Appendix E

Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-1

APPENDIX E

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DRAFT MONITORING 

FRAMEWORK

The purpose of this Draft BLM and Forest Service GRSG Monitoring 

Framework (hereafter, draft monitoring framework) is to evaluate the 

implementation and success of the BLM and USFS land use plans in maintaining 

and restoring habitat conditions necessary to support sustainable GRSG

populations. Monitoring data will also be used to help inform adaptive 

management under these plans.

This draft framework outlines the general monitoring approach, consisting of 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation 

monitoring will evaluate whether (and to what extent) the BLM and Forest 

Service LUP decisions to ameliorate threats to GRSG have been implemented. 

Effectiveness monitoring will consist of a multi-scale analysis of our habitat and 

disturbance monitoring data. Best available population data, provided by the 

states, will be used to supplement effectiveness analysis.

This draft monitoring framework establishes the use of measurable quantitative 

indicators for habitat availability and maintenance of habitat types (e.g., priority 

and general habitats) to ensure each agency’s ability to make broad (yet 

consistent) generalizations about habitat across the range of the species. 

Monitoring methods and indicators are derived from the best available science. 

Corporate data-sets will be established or acquired so that data can easily be 

“rolled up” for reporting monitoring results across the range of GRSG, as 

defined by Schroeder et al. (2004); by populations and subpopulations as defined 

by Connelly et al. (2004); by LUP area; by the six WAFWA Sage-grouse 

Management Zones (Stiver et al. 2006) covered by the planning efforts; by BLM 

and USFS Priority and General Habitat; and by Priority Areas for Conservation 

(PACs) as defined in the GRSG Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report 

(US Fish and Wildlife Service 2013). Funding support and dedicated personnel 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-2 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

for broad and mid scale monitoring will be renewed annually through the 

normal budget process.

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

process whereby priority landscapes are identified across the species range and 

appropriate conservation actions are implemented within seasonal habitats to 

benefit populations. Following guidelines established by multiple agencies in the 

Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. 2010), this 

approach uses the four orders of GRSG habitat selection (Johnson 1980): first 

order (broad scale), second order (mid scale), third order (fine scale), and 

fourth order (site scale). Because LUP decisions are made largely at the broad

and mid scale, this draft monitoring framework focuses on these two larger 

spatial scales. The need for fine and site scale habitat monitoring may vary by 

area depending on existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land 

health; however indicators at these scales will be consistent with the HAF. 

Thus, this draft monitoring framework includes methods, data standards, and 

intervals of monitoring at the broad and mid scales, while outlining indicators to 

be measured at all scales.

I. BROAD AND MID-SCALES

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the selection of 

physical or geographical range of a species. There is one first order habitat, the 

range of the species defined by populations of GRSG associated with sagebrush 

landscapes (Schroeder et al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2004). Additionally, there is an 

intermediate scale between the broad and mid scales that was delineated from 

floristic provinces within which similar environmental factors influence 

vegetation communities. This scale was developed by WAFWA and is referred 

to as the WAFWA GRSG Management Zones. 

Second order habitat selection at the mid scale includes GRSG populations, 

subpopulations, and PACs. The second order includes at least 40 discrete 

populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Subpopulations range in 

area from 300 to 22,400 mi2, while populations range in area from 150 to 

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

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

applicable geographic scale (Table E-1; Figure E-1). 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-3

Table E-1

Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of Decisions, Sage-Grouse Habitat, and

Sage-Grouse Populations at the Broad and Mid Scales

Geographic 

Scales

Implementation Habitat Population 

(States)

Decisions Disturbance Vegetation Demographics

Broad Scale: 

From the range 

of GRSG to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones

LUP objectives, 

thresholds and 

management actions

Distribution of sagebrush within 

occupied habitat

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone population 

level and 

population 

trends

Mid Scale: From 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone scale, 

subpopulation, 

and PAC scale

LUP decisions, 

vegetation/ mid scale 

decisions

Percent of 

sagebrush per unit 

area, 

anthropogenic 

footprint, density 

of energy 

development

Sagebrush patch 

characteristics, 

GRSG habitat 

indicators

Subpopulation 

scale, dispersal 

and lek complex 

trends
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-4 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

Figure E-1

Map of Greater Sage-Grouse Range, Populations, Subpopulations and Priority Areas for 

Conservation (PACs).
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-5

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and USFS (36 CFR 219.12) 

require that land use plans establish intervals and standards for monitoring and 

evaluations, based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions involved. 

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the 

implementation (or the progress toward implementation) of land use plan 

decisions. A Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse 

LUPA/EIS Implementation Workbook will be completed within one year of the 

Record of Decision to track the number and type of applicable implementation 

actions related to each decision for each resource program, and maintained as 

actions occur. The BLM and USFS will be documenting progress annually toward 

full implementation of the land use plan.

B. Habitat (Vegetation) Monitoring

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide 

distribution of GRSG populations will be ascertained using the most recent 

version of the Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2006). 

LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the base sagebrush layer for five 

reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that has been 

updated since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification includes multiple 

sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide more accurate (compared 

to individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across jurisdictional 

boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a vigorous spatial accuracy assessment 

from which to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the base map 4) LANDFIRE 

EVT can be compared against the geographic extent of land that has the

capability to support sagebrush vegetation using LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting 

(BpS) to provide a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush can 

be supported in a defined geographic area, and 5) LANDFIRE is consistently 

used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al, 2011, Leu and 

Hanser 2011, and Knick and Hanser 2011). Therefore, BLM has determined

that LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad and mid scales to 

serve as an initial base layer for monitoring habitat characteristics and by which 

disturbance changes are measured, incorporated, and reported. Along with the 

aggregated sagebrush base map, BLM will aggregate the accuracy assessment 

reports from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for our final 

base map. Looking at the long term, BLM through its AIM program and 

specifically the Landscape Monitoring Framework, will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support overall accuracy improvements in their 

products. 

Within the US Forest Service specifically and BLM in isolated areas, forest-wide 

and field office-wide existing vegetation classification mapping and inventories 

are available that provide a much finer level of data than provided through 

LANDFIRE. Where available, these products are useful below the mid scale for 

establishing baseline conditions for monitoring. The fact that they are not 

available everywhere however limits their utility for monitoring at the broad and 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-6 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

mid scale where consistency of data products is necessary regardless of land 

ownership.

The BLM is improving the quality of vegetation map products for broad and mid 

scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort in partnership with the 

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). The Grass/Shrub 

mapping effort applies the Homer et al. (2009) methodology to spatially depict 

fractional percent cover estimates for four components range and west-wide. 

These four components are the percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent 

bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), and 

percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these fractional cover maps 

is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation. This “with-in” class 

variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that we cannot derive 

from vegetation type information from LANDFIRE. 

The base sagebrush layer, whether derived from LANDFIRE or Grass/Shrub, 

will allow for estimation of mid scale indicators, e.g. patch size and number, 

patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver 

et al. 2010). The actual methods used to calculate these metric will be derived 

from existing literature (Knick et al, 2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, and Knick and 

Hanser 2011). Disturbance updates, generated annually, will be included into 

the base layer and the landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes 

in pattern and abundance of sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. 

The appropriate geographic boundaries for this base layer include the range, 

management zone, population, subpopulation, and PAC. Other data sources 

would need to be used to report landscape metrics any finer than the PAC.

The sagebrush base layer and disturbance data provide the ability to calculate 

landscape metrics as one element of habitat monitoring at the broad and mid 

scales. Habitat quality, however, will be monitored using field data collected 

with a statistically valid sampling design (e.g., Landscape Monitoring Framework, 

a collaborative effort with NRCS on BLM lands (USDI-BLM 2011); AIM 

monitoring data (Toevs et al. 2011); and see "II. Fine and Site Scales"). These 

efforts can quantify indices such as percent annual grasses, species composition, 

sagebrush height, and bare ground at the PAC scale with known error estimates 

that are continually reduced as more data are collected. Point data will also be 

used to enhance the accuracy and precision of the Shrub/Grass mapping 

product. This product can in turn provide additional information about habitat 

quality at the mid scale. Long-term, BLM will be able to provide a suite of 

monitoring metrics for the PACs and larger scales that will provide a 

comprehensive view of sagebrush and GRSG habitat condition when combined 

with population data supplied by the states.

C. Habitat (Disturbance) Monitoring 

Most of the decisions in this land use plan are in response to “Factor A: The 

Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat or 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-7

Range” in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS’s) 2010 listing decision for 

GRSG (75 FR 13910 2010). The USFWS identified several “threats” affecting 

Factor A, therefore the BLM and USFS will monitor the relative extent of these 

threats on sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, to report on conditions at 

the appropriate and applicable geographic scales and boundaries. 

Disturbance data will include:

1. Agriculture

2. Urbanization

3. Habitat treatments

4. Wildfire

5. Invasive plants

6. Conifer encroachment

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

8. Energy (coal mines) 

9. Energy (wind towers)

10. Energy (solar fields)

11. Energy (geothermal)

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

13. Infrastructure (roads)

14. Infrastructure (railroads)

15. Infrastructure (power lines)

16. Infrastructure (communication towers)

17. Infrastructure (other vertical structures)

18. Other developed rights-of-ways

Cumulative disturbance monitoring will aggregate these 18 threats into the 

following three general measures (see Attachment A): 

1. Percent of sagebrush per unit area 

2. Percent of non-habitat (human footprint) per unit area 

3. Number of energy facilities and mining locations per unit area 

(density)

To accomplish disturbance monitoring, the BLM and the USFS will begin with a 

base layer of sagebrush described previously in Section B. Restored areas will 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-8 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

also be considered when evaluating the percentage of sagebrush on the 

landscape.

Next, the BLM and USFS will use the best available rangewide data (external 

and/or internal data) to evaluate anthropogenic and natural disturbances (direct 

physical footprint) of GRSG habitat based on threats listed in Factor A. The 

GRSG BER report (Manier et al. 2013) essentially provided a baseline collection 

of datasets across jurisdictions where available, however for some threats, the 

data were for federal lands only. Most of the data used in the BER were from 

external data sources, therefore the BLM will use the most currently available 

versions to evaluate changes (additional footprints) from the baseline dataset. A 

subset of these data (e.g. fire perimeters, mine and energy sites), provided by 

BLM field and state offices and USFS forests and regional offices, will be updated 

and reported to agency headquarters annually. The BLM will report the change 

in footprints for each of the 18 threats as well as cumulatively for the three 

general measures described previously.

D. Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring GRSG 

populations within their respective states. The BLM and USFS have initiated a 

process to establish that WAFWA will coordinate collection of annual 

population data by state agencies. To establish certainty that the data will be 

provided to the BLM and the USFS, the existing memorandum of understanding 

signed by WAFWA, the BLM, the USFS, the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, and the USFWS (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish_wildlife_and/sage-grouse.Par.6386.File.

dat/MOUonGreaterSage-Grouse.pdf) could be revised to outline collaboration, 

process, and responsibilities for data analysis and transfer related to 

management of GRSG. These population data will be used for analysis at the 

applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness monitoring of management 

actions. 

E. Effectiveness Monitoring

The BLM and the USFS will analyze the monitoring data to characterize the 

relationship among the disturbance, implementation actions, and habitat 

condition at the appropriate and applicable geographic scale or boundary to 

accomplish effectiveness monitoring for the Nevada and Northeastern 

California Greater Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS. This will involve evaluating the 

change in habitat conditions from the baseline conditions in relation to the goals 

and objectives of the plan and other rangewide conservation strategies (US 

Department of the Interior 2004; Stiver et al. 2006; US Fish and Wildlife Service 

2013). When available from WAFWA and/or state wildlife agencies, 

effectiveness monitoring can be supplemented with population trends (taking 

into consideration the lag effect response of populations to habitat changes 

[Garton et al. 2011]). The compilation of broad and mid scale data (and 

population trends as available) will be on a 5-year reporting schedule or as 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-9

needed to respond to emerging issues. In addition, effectiveness monitoring will 

be used to identify emerging issues and research needs and will be consistent 

with and inform the BLM and the USFS adaptive management strategy (see 

“Adaptive Management” section of the EIS [Section 2.5.3]).

II. FINE AND SITE SCALES

Third order habitat selection at the fine scale describes the physical and 

geographic area within home ranges. At this level, maps of seasonal habitats 

(breeding, summer, and winter) and the connectivity between these seasonal 

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

subpopulations, and PACs.

Fourth order habitat selection at the site scale is based on physical conditions 

and the geographic area within seasonal ranges to meet life requisite needs (e.g., 

nesting and brood rearing). Specific habitat measures are used at this scale as 

microsite conditions within the seasonal range to determine distribution and 

use. These measures are typically sampled across a defined area to inform third 

order habitat selection.

Details and application of monitoring at these two scales will be determined 

during implementation of the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater 

Sage-Grouse LUPA/EIS. The need for fine- and site-scale specific habitat 

monitoring will vary by area depending on proposed projects, existing 

conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. For example, 

implementation monitoring will track decisions in priority habitat; habitat 

vegetation monitoring will be conducted to evaluate projects targeting GRSG 

habitat enhancement and/or restoration; habitat disturbance monitoring will be 

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

anthropogenic disturbance footprints; and population monitoring (in 

cooperation with state wildlife agencies) will be analyzed below the 

subpopulation/PAC level where needed for more specific effectiveness 

monitoring (some LUP objectives, activity plans, development plans, leasing 

plans, etc.).

Habitat indicator data collected at the fine and site scales will be consistent with 

the HAF and information provided in the GRSG guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000) 

as well as the core indicators in the assessment, inventory and monitoring (AIM) 

strategy (Toevs et al. 2011), and applicable USFS monitoring techniques. 

However the metrics for quantifying the indicators can be adjusted for local 

conditions. If local adjustments to metrics are made, the adjustments will be 

appropriate to the floristic province/GRSG management zone where the data 

were collected and reflect local plant productivity and GRSG habitat data 

collected within the area. In short, adjustments will be science-based (i.e., 

predicated on data collected locally and published in a peer-review outlet) and 

ecologically defensible (i.e., generally supported by the broad base of knowledge 

on sagebrush and GRSG provided in the peer-review literature). When 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-10 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

evaluating the land health habitat standard in designated GRSG habitats, the BLM 

will analyze core indicators and other supplemental site scale GRSG habitat 

indicators (see HAF) as appropriate for the seasonal habitat. The activity level 

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

sampling design for vegetation treatments or management actions implemented 

at the site scale. In addition, the consistent collection of these data will be used 

to inform the classification and interpretation of imagery and habitat quality at 

the mid scale as described above.

For examples of current applications of disturbance and reclamation monitoring 

at the fine scale, see the BLM Wyoming Density and Disturbance Calculation 

Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM White River Data Management 

System (WRDMS) in development with the USGS.

III. FINAL MONITORING PLAN

This draft monitoring framework was developed for draft environmental impact 

statements to describe the proposed monitoring activities for this plan. The 

BLM and USFS will consider public comments and collaborate with other 

agencies to finalize the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater SageGrouse LUPA/EIS Sage-grouse Monitoring Plan.
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-11

LITERATURE CITED

Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

unpublished report, Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sagegrouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf.

Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 

13910 (March 23, 2010).

Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Horne, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011.Greater sagegrouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. Pp. 293 – 382 in S.T. Knick and J.W. 

Connelly (editors). Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats. Studies in Avian biology (vol. 38).University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Homer, C. G., Aldridge, C. L., Meyer, D. K., Coan, M. J., and Bowen, Z. H. 2009. Multiscale sagebrush 

rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2008–1027, 14 p.

Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource 

preference. Ecology 61:65-71.

Knick, S. T., and J. W. Connelly (editors). 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse: ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology Series (vol. 38), University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA.

LANDFIRE. 2006.National existing vegetation type layer. USDI Geological Survey. 

http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/lanfire/ (21 August 2009).

Manier, D. J., D. J. A Wood, Z. H. Bowen, R. M. Donovan, M. J. Holloran, L. M. Juliusson, K. S. Mayne, S.

J. Oyler-McCance, F. R. Quamen, D. J. Saher, and A. J. Titolo 2013. Summary of science, 

activities, programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus): US Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098, 170 pp.

Schroeder, M. A., C. L. Aldridge, A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, C. E. Braun, S. D. Bunnell, J. W. Connelly, P. A. 

Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, G. D. Kobriger, S. M. McAdam, C. W. McCarthy, J. J. 

McCarthy, D. L. Mitchell, E. V. Rickerson, and S. J. Stiver. 2004. Distribution of sage-grouse in 

North America. Condor 106: 363-376.

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, C. W. 

McCarthy, and M. A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater sage‐grouse comprehensive conservation 

strategy. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, 

WY, USA. http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSagegrouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. Sage‐grouse habitat assessment framework – a multiscale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land Management Unpublished Report. US Department 
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-12 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

of the Interior, BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise, ID. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/

Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SG_HABITATASESSMENT0000669.pdf.

Toevs, G. R., J. J. Taylor, C. S. Spurrier, W. C. MacKinnon, and M. R. Bobo. 2011. Assessment, 

inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated renewable resource management. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, 

CO.

US Department of the Interior. 2004. Bureau of Land Management national sage-grouse habitat 

conservation strategy. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM Memorandum of 

Understanding Washington Office 220-2011-02. BLM Washington Office, Washington DC.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) conservation 

objectives: final report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

October 2013 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS E-13

ATTACHMENT A. Geospatial data layers used to determine three factors for greater 

sage-grouse habitat disturbance monitoring at the broad and mid scales.

Geospatial Data Layer Percent of 

Sagebrush 

Percent of 

Non-habitat 

(Human 

Footprint) 

Number of 

Energy and 

Mining 

Facilities

Sagebrush X

Areas with biotic potential for sagebrush X

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Habitat treatments X

Wildfire X

Invasive plants X

Conifer encroachment X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments) X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-way X
Appendix E. Greater Sage-Grouse Draft Monitoring Framework

E-14 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Draft LUPA/EIS October 2013

This page intentionally left blank.