decision expected in late 2013.

Pinyon Osborn Vegetation 

Treatments EA

Mechanical and prescribed fire treatments to reduce and restore shrub, aspen 

and conifer fuels along the Upper Green River Corridor. This decision was 

reversed on appeal. Currently collecting data in preparation for analysis.

Proposal to Authorize a Relay 

Race for Epic Relays on National 

Forest System Lands for 5 years 

CE

Epic Relays would like to hold a running relay race for up to 100 teams on the 

2nd Saturday in August along the Snake River Canyon from Alpine, WY to 

Fall Creek Rd and then along Fall Creek Rd for approximately 9 miles.

Reauthorization and 

Management of Cattle Grazing 

on the Little Greys Allotment EA

The September 2009 decision to reauthorize livestock grazing on the 

allotment was reversed on appeal.

Sherman Cattle and Horse 

Grazing Allotment EIS

Reauthorization of livestock grazing on approximately 17,370 ac. This project 

was originally to be analyzed under an EA; however, recent grizzly bear 

activity in the area is a potentially significant issue. This project will be 

analyzed in an EIS.

Skyline Trail/Putt Extension Trail 

Construction, Greater Snow King 

Area EA

Construct approx. 7 miles of trail on Snow King ridge and in the Cache Creek 

drainage for non-motorized trail use to create new loops and replace usercreated trails. A new plan is being developed and so additional scoping will 

occur in January 2013.

Snake River Headwaters Wild 

and Scenic Comprehensive River 

Management Plan (CRMP) EA

A Plan to describe Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORV); define River 

Corridor Boundaries; create Goals, Desired Future Conditions, Standards and

Guidelines; amend Forest Plan as necessary. EA expected April 2013.

Squaw Creek Water District Test 

Well CE

Construct and pump test a water well that will be 600' deep x 6.25" in 

diameter to provide potable water to 72 homes within the Squaw Creek 

District.

Star Valley Front Vegetation 

Management CE

Prescribed burning and mechanical treatment of vegetation to restore a 

balance of age classes in the mountain shrub, big sagebrush, aspen, and 

conifer woodlands.

Teton to Snake Fuels 

Management EIS

Fuels management, such as, prescribed fire and cutting and thinning of 

vegetation for fire hazard reduction and restoration/maintenance of fire 

adapted ecosystems. Analysis type changed to EIS in 2013.

Trail Projects on the Buffalo 

Ranger District CE

Realignment and reconstruction on Divide Lake Trail; puncheon and bridge 

replacement on the North Buffalo Trail; relocation on the Pilgrim Creek Trail.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-470 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

True Oil - Lander Peak 

Exploration Project EA

True Oil withdrew their Master Development Plan on Aug. 10, 2011 and have 

submitted the Lander Peak Exploration Proposal which proposes two 

exploratory wells -- one from an existing pad and one from a reclaimed pad 

location.

Upper Green Grazing Allotment 

Complex EIS

The 2004 decision was withdrawn. A revised Draft Supplemental EIS was 

released in June 2010; a Final SEIS and decision are expected in 2013.

White Pine Communication Site 

Building and Tower Construction 

CE

Construction of communication site building and tower, in addition to existing 

tower at White Pine Communication Site.

Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission Alkali Creek 

Feedground EIS

Long-term (up to 20 year) authorization for the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission to continue to use the facilities at the Alkali feedground on 

National Forest System land to conduct winter elk feeding and related 

management programs

Medicine Bow National Forest

3Cs Guiding-Snowmobile 

Guiding Service

5-year temporary permit to operate a snowmobile guide service on the 

Laramie and Brush Creek/Hayden Districts of the Medicine Bow NF. 

Implementation date December 2012.

Battle Mountain Prescribed Burn

Prescribed burn to regenerate aspen in conifer-encroached aspen stands, reintroduce fire into a fire adapted ecosystem in the far southwestern portion of 

the Sierra Madre Range. June 2014.

BCH Platte River Ditch Bill 

Easements

Issue FLPMA easements for irrigation ditches and reservoirs meeting 

Colorado Ditch Bill criteria located in the Platte River drainage on the Brush 

Creek/Hayden Ranger District. Implementation On Hold.

Bow River Administrative Site 

Conveyance

Sale of Administrative Site Facilities. T18N., R80W., sec 21 NE1/4NW1/4. 

Bow River Administrative Site Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District. On Hold

Bridger Peak AML Mine Site 

Reclamation

Reclamation of two abandoned mine sites located within the Sierra 

Madre/Encampment Mining District. Project is part of WY Abandoned Mines 

Safety Program. T18N, R81W, Section 26. Ditch is located on the BCH 

District within the Platte River drainage on the west side of the Snowy Range. 

Implementation date October 2012.

Friend Creek Fuels Reduction

State of WY. T 27 N, R 72 W, Sections 7, 8, 17, and 18 (Round Mountain, 

Friend Creek drainage). The project will reduce hazardous fuels on 600 acres, 

in the wildland urban interface. The treatments include mechanical thinning 

and prescribed fire. Implementation is conjectured for summer 2013 on 

portion not affected by Arapaho fire.

Gateway West 230/500 kV 

Transmission Line Project

Idaho and Rocky Mountain Power have proposed to construct electric 

transmission lines from the proposed Windstar Substation near the Dave 

Johnson Power Plant at Glenrock, WY to the proposed Hemingway 

substation near Melba, ID. Conjectured Implementation was for June 2013.

Gunnysack and Cow Creek 

Mountain Permanent Repeater 

Sites

Install permanent repeaters to provide radio coverage for the Laramie Peak 

Unit. Repeaters are a 8’ X 8’ X 7’ metal building to house the equipment, 2 

solar panels and a 20 foot boom antenna. This would include a helispot for 

each repeater site. T30N, R76W, Section 20 (Gunnysack and Cow Creek 

Mountain). Conjectured implementation date was August 2010.

Invasive Plant Management EIS 

for the Medicine Bow – Routt 

National Forests and Thunder 

Basin NG

States of CO and WY, including the counties of: Garfield, Grand, Jackson, 

Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, 

Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston. This proposal would allow the aerial 

application of the herbicides Plateau and Journey to treat infestations of 

cheatgrass acres on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder 

Basin National Grassland. Conjectured implementation is June 2014.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-471

Project Title Project Description

Johnson-Takala Ditch Permit

Issue a special use permit to valid water right holders for use of the JohnsonTakala ditch, an existing facility used for agricultural irrigation purposes on 

BCH District. Conjectured implementation date was April 2013.

Jones Outfitting

Jones Outfitting has requested a renewal of their current authorization to 

guide hunting excursions on Sheep Mountain and the Snowy Range. This 

new authorization would be for a 5-year term expiring in 2017. Implementation 

date December 2012.

Laramie Precommercial Thinning 

Analysis

The Laramie Ranger District is reviewing potential thinning needs outside of 

Lynx analysis units. T 14,13,12 R 77, 78, 79, 80. Laramie Ranger District 

Snowy Range area. Conjectured Implementation date March 2014.

North Laramie Range Aspen 

Restoration

This project would incorporate treatments aimed at regenerating select aspen 

stands and associated habitat on the Laramie Peak Unit of the Douglas 

Ranger District. Treatments will focus in improving the health and condition of 

aspen stands. Conjectured implementation is June 2013.

Parsons Creek Land Exchange Proposal to exchange lands in the Warbonnet Peak area of the Laramie Peak 

Unit. T 28-29 N, R 74-75 W (Warbonnet Peak area). This project is on hold.

Red Park Prescribed Burn

Prescribed burn approximately 60 acres to regenerate/restore ponderosa pine 

populations and regenerate aspen where it exists. T17N R82W NE 1/4 Sec 

25. Western slope of the Snowy Range. Implementation On Hold.

Rock Creek Fence Construction 

Project

Project was implemented in June 2007. T29N, R76W, Section 28. The project 

is a 0.75-mile fence.

Savery

Vegetation management to salvage timber/regenerate forests, reduce 

increasing fuel loads/decrease potential fire hazard, remove dead and dying 

trees posing a public safety hazard in high priority areas. Includes travel 

management and recreation management T12-16N, R85-88W. Sierra Madre 

portion of Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District, north of Battle Highway. 

Conjectured implementation date July 2013.

Travel Management

State of WY. Travel Management for the Medicine Bow National Forest is in 

progress. This project covers the entire unit. The Decision includes: opening 

trails/roads, closing trails/roads, converting roads to trails, decommissioning 

trails/roads, seasonal closures for trails/roads, and constructing trails/roads. 

Implementation is ongoing.

Travel Management Laramie 

Peak

State of WY. Travel Management for the Laramie Peak Unit is complete. This 

project covers the entire Laramie Peak Unit. The Decision includes: opening 

trails/roads, closing trails/roads, converting roads to trails, decommissioning 

trails/roads, seasonal closures for trails/roads, and constructing trails/roads.

Implementation is ongoing.

Thunder Basin National Grassland

Antelope Mine Rail Spur 

Expansion

W 1⁄2, SW 1⁄4, Section 1; W 1⁄2, Section 12; W 1⁄2, Section 13; SE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4, 

Section 14. Antelope Coal LLC has requested an authorization to amend the 

existing Antelope Mine special use permit to allow expansion of the railroad 

spur area associated with expansion and increased capacity of the coal loadout facility. Implementation is conjectured for Spring 2013. 

Ballard Petroleum Holdings LLC, 

Wildhorse Federal #14-18

This project would allow for construction of one conventional oil well 

approximately 260 X 360’. If the well produces oil, then the disturbance would 

be 0.5 acres. There would be no road construction or reconstruction. 

Implementation was in late 2011.

Baytex Stoddard Road Use 

Permit #40770

Baytex Energy is proposing to use and improve an existing 2-track NFSR for 

approximately 0.70 miles from the intersection with Weston County Road –

Cheyenne County Road (#54) to the north in the Section 35 T 42N, R 64W on 

the TBNG. Implementation conjectured for August 2013.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-472 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Big Porcupine Coal Bed Methane

T42N, R71W, Sections 11-13, 22-24 and 34-35. This project included drilling 

202 CBM wells and constructing the related facilities. The name was changed 

to Independent Energy CBM-260 well APD. Number of wells has increased to 

260. Approximately 186 acres of national Forest Service land was disturbed. 

Implementation was in Summer 2005.

Black Hills Bentonite Exploration 

Drilling

Portions of T 47 N, R 63 W. Black Hills Bentonite, LLC (BHB) will conduct 

exploration drilling for the purpose of mapping/documenting the subsurface 

distribution and quality of bentonite deposits. Approximate total land area to 

be disturbed will be < 0.01 acre. Implementation date 2012.

Black Hills Exploration Grieves 

Oil Wells

T42N, R64W, Section 30. This project allowed creation of 2 oil wells. The 

impacted acreage was approximately 3 acres. Implementation was in 

September 2006.

Black Hills National Forest and 

Thunder Basin National 

Grasslands Power 230Kv Line

TECKLA-OSAGE-LANGE 230Kv Transmission line. Implementation projected 

for September 2014.

Black Thunder Mine Topsoil and 

Overburden Stockpile

Thunder Basin Coal Company’s Black Thunder Mine (BTM) has requested an 

authorization to occupy National Forest System Lands for the purpose of 

constructing and storing topsoil and overburden stockpiles. The proposed 

project area lies immediately adjacent to BTM’s existing lease and within the 

West Highlight Coal Lease by Application (LBA), which has been analyzed for 

potential environmental impacts under the Wright Area EIS. 

BNSF Kara Thornton (railroad)

T48N, R66W, Sections 3, 4. BNSF Kara Thorton proposed construction of a 

second main track, which resulted in 4.77 acres (25-30’ x 7,199’) of 

disturbance on National Forest System Lands. The project includes: grading, 

laying track, and adding signals. Implementation date 2009.

BNSF Reno Junction and Logan 

Hill (railroad)

T42N, R71W, Section 34. The 4th line construction at Logan Hill includes 

44.48 acres (25-100’ x 50,182). Construction of ingress/egress at Reno 

Junction disturbed approximately1.62 acres (20-35’ x 1,447’). Implementation 

date 2009.

BNSF Snow Fence Project # 

39835

Authorize BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) to construct and maintain snow 

fences to protect their railroad easement on National Forest Service land 

north of Douglas, Wyoming. Implementation date November 2012.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. Road 

Use Permit # 35930

The proposed action is to authorize the construction of a road by the 

Chesapeake Energy Corporation. Chesapeake Energy Corp. is proposing to 

build 784 feet of new road to access an oil well. Implementation Fall 2011.

Chesapeake Energy Road Use 

Permit NFSR 964 # 36700

The proposed action is to authorize Chesapeake Energy to reconstruct and 

use approximately 10,113 ft. of NFSR 964 to access three proposed oil wells 

in the Robbins Unit and one proposed well in the Cottonwood Unit. 

Implementation Fall 2011.

Coleman Oil and Gas Coal Bed 

Natural Gas Well Plan of 

development (Antelope Flats)

T41N, R72W. One oil well, 1000’ underground utility corridor, 2 track 16 wide 

and one drilling pad 100’X100’.6 acres. Implementation was in Fall 2005.

Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern 

Railroad

Location is T41N, R63W, Section 8, 9, 17, and 18; T41N, R64W, Section 10; 

T42N, R65W, Sections 19, 22, 26, 27, and 35; T42N, R66W, Sections 23 and 

24; T42N, R68W, Sections 1-4; T43N, R69W, Sections 29, 33-34. 800 acres 

are on National Grassland. Construction of the line with facilities may take 5 

years and up to 50 year permit for operation of a railroad. Temporary 

construction is for 240’ width. Relocation of part of School Creek Road is part 

of the project. Creation of wetland as mitigation measure is also included. 

Implementation pending.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-473

Project Title Project Description

DCP Douglas, LLC Natural Gas 

Pipeline to EOG Well # 37478

DCP will construct two 4-inch natural gas pipelines; one high pressure steel 

line, one low pressure poly pipe, to the EOG-Arbalest 53-33H well to tie into 

their existing 4inch high pressure line. Less than 5 acres of National Forest 

System Lands. Implementation Winter 2012.

DM&E Wetland Mitigation Sites

T40N, R68W, Section 20. Mitigate wetlands lost during railroad construction. 

This includes shallow excavations at 3 sites along Antelope Creek to create 

wetland habitat. Includes temporary work sites, and uses existing roads. The 

project includes 16 acres of excavation. Conjectured implementation date is 

on hold.

Dowdy Road Permit DGL347

Luke Dowdy has requested authorization to cross National Forest System 

Land to access his private land in the Upton area. He will build a new road 

located in T47N, R64W, sec. 17, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4. Mr. Dowdy owns the private land 

in the same quarter section. The right-of-way will be for approximately 15 feet 

in length and 20 feet wide, 10 feet from center line. Implementation is 

conjectured for Summer 2012.

EOG Resources Inc. Road 

Permit # 36701

The Forest Service authorized EOG Resources, Inc. to use portions of 

NFSRs 910, 910.D and 910.A and construct approximately 719 feet of new 

road in Section 18, and 190 feet in Section 15, T41N, R72W 6th PM to access 

proposed wells. Implementation Fall 2011.

Geokinetics Alta 3D Geophysical 

Project # 36909

The project will encompass approximately 634 square miles with 

approximately 120,480 acres of the Thunder Basin National Grassland 

included in the project area. The project is proposed as a multi-source 

geophysical vibroseis with some shot holes. Implementation of phase I was in 

January 2011. Phase II has been cancelled.

Geothermal Leasing 

Environmental Impact Statement

The BLM and Forest Service are preparing a joint Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement to analyze the leasing of BLM and National 

Forest System Lands with moderate to high potential for geothermal 

resources in 11 western states.

Invasive Plant Management EIS 

for Medicine Bow-Routt National 

Forests and Thunder Basin 

National Grassland

States of CO and WY, including the counties of: Garfield, Grand, Jackson, 

Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, Albany, Campbell, Carbon, Converse, Crook, 

Natrona, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston. This proposal would allow the aerial 

application of the herbicides Plateau and Journey to treat infestations of 

cheatgrass acres on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest and Thunder 

Basin National Grassland. Conjectured project implementation date Summer, 

2014.

Inyan Kara Analysis Area 

Vegetation Management, Phase 

II

T41-48N, R61-67W. Implement vegetation management to meet the desired 

goals of the Grassland Plan. Implementation was in the Fall of 2008.

Inyan Kara Assembled Land 

Exchange

This land exchange is being handles by the Inyan Kara Grazing Association 

on behalf of 13 landowners in Weston County, WY. The land exchange 

consists of 16,600 acres. Proposed implementation date 2014.

Inyan Kara Riders Motorcycle 

Enduro Permit

The Inyan Kara Enduro operates under a Recreation Event 5-year permit, in 

the Inyan Kara area of the Thunder Basin National Grassland. The existing 

permit expires 12/31/2010; this action is to renew the permit for another 5-

year term Implementation date 2011.

Irwin Land Exchange

2,720 acres of nonfederal to federal and 2,400 of federal to nonfederal. 

Optional acres of federal to nonfederal taking into account issues with DM&E 

easements 1,360 acres. Conjectured Implementation is Summer 2013.

Lance Oil Antelope FED 4171-

10-21 - Road Use and Access 

Permit #41419

Lance Oil and Gas Company is proposing to use the NFSR 1121.E1 road for 

approximately 0.52 miles from the intersection of Antelope Road Campbell 

County RD 17-4 to the south in Section 3 T. 41 N., R. 71 W. on the TBNG. 

Implementation conjectured for August 2013.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-474 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Love Sol Project (range 

improvement)

T44N, R68W, Section 11. This project allowed for: drilling a water well and 

placing a watering trough on National Forest land. Two-hundred and twenty 

feet of ground was trenched for the pipeline. Solar panels disturbed 

approximately 100 ft2. Drilling of the well disturbed 7,000 ft2. Implementation 

was in Summer 2006, ongoing use of range improvements.

Mackey Road Geotechnical 

Soil/sediment Sampling # 37505

Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC (PPRM) will conduct geotechnical boring 

on National Forest System Lands to explore subsurface soil and sediment 

properties. Implementation Winter 2011.

Martins Pipeline and storage tank 

(range improvement)

NE 1⁄4, SE 1⁄4, Section 15, T47N, R65W. Martins Pipeline and storage tank 

included: installation of 485’ of underground water pipeline and one 8’ 

diameter water tank. Implementation was in Winter 2006; ongoing use of 

range improvements.

Mary's Draw 2D Seismic Project 

# 35356

The Forest Service proposes to authorize geophysical surveys on the 

Thunder Basin National Grassland. The Mary's Draw 2D swath seismic 

project would utilize vibroseis as the energy source to provide data on 

potential minerals. Implementation Spring 2010.

NARM Dewatering Activity –

Amendment to SUP DGL314

North Antelope Rochelle Mine (NARM) of Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC 

has requested an amendment to their current Special Use Permit (SUP) 

DGL314 for Ancillary Facilities Related to Mining Activity to authorize drilling 

test holes for potential dewatering activity on National Forest System Lands. 

The proposal consists of approximately 230 test holes on National Forest 

System Lands totaling approximately 567 acres that occur outside the NARM 

lease boundary but within the mine’s permit boundary. Implementation was 

planned for Summer 2012.

NARM Power Line Access Roads 

– Amendment to SUP DGL314

Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC, operator of North Antelope Rochelle 

Mine (NARM), has requested an amendment to their current Special Use 

Permit (SUP) DGL314 for Ancillary Facilities Related to Mining Activity to 

authorize construction of three light-duty road segments on National Forest 

System Lands. The proposal consists of approximately 1.2 miles of gravel 

roads (three separate segments) on National Forest System Lands totaling 

approximately 2.9 acres that occur outside the NARM lease boundary but 

within the mine’s permit boundary. Implementation date Winter 2013.

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 

Road Relocation

T 42 N, R 71 W, Section 23, 26, 27 and 34. The project proposes to construct 

new roads to relocate the existing Antelope and Matheson roads. The existing 

roads will be mined through, and there is a need to reroute the current travel 

way. Approximately 4.4 miles of road will be located on National Forest 

Service land. The current proposal is to grant a right-of-way to Campbell 

County. The construction corridor is 150 feet. Implementation was completed 

in 2010.

North Antelope-Rochelle Mine: 

Mackey Road Relocation

The Forest Service proposes to authorize Peabody Powder River Mining, LLC 

(PPRM), operator of North Antelope-Rochelle Mine (NARM), to vacate and 

relocate portions of CR 69 Mackey (large segment) and temporary CR83 

Reno (small segment) County Roads on National Forest System Land. 

Conjectured implementation is for Summer 2013.

North Antelope Rochelle and 

School Creek Mines 69 kV Power 

line

T42N, R71W, Sections 23, 25, 26, 27, 34 and 35 (approximately 20 miles 

south and east of Wright, WY, Campbell County, within North Antelope 

Rochelle and School Creek Mine Permit areas). New construction of 69 kV 

power line will include approximately 19.5 total miles of 69 kV overhead 

power line. Approximately 14.9 miles will include Forest Service land, in order 

to move power lines out of existing coal mine leases. Implementation date is 

January 2010.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-475

Project Title Project Description

Pacificorp DGL344

Special Uses, contact Geri Proctor. This is a re-issuance of a permit. It is for 

the operation and maintenance of an electric power line known as the Dave 

Johnston-Yellowcake-Antelope 230 kV line. Implementation was planned for 

summer 2012.

Plan Amendment for Prairie Dog 

Management

T37-48N, R62-73W, and T53-55N, R68-71W. The ferret reintroduction area 

boundary would be modified. This project would add management tools for 

controlling the prairie dog that are not currently available, such as lethal and 

non-lethal, landownership adjustment and third party solutions. 

Implementation date is March 2010 and is ongoing.

PreCorp Coleman Oil and Gas 

Power line, WO#50697

T41N, R72W, Section 15. A permit was issued to allow installation of 2,243 

feet of underground 14.4/24.9KV 3 phase electrical line. The line was buried 

48”deep in a 6” wide trench. The line was placed within 50’ of an existing 

buried power line. The right of way is 15’ on each side. Additional disturbance 

includes a 2.5 x 3’ area for a transformer/meter pedestal. Approximately 1.5 

acres are impacted by this project. Implementation was in 2007.

PRECorp Nicholson CBNG SUP

Minerals, contact Amy Ormseth. T43N, R71W, Sections 18 and 19. This 

project included a meter drop and installation of underground electric and gas 

lines. Approximately 1 acre of National Forest Service land was disturbed.

PRECorp, Section 9

Special use, contact Geri Proctor. T41N, R67W, Section 9. Implementation 

was in Fall 2006.

PreCorp Special Use permit for 

Ballard Wildhorse Federal #14 –

18 Power line

This project allows the installation of <2 miles of <33 kV line to the Wildhorse 

Federal wells 14 and 18. The proposed route would utilize the existing road 

corridor. Implementation was in late 2011.

PRECorp Westport Meter Drop

Minerals, contact Amy Ormseth. T43N, R71W, Section 19. This project is a 3 

phase power distribution line for a meter drop to several production areas. 

Implementation was in Spring 2007.

Rankin Brown Project (range 

improvement)

T47N, R65W, Sections 4, 5, and 8-10. This project allowed for 5.5 miles of 

PVC (12’ wide X 2”) pipe to be placed underground and for installation of 7 

water troughs (8’x 2’). The pipes were installed with D8’s. Approximately 8.4 

acres of National Forest land was disturbed. Implementation was in Fall 2007; 

ongoing use of range improvements.

RT Communications, Inc. Keeline 

to Wright

T43N, R71W (Highways 450, 59, and 387). New fiber optic line would be 

placed in the right-of-way of WY Highway 450, 90, and 387. This would be on 

4.13 miles of National grassland. Implementation date is Winter 2013.

RT Communications, Inc. –

South Upton Project

T47N, R66W (south Upton area). Replacing a new telecommunications line 

within and adjacent to a right of way. This area includes 6.69 miles (by 20’ 

wide) on National Grassland. Implementation date was planned for May 2010.

Samson Resources Geophysical 

Exploration

Samson Resources has proposed to conduct an exploratory, 3D geophysical 

survey. The project are includes 240 square miles. The data generated from 

this survey will significantly enhance evaluation of the potential mineral 

resources. Implementation Winter 2011.

School Creek Mine Coal Mining 

Startup Facilities

West Roundup Resources, Inc. (WRR) has requested an authorization to 

amend the existing School Creek Mine special use permit to include an 

additional (approximately) 663 acres of National Forest Service land. 

Implementation was planned for August 2012.

Thunder Basin Coal Company, 

LLC – Black Thunder Mine: 

Installation/Construction of 

Dewatering Wells and 

Overstripping Area

The proposed dewatering wells are located on National Forest System Lands, 

and consist of two areas. The Forest Service has identified a need to 

authorize Thunder Basin Coal Company, LLC to construct the dewatering 

wells and overstrip activities. Implementation was planned for August 2012.
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-476 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Project Title Project Description

Thunder Basin Coal Co LLC: 

Clinker Mining Expansion

T 43 N, R 70 W, Section 26. The existing permitted clinker mining area 

encompasses approximately 600 acres of National Forest Service land. The 

requested expansion comprises 40 acres, which would result in a total of 

approximately 640 impacted acres. Implementation was planned for 

November 2012.

Thunder Basin National 

Grassland Fuels and Habitat 

Burn

T41N, R68W, Sections 21, 22, 26, 27 and 28. The Cow Camp burn comprises 

1530 acres to encourage healthy fuel loads and appropriate wildlife habitat. 

Implementation was in Spring 2009.

Thunder Basin Pipeline, LLC 

DGL348

Thunder Basin Pipeline, LLC would like to operate and maintain an existing 

pipeline. The pipeline is associated with a small refinery north of Douglas, 

WY. The pipeline is in a 30-foot right-of-way, 15 feet on each side of center 

line. A 6 inch crude oil pipeline and an 8 inch gas pipeline are in the right-ofway. It covers 8.13 acres or 2.235 miles of National Grassland. Conjectured 

implementation was July 2012.

Tidelands Geophysical – Coal 

Draw 3D Seismic Survey

Tidelands Geophysical Company (Tidelands) has submitted a Notice of Intent 

and Plan of Action (POA) to conduct geophysical exploration operations for 

the Coal Draw 3D Seismic Survey project on behalf of Seitel, Inc. The 

proposed project will encompass 3,426.85 acres of land managed by the 

Forest Service on the Thunder Basin National Grassland (TBNG) in 

Townships 40-42 North, Range 72-73 West. Conjectured implementation was 

December 2012.

Travel Management

Travel Management for the Thunder Basin National Grasslands. This project 

covers the entire Grassland. Review and analysis of the roads/trails for 

designation, include: opening trails/roads, closing trails/roads, converting 

roads to trails, decommissioning trails/roads, seasonal closures for 

trails/roads, and constructing trails/roads.

Upton Airport Permit Renewal 

DGL320

The Town of Upton is requesting to renew the special use permit for the 

airport. This permit was first issued in 1955. The permit will cover 80 acres for 

operating and maintaining a public airport. Implementation date was July 

2012.

Upton Mineral Material 

Development

The Forest Service proposes to develop two mineral material pit sites on 

National Forest Service land in the Upton area. The proposed pit 

developments will each be less than 5-acres in extent. 

Upton-Osage Fuels Reduction 

Project

T48N, R65W, Sections 10, 13, 14, 15, also with Osage T46N, R63W, 

Section 3, 4, also with Clay Spur T47N, R63W, Sections 17, 18, 19, 20. 85 

acres of sanitation salvage (overtopped, dead and dying trees), 256 acres of 

shelterwood (overstory and understory removal), Commercial Thinning 204 

acres (remove pole size), 104 acres of Pre-commercial thin (smaller than pole 

size), understory removal, thinning from below, 75 acres of boundary 

treatment (trees 50-100 feet from the boundary), 195 acres of broadcast 

burning (understory burn to reduce timber treatment slash) is complete. 

Implementation was in Fall 2009.

Upton-Osage Timber Edge 

(range improvement)

T47N, R64W, Section 3. Place a 16’ cylindrical, 20’ tall tank over an existing 

pipeline. Disturbance area covers 100 square feet. Implementation was in 

Summer 2006.

Wellstar Corporation Natural 

Gasline

T43N, R69W, Sections 24-26. This project includes installing a gas pipeline in 

the existing corridor. This disturbed approximately 2.57 acres of national 

Forest Service land. Implementation was in Fall 2007.

West Antelope II Coal Lease 

Application

T 41 N, R 71 W (20 miles southwest of Wright, WY). BLM held a coal lease 

sale for federal coal tracts and issuance of a federal coal lease. This project 

included 4,109 acres of federal land and an estimated 429.7 million tons of inplace federal coal. Implementation date was August 2009.
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-477

Project Title Project Description

Western Gas resources gas 

pipeline

T42N, R70W, Section 25, 29, 30. 850’ long for a 6” pipeline. Implementation 

Fall 2007, ongoing.

Weston County Easements

This project would authorize the conversion of a number of existing crown and 

ditch roads that cross the thunder basin national Grassland to county 

ownership (T 41 N, R 67 W; T 43-47 N, R 63-67 W). This project was 

completed July 2012.

Weston Store

The Bethea’s have proposed to build a convenience store at Weston, WY (NE 

1⁄4, NE 1⁄4, Section 25). This is the most convenient location for a store as it is 

accessible to Highway 59 and Heald County Road. The store would cover 

approximately 5 acres of Nation al Grassland. Implementation on hold.

Westport Oil and Gas, Nicholson 

CBNG POD

T43N, R72W, Section 14. The plan of development (POD) included creating 

10 coal bed natural gas wells. Approximately 760 acres of National Forest 

Service land was disturbed. Implementation date 2006.

Williams West Cripple Creek 

Coal Bed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Plan of Development (POD)

T42N, R72W, Sections 14, 15, 22, 23 and 27 (Matheson Road). This project 

includes development of 14 coal bed natural gas well pads, two header 

buildings, and utility corridors. Total National Forest Service land disturbance 

was 39 acres, with an operating disturbance of 3.31 acres. Road use includes 

construction of 0.31 acres and use of existing roads. Implementation was in 

November 2009.

Wright Area Coal Lease by 

Application (LBA)

East of Wright, WY. This project will analyze the applications for coal leases 

in the Wright area. It is aimed at the continuation of coal mining for the Jacobs 

Ranch, Black Thunder, and North Antelope Rochelle Mines. Implementation 

date is 2012 except West Highlight tract expected implementation date 

summer 2013.

WY DOT Highway 59 Special 

Use Permit and Mineral Materials 

Contract # 35932

The Forest Service is proposing to authorize Thunder Basin Coal Company to 

acquire an adequate supply of aggregate construction material to support 

required maintenance and changes in infrastructure necessary for mining 

activities. Conjectured implementation was July 2013.

4.22.3 Cumulative Impacts by Resource 

Air Quality 

Casper Field Office 

BLM and non-BLM actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area over the life of the 

plan. For the planning area, the cumulative air quality impacts (as measured against national and state 

ambient air quality standards) are anticipated to be roughly the same on BLM and non-BLM-managed 

lands because it is assumed that the density of activities would be the same in both areas. This conclusion 

also assumes that nearby operations on both BLM and non-BLM-managed lands would not combine to 

result in greater impacts on a local scale. Potential impacts on PSD increments, visibility, and atmospheric 

deposition in distant Class I NWAs could be substantial. 

Under all alternatives, cumulative emissions within the planning area are not anticipated to result in air 

quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission sources 

likely would be widely separated. Impacts on air quality would be greatest under Alternative A, as 

development activity levels are anticipated to be greater than all other alternatives. The cumulative air 

quality would be improved under Alternatives B, C, and D. The greatest reduction in criteria pollutant 

emissions occurs under Alternative C and the least reduction in emissions would occur under 

Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would also be less under all alternatives compared to 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-478 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

those discussed under Alternative A with those discussed under Alternative C having the greatest 

reduction in emissions. 

Kemmerer Field Office 

BLM and non-BLM actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area over the life of the 

plan. For the planning area, the cumulative air quality impacts (as measured against national and state 

ambient air quality standards) are anticipated to be roughly the same on BLM and non-BLM-managed 

lands because it is assumed that the density of activities would be the same in both areas. This conclusion 

also assumes that nearby operations on both BLM and non-BLM-managed lands would not combine to 

result in greater impacts on a local scale. Plumes from trona processing plants located on private lands are 

currently visible on BLM-managed lands, especially during winter air inversions, and would be expected 

to continue to be visible in the future. 

Under all alternatives, cumulative emissions within the planning area would not be anticipated to result in 

air quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission 

sources likely would be widely separated. It should be recognized, however, that short-term exceedances 

of the federal ozone standard have occurred in Sublette County in the northeast portion of the planning 

area; although the area has not been designated a nonattainment area. Under all alternatives, emissions 

increases would be spread over relatively large distances and are not expected to cause adverse impacts to 

AQRVs in nearby sensitive Class I air quality areas. Impacts on air quality would be greatest under 

Alternative A, as development activity levels would be anticipated to be greater than those discussed 

under the other alternatives. The cumulative air quality would be improved under Alternatives B, C, and 

D, with Alternative C providing the greatest degree of improvement. 

Newcastle Field Office 

BLM and non-BLM actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area over the life of the 

plan. Under Alternative A, cumulative emissions within the planning area would result in air quality 

impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards. The emissions from the new oil wells 

would cause the increased emissions which would contribute to the exceedance of federal and state 

standards. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur from management actions discussed under 

Alternative C and the least emissions reduction would occur under Alternatives D and E. Carbon dioxide 

equivalent emissions would also be less under all alternatives compared to those discussed under 

Alternative A, with Alternative C showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Pinedale Field Office 

BLM and non-BLM actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area over the life of the 

plan. The air quality analysis presented in the Pinedale Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

(SEIS) (BLM 2008) predicts potential visibility impacts to nearby sensitive Class I areas; impacts for 

other AQRVs were not predicted in nearby sensitive air quality Class I areas. It should be recognized, 

however, that recent short-term exceedances of the federal ozone standard have occurred in Sublette 

County within the Pinedale Field Office; although the area has not been designated a nonattainment area. 

Under Alternative A, cumulative emissions within the planning area would result in air quality impacts 

that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission sources. Under 

Alternative A, cumulative emissions within the planning area would result in air quality impacts that 

exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission sources. The emissions from 

the new oil wells could cause the increased emissions which would contribute to the exceedance of 

federal and state standards. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the 

least emissions reduction would occur under Alternatives D and E. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions 

would also be less under all alternatives when compared to those discussed under Alternative A, with 

Alternative C showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-479

Rawlins Field Office 

BLM and non-BLM actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area over the life of the 

plan. Under Alternative A, cumulative emissions within the planning area would result in air quality 

impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission sources. The 

emissions from the new oil wells could cause the increased emissions which would contribute to the 

standards exceedances. The air quality analyses presented in project-specific EISs for the Rawlins Field 

Office predicted potential visibility and atmospheric deposition impacts to nearby sensitive Class I areas. 

The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the least emissions reduction 

would occur under Alternatives D and E. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would also be less under 

all alternatives when compared to those discussed under Alternative A, with Alternative C showing the 

greatest reduction in emissions. 

Rock Springs Field Office 

BLM and non-BLM actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area over the life of the 

plan. Under Alternative A, cumulative emissions within the planning area would result in air quality 

impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission sources. Under 

Alternative A, impacts to AQRV from proposed activities within the planning area could be significant. 

The emissions from the new oil wells could cause the increased emissions which would contribute to the 

standards exceedances. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the least 

emissions reduction would occur under Alternatives D and E. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would 

also be less under all alternatives when compared to those discussed under Alternative A, with 

Alternative C showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Bridger-Teton National Forest Planning Unit 

Forest Service and non-Forest Service actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area 

over the life of the plan. Under Alternative A, cumulative emissions within the planning area could result 

in increases of all air pollutants within the Bridger-Teton National Forest Planning Unit. The most 

significant increase would be from NOx. It is likely that the increased emissions would contribute to an 

exceedance of a national or state ambient air quality standard. Also impacts to AQRV could be 

significant. The greatest reduction in emissions would occur under Alternative C and the least emissions 

reduction would occur under Alternatives D and E. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would also be 

less under all alternatives when compared to those discussed under Alternative A, with Alternative C 

showing the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Thunder Basin National Grassland Planning Unit 

Forest Service and non-Forest Service actions are anticipated to increase emissions in the planning area 

over the life of the plan. For the planning area, the cumulative air quality impacts (as measured against 

national and state ambient air quality standards) are anticipated to be roughly the same on Forest Service 

and non-Forest Service-managed lands because it is assumed that the density of activities would be the 

same in both areas. This conclusion also assumes that nearby operations on both Forest Service and nonForest Service-managed lands would not combine to result in greater impacts on a local scale. 

Under all alternatives, cumulative emissions within the planning area are not anticipated to result in air 

quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards because the emission sources 

likely would be widely separated. Impacts on air quality would be greatest under Alternative A, as 

development activity levels are anticipated to be greater than all other alternatives. The cumulative air 

quality would be improved under Alternatives B, C, and D. The greatest reduction in criteria pollutant 

emissions would occur under Alternative C and least emissions reductions would occur under 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-480 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also less under all alternatives with Alternative C 

having the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Medicine Bow National Forest Planning Unit 

Under all alternatives, cumulative emissions within the planning area are not anticipated to result in air 

quality impacts that exceed national or state ambient air quality standards since no new wells are 

projected to be installed under any alternative. Any impacts to air quality would be from wind energy 

development, vegetation treatments, OHV activities, and other surface disturbing activities. Anticipated 

emissions from these other impacts are largely unknown within this planning unit. Any impacts on air 

quality would be greatest under Alternative A, as any development activity levels would be anticipated to 

be greater than all other alternatives. The cumulative air quality could be improved under Alternatives B, 

C, D, and E. The greatest reduction in criteria pollutant emissions could occur under Alternative C and the 

least emissions reductions could occur under Alternative D. Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are also 

less under all alternatives with Alternative C having the greatest reduction in emissions. 

Cultural Resources 

The cultural resource CIAA consists of the public lands within the planning area and the adjacent lands 

where the setting of historic properties within the planning area extends outside of the public lands. This 

CIAA was identified because BLM and Forest Service are not only required to manage the physical 

remains of historic properties, but also the setting where it is an important aspect of integrity of the 

property 

The cumulative impact of development activities from BLM, Forest Service and non-BLM/Forest Service 

actions within the planning area is anticipated to adversely impact the context and historical setting of 

some cultural resources, including some National Historic Trails. No quantitative data are available for 

assessing cumulative impacts to the historical setting of cultural resources. Moreover, plan alternatives 

are not anticipated to result in measurable differences in impacts to historical settings from nonBLM/Forest Service actions. 

Current and future trends in the CIAA include population growth, urban encroachment, increases in 

mining, fluid mineral leasing, leasable minerals, renewable energy development, ongoing grazing, 

increase in recreational demand, road construction, water diversions, invasive species, erosion, wildland 

fire, forest disease and insects, drought, and climate change. Trends would continue to affect cultural 

resources and cultural landscapes through loss or disturbance of resources that are not or cannot be 

protected, changes in setting, pressure from incremental use, loss of access for Native Americans to 

resources, and theft or vandalism of cultural resources. 

Although cultural resources on public land are provided legal protection, similar protection does not apply 

to cultural resources from private actions on private lands. Likewise, limited restrictions on public lands 

exist to protect the historical setting of cultural resources on public lands. Due to the mixture of public 

and private land ownership adjacent throughout the planning area, cumulative impacts to specific cultural 

sites and the historical settings are not regulated and are expected to continue. As a result, when added to 

the impacts identified above, Alternative C will have the least degree of cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources on public lands due to its restrictions. However, because of the restrictions on public lands, 

there is an increased potential for development on private lands without protective stipulations to mitigate 

impacts to cultural resources and their settings. With increased development comes the potential to lose 

increasing amounts of scientific information derived from cultural resources, resulting in a cumulative net 

loss of historical context. This might lead to a diminished capacity to understand and evaluate issues of 

national heritage. The anticipated impact due to Alternative D is more than Alternatives B and C and less 

than Alternatives A, and E. However, because it allows for some development on public lands, there will 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-481

likely be less shifting of such development to private lands that have fewer requirements to protect 

cultural resources. As such, Alternative D is likely to result in the fewest cumulative impacts to cultural 

resources. 

Forestry 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on forestry includes the entire planning area. 

Cumulative impacts on forestry would occur as a result of the increased surface disturbances from 

development, recreation activities, and fire management occurring within the planning area. As general 

use, recreation, mineral development, and fuel loads increase as a whole throughout the planning area, 

potential for impacts to forestry from fire, habitat loss, forestry conversion, and loss of access. 

Cumulative impacts on forestry would likely occur under all alternatives but they would be the least under 

Alternative C as surface disturbing activities would be more restricted than those listed under other 

alternatives. Having the most restrictions from surface disturbing activities could reduce access to forestry 

products and limit timber production. Impacts on forestry products would be the highest from surface 

disturbing activities listed under Alternative A but management actions would be the least restrictive on 

access to forestry products and timber production which could increase production. 

Lands and Realty 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on the uses administered by the lands and realty program 

includes the entire planning area. Cumulative impacts on lands and realty management would result from 

actions that create constraints and/or opportunities for ROW authorizations (e.g., pipelines, power lines, 

transmission lines, roads, and communication sites) and land tenure adjustments. Increased development 

within and outside of the CIAA has increased the demand for land tenure adjustments and additional 

ROWs for pipelines, transmission lines, and other facilities that support development. Placing restrictions 

on ROWs affects the ability to address such demand, reduces ROW routing options, and has the potential 

to increase project costs. 

Cumulative impacts on lands and realty management are primarily the result of implementing surface use 

restrictions and management prescriptions designed to protect sage-grouse habitat, other habitats, and 

sensitive resources (e.g., big game and special status species’ habitat, cultural resources, important 

viewsheds, special designations). Implementing these actions would limit or restrict ROW project design 

and where ROWs would be permitted. The greatest impacts would occur in areas where surface 

disturbing activities are prohibited or in ROW exclusion areas, as this would require proposed ROWs to 

be relocated outside of these restricted areas. Relocation of ROW facilities could also occur within areas 

where surface disturbing activities are restricted or in ROW avoidance areas. If avoidance of these areas 

is not possible, other mitigation measures could be required, such as application of height and other 

specifications that serve to redesign ROWs to mitigate impacts on sage-grouse habitat and other sensitive 

resources. Land use restrictions that result in the relocation or redesign of proposed ROWs would increase 

management efforts and costs related to proposals submitted by ROW applicants. 

The actions and activities considered in this analysis, including land use restrictions for the preservation 

of sensitive resources, would not prevent the BLM or Forest Service from accommodating major utility 

and transportation corridors, but rather require ROW applicants to design and locate proposed ROW 

facilities in a manner that minimizes related effects on other resources. Cumulative impacts would be the 

least intensive under Alternative A because of fewer land use restrictions for the protection of sensitive 

resources. Conversely, the implementation of increased restrictions to protect sensitive resources under 

Alternative C would result in the greatest level of impact on lands and realty management. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-482 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Livestock Grazing 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on livestock grazing includes all allotments that either 

entirely or partially overlap the planning area. Livestock are managed within the boundaries of these 

allotments, and therefore could be affected by activities occurring in these areas. Past actions that have 

affected livestock grazing include human-caused surface disturbances (mineral development, recreation, 

prescribed burning, and mechanical vegetation treatments) and wildland fires that have contributed to 

current ecological conditions. 

Potential cumulative impacts on livestock grazing within the planning area would result from a 

combination of activities and land uses occurring within the area. Such impacts would result primarily 

from surface-disturbing activities. Surface disturbing activities, including oil and gas and mineral 

development activities and related construction of roads, pipelines, and well pads, would lead to a 

cumulative increase in soil disturbance, vegetation removal, noxious and invasive weed proliferation, and 

loss of available forage for grazing. Impacts would be greater in areas with high-density oil and gas and 

mineral development projects. Restrictions and prohibitions on newly permitted surface disturbing 

activities, as well as reclamation efforts and vegetation treatments would reduce impacts on livestock 

grazing. A reduction in development and recreation activities would decrease soil disturbances and 

vegetation removal, and increase available forage. The implementation of BLM’s mitigation guidelines, 

reclamation requirements, rangeland guidelines, vegetation treatments, and monitoring efforts would also 

provide protection to forage resources on federal lands, which would help reduce overall effects on 

livestock grazing resources. 

Present actions affecting livestock grazing are mainly those that reduce available grazing acreage, restrict 

management actions or the level of forage production in those areas. Key examples include wildland fires, 

motorized vehicle use, habitat restoration, fuels reduction and special designations that restrict grazing. 

Cumulative impacts would be greatest under Alternative A because of fewer restrictions on newly 

permitted surface disturbing activities and mineral activities in sage-grouse priority habitat areas. Under 

Alternative C, increased restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities, recreation, and 

mineral activities would reduce the potential for surface disturbance and vegetation removal, and loss of 

available forage for livestock grazing. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B, D and E would be greater 

than under Alternative C because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities, 

recreation, and mineral activities in sage-grouse priority habitat areas. 

Mineral Resources 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on minerals management and wind energy development 

includes the entire planning area. Management activities occurring within the planning area are not 

expected to affect mineral resource and wind energy development management outside of the planning 

area. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the CIAA that have 

affected and will likely to continue to affect minerals are market forces, availability of resources for 

development, regulatory and prescriptive constraints, and reservoir/reserve depletion. 

Cumulative impacts on mineral development from these LUP amendments would occur from restrictions 

that prohibit or restrict surface disturbance that ultimately decrease the number of oil and gas wells drilled 

during the planning period, as well as the acres of land open to solid mineral leasing and mineral material 

disposal and to location of mining claims, the latter limiting areas where 3,809 surface management 

operations could be conducted. Prohibiting surface disturbance would not allow for the construction of 

some well pads, access roads, pipelines, and ancillary facilities. Offsite methods such as directional 

drilling would be required to access oil and gas resources. In some cases, an operator could place a well 

pad, access road, or production facility in a less-sensitive area and drill to the well directionally to recover 

reserves underlying the area prohibited from surface disturbing activities. The equipment and personnel 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-483

required for directional drilling could increase the complexity of operations and slow the drilling process. 

Directional drilling increases the risk of drilling problems such as stuck casing and diminished well 

production. Prohibiting surface disturbance and applying extra lease stipulations and terms could also 

cause an operator to move to nearby private or state land with no such restrictions and drill wells that 

could lead to drainage of federal reserves and loss of federal revenue. However, the indirect and 

cumulative effects of consolidating infrastructure over the life of multiple oil and gas reserves could 

reduce the need for ancillary infrastructure over the larger region as infrastructure becomes more 

centralized, and less infrastructure would be necessary to deliver products downstream. 

Restricting surface disturbance could lead to the relocation of well pads, access roads, pipelines, and 

ancillary facilities to areas with fewer restrictions. Relocation of these proposed facilities could cause 

temporary delays in developing oil and gas resources and other minerals and could limit mineral 

development activities in these areas. 

Oil and gas and other mineral development are expected to continue under all alternatives. Alternative A 

would have the greatest amount of wells during the planning period. Alternative C would have the least 

because of surface disturbance and density restrictions for the protection of sage-grouse habitat. 

Solid mineral leasing (e.g. coal and oil shale) would continue under all alternatives on existing leases. 

However, new development would be impacted from an increase in the amount of lands allocated as 

unacceptable for coal leasing and development. This would particularly occur under Alternatives B and C, 

which have the most restrictions on coal development. Alternative A would allow for the most 

development of coal and oil shale. 

Similarly, prohibiting surface disturbing activities would limit the development of wind energy sites. 

Wind development could cause a project proponent to move to nearby private or state land with no such 

restrictions. Restricting surface disturbing activities could lead to the relocation of wind energy 

development sites. These measures could cause temporary delays in developing wind energy. If suitable 

adjacent sites are not available, wind energy development could be prohibited. Wind development is 

expected to continue under all alternatives. Alternative A would have the greatest number of turbines 

installed during the planning period with the most location options. Alternatives B, C, and E project 

90%fewer wind turbines than Alternative A will be developed during the planning period due to 

restrictions for the protection of sage-grouse habitat. 

Paleontology 

The paleontology resource CIAA consists of the entire planning area because each paleontological 

resource is limited to a specific area and would not likely be influenced by activities occurring outside the 

planning area. 

Current and future trends include population growth, urbanization, mining, fluid mineral leasing, 

renewable energy development, increase in recreational demand, road construction, and erosion. For 

actions on public land and the mineral estate managed by the BLM, impacts would be minimized through 

existing laws, regulations, and stipulations addressing surface-disturbing activities. Other grounddisturbing activities such as road construction, real estate development, and utility infrastructure in the 

CIAA may be reviewed by other federal, state, or local agencies for the presence and scientific value of 

paleontological resources and steps taken to recover or avoid significant finds. Actions on private land 

could result in the inadvertent destruction of paleontological resources or the removal of fossils without 

any scientific study. Population growth and increasing recreational demand can impact resources from 

unauthorized removal, vandalism, incremental damage of surface resources, and subsequent erosion. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-484 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Because of the legal protections afforded paleontological resources, there are no substantial differences in 

the potential for cumulative impacts among the management alternatives in relation to paleontological 

resources on public lands. Development activities occurring on private and state lands with no federal 

jurisdiction would have the greatest cumulative impact on paleontological resources within the planning 

area. A large portion of the minerals activities analyzed above would occur on private and state lands, 

especially within the checkerboard landownership areas. These surface disturbing activities result in the 

damage or loss of paleontological resources by removing or altering the context of these sites, thereby 

limiting the potential to extrapolate data. The lack of legal or regulatory protections for paleontological 

resources on nonfederal lands means development in those areas is more likely to result in a loss of 

scientifically significant paleontological information. As a result, when added to the impacts identified 

above, Alternative B will have the least degree of cumulative impacts on paleontological resources on 

public lands due to its restrictions. However, because of the restrictions on public lands, there is an 

increased potential for development on private lands without protective stipulations to mitigate impacts to 

paleontological resources. 

Recreation 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on recreation resources includes the planning area, all big 

game herd units that intersect the planning area, and recreational trails and road systems that connect to 

the planning area. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the CIAA that have 

affected, and will likely to continue to affect, recreation stem primarily from increased visitation to the 

area, mainly from nearby communities. Population increases and advances in outdoor recreation 

equipment and practices help to drive visitation increases. Motorized vehicles are more capable of 

accessing previously remote areas in Wyoming and many people who move to surrounding communities 

choose to live in the area because of the ease of access to outdoor recreation opportunities. 

Several big game wildlife populations are managed within the CIAA and therefore could be impacted by 

activities occurring in these areas. Because hunting is a major recreation activity within the planning area, 

any activities that affect game populations would in turn impact recreation activities. Decisions in these 

LUP amendments are designed to limit or reduce impacts to special status species wildlife habitat, 

especially for sage-grouse. Although there would be some related benefits to big game species, which 

would in turn benefit recreational hunting opportunities. The greater effect on recreation from this RMP 

would affect primitive and undeveloped recreational experiences through decreased visual intrusions, 

noise levels, and traffic volumes as a direct and indirect result of decisions aimed at protecting sagegrouse. 

Seasonal restrictions designed to protect sensitive resources (e.g. sage-grouse) could reduce recreational 

opportunities for some users by limiting access to certain areas; however, such restrictions could also 

enhance the experience of other users who desire solitude and primitive recreation opportunities. 

Disturbance caps within core habitat areas would also enhance primitive and undeveloped recreational 

experiences. These cumulative effects would be greatest near core habitat areas and least near private 

lands, where such protection from development would not be extended. 

Cumulative impacts on recreation would be greatest under Alternative A because development activities 

are anticipated to be greatest under this alternative. Impacts would be least intensive under Alternative C 

because of increased protections to wildlife and from prohibiting or limiting the amount of surface 

disturbance and disruption that would occur throughout the planning area. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-485

Socioeconomics 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on socioeconomics includes the entire planning area. 

Cumulative impacts to socioeconomics would result from primarily from actions that affect resource uses, 

particularly mineral development and production, wind energy development and production, livestock 

grazing, and recreation. While these resource uses do affect, and are affected by, resource users and other 

developments outside the planning area, the cumulative impacts from these resource uses on public lands 

affected by this planning action would be primarily experienced within the planning area. 

The social and economic impacts of these resource uses on BLM-administered lands and National Forest 

System Lands take place in the context of social and economic impacts from these resource uses on other 

lands in the planning area, social and economic impacts driven by other activities in the planning area 

(e.g., public infrastructure development), and broader social and economic trends (e.g., in- and outmigration, changes in social values, trends in energy prices, etc.). Thus, the social and economic impacts 

from BLM and Forest Service decisions in this planning action are just a part of the many contributing 

factors to the social and economic changes taking place in the planning area. 

With respect to mineral development and production, in some cases the management decisions may have 

impacts on oil and gas activity on nonfederal mineral estate. The RFD indicates that some reductions in 

oil and gas activity on nonfederal mineral estate in sage-grouse habitat areas will occur in Alternatives B 

and C, but not in the other alternatives. Conversely, some of the reductions in oil and gas activity on 

federal mineral estate may be made up in areas outside of sage-grouse habitat areas. The net effect is that 

net reductions in total oil and gas production across the planning area are likely to be larger under 

Alternatives B and C than the other alternatives, with related economic losses to some local communities 

and the state. At the same time, net reductions in oil and gas activity that may occur under Alternatives B 

and C may reduce social impacts such as stresses on community resources and community cohesion that 

have been observed in areas with high levels of rapid oil and gas development, and that are probable in 

some parts of the planning area under any of the alternatives. 

Very large reductions in the BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands available for 

wind energy development and production would occur in Alternatives B, C, and E relative to Alternatives 

A and D. In addition, Alternatives B and C have significant restrictions that would affect the routing or 

feasibility of the electricity transmission lines necessary for large-scale wind energy development in 

Wyoming. Some of the reductions in wind development may be made up on non-BLM lands and nonNational Forest System Lands, and transmission lines may still be possible, at increased cost. In general, 

impacts on the overall wind energy development industry in Wyoming would be most likely under 

Alternatives B and C, with related economic losses to some local communities and to the state. 

Some changes to livestock grazing practices on BLM-administered lands and National Forest System 

Lands would occur under any of the alternatives. In most cases, these changes can probably be 

accommodated or made up for on other lands in the planning area. However, Alternative C’s prohibition 

on livestock grazing within priority habitat areas may result in losses of forage availability that cannot be 

made up for on other lands or through other approaches to livestock feed. This would exacerbate broader 

trends that are reducing the economic viability of livestock grazing, and potentially result in net economic 

losses to some local communities and the state, and social impacts in terms of a reduced role for livestock 

grazing customs and culture in the social fabric of some communities. 

To the extent that management actions under the alternatives (mostly under Alternatives B and C) restrict 

certain recreational activities in sage-grouse habitat on BLM-administered lands and National Forest 

System Lands, in many cases these activities would relocate to other lands. At the same time, recreation 

could increase on some BLM-administered lands and National Forest System Lands because the 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-486 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

protections of open space (particularly under alternatives B and C) would be attractive to some types of 

recreationists. The net effects to total recreational activity on all lands within the planning area, and to the 

economic activity and social impacts from recreation are likely to be small, particularly relative to the net 

effects that could occur in some of the alternatives from the other resource uses. 

Soils

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on soils includes the entire planning area. Surfacedisturbing activities occurring within the planning area are not expected to affect soil resources outside 

the planning area. However, watershed impacts (sediment delivery to stream systems, sedimentation, 

changes in frequency, duration and volume runoff) could extend beyond the planning area. 

Cumulative impacts on soils would result from all surface-disturbing activities and the associated erosion, 

and focus on removal of vegetation cover, soil compaction, and loss of productivity. Mineral development 

activities, including oil and gas, coal, and other minerals, and related construction of roads, pipelines, and 

well pads would be the primary cause of such disturbances, although activities such as utility corridor and 

wind energy development would also contribute cumulatively to localized impacts on soils. Vegetation 

treatments and large range improvements, including prescribed fire, likely have and would continue to 

impact soils resources locally, but they would increase vegetation cover, and thus soil health, over the 

long term. Similarly, all forms of recreational activities, but particularly OHV use can increase potential 

for erosion, sedimentation, gully creation, biologic soil crust damage, and riparian and upland vegetation 

damage. However, the significance of such impacts varies with the nature and degree of disturbance as 

well as site specific environmental conditions. 

The implementation of BLM’s and Forest Service’ mitigation guidelines, prohibitions and/or restrictions 

on surface use, continued implementation of healthy rangeland standards, and monitoring efforts would 

provide protection to soils on federal lands and lands with federal subsurface minerals, which would help 

reduce cumulative effects. 

Combined with the proposed management actions, cumulative impacts to soils would be greatest under 

Alternative A because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities in sagegrouse core habitat areas. Under Alternative C, increased restrictions on newly permitted surface 

disturbing activities would reduce the potential for surface disturbance and vegetation removal and any 

subsequent increases in erosion, runoff, and loss of soil productivity, resulting in the least intensive 

impacts. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B, D, and E would be greater than under Alternative C 

because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities in sage-grouse core habitat 

areas. 

Special Designations 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on SD/MAs includes the entire planning area. Because 

management associated with the SD/MAs are intended to protect the resource values and uses for which 

they have been identified, it is not anticipated that any additional activities outside of the planning area 

would have a cumulative impact on the SD/MAs. 

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the CIAA that have affected, 

and will likely to continue to affect, special designations are primarily surface-disturbing activities and 

protection of sensitive resources (e.g. sage-grouse). 

Cumulative impacts on SD/MAs would primarily occur from surface disturbing activities associated with 

various forms of development and structures associated with development; including, but not limited to, 

power lines, wind turbines, generators, substations and other above-ground facilities. While some 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-487

SD/MAs are managed specifically for surface disturbing activities, such as oil and gas and wind 

development, the majority of SD/MAs are managed to protect specific resource values and uses. Many of 

these resource values and uses would be directly or indirectly impacted by surface disturbing activities. 

Examples of SD/MAs resource values and uses that would be impacted by surface disturbance include 

cultural and paleontology, wildlife, vegetation, soils and watersheds, visual resources, and primitive and 

semi-primitive recreational opportunities. Increased levels of development and other surface disturbing 

activities could result in the loss or degradation of undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources. 

Modifications to the landscape caused by surface disturbance could impact vegetation communities and 

increase soil erosion and the overall integrity of the landscape which could also have a direct impact on 

wildlife habitat. Additionally, increased levels of surface disturbance and the associated increase use of 

heavy equipment, presence of humans, and increase noise levels could result in increased stress levels to 

wildlife and on their movement and migration patterns and natural habitat. Impacts to the integrity of the 

landscape caused from surface disturbance would result in the degradation of visual qualities and 

opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive recreational experiences. 

Decisions in these LUP amendments are designed to limit or reduce impacts to special status species 

wildlife habitat, especially for sage-grouse. Because this is largely accomplished by preventing surfacedisturbance, many of the cumulative impacts described in the previous paragraph would be reduced by the 

actions in these LUP amendments, particularly under alternatives B and C. 

Cumulative impacts on SD/MAs would be greatest under Alternative A because development activities 

are anticipated to be greatest under this alternative. Impacts would be the least intensive under 

Alternative C because of increased protections to sensitive resources and from prohibiting or limiting the 

amount of surface disturbance that would occur throughout the planning area. 

Special Status Species 

The CIAA used to analyze potential impacts on special status species vary by species and the habitat they 

inhabit or use for migration (for wildlife) both inside and adjacent to the planning area. Cumulative 

effects on special status species plants and animals within the CIAA would result primarily from surfacedisturbing and other disruptive activities such as mineral development and associated infrastructure, wind 

energy development, fences of all kinds, ROW and road development, prescribed and wildland fire, 

introduction and spread of non-native, invasive plant species; urban expansion and subdivision of private 

lands, and dispersed recreation. These activities could result in short-term and long-term habitat loss, 

fragmentation and animal displacement. Habitats could become unavailable to wildlife because of human 

disturbance factors (e.g., traffic, noise, energy development) during sensitive time periods such as winter, 

birthing, nesting, and early rearing of young. Loss of vegetation from development activities would 

degrade habitat and increase competition for food resources among special status and other wildlife 

species. 

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 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-488 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

residence), more pressure would be put on habitats outside of the development (likely private lands) as 

wildlife is displaced from the disturbances. 

Surface disturbance could increase the proliferation of noxious and invasive weeds, which could increase 

the need for weed-controlling activities. Vegetation treatments could cause short-term impacts on 

vegetation by decreasing vegetation production and increasing establishment of early successional 

species. Long-term effects could include increased production and diversity of vegetation communities. 

Untreated weeds on non-BLM lands or non-National Forest System Lands that spread to adjacent BLMadministered lands or National Forest System Lands would result in degradation of native habitat. Weed 

treatments on non-BLM lands or non-National Forest System Lands which are intermingled with BLMadministered lands or National Forest System Lands are the responsibility of the private landowner or 

lessee. Coordination with non-BLM or Forest Service landowners in the development and application of 

weed treatments would assure that weeds are identified and treated on all ownerships to maintain 

productivity of native vegetation, which comprises important wildlife habitats. 

The degree of impact on vegetation communities (habitat for special status wildlife) would depend on the 

timing of activities and whether the amount of activity within the CIAA outpaces successful reclamation 

and revegetation efforts in disturbed areas. The implementation of BLM or Forest Service’s mitigation 

guidelines, best management practices, and restrictions on surface use would help to reduce overall 

effects. However, given the level of anticipated mineral development and that most of the native shrub 

communities (e.g., sagebrush) require in excess of 20 years to reestablish to pre-disturbance conditions, 

surface disturbance impacts are expected under all alternatives, with the greatest amount of impacts under 

Alternative A and the lowest impacts under Alternative C. 

Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse 

Introduction 

The past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the CIAA would result primarily from 

surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities such as mineral development and associated 

infrastructure, wind energy development, livestock grazing, fences of all kinds, ROW and road 

development, prescribed and wildland fire, introduction and spread of non-native, invasive plant species; 

urban expansion and subdivision of private lands, and dispersed recreation. 

The cumulative effects analysis study area extends beyond the planning area boundary and consists of 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) sage-grouse Management Zones (MZ) I, 

II and VII. This Draft EIS contains a quantitative cumulative effects analysis for Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat within the planning area boundary. At the larger WAFWA Management Zone level, the analysis is 

primarily qualitative in nature. Data and information to enable a more comprehensive quantitative 

analysis that becomes available between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS may include the following: 

ongoing land use plan amendments and revisions, state plans that may not yet be completed, coordination 

with states and agencies during consistency reviews, and data from non-BLM lands or non-National 

Forest System Lands. Those data that become available will be compiled and included in the quantitative 

cumulative effects analysis for sage-grouse in the Final EIS. 

WAFWA Management Zone I 

Major threats to sage-grouse habitats and populations occurring across populations in this MZ include oil 

and gas development, infrastructure, and conversion of native rangeland to crops; however, habitat 

conversion is of greater concern outside of Wyoming within MZ 1 (USFWS 2013). Over 6.3 million 

acres (14%) of sage-grouse habitat is currently leased for the development of federal fluid minerals. 

Additionally, most sage-grouse habitats within the Management Zone have the potential to be influenced 

by coal mining and/or the development of geothermal energy, although coal and mineral developments 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-489

currently directly influence <1% of the lands in the region. Regional assessments estimated that 7.2% of 

priority and general habitats in Management Zone I are directly influenced by agricultural development, 

and >99% of these habitats are within 6.9 km (4.3 mi) of agriculture; less than 1% of sage-grouse habitats 

are directly influenced by a natural gas or oil well, however nearly all (100%) lie within 19 km (11.8 mi) 

of a well - the estimated effects area (Johnson et al. 2011, Taylor et al. 2012). 

BLM or Forest Service managed grazing allotments not meeting wildlife standards constitute 2% of 

Management Zone I and are not widespread throughout the region; however most of the sage-grouse 

habitats in Management Zone I are privately owned and are not addressed in this analysis. Livestock 

grazing is consistently mentioned across populations in the region as being a potential threat to the 

persistence of sage-grouse (USFWS 2013). Fire risk is generally low across Management Zone I, with 

17% of priority and general habitats having a high risk for fire; however isolated areas, especially in 

central Montana, South Dakota, the border between Montana and Wyoming, and eastern Wyoming, are 

identified as having high fire risk. Risk of cheatgrass presence was not available for this region, but 

cheatgrass (and Japanese brome, Bromus arvensis) are known to occur in this region. Thus, risk of annual 

grass invasion, as well as annual-induced fire, appear to need better documentation across the region. To 

help prevent increasing cheatgrass dominance on these rangelands, potential for invasion can be assessed 

when planning habitat treatments and rehabilitating disturbed areas, with pre-disturbance abundance 

being a good indicator of potential for post-disturbance response (Davies et al. 2012). Urban 

development, power lines, vertical structures and railroads directly influence less than 1.7% of the sagegrouse habitats in the region; however, where these threats occur in Management Zone I, the distribution 

is relatively dense compared to western portions of the sage-grouse range. 

This MZ spans four states: Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, and continues into 

Canada (USFWS 2013). There are four Greater Sage-Grouse populations within MZ 1: the Dakotas, 

Northern Montana, Powder River Basin, and Yellowstone Watershed (USFWS 2013). The Greater SageGrouse leks within this MZ are one of the more highly connected networks of the MZs. 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). 

Within MZ I, oil and gas leasing, other mineral development, livestock grazing, infrastructure projects 

such as roads, pipelines, and power lines are primary past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

The above activities, in conjunction with other less prevalent activities comprise the cumulative effects, 

the majority of which result in surface disturbance, removal of vegetation, and fragmentation of habitat. 

These effects are the major threats facing Greater Sage-Grouse. See Table 4-108 for projects throughout 

the planning area, and particularly Casper, Newcastle, Rawlins and TBNG for projects that are within or 

in proximity to MZ 1. 

Energy Development and Infrastructure 

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. 

Seasonal restrictions on mineral development that are applied within a specified distance of leks during 

breeding and nesting time periods would be likely to slow rates of overall habitat loss, lek abandonment, 

and resulting population decline; however, these limitations would not prevent further habitat destruction 

from occurring. Within Alternative A, surface disturbance would be prohibited or restricted through lek 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-490 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

buffers and seasonal restrictions, however, Alternative E would prohibit surface disturbance over a much 

larger area compared to A and Alternative D only restricts surface disturbance. Alternatives B and C do 

not have quantifiable restrictions for surface but has management prohibiting overall density of 

disturbance which attempts to reduce habitat fragmentation and continued disturbance and loss of sagegrouse habitat. In addition, Alternative B closes all priority habitat to oil, gas and CBNG leasing, and 

Alternative C closes all priority and general habitat to leasing. 

Closing areas to oil, gas, and coalbed methane development, in addition to applying NSO and CSU 

restrictions to sage-grouse habitat could protect in-tact, undisturbed expanses of sagebrush for sagegrouse. Alternatives A and E provide the same amount of closed acres, Alternative D provides slightly 

more acres, Alternatives B and C close the largest number of acres, with Alternative C providing the 

greatest area of closure to oil, gas, and coalbed methane development. Alternatives B and C have the 

largest areas of NSO, with Alternative E having more than Alternative A, Alternative D does not contain 

any NSO management. Seasonal restrictions in Alternative E protect the largest area compared to 

Alternative A, with D having the least. Alternatives B and C do not have management for NSO or CSU 

for oil, gas, and coalbed methane development. Overall, Alternative C protects the largest area of habitat 

from oil, gas, and coalbed methane development and Alternatives D and A protect the least. 

Infrastructure is a major threat to Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat fragmentation and habitat loss. 

Roads, pipelines, and transmission lines create linear disturbance and usually don’t end at state lines, 

adding to cumulative impacts beyond the planning area. Alternative A maintains the existing exclusion 

and avoidance areas for ROWs and has lek buffers to prevent road and other development within 

proximity to Greater Sage-Grouse leks. Alternative B excludes Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat and 

existing exclusion areas from ROW development and includes infrastructure in the DDCT calculations 

toward the three percent disturbance threshold. Alternative C provides the greatest protection to sagegrouse habitat by excluding both priority and general habitat from ROW development. Roads would be 

prohibited within four miles from leks in both priority and general habitat. Alternative D would have 

ROW exclusion areas similar to Alternative B, but lek avoidance buffer for roads with distances similar to 

Alternative A. Alternative E has the same ROW exclusion restrictions as Alternative A but greater lek 

buffer distances for disturbing activities and road development. Overall, Alternative C provides the most 

protection of habitat from linear disturbances and surface disturbance from infrastructure development. 

Alternative A could allow the most surface and linear disturbance within Greater Sage-Grouse core and 

general habitat. 

Disease 

West Nile virus is the main disease threat identified in the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse RMP and 

LRMP Amendments. 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. There is very 

little management variation between alternatives for disease in the Amendments. 

Conversion to Agriculture 

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. 

Conclusion 

Rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and sage-grouse habitat has been initiated by federal, 

state, and local government agencies. The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

in cooperation with the Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, and USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) have
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-491

published strategies to “maintain and enhance populations and distribution of sage-grouse by protecting 

and improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain these populations.” WAFWA, in 

coordination with the Western Governors’ Association recommended passing the North American 

Sagebrush Ecosystem Conservation Act (NASECA). The Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) launched the Sage-Grouse Initiative in 2010 to work with private landowners in sagebrush 

conservation. The Farm Service Agency began a program in 2010 to Conservation Reserve Program lands 

out of agriculture production and return the land to perennial vegetation. Within Wyoming, the Governor 

has issued an executive order for the Core Area Population Area Strategy (WGFD 2011). Other states 

bordering Wyoming have also taken steps to reduce the impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat in those 

states. 

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 comparatively close in acres protected from surface 

disturbance among resources. 

WAFWA Management Zone II and VII 

The major threats to sage-grouse habitats and populations occurring across populations in MZ II are 

energy development (primarily oil and gas development and supporting infrastructure), urbanization 

(however urbanization is of greater concern outside of the planning area in the southern part of MZ II), 

weeds/annual grasses, recreation, grazing and fire (USFWS 2013). Management Zone II is combined with 

MZ VII for this analysis and acres and other values are reflected in this combination; however, MZ VII is 

not included in this planning area. Approximately 7.8 million acres of the sage-grouse habitat in MZ II 

and MZ VII is currently leased for development of federal natural gas or oil reserves. This region also has 

Federal leases for the research of oil shale extraction overlapping the southern populations. The potential 

for coal mining, geothermal energy development, oil shale development, and wind energy development 

are also widespread throughout this MZ. In spite of these competing factors, the loss of habitat from 

subdivision and housing development and associated infrastructure (for example, roads) has been 

identified as the greatest threat to sage-grouse populations in southern portions of MZs II and VII 

(USFWS 2013). 

BLM managed grazing allotments not meeting wildlife standards consist of less than five percent of MZ 

II; however, considerable portions of this region have not been recently assessed (Manier et al. 2013). 

Although areas not meeting standards are not widespread in the region, the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006) ranked livestock grazing just below energy 

development and urbanization as an issue requiring immediate attention in eastern portions of the range of 

sage-grouse. Additionally, a large portion of central regions of this MZ (close to 5 million acres across the 

entire MZ) is federally managed wild horse and burro range, suggesting potential effects to sage-grouse of 

livestock grazing, and the compounding effects of feral grazers need to be considered across the region. 

Fire risk is generally low across MZ II with about 10% of priority and general habitats at high risk for 

fire; however, the eastern portion of the MZ is identified as having high fire risk (Manier et al. 2013). 

Cheatgrass is distributed across the region, however, generally not with the same abundance observed in 

the Great Basin region; some portions of this region, for example, the ownership “checkerboard” in 

southern Wyoming, are notably more thoroughly invaded than the cooler northwestern parts of the project 

area. Where severe infestation overlaps with priority and general sage-grouse habitat, managementintensive restoration may be considered. Current levels of disturbance have been sufficient to spread 

invasive species, and the historic combination of drought-stress and overutilization left sufficient niche 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-492 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

space among native perennials for local proliferation. In many areas, short-term adaptations of grazing 

rotations to increase the cover of native perennials may be sufficient to restore high-quality habitats. 

Despite the perceived abundance and persistence of sagebrush in some parts of this region, extensive (or 

cumulative) treatments that remove sagebrush cover (even temporarily) are discouraged, unless said 

treatments represent a very small portion of an extensive, intact sagebrush stand (very rare) or are 

expressly designed to rehabilitate degraded, underutilized habitats. 

These MZs span five states: MZ II contains Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Colorado, and MZ VII 

contains Utah, Colorado, and small portions of Arizona and New Mexico (USFWS 2013). There are five 

Greater Sage-Grouse populations within the Wyoming Basin MZ II: Jackson Hole, Laramie, Eagle-South 

Routt, Middle Park, and the Wyoming Basin (USFWS 2013). MZ II has the highest abundance of Greater 

Sage-Grouse compared to MZs within the grouse’s range (USFWS 2013). The Greater Sage-Grouse leks 

within this MZ have the highest connectivity networks of the MZs. The chance that the population of 

Greater Sage-Grouse could fall below 200 males is very low, a 0.3 chance by 2037 and a 16.2% chance of 

the population falling below 200 by 2107 (Garton et al. 2011). BLM and privately-owned lands are major 

constituents of sagebrush landscapes in this zone, representing 49% and 35% of the ownership, 

respectively (Knick 2011). 

Population Isolation/Small Population Size 

As the landscape is developed, populations of Greater Sage-Grouse can become isolated from habitat loss 

or fragmentation. The Wyoming portion of MZ II still contains extensive habitat outside of areas of 

energy development, but as wind and oil, gas, and CBNG leases are developed, these areas could be lost 

or degraded. The management to protect core/priority and general Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from 

surface disturbance and habitat as described under the threats of “Energy Development and 

Infrastructure” would also apply to this threat. 

Energy Development and Infrastructure 

Impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat from energy development and infrastructure 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 coalbed methane 

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. 

Seasonal restrictions on mineral development that are applied within a specified distance of leks during 

breeding and nesting time periods would be likely to slow rates of overall habitat loss, lek abandonment, 

and resulting population decline; however, these limitations would not prevent further habitat destruction 

from occurring. Within Alternative A, surface disturbance would be prohibited or restricted through lek 

buffers and seasonal restrictions, however, Alternative E would prohibit surface disturbance over a much 

larger area compared to A and Alternative D only restricts surface disturbance. Alternatives B and C do 

not have quantifiable restrictions for surface but has management prohibiting overall density of 

disturbance which attempts to reduce habitat fragmentation and continued disturbance and loss of sagegrouse habitat. 

Closing areas to oil, gas, and coalbed methane development, in addition to applying NSO and CSU 

restrictions to sage-grouse habitat could protect in-tact undisturbed expanses of sagebrush for sagegrouse. Alternatives A and E provide the same amount of closed acres, Alternative D provides slightly 

more acres, Alternatives B and C close the largest number of acres; with Alternative C providing the 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-493

greatest area of closure to oil, gas, and coalbed methane development. Alternative B closes all priority 

habitat to oil, gas and CBNG leasing, and Alternative C closes all priority and general habitat to leasing. 

Alternatives B and C also have the largest areas of NSO, with Alternative E having more than 

Alternative A, Alternative D does not contain any NSO management. Seasonal restrictions in 

Alternative E protect the largest area compared to Alternative A, with D having the least. Alternatives B 

and C do not have management for NSO or CSU for oil, gas, and coalbed methane development. Overall, 

Alternative C protects the largest area of habitat from oil, gas, and coalbed methane development and 

Alternatives D and A protect the least. 

Infrastructure is a major threat to Greater Sage-Grouse from habitat fragmentation and habitat loss. 

Roads, pipelines, and transmission lines create linear disturbance and usually don’t end at state lines, 

adding to cumulative impacts beyond the planning area. Alternative A maintains the existing exclusion 

and avoidance areas for ROWs and has lek buffers to prevent road and other development within 

proximity to Greater Sage-Grouse leks. Alternative B excludes Greater Sage-Grouse priority habitat and 

existing exclusion areas from ROW development and includes infrastructure in the DDCT calculations 

toward the three percent disturbance threshold. Alternative C provides the greatest protection to sagegrouse habitat by excluding both priority and general habitat from ROW development. Roads would be 

prohibited within four miles from leks in both priority and general habitat. Alternative D would have 

ROW exclusion areas similar to Alternative B, but lek avoidance buffer for roads with distances similar to 

Alternative A. Alternative E has the same ROW exclusion restrictions as Alternative A but greater lek 

buffer distances for disturbing activities and road development. Overall, Alternative C provides the most 

protection of habitat from linear disturbances and surface disturbance from infrastructure development. 

Alternative A could allow the most surface and linear disturbance within Greater Sage-Grouse core and 

general habitat. 

Urbanization 

The loss of habitat for sage-grouse from urban development is a major threat in the southern populations 

of MZs II and VII (the areas most affected by urban development are in portions of MZ II and VII that are 

outside of the planning area). Impacts from urbanization would depend on the local governments within 

and adjacent to the planning area. BLM and Forest Service management in the Amendments would not 

influence this threat. 

Conclusion 

The major threats (e.g., energy development—primarily oil and gas development and infrastructure) in 

Management Zone II and VII are affected by regulations enforced on state lands in concert with the 

management in these Amendments. Habitat conservation through regional efforts, threat conservation as 

identified in the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Objectives (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 comparatively close in acres protected from surface 

disturbance among resources. 

Transportation and Access Management 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts of transportation and access includes the transportation 

network for the planning area, as well as roads and trails that connect to the planning area from adjacent 

lands. Cumulative impacts result from the implementation of surface use restrictions, which impacts the 

location and design of new roads. These impacts, combined with restrictions already in place for big game 

and special status species, add to the limitations placed on access to public lands. Temporary closures and 

seasonal closures further reduce access. Most of these impacts would reduce transportation for permitted 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-494 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

uses more than casual use; however, OHV use as a recreational activity would be particularly impacted 

under Alternatives B, C and E by the closure of “open” areas. OHV “open” areas have been enormously 

reduced throughout the region in recent years. Removing this type of access in the few areas left could be 

considered a significant impact to motorized recreation users in the region. 

Vegetation 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on vegetation includes the entire planning area. 

Cumulative impacts on vegetation would occur as a result of the increased surface disturbances (i.e., 

development and associated infrastructure, fences, vegetation treatments, geophysical exploration, urban 

expansion and subdivision of private lands, and recreation activities) within the planning area. As general 

use, recreation, mineral development, and other construction activities (e.g., power lines, pipelines, heavy 

equipment) increase as a whole throughout the planning area, so would the potential for impacts on 

vegetation from vegetation loss, habitat fragmentation, soil compaction, soil erosion, and surface runoff. 

Development activities would also modify the composition and structure of vegetation communities and 

increase the potential for noxious weed infestations within disturbed areas. This would create degraded 

vegetation communities, which are more susceptible to disease and lower species diversity. 

Oil and gas development would cause the greatest amount of surface disturbance through construction of 

well pads, roads, pipelines, and other facilities. Cumulative impacts would likely be greater where mineral 

development is more intense, in areas where development overlaps with sensitive vegetation habitat, and 

on state and private lands because of the lack of protections afforded to natural resources in these areas. 

Restoration of sagebrush habitat could take 20-30 years to achieve pre-disturbance status. With increased 

oil and gas developments and attendant infrastructures (e.g., power lines, compressors, pipelines, and fuel 

tanks) there would be a corresponding increase in the potential for dust and invasive weed introduction. In 

addition, increasing the amount of oil and gas development would require more habitat restoration and 

vegetation treatment projects. 

Cumulative impacts on vegetation would occur under all alternatives due to habitat loss but they would be 

greatest under Alternative A because surface disturbing activities are anticipated to be greatest under this 

alternative. Impacts on vegetation would be the least intensive under Alternatives C because of projected 

decreases in surface disturbing activities and development activities, compared to all other alternatives. 

Visual Resources 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on visual resource includes the entire planning area, as 

well as areas adjacent to the planning area that have a viewshed that includes the planning area. Past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the CIAA that have affected and 

will likely to continue to affect visual resources are oil and gas development, mining, wind and solar 

energy development, road construction, cross-country vehicle travel, and vegetation treatment. 

Potential impacts on visual resource management would result primarily from surface disturbance 

activities that cause visual intrusions and degrade the visual quality of the CIAA. Activities related to oil 

and gas development, wind energy projects, pipeline projects, and communication towers would have the 

potential to degrade visual resources and result in inconsistencies with VRM Class objectives. Because 

most of the actions in the LUP amendments are aimed at protecting sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat 

from surface disturbing impacts, these same actions reduce impacts to the visual characteristics of the 

landscape. Cumulatively, impacts from Alternative A would allow the greatest impacts to visual 

resources; Alternative C would provide the greatest protection. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-495

Watershed and Water Quality 

The CIAA boundary for watershed resources and water quality includes watersheds that intersect the 

planning area (Map 3-24). While surface-disturbing activities within the planning area are not expected to 

affect watershed resources and water quality outside of the planning area, watershed impacts beyond the 

planning area are dependent on hydrograph alteration and the quality of water flowing from the planning 

area. 

Restrictions from surface disturbing activities related to oil and gas, coal, and mineral development, as 

well as wind energy development, would collectively result in the reduction in removal of vegetation, 

long-term reduction in overall vegetation cover, and disturbance of soils, and in turn would decrease 

overland flow, soil erosion, and increase the ability of a watershed to buffer high flows and filter water, 

sediment, and nutrients. Less soil would be mobilized by wind and water erosion, and less would be 

transported downslope and to nearby water bodies, which would decrease sediment and nutrient loads to 

streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs and thereby maintain water quality. Unavoidable water quality 

impacts could include temporary increases in suspended load in flowing streams as a result of culvert 

installation, vehicle use of low-water crossings, and permitted channel fills resulting from construction of 

oil and gas pads, roads, and pipelines. Water quantity impacts would include water withdrawals for oil 

and gas and other mineral resource exploration, development and production, and watering of roads for 

dust mitigation. Decreases in overland flow also would directly decrease the amount of water that is 

transported to streams and rivers, which could lead to decreased downcutting, widening, and overall 

degradation of stream channels. Effects on groundwater quality and quantity would depend on the amount 

of oil and gas and mineral development activity in the planning area, as a result of surface disturbing 

restrictions and/or prohibitions. 

Similarly, recreation activities, particularly OHV activity may also directly and indirectly impact water 

quality due to erosion and sediment production potential. However, the significance of such impacts 

varies with the nature and degree of disturbance as well as site specific environmental conditions. 

Typically larger disturbances represent greater potential to damage soils and vegetation, degrade water 

quality, and impair overall watershed function and condition than smaller disturbances. 

Potential cumulative impacts on water resources from large range improvements, including prescribed 

fire, in the planning area would result from alteration of functional vegetative communities and could lead 

to increased runoff and sediment/contaminant delivery. Activities with impacts on water resources 

include management actions attributed to the alteration of natural vegetative communities, grazing 

practices, surface-disturbing actions in areas of low reclamation potential, conversion of native rangelands 

to irrigated agricultural lands (on non-BLM lands or non-National Forest System Lands). These activities 

cause surface disturbances by removing vegetation cover, displacing and compacting soils, and altering 

soil structure and chemistry. The result is exposed surfaces that increase the potential for runoff and 

erosion, which delivers sediment and contaminants to nearby waterways. Sedimentation in waterways can 

cause changes in water chemistry as well as geomorphic adjustments that could have negative effects on 

stream function. 

Combined with the proposed management actions, cumulative impacts would be greatest under 

Alternative A because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities in sagegrouse core habitat areas. Under Alternative C, increased restrictions on newly permitted surface 

disturbing activities would reduce the potential for surface disturbance and vegetation removal and any 

subsequent increases in erosion, runoff, and sedimentation of surface waters, resulting in the least 

intensive impacts. Cumulative impacts under Alternative B, D, and E would be greater than under 

Alternative C because of fewer restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities in sage-grouse 

core habitat areas. 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-496 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

Wild Horses 

The CIAA used to analyze cumulative impacts on wild horses includes the active HMAs within the 

planning area. Cumulative impacts would occur from a combination of activities and uses occurring 

within the HMAs. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and conditions within the 

cumulative impact analysis area that have affected and will likely to continue to affect wild horses are 

wildfires, surface-disturbing activities, the presence and abundance of grazing wildlife, increased 

recreational demands, and protections for sensitive resources. 

Potential cumulative impacts on wild horses within the HMAs would result from a combination of 

activities and land uses occurring within the area. Such impacts would result primarily from surfacedisturbing activities, human disturbance, and the presence of livestock that compete with wild horses for 

forage resources. These activities result in wild horse displacement and direct removal and indirect 

degradation of forage. Wild horses would directly benefit from actions to increase forage opportunities, to 

improve range conditions, to maintain or improve water sources, and to eliminate barriers to movement. 

Restrictions and prohibitions on surface disturbing activities, as well as reclamation efforts and vegetation 

treatments would reduce impacts on wild horses. A reduction in development and recreation activities 

would decrease soil disturbances and vegetation removal, increase available forage, and decrease the 

displacement of wild horses. Wild horses would indirectly benefit from restrictions on motorized travel or 

other potentials for disturbance from people and vehicles. 

Cumulative impacts would be greatest under Alternative A because of fewer restrictions on newly 

permitted surface disturbing activities, recreation, and mineral activities in sage-grouse priority habitat 

areas. Under Alternative C, increased restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities, 

recreation, and mineral activities would reduce the potential for surface disturbance and vegetation 

removal and any subsequent increases in erosion, runoff, and loss of soil productivity. Cumulative 

impacts under Alternatives A, B, D, and E would be greater than under Alternative C because of fewer 

restrictions on newly permitted surface disturbing activities, recreation, and mineral activities in sagegrouse priority habitat areas. 

Wildland Fire 

The CIAA required to analyze cumulative impacts on forestry includes the entire planning area. 

Cumulative impacts on wildland fire management would occur as a result of the increased or decreased 

surface disturbances from development, grazing, recreation activities, and fire management occurring 

within the planning area. As general use, recreation, mineral development, and grazing increase as a 

whole throughout the planning area, potential for impacts to fire management, would increase as greater 

human traffic and activities would increase potential ignition sources. 

Cumulative impacts from not treating sagebrush could result in a loss of a mixture of seral stages of 

habitat. Fuel build up from not treating sagebrush habitat with fire could increase the potential for areas of 

lost habitat due to wildand fires in the future, along with a loss of historic fire regimes and condition 

classes. There could be impacts if wildland fires occur in habitat in late seral stages or over 15% canopy 

cover due to the intensity and flamelength of the fires in those areas. Suppression of fires in late seral 

stages or over 15% canopy cover could be dangerous or prohibitive because of the intensity of the fires. 

Cumulative impacts on fire management would likely occur under all alternatives largely due to surface 

disturbance activities but they would likely be the least under Alternative C because of the focus on 

restrictions in sage-grouse habitat which would be greatest under this alternative. This decrease in surface 

disturbing activities would transfer over to less potential for fires within the planning area. Impacts on fire 

management would be the most intensive under Alternatives A as management actions would allow for 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-497

more surface disturbing activities and the dispersion/use of BLM/Forest Service land by the general 

public when compared to other alternatives. 

Wildlife and Fisheries 

The CIAA used to analyze potential impacts on wildlife and fisheries vary by species and the habitat they 

inhabit or use for migration both inside and adjacent to the planning area. Cumulative effects on wildlife 

and fisheries within the planning area could result primarily from surface-disturbing and other disruptive 

activities such as mineral and energy development and associated infrastructure (such as pipelines and 

transmission lines), road construction, fences of all kinds, vegetation treatments, prescribed and wildland 

fire, introduction and spread of non-native, invasive plant species, geophysical exploration, over grazing 

from livestock, drought, urban expansion and subdivision of private lands, and dispersed recreation. 

These activities could result in short-term and long-term habitat fragmentation and animal displacement. 

Habitats could become unavailable to wildlife because of human disturbance factors (e.g., traffic, noise, 

livestock grazing activities) during sensitive time periods such as winter, birthing, nesting, and early 

rearing of young. Loss of vegetation from development activities would degrade habitat and increase 

forage competition among grazing animals. Livestock grazing practices would further increase 

cumulative impacts through direct competition for forage, water, and space, and by limiting the ability to 

manage vegetation for fish and wildlife needs. These impacts would also reduce the capability to maintain 

current population objectives. 

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 wildlife habitat and fisheries; however, construction and maintenance of roads and well pads and the 

presence of humans would result in long-term or permanent impacts. Cumulative impacts would likely be 

greater where mineral development is more intense, in areas where development overlaps with crucial and 

winter wildlife ranges, and on state and private lands because of the lack of protections afforded to natural 

resources in these areas. Protection of non-federally listed species on private and state lands may not 

occur, resulting in potentially significant impacts on these species. As development expands throughout 

southwestern Wyoming, the ability of big game species to disperse into habitats outside of the planning 

area may become limited. This may create isolated populations in areas where habitats remain intact. 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. 

Impacts on wildlife would likely occur under all alternatives because of the loss of habitat. The success of 

disturbed land reclamation, both short- and long-term, would determine the duration of impacts. Given 

the constancy of all other stressors, the potential for cumulative impacts would be greatest under 

Alternative A because of anticipated increases in development and fewer restrictions on such activity on 

public lands. Under Alternative C, increased restrictions on surface disturbing activities and oil and gas 

development in Greater Sage-Grouse priority and general habitat would provide the greatest protection of 

habitat for wildlife. 

4.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF 

RESOURCES

NEPA §102(2)C requires a discussion of any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that 

would be involved in the proposal should it be implemented. An irretrievable commitment of a resource is 

one in which the resource or its use is lost for a period of time (e.g., extraction of any locatable mineral 
Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS 

4-498 Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 

ore or fluid mineral). An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be reversed (e.g., the 

extinction of a species or disturbance to protected cultural resources). 

Implementation of the Wyoming Sage-grouse LUP Amendment would allow for surface disturbing 

activities, including mineral and energy development and infrastructure development that would result in 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. These surface disturbing activities would result in 

long-term or permanent alterations to soil, removal of vegetation cover, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, 

and damage to cultural and paleontological resources. Wildlife dependent on the affected habitats may be 

displaced and populations may be reduced as the carrying capacity of the range is reduced. Increases in 

sediment, salinity, and nonpoint source pollution that result from these activities could result in 

degradation of water quality and an irretrievable loss of water utility, aquatic habitats, and aquaticdependent species. However, management prescriptions and mitigation prescribed under the alternatives 

that are designed to protect sage-grouse habitat and other sensitive resources would reduce the magnitude 

of these impacts by limiting surface disturbing and disruptive activities. Alternatives B and C would have 

the greatest reduction of impacts. Although reclamation of some disturbed sites would occur under all 

alternatives, the level of habitat diversity and quality that existed prior to disturbance may not be achieved 

for several decades. Surface disturbing activities could result in permanent impairment of wildlife habitat, 

water quality, and vegetation communities in some areas. 

An irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable fossil fuels (i.e., oil and gas) would occur from the 

development of wells and subsequent extraction of fluid minerals over the next 20 years. The number of 

additional wells proposed for development within the planning area ranges from 1,567 to 897 depending 

on the alternative. 

4.24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS

NEPA §102(2)C requires disclosure of any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should 

the LUP Amendments be implemented. Unavoidable adverse impacts are those that remain following the 

implementation of mitigation measures or impacts for which there are no mitigation measures. Some 

unavoidable adverse impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Wyoming Sage-grouse LUP 

Amendment. 

Continuing to allow surface disturbing activities would result in unavoidable adverse impacts. Although 

these impacts would be mitigated to the extent possible, unavoidable damage is inevitable. Permanent 

conversion of vegetation resources to other uses, such as mineral and energy development reduces the 

quantity and quality of vegetation resources. Energy and mineral development activities on public lands 

create long-term visual intrusions, soil erosion and compaction, habitat degradation and fragmentation, 

and water quality impairment. 

Development of the additional oil and gas wells would cause air quality related impacts. Under all 

alternatives, production and release into the atmosphere of HAPs, VOCs, CO, SO2, NOx, and PM10 

would increase. However, it is not anticipated that the concentrations of these substances would increase 

to the point where an exceedance of the NAAQS or WAAQS would occur. 

Because large portions of the big game habitats coincide with leased areas of oil and gas potential, 

impacts on wildlife habitat would be unavoidable. Although oil and gas well sites and their associated 

infrastructure would be mitigated to the extent possible, long-term and possibly permanent habitat 

degradation and displacement of wildlife populations would be unavoidable. In addition, competition is 

anticipated for forage resources among wildlife and livestock. The extent of these impacts would vary by 

location of development activities, season, and drought cycle. 
Draft EIS Chapter 4—Cumulative Impacts 

Wyoming Sage-grouse Land Use Plan Amendment 4-499

Inadvertent damage and/or destruction of cultural and paleontological resources from increased surfacedisturbing activities would be unavoidable. Although mitigation measures would include identification 

and mitigation of resources prior to surface disturbing activities, some unanticipated discoveries of 

unknown cultural and paleontological resources could occur. The number of sites anticipated to be 

inadvertently damaged is unknown. 

Conflicts between user types such as recreationists who seek more primitive types of recreation and 

motorized users who share those recreational areas are unavoidable adverse impacts. As recreation 

demand increases, recreational use would disperse to other areas of the planning area, which could create 

conflicts with other existing uses of those areas. Recreation use would be displaced from areas of intense 

mineral development, which will increase the extent and frequency of conflict between these 

incompatible user groups in other areas. 

Numerous land use restrictions imposed throughout the planning area to protect sage-grouse habitat and 

other sensitive resources would impact the ability of operators, individuals, and groups to use the public 

lands without limitations and result in forgone opportunities to use resources within the planning area. 

Although attempts would be made to minimize these impacts by limiting the level of protection necessary 

to accomplish management objectives and by providing alternative use areas for impacted activities, 

unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. 

4.25 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND 

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

NEPA §102(C) requires discussion of the relationship between local, short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity of resources. 

Any use of the natural resources within the planning area is likely to adversely impact long-term 

productivity of these natural resources. 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. These uses result in surface disturbing and/or disruptive activities that 

remove vegetation, increase soil erosion and compaction, create visual intrusions and landscape 

alterations, increase noise, impair water quality, and degrade and fragment wildlife habitat. Although 

management actions, best management practices, surface use restrictions, and lease stipulations are 

intended to minimize the effect of short-term uses, some impact on long-term productivity of resources 

would occur regardless of management approach.