Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

1

ERRATA SHEET

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

Draft Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction

On December 10, 2018, the Bureau of Land Management Noticed in the Federal Register (83 FR 63525) 

the availability of Draft Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPS) and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse 

Sub-Region. Soon after publishing the document, the BLM identified inconsistencies with Appendix A 

(Proposed RMP Amendment with Management Goals, Objectives, and Decisions). Appendix B 

(Required Design Features) and Appendix C (The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy) of 

the Final EIS. The BLM has modified these appendices to better align these documents with the 

alternatives of the Proposed RMPA, as well as BLM and Department of Interior (DOI) policies regarding 

compensatory mitigation. These modifications do not substantially change the alternatives in the 

Proposed RMPA/Final EIS or the analysis of effects on the human environment. In conjunction with 

these modified Draft Appendices, this errata describes specific changes made to Appendix A and 

Appendix C since the December 10, 2018 publication.

Text added to the Draft Appendix A and Draft Appendix C is in blue font. Text removed from the Draft 

Appendix A and Draft Appendix C is shown in blue font with a strikethrough.

Table 1. Appendix A

Appendix A: Proposed RMP Amendment with Management Goals, Objectives, and Decisions

Page and Action 

Number 

Original Draft 

Appendix A

Draft Appendix A Revisions

A-3 / MO 16 The habitat objectives (see Tables 2-2 and 2-3) will be part of the Greater SageGrouse habitat assessment to be used during land health evaluations (see Monitoring

Framework in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix C D). These habitat objectives are not 

obtainable on every acre within the designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

management areas. Therefore, the determination on whether the objectives have

been met will be based on the specific site's ecological ability to meet the desired 

condition identified in the table.

A-4 / MD GMD 

10

Apply all appropriate RDFs (Proposed 2018 RMPA Appendix B) as mandatory 

Stipulations/COA/Terms and Conditions within PHMA for all program areas as 

applicable.

A-6 / MD GMD 

23

Existing RMP decisions, pertaining to non-Greater Sage-grouse resources, will be 

retained unless vacated or modified by decisions in this ARMPA. Where more 

restrictive land use allocations or decisions are made in existing RMPs, those more 

restrictive land use allocations or decisions will remain in effect and will not be 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

2

amended by this ARMPA. Where inconsistencies between the 2015 ARMPA and 

this 2018 Proposed RMP Amendment arise, the 2018 Proposed RMP Amendment 

decisions apply.

A-6 / MD GMD 

25

BLM planning units (Districts), in coordination with the USFWS and relevant state 

agencies, will complete and continue to update Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape 

Wildfire & Invasive Species Habitat Assessments to prioritize at-risk habitats, and 

identify fuels management, preparedness, suppression and restoration priorities 

necessary to maintain sagebrush habitat to support interconnecting Greater SageGrouse populations. These assessments and subsequent assessment updates will 

also be a coordinated effort with an interdisciplinary team to take into account other 

Greater Sage-Grouse priorities identified in this plan. 2015 ARPMA Appendix L 

describes a minimal framework example and suggested approach for this 

assessment. Implementation actions will be tiered to the Local (District) Greater 

Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire & Invasive Species Assessment using the best 

available science related to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. In 

coordination with the USFWS and relevant state agencies, the BLM planning units 

(Districts) will identify annual treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species 

management as identified in local unit-level Landscape Wildfire and Invasive 

Species Assessments. Annual treatment needs will be coordinated across 

state/regional scales and across jurisdictional boundaries for long-term conservation 

of Greater Sage-Grouse. These landscape assessment implementation efforts will be 

reviewed annually with appropriate USFWS and state agency personnel.

A-7 / MD SSS 1 Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows: The BLM, in coordination with the State of Wyoming and its 

agencies, other local partners and stakeholders, will establish monitoring 

framework (2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix C) for Greater Sage-Grouse 

populations and habitat that will be incorporated into individual project approvals, 

including small and in-house projects, as appropriate and necessary.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek: The areas will have priority for 

vegetation treatments to improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and for vegetation 

monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous vegetation is maintained for nesting cover 

on public lands.

A-8 / MD SSS 4 In all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, when authorizing third-party actions in 

designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the BLM will seek to achieve the 

planning-level Greater Sage-Grouse management goals and objectives through 

implementation of mitigation and management actions, consistent with valid 

existing rights and applicable law. Under this Proposed Plan Amendment, 

management would be consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse goals and 

objectives, and in conformance with BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management. In accordance with BLM Manual 6840, the BLM will undertake 

planning decisions, actions and authorizations “to minimize or eliminate threats 

affecting the status of [Greater Sage-Grouse] or to improve the condition of 

[Greater Sage-Grouse] habitat” across the planning area.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

3

Accordingly, before authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will complete the following steps, in alignment with the 

Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4 (July 29, 2015):

1. Work jointly with the WGFD to evaluate projects and recommend 

mitigation in the form of avoidance and minimization.

2. The WGFD will determine if the State requires or recommends any 

additional mitigation – including compensatory mitigation – under State 

regulations, policies, or programs related to the conservation of Greater SageGrouse.

3. Incorporate state required or recommended mitigation into the BLM’s 

NEPA decision-making process, if the WGFD determines that compensatory 

mitigation is required to address impacts to GRSG habitat as a part of State policy 

or authorization, or if a proponent voluntarily offers mitigation.

4. Analyze whether the compensatory mitigation:

• achieves measurable outcomes for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat function on 

a landscape scale as determined by WGFD that are at least equal to the lost or 

degraded values in accordance with the Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 

2015-4.

• provides benefits that are in place for at least the duration of the impacts

• accounts for a level of risk that the mitigation action may fail or not persist 

for the full duration of the impact

5. Ensure mitigation outcomes are consistent with the State of Wyoming’s 

mitigation strategy and principles outlined in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix C, 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy.

The BLM has determined that compensatory mitigation must be voluntary unless 

required by other applicable law and in recognition that State authorities may also 

require compensatory mitigation (IM 2019-018 2018-093, Compensatory 

Mitigation, December 6 July 24, 2018). Therefore, consistent with valid existing 

rights and applicable law, when authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat 

loss and degradation, the BLM will consider voluntary compensatory mitigation 

actions only as a component of compliance with a State mitigation plan, program, 

or authority, or when offered voluntarily by a project proponent.

Project-specific analysis will be necessary to determine how a compensatory 

mitigation proposal addresses impacts from a proposed action. The BLM will 

cooperate with the State to determine appropriate project design and alignment with 

State policies and requirements, including those regarding compensatory 

mitigation. When the BLM is considering compensatory mitigation as a component 

of the project proponent’s submission or based on a mitigation requirement from 

the State, the BLM’s NEPA analysis would evaluate the need to avoid or minimize 

impacts of the proposed project and achieve the goals and objectives of this RMPA. 

The BLM will defer to the appropriate State authority to quantify habitat offsets, 

durability, and other aspects used to determine the recommended compensatory 

mitigation action. 

Remove the phrase “net conservation gain” from all management actions across all 

RMPs and appendices, including in reference to MD REC 2.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

4

A-10 / MD SSS 

5

Greater Sage-Grouse leks inside PHMA: Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing 

activities will be prohibited on or within a 0.6-mile radius of the perimeter of 

occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 2-8). The authorized officer may grant an 

exception on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific analysis,

mitigation requirements, and consultation with the State of Wyoming and 

consistent with the applicable State management strategy (currently Governor of 

Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4) (see MD SSS 4). The AO may grant an 

exception if an environmental record of review determines that the action, as 

proposed or conditioned, will not impair the function or utility of the site for the 

current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of Greater 

Sage-Grouse.

A-10 / MD SSS 

6

Greater Sage-Grouse leks outside PHMA: Surface occupancy and surfacedisturbing activities will be prohibited on or within a 0.25-mile radius of the 

perimeter of occupied Greater Sage-Grouse leks (Map 2-8). The authorized officer 

may grant an exception on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific 

analysis, mitigation requirements, and consultation with the State of Wyoming and 

consistent with the applicable State management strategy (currently Governor of 

Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4)(see MD SSS 4). The AO may grant an 

exception if an environmental record of review determines that the action, as 

proposed or conditioned, will not impair the function or utility of the site for the

current or subsequent seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of Greater 

Sage-Grouse.

A-10 / MD SSS 

7

Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside 

PHMA (core only):

Surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities will be prohibited from March 15–June

30 to protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood rearing 

habitat. This timing limitation will be applied throughout the PHMA (core only). 

Activities in unsuitable habitats will be evaluated under the exception and 

modification criteria and shall be allowed on a case by case basis. The authorized 

officer may grant an exception on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate sitespecific analysis, mitigation requirements, and consultation with the State of 

Wyoming and consistent with the applicable State management strategy (currently 

Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4) (see MD SSS 4). Where credible 

data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates may be 

expanded by up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates, but not both.

A-10 / MD SSS 

8

Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat inside 

PHMA (connectivity only): Surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities will be 

prohibited within PHMA (connectivity only) from March 15–June 30 to protect 

breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitats within 4 miles of the lek or lek

perimeter of any occupied Greater Sage-Grouse lek within identified PHMA 

(connectivity only). This timing limitation will be applied throughout the PHMA 

(connectivity only). Activities in unsuitable habitats will be evaluated under the 

exception and modification criteria and may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. 

The authorized officer may grant an exception on a case-by-case basis subject to 

appropriate site-specific analysis, mitigation requirements, and consultation with 

the State of Wyoming and consistent with the applicable State management strategy 

(currently Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4) (see MD SSS 4).

Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates 

can be shifted by 14 days prior or subsequent to the above dates, but not both.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

5

A-10 / MD SSS 

9

Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing habitat outside 

PHMA: Surface-disturbing and/or disruptive activities will be prohibited from 

March 15—June 30 to protect Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, and early 

brood rearing habitat within 2 miles of the lek or lek perimeter of an occupied lek 

located outside PHMA. Activities in unsuitable habitats will be evaluated under the 

exceptions and modification criteria and shall be allowed on a case by case basis. 

The authorized officer may grant an exception on a case-by-case basis subject to 

appropriate site-specific analysis, mitigation requirements, and consultation with 

the State of Wyoming and consistent with the applicable State management strategy 

(currently Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4) (see MD SSS 4).

Where credible data support different timeframes for this seasonal restriction, dates 

may be expanded up to 14 days prior to or subsequent to the above dates but not 

both

A-11 / MD SSS 

10

Greater Sage-Grouse Winter Concentration Areas: Surface-disturbing and/or 

disruptive actives in Greater Sage-Grouse winter concentration areas would be 

prohibited from December 1—March 14. Activities in unsuitable habitats within 

PHMA would be evaluated under the exception and modification criteria and could 

be allowed on a case-by-case basis. The authorized officer may grant an exception 

on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific analysis, mitigation

requirements, and consultation with the State of Wyoming and consistent with the 

applicable State management strategy (currently Governor of Wyoming’s 

Executive Order 2015-4) (see MD SSS 4). Protection of additional mapped winter 

concentration areas in GHMA would be implemented where winter concentration 

areas are identified as supporting populations of Greater Sage-Grouse that attend 

leks within PHMA (core only) mapped and designated by the State of Wyoming. 

Appropriate seasonal timing restrictions and habitat protection measures would be 

considered and evaluated on consultation with the WGFD in all identified winter 

concentration areas.

A-11 / MD SSS 

12

Within PHMA (core only), new project noise levels, either individual or 

cumulative, should not exceed 10 dBA (as measured by L50) above baseline noise 

at the perimeter of the lek from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am during the breeding breading

season (March 1–May 15). These measures would be considered at the site-specific 

project level where and when appropriate. The authorized officer may grant an 

exception on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate site-specific analysis, 

mitigation requirements, and consultation with the State of Wyoming and 

consistent with the applicable State management strategy (currently Governor of 

Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4) (see MD SSS 4). In coordination with the 

State Sate of Wyoming, specific noise protocols for measurement and 

implementation will be developed as additional research and information emerges.

A-11 / MD SSS 

13

The Greater Sage-Grouse adaptive management plan (Wyoming RMP 2015

Amendment ARMPA Appendix C D) provides a means of addressing and 

responding to unintended negative impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse, and its habitat 

will be addressed before consequences become severe or irreversible. The 

Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA will include the requirement for projects 

requiring an EIS to develop adaptive management strategies in support of the 

population management objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse set by the State of 

Wyoming. Wyoming ADPPs will include an adaptive management plan, as

reviewed by the BLM WO, Solicitor’s Office, and USFWS, which includes: Upon

determination that a hard trigger istripped, theBLM will immediately defer issuance
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

6

of discretionary authorizationsfor new actionsfor a period of 90 days. In addition, 

within 14 days of a determination, the AMWG will convene to develop an interim

response strategy and initiate an assessment to determine the causal factors. The 

AMWG would define a process to review and reverse adaptive management 

actions once the identified causal factor is resolved (e.g., returning to previous 

management once objectives of interim management strategy have been met). 

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential 

management changes are needed in order to continue meeting Greater Sage-Grouse

conservation objectives. With respect to Greater Sage-Grouse, all regulatory entities 

in Wyoming, including theBLM, use soft and hard triggers. Soft and hard triggers are

focused on three metrics: 1) number of active leks, 2) acres of available habitat, and 

3) population trends based on annual lek counts.

In making amendments to this plan, the BLM will coordinate with the USFWS as

the BLM continues to meet its objective of conserving, enhancing, and restoring 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat by reducing, minimizing, or eliminating threats to that

habitat. The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes

available after the signing of the ROD and then at a minimum, analyzed annually

thereafter.

Soft Triggers:

Soft triggers are indicators that management or specific activities may not be

achieving the intended results of conservation action or that unanticipated changes 

to populations or habitats have occurred that have the potential to place habitats or

populations at risk. The soft trigger is any deviation from normal trends in habitat or 

population in any given year. Metrics include, but are not limited to, annual lek 

counts, wing counts, aerial surveys, habitat monitoring, and DDCT evaluations.

BLM field offices, with the assistance of their respective land and resource 

management plan implementation groups, local WGFD offices, and local Greater 

Sage-Grouse working groups, will evaluate the metrics with the AMWG on an 

annual basis. For population metrics, normal population trends are calculated as the 

5-year running mean of annual population counts. The purpose of these strategies is 

to address localized Greater Sage-Grouse population and habitat changes by 

providing the framework in which management will change if monitoring identifies 

negative population and habitat anomalies in order to avoid crossing a hard trigger

threshold.

Hard Triggers:

Hard triggers are indicators that management is not achieving desired conservation 

results. Hard triggers will be considered a catastrophic indicator that the species is 

not responding to conservation actions, or that a larger-scale impact or set of 

impacts is having a negative effect. Within the range of normal population variables

(5-year running mean of annual population counts), hard triggersshall be determined

to take effect when two of the three metrics exceeds 60 percent of normal variability 

for the area under management in a single year, or when any of the three metrics 

exceeds 40 percent of normal variability for a 3-year time period within a 5-year 

range of analysis. A minimum of 3 consecutive years in a 5-year period is used to 

determine trends (i.e., Y1-2-3, Y2-3-4, Y3-4-5).

A-12 to A-13 / 

MD VEG 3

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows: For vegetation treatments in sagebrush within PHMA, refer to 

2015 ARMPA Appendix H, WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-Grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM Washington Office Instruction 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

7

Memorandum 2013-128 (Sage-grouse Conservation Related to Wildland Fire and 

Fuels Management). These recommended protocols will be used in determining 

whether proposed treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute toward 

the 5 percent threshold within PHMA maintenance. Additionally, these protocols 

will be used to determine whether the proposed treatment configuration is expected 

to have neutral or beneficial impacts for PHMA (core only) populations or if they 

represent additional habitat loss or fragmentation.

Treatments to enhance sagebrush/grasslands habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse will 

be evaluated based on habitat quality and the functionality/use of treated habitats 

post-treatment.

The BLM will work collaboratively with partners at the state and local level to 

maintain and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitats. Seasonal restriction would be 

applied, as needed, for implementing fuels management treatments according to the 

type of seasonal habitat present.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Green River RMP:

Prescribed burns generally will be conducted in areas having greater than 35 

percent sagebrush composition, 20 percent desirable grass composition, and greater 

than 10 inches of precipitation. Other vegetation manipulation methods will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis depending on objectives and cost benefits.

Casper RMP:

Decision 4053: The areas (Bates Hole and Fish Creek/Willow Creek) will have 

priority for vegetative treatments to improve Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and for 

vegetation monitoring to ensure residual herbaceous vegetation is maintained for 

nesting cover on public lands.

A-13 / MD VEG 

5

Reclamation of surface disturbances in PHMA will be consistent with the 

Wyoming Reclamation Policy (BLM 2009a), vegetation objectives (Tables 2-2 and 

2-3), and 2015 ARMPA Appendix M. A monitoring plan will be developed for 

each restoration or reclamation project and will report progress and changes in 

resource condition.

A-15 to A-17 / 

MD FIRE 1

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows: For Wildland Fire Management, the protection of human life 

is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities among protecting human 

communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and 

natural and cultural resources will be done based on the values to be protected, 

human health and safety, and the costs of protection. The goal is to restore, 

enhance, and maintain areas suitable for Greater Sage-Grouse. Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat (GHMA) will be prioritized commensurate with local fire plans, property 

values and other important habitat to be protected, with the goal to restore, enhance, 

and maintain areas suitable for Greater Sage-Grouse.

PHMA (and Priority Areas for Conservation, if so determined by individual RMP 

efforts) will be the highest priority for conservation and protection during fire 

operations and fuels management decision-making. The PHMA will be viewed as 

more valuable than GHMA when priorities are established. When suppression 

resources are widely available, maximum efforts will be placed on limiting fire 

growth in GHMA polygons as well. These priority areas will be further refined 

following completion of the Greater Sage-Grouse Landscape Wildfire and Invasive 

Species Habitat Assessments described in 2015 ARMPA Appendix L.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

8

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Appropriate management response will be used on all wildfires in the planning 

area. Full protection strategies and tactics will be used in the following areas:

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)

Wildland industrial interface

Developed recreation sites

Developed electronics sites of all types.

In all other areas appropriate management response (AMR) strategies and tactics 

will be determined by (but not limited to) the following:

Firefighter and public safety

Resource values at risk

Proximity to private land

Firefighting resource availability. Tactical constraints follow:

The use of retardant within 300 feet of surface water (standing or running) is 

prohibited.

No trees are to be cut during suppression activities within 200 yards of an identified 

bald eagle roost. No heavy equipment will be used within the following areas, 

except when human safety is at risk:

Areas of cultural resource sensitivity

Riparian/wetland habitats

Big game crucial winter range habitats

Greater Sage-Grouse leks

Areas of highly erosive soils.

In areas not identified as full protection, heavy equipment usage will be limited to 

existing roads and trails or immediately adjacent to them.

Kemmerer RMP:

In areas of high-density urban and (or) industrial interface with intermingled BLMadministered lands, suppression objectives will follow the AMR in an approved fire 

management plan for the planning area to provide first for human health and safety, 

while minimizing loss of property and threats to other surface owners. Generally, 

wildland fires are suppressed in these areas. In areas of low-density urban and (or) 

industrial interface where BLM-administered lands occur in large contiguous 

blocks, fire suppression objectives will follow the AMR in an approved fire 

management plan for the planning area to provide first for human health and safety, 

while allowing for achievement of resource objectives.

Newcastle RMP:

Full suppression will be used on fires endangering human life or that spread to 

within 0.25 miles of state or private lands, structures and facilities, oil and gas 

fields, important riparian habitat, or other sensitive resources. All wildfires will be 

evaluated to determine the need for rehabilitation or restoration measures. 

Restoration of burned areas will be by natural succession unless a special need is 

identified to prevent further resource damage.

Pinedale RMP:

Wildland fire mitigation and fuels activities will be managed to provide for 

firefighter and public safety as a first priority. Public lands within intermixed land 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

9

ownership areas will be managed in association with the adjoining and nearby 

private and state lands.

Areas of mixed land ownership, communities at risk as identified in the Federal 

Register, Volume 66, Number 160, 2001 (Antelope Run, Beaver Creek area, 

Boulder, Cottonwood Creek, Daniel, Forty Rod, Hoback Ranches, New Fork, 

Pinedale, Pocket Creek, and Upper Green); urban and industrial interface areas; and 

areas containing high-priority resource values have high priority for response to 

wildland fires and/or for fuels reduction and mitigation. Wildland fire suppression 

activities will be based on the AMR.

Rawlins RMP:

A high priority for fire management activities will be given to areas identified as 

communities at risk, industrial interface areas, and areas containing resource values 

considered high priority within the RMP planning area.

Green River RMP:

Wildfire suppression will emphasize AMR. Immediate control actions will be used 

only in cases of arson, direct threat to public safety, or a strong potential threaten 

structural property.

Fire suppression actions will be based on achieving the most efficient control and 

allowing historical acres burned to increase. Activity plans will be developed for 

designated fire management areas defining specific parameters for all fire 

occurrences.

JMH CAP:

Appropriate management response to protect the basin big sagebrush/lemon 

scurfpea plant communities will be applied.

Wildland and prescribed fires will be managed in all vegetation types to maintain or 

improve biological diversity and the overall health of the public lands. In particular, 

plant species and age class diversity will be a priority; thus, AMR for all wildland 

fires will be identified and implemented depending on the resources and 

management objectives for the area.

Suppression techniques and hazardous fuels reduction activities will be identified to 

reduce wildland fire severity and occurrence on portions of the landscape where fire 

causes undesirable changes in plant community composition and structure. A sitespecific analysis will be prepared for sensitive resource areas, such as special status 

plant species sites, heritage sites, historic trails, and areas of critical environmental 

concern (ACECs), to determine the type of fire suppression activity that will be 

acceptable. Fire equipment and fire suppression techniques, such as vegetation 

clearing, will be limited to existing roads and trails in special status plant species 

habitat. As appropriate, the Fire Management Plan will be updated to reflect the 

appropriate suppression activity in sensitive resource areas.

A-17 to A -18 / 

MD FIRE 2

In PHMA, fuels treatments will be designed and implemented with an emphasis on 

protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems and enhancing and protecting future 

sagebrush ecosystems (refer to WGFD Protocols for Treating Sagebrush to Benefit 

Sage-grouse [WGFD 2011, as updated]) and 2015 ARMPA Appendix H.

These recommended protocols will be used in determining whether proposed 

treatment constitutes a “disturbance” that will contribute toward the 5 percent 

threshold for habitat maintenance.

Fuel treatments will be designed through an interdisciplinary process to expand, 

enhance, maintain, and protect Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. Green strips (using 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

10

native fire resistant/resilient species) and/or fuel breaks will be used, where 

appropriate, to protect seeding efforts from subsequent fire events.

In coordination with the USFWS and relevant state agencies, BLM planning units 

(Districts) with large blocks of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat will develop, using the 

assessment process described in 2015 ARMPA Appendix L, a fuels management 

strategy which considers an up-to-date fuels profile, land use plan direction, current 

and potential habitat fragmentation, sagebrush and Greater Sage-Grouse ecological 

factors, and active vegetation management steps to provide critical breaks in fuel 

continuity, where appropriate. When developing this strategy, planning units will 

consider the risk of increased habitat fragmentation from a proposed action versus 

the risk of large scale fragmentation posed by wildfires if the action is not taken.

Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, a full range of fuel reduction techniques 

will be available. Fuel reduction techniques such as grazing, prescribed fire, 

chemical, biological, and mechanical treatments will be acceptable.

Upon project completion, fuels projects will be monitored and managed to ensure 

long-term success, including persistence of seeded species and/or other treatment 

components. Invasive vegetation post-treatment will be controlled.

Wildfire prevention plans will be developed that explain the resource value of 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and include fire prevention messages and actions to 

reduce human-caused ignitions.

A-18 to A-19 / 

MD FIRE 3

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

For fuels management, the BLM will consider multiple tools for fuels reduction and 

will analyze in NEPA compliance documentation before electing to implement 

prescribed fire in PHMA.

If prescribed fire is used in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the NEPA analysis for the 

Burn Plan will address:

Why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable options

How Greater Sage-Grouse goals and objectives will be met by its use

How the COT (Conservation Objectives Team) report objectives will be addressed 

and met

A risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 

will be minimized.

Prescribed fire as a vegetation or fuels treatment shall only be considered after the 

NEPA analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. 

Prescribed fire can be used to meet specific fuels objectives that protect Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel breaks that disrupt the fuel 

continuity across the landscape in stands where annual invasive grasses are a minor 

component in the understory, burning slash piles from conifer reduction treatments, 

used as a component with other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and 

restore native plant communities).

Prescribed fire in known winter range shall only be considered after the NEPA 

analysis for the Burn Plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any 

prescribed fire in winter habitat will need to be designed to strategically reduce 

wildfire risk around and/or in the winter range and designed to protect winter range 

habitat quality. Refer to 2015 ARMPA Appendix H, WGFD Protocols for Treating 

Sagebrush to Benefit Sage-grouse (WGFD 2011, as updated) and BLM Washington 

Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-128. If prescribed fire activities are not in 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

11

compliance with these protocols, the treatment will be considered a PHMA 

disturbance.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

Use prescribed burning to achieve measurable 5th-order watershed objectives from 

(1) other resources, including, but not limited to, forestry, wildlife, range, 

vegetation, and watershed; (2) the reduction of hazardous fuels; and (3) the 

introduction of fire into fire-adapted ecosystems.

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Prescribed fire will generally be the preferred method of vegetation manipulation to 

convert decadent stands of brushland to grasslands and to stimulate sprouting of 

old, decadent aspen stands and/or shrub species. 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.

Rawlins RMP:

Fuel treatments, including prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and biological 

treatments will be used for fuels reduction and to meet other multiple-use resource 

objectives, including returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem. WUIs and 

communities at risk will receive priority for fuels reduction.

A-28 / MD 

Mineral 

Resources (MR) 

1 Fluid Minerals 

(Unleased 

Estate)

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

TheBLM will allow oil and gasleasing consistent and subject to the leasing

stipulations analyzed in the timing, distance, disturbance, and density restrictions 

sections (Map 2-2) (see MD SSS 4 5 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12, see also 

Wyoming RMP 2015 ARMPA Amendment Appendix A B – Fluid Mineral 

Stipulations). Ensure that leasing activities in PHMA comply with Greater SageGrouse resource management plan decisions and remain in compliance with laws, 

regulations and policy.

Fluid mineral leasing will be allowed in PHMA (core only), except in areas that are 

closed to leasing due to the need to protect other sensitive resources.

A-28 to A-29 / 

MD MR 2 Fluid 

Minerals 

(Unleased 

Estate)

Fluid Minerals (Unleased Estate)

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

Geophysical exploration projects that are designed to minimize habitat 

fragmentation within PHMA will be allowed, except where prohibited or restricted 

by existing RMP decisions, and in conformance with timing and distances 

Management Decisions (see MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12) (see 

Decisions MD SSS 5 through MD SSS 10).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

The blocks of public land identified as mapped in the Casper Field Office GIS 

database will be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation (192,550 

acres, of which 131,880 acres are BLM-administered surface). In these areas, the 

following restrictions apply:

These blocks are (1) unavailable for oil and gas leasing, and (2) a geophysical 

operation on public surface for the life of the plan. Activities for existing oil and 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

12

gas leases are managed intensively (see Appendix U of the Casper RMP). Existing 

leases will be allowed to expire and not be renewed.

Within these blocks, a withdrawal from the operation of the public land laws, 

including the mining laws will be pursued.

These blocks are closed to mineral material disposal. Existing permits will be 

allowed to expire without renewal or expansion.

These blocks are not open to wind/renewable energy development.

These blocks remain open to livestock grazing.

All allowed surface-disturbing activities within the designated blocks are subject to 

a Controlled Surface Use restriction, minimizing surface disturbance to meet 

management objectives. Decision 4024

The North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area will continue to be 

open to oil and gas leasing and geophysical operations. Decision 7039

The area is unavailable for oil and gas leasing and geophysical exploration is not 

allowed. Decision 7047

The MA is unavailable for new oil and gas leasing. No geophysical operations will 

be allowed on public surface.

Activities on existing leases will be managed intensively to meet the objectives of 

the MA (see Appendix U of the Casper RMP – Intensive Management). To 

minimize surface-disturbing activities, oil and gas exploration and development 

will use directional drilling techniques and well twinning whenever practicable. 

Decision 7059

The Red Wall/Gray Wall complex is located entirely within the South 

Bighorns/Red Wall Management Area and is unavailable for new oil and gas 

leasing. No geophysical operations will be allowed on public surface. Activities on 

existing leases will be intensively managed to meet the objectives of the MA (see 

Appendix U of the Casper RMP– Intensive Management). To minimize surfacedisturbing activities, oil and gas exploration and development will use directional 

drilling techniques and well twinning whenever practicable. Decision 7063

Those lands currently open to oil and gas leasing will continue to be open to 

geophysical operations. Those lands open to oil and gas leasing, but subject to a 

NSO restriction, may be open to geophysical operations should site specific NEPA 

analysis disclose a finding of no significant impact. No geophysical operations are 

allowed in areas closed for oil and gas leasing. Decision 2019

Kemmerer RMP:

Allow for geophysical exploration on lands throughout the planning area subject to 

identified conditions of approval.

Newcastle RMP:

Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with all types of minerals 

exploration and development and with geophysical exploration will be subject to 

appropriate mitigation measures determined through, but not limited to, use of MD 

SSS 4 the Wyoming BLM Mitigation Guidelines.

Pinedale RMP:

Vehicle-based geophysical activities will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The use of surface and/or aboveground (Poulter shot) explosive charges for 

geophysical exploration will be assessed case by case.

Geophysical projects, including projects proposed in areas with an NSO restriction, 

will be analyzed and mitigation developed on a case-by-case basis.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

13

Geophysical activities that are considered casual use actions are allowed within 

0.25 miles of active Greater Sage-Grouse leks provided that:

Operations are conducted on designated roads and trails.

Operations during the breeding season (March 1 through May 15) are conducted 

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

A 150-foot wide strip of undisturbed sagebrush is maintained around the perimeter 

of the lek for hiding and escape cover.

Rawlins RMP:

All lands open to oil and gas leasing consideration will also be open to geophysical 

exploration, subject to appropriate resource surveys, surface protection measures, 

adequate bonding, and adherence to State of Wyoming standards for geophysical 

operations.

Vehicular use for “necessary tasks” (as defined in the glossary), such as 

geophysical exploration including project survey and layout, will be permitted 

except where specifically prohibited (e.g., some SD/MAs).

Green River RMP:

Geophysical exploration (vehicles and detonation) activities will be prohibited 

within 0.5 miles of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature. Areas of sensitive heritage 

resources and geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, 

special status plant species, wilderness study areas (WSAs), and historic trails, will 

remain closed. Receiver lines may be laid using foot traffic within these areas. 

Exceptions to these restrictions may be granted on a case-by-case basis subject to 

appropriate site-specific analysis and mitigation requirements.

The remainder of the planning area will be open to geophysical exploration, with 

application of appropriate mitigation. Rights-of-way limitations in the planning area 

apply to on- and off-road vehicle traffic used for geophysical activities. Exploration 

activities will be allowed in sensitive resource areas only if they can be performed 

with acceptable mitigation of impacts.

JMH CAP:

Geophysical exploration (vehicles and detonation) activities will be prohibited 

within 0.5 miles of the Pinnacles Geologic Feature. Areas of sensitive heritage 

resources and geologic features, such as Boars Tusk, White Mountain Petroglyphs, 

special status plant species, WSAs, and historic trails, will remain closed. Receiver 

lines may be laid using foot traffic within these areas. Exceptions to these 

restrictions may be granted on a case-by-case basis subject to appropriate sitespecific analysis and mitigation requirements.

The remainder of the planning area will be open to geophysical exploration, with 

application of appropriate mitigation. ROW limitations in the planning area apply 

to on- and off-road vehicle traffic used for geophysical activities. Exploration 

activities will be allowed in sensitive resource areas only if they can be performed 

with acceptable mitigation of impacts.

A-30 / MD MR 

3

Fluid Minerals, 

Leased Estate

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

In cases where federal oil and gas leases have been issued with stipulations varying

from those in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix A B for the protection of Greater 

Sage-Grouse or their habitats, as provided in the applicable RMP decision, as 

revised or amended, their inclusion as APD COAs will be considered when 

approving exploration and development activities through completion of the 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

14

environmental record of review (43 CFR 3162.5 and 36 CFR 228.108), including 

appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA.

Overall consideration shall be given to minimizing the impact on Greater SageGrouse through a project design that avoids, minimizes, reduces, rectifies, and/or

adequately compensatesfor direct and indirect impacts on PHMA or use and

includes applicable and technical COAs (see MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD 

SSS 12). Selection and application of these measures shall be based on current 

science and research on the effects on important breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, 

and wintering areas. For proposed operations in PHMA, the Surface Use Plan of 

Operations (see 43CFR 3162.3-1(f)) shall address, at a minimum, the anticipated

noise, density and amount of disturbance, mechanical movement (e.g., pump jacks), 

permanent and temporary facilities, traffic, phases of development over time, offsite mitigation, and expected periods of use associated with the proposed project.

Seasonal habitats or project features related to potential Greater Sage-Grouse 

impacts that are not addressed in the Surface Use Plan of Operations based on sitespecific or project-specific considerations shall be noted in the project file, along 

with a rationale for not including them.

In this process the BLM will evaluate, among other things:

Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR 3101.1-2) and 

consistent with valid existing rights

Whether the action is in conformance with the approved LUP; and the effectiveness 

of the proposed mitigation measures.

The BLM will work with project proponents in these situations to promote 

measurable Greater Sage-Grouse conservation objectives such as, but not limited 

to, consolidation of project related infrastructure to reduce habitat fragmentation 

and loss and to promote effective conservation of seasonal habitats and PHMA 

(connectivity only) that support population management objectives set by the state.

The BLM will continue to work with project proponents and the WGFD to site their 

projects in locations that meet the purpose and need for their project, but have been 

determined to contain the least sensitive habitats (based on vegetation, topography,

or other habitat features) and resources whether inside or outside of PHMA (utilizing 

DDCT analysis process). Valid existing rights will be recognized and respected.

For Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the 

following RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Kemmerer RMP:

Choose and implement appropriate mitigation in a timely manner to minimize 

decreases in habitat function.

Utilize appropriate voluntary off-site compensatory mitigation to reduce impacts. 

This will be necessary if (1) all on-site mitigation has been accomplished and 

adverse effects have not been mitigated; or (2) if on-site mitigation is not feasible.

Pinedale RMP:

Off-site mitigation proposed by oil and gas or other operators can be considered 

and analyzed in future environmental documents as mitigation for proposed 

activities within the planning area. Proposed off-site mitigation will be described 

and analyzed for effectiveness in detail on a project-specific basis. Off-site 

mitigation will conform to requirementsin the Pinedale RMP regarding the order of

use of mitigation methods, stipulations applied to off-site mitigation measures, and

priority order for mitigating resource impacts on-site or off-site.

Green River RMP:
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

15

Development actions will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to identify mitigation 

needs to meet RMP objectives, provide for resource protection, and provide for 

logical development. Limitations on the amount, sequence, timing, or level of 

development may occur. This may result in transportation planning and in 

limitations in the number of roads and drill pads, or deferring development in some

areas until other areas have been restored to previous uses.

JMH CAP:

COAs attached to an APD will be based on site-specific NEPA or other analysis 

and will establish specific, necessary mitigation measures not covered by 

stipulations for resource and environmental protection. Some areas will need more

intensive mitigation measures to protect sensitive resources and provide for public

health and safety. These intensive mitigation measures or COAs will mostly apply to

areas with overlapping sensitive resources (e.g., Areas 2 and 3). Examples of 

intensive mitigation that can apply to all activities based on site- specific analysis 

include off-site placement of facilities, remote control monitoring, restricted or 

prohibited surface use including road construction, multiple wells from a single 

pad, central tank batteries/facilities, and pipelines and power lines concentrated in 

specific areas. In addition, refer to Section 3.12.3 for additional mitigation 

measures that may apply as part of the transportation plan.

A-32 / MD MR 

4

Within PHMA, field offices will work with project proponents (including those 

within BLM) to site their projects in locations that minimize impacts on sensitive 

resources (see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).

A-32 / MD MR 

5

Master Development Plans will be considered and encouraged for projects 

involving multiple proposed disturbances within PHMA (see also MD SSS 4 

through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).

A-32 / MD MR 

6

Within PHMA, unitization will be encouraged as a means of minimizing adverse 

impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse to reduce fragmentation and surface-disturbing 

and disruptive activities (see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).

A-32 / MD MR 

7

The BLM shall closely examine the applicability of categorical exclusions in 

PHMA and GHMA. If extraordinary circumstances review is applicable, the BLM 

shall determine whether those circumstances exist. For proposed actions in PHMA, 

determine whether a categorical exclusion is applicable and if so, closely examine 

the extraordinary circumstances, if applicable, to determine whether one or more 

exists that will require preparation of a NEPA analysis. If a categorical exclusion 

applies, and no extraordinary circumstances exist, determine whether preparing a 

NEPA analysis will help inform decision making (see also MD SSS 4 through MD 

SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).

A-32 / MD MR 

8

Federal Regulations, 43 CFR 3104.1 requires that a bond be furnished before any 

drilling or surface disturbance activities begin. The lessee, sublessee or the operator 

must furnish a surety or personal bond in the amount of at least $10,000 to ensure 

compliance with all the lease terms, including protection of the environment. With 

the consent of the surety and principal, the operator may use the bond of another 

party, such as the lessee. Each time there is a new operator, that operator must 

notify the BLM that he/she is the responsible operator, giving the particulars of the 

bond under which he/she will operate. The BLM can require an increase in a bond 

amount any time conditions warrant such an increase.

A reclamation bond will be required on all projects that is commensurate with the 

scope, scale, size of the project within PHMA. Partial bonding may be appropriate 

depending on these factors.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

16

(see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12)

A-32 / MD MR 

9

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

Produced water from coalbed natural gas wells will be treated and disposed of in 

collaboration and consistent with the requirements of the state, and RDFs specified 

in Management Action 10 (see 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix B).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Pinedale RMP:

Produced water from coalbed natural gas wells will be treated and disposed of in 

collaboration and consistent with the requirements of the state.

(see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12)

A-33 / MD MR 

10

Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, within PHMA (core only), all 

RMPs are amended as follows:

Where the federal government owns the mineral estate, and the surface is in 

nonfederal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation 

measures and RDFs applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLMadministered lands in that management area, to the maximum extent permissible 

under existing authorities, and in coordination with the landowner (see also MD 

SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).

Within PHMA (non-core only) and outside of PHMA and/or for values other than 

Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in effect with the 

modification described above:

Pinedale RMP:

BLM-permitted actions on split estate lands are subject to the same stipulations as 

leased federal mineral estate on federal surface lands, provided the stipulations do 

not adversely affect the surface owner’s land use or actions. Exceptions to surface 

development restrictions may be granted if requested or agreed to by the surface 

owner.

A-33 / MD MR 

11

Within PHMA where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral 

estate is in nonfederal ownership, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, 

and mineral RDFs through ROW grants or other surface management instruments, 

to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, in coordination with 

the mineral estate owner/lessee (see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD 

SSS 12).

A-34 / MD MR 

12

Locatable Minerals

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

252,160 acres within SFAs (see MD SSS 14 for identification of SFAs) will be 

recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, subject to 

valid existing rights. A total of approximately 21,251,690 acres are open to 

locatable mineral location and entry (Map 2-3). Operators may be requested to 

submit modifications to the accepted notice or approved plan of operations so that 

the operations minimally impact PHMA. The AO may convey to the operator 

suggested conservation measures, based on the notice or plan level operations and 

the geographic area of those operations (also called the project area which is 

defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 and 36 CFR 228.3).

These suggested conservation measures include measures that support the overall 

goals and objectives of the core population area strategy, though measures listed for 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

17

protection of Greater Sage-Grouse breeding, nesting, brood- rearing, and wintering 

may not be reasonable or applicable to the BLM’s determination of whether the 

proposed operations will cause unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 

3809.5 and 36 CFR 228.3. The request containing the suggested conservation 

measures must make clear that the operator’s compliance is not mandatory.

Notices or Plans of Operation, or modifications thereto, submitted following the 

issuance of this guidance: As part of the 15-day completeness review of notices [or 

modifications thereto] and 30-day completeness review of plans of operations [or 

modifications thereto], the proposed project area(s) where exploration, 

development, mining, access and reclamation will take place shall be reviewed for 

overlap of PHMA in the corporate GIS database. If there is overlap, the BLM AO 

may notify the operator of ways that they may minimize impacts on PHMA and 

request the operator to amend its notice or plan to include such measures. The 

request to amend the submitted notice or plan of operations must make clear that 

the operator’s compliance is not mandatory and that including such measures is not 

a requirement for completeness of either the notice or a plan of operations, nor is it 

a condition of acceptance of the notice or approval of the plan of operations.

(see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12)

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect:

1,785,230 acres are withdrawn from mineral entry for the protection of sensitive 

resources.

A-34 / MD MR 

13

Salable Minerals

PHMA will be open to mineral material exploration, sales, and free use permits, 

except in areas that are unavailable due to the need to protect other resource values.

All salable mineral activities within PHMA will be considered, provided they can 

be completed in compliance within surface occupancy, seasonal restrictions, and 

disturbance and density stipulations (Map 2-4 and MD SSS 2, 3, 4 through 10 and 

12) 5 through 10) analyzed through the DDCT process.

A-34 / MD MR 

14

Salable Minerals

Within PHMA closure and restoration of salable mineral pits no longer in use will 

be considered to meet Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation objectives (see 

also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12). Emphasis will be given to 

reclamation/restoration of PHMA as a viable long term goal to improve Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat.

A-35 / MD MR 

15

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

All nonenergy leasable mineral activities will be considered in PHMA, provided 

that the activities can be completed in compliance with all occupancy, timing, 

density and disturbance restrictions (Map 2-5) (see also MD SSS 4 through MD 

SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).

Exploration licenses and prospecting permits will be considered with appropriate 

mitigating measures.

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Portions of PHMA will be unavailable for leasing in accordance with existing RMP 

decisions for resource values other than Greater Sage-Grouse.

Kemmerer RMP:
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

18

Sodium: All public lands (outside of the Raymond Mountain WSA and exceptions 

identified below) within the planning area are available for sodium leasing 

consideration. Exploration for sodium will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Limited surface occupancy criteria contained in the Sodium Mineral Development 

Environmental Assessment will be applied on a case-by-case basis. No new sodium 

leases or exploration licenses may be issued on lands within the Raymond 

Mountain WSA. No new sodium exploration and leasing will be considered for 

Rock Creek/Tunp and Bear River Divide management areas.

Phosphate: All public lands (outside of the Raymond Mountain WSA and 

exceptions identified below) within the planning area are available for phosphate 

leasing consideration. Exploration for phosphate will be considered on a case-bycase basis. No new phosphate exploration and leasing will be considered for Rock 

Creek/Tunp and Bear River Divide management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Should interest in other leasable minerals materialize in the future, leasing will be 

considered on a case-by- case basis, and the RMP will be amended as appropriate 

and necessary. The same surface disturbance restrictions will be used in analyzing 

leasing proposals and determining the issuance of any leases (for example, 

geothermal steam, coal, sodium, oil shale, and phosphate).

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

The known sodium leasing area is open to exploration and consideration for leasing 

and developments, but is closed to prospecting permits.

The remainder of the planning area is open to sodium prospecting except for areas 

that are closed to mineral leasing, surface mining, or mechanical prospecting type 

activities (areas closed to drilling, off road vehicle use, and explosive charges).

Sodium (trona) leasing will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and is subject to 

the same conditional requirements as oil and gas and coal, and the general 

management direction applied in this RMP.

A-35 to A-36 / 

MD MR 16

Solid Leasable Minerals

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to 

the BLM, the BLM will determine whether the lease application area is 

"unsuitable" for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5 (see 

also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12). PHMA is essential habitat 

for maintaining Greater Sage-Grouse for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth 

at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). The BLM will also consider that USFWS has found “the 

core area strategy...if implemented by all landowners via regulatory mechanisms, 

would provide adequate protection for Greater Sage-Grouse and their habitats in the 

state” when considering leasing coal in PHMA under the criteria set for at 43 CFR 

3461.5(o)(1).

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

If coal development potential is shown to exist, all BLM-administered lands outside 

the Coal Development Potential Area (CDPA) will be considered for coal leasing, 

unless specifically closed to mineral leasing. The coal-screening process will be 

completed on all newly identified lands having coal development potential.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

19

All BLM-administered lands within the CDPA identified in the 2001 Buffalo RMP 

maintenance action are acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing. The 

only exceptions are those lands determined unacceptable within the area or those 

lands that fall within PHMA. The coal unsuitability criteria are re- evaluated 

whenever new coal lease applications are received.

Kemmerer RMP:

Process new coal lease applications by using the coal screening process. The coal 

screening process results will determine which lands may be available for further 

consideration for coal leasing and development. Appropriate NEPA analysis will be 

required prior to leasing. Federal land within the proposed Haystack project area 

outside of the PHMA is determined acceptable for further consideration for coal 

leasing and development. No coal LBAs will be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp 

and Bear River Divide management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal development will 

be made after an application is received and the coal screening process is 

conducted.

Rawlins RMP:

Federal coal lease applications will be accepted only on those federal coal lands 

with development potential identified as suitable for further leasing consideration 

after application of the coal unsuitability criteria (the above-mentioned 

approximately 51,250 acres and 2,318.7 million tons of surface minable federal 

coal).

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential area 

(about 422,000 acres) are open to further consideration for coal leasing and 

development (i.e., new competitive leasing, emergency leasing, lease modifications, 

and exchange proposals, under the Federal Coal Management Program) with 

appropriate and necessary conditions and requirements for protection of other land 

and resource values and uses.

A-36 to A-37 / 

MD MR 17

Solid Leasable Minerals

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

Upon receipt of a coal lease application proposing underground mining methods 

that include surface operations and impacts within PHMA, Criterion 15 will be 

applied and the area will be identified as suitable for further coal leasing 

consideration after consultation with the state and, where applicable, surface

management agency to determine that all or certain stipulated methods of coal 

mining will not have a significant long-term impact on Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Stipulated methods may include, but not limited to, underground mining methods 

with no placement of surface facilities except for purposes of health and human 

safety.

Unsuitability is not applied to underground operations without surface impacts (43 

CFR 3461.1) This will be consistent with IM WY-2012-019 says that the BLM will 

assess potential impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse through the NEPA process, and 

that the state regulatory agency will apply this mitigation, as well as protective 

measures consistent with the state policy for solid leasable mining action at the 

permitting stage (see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

20

Outside of PHMA and/or for values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following 

RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

If coal development potential is shown to exist, all BLM-administered lands outside 

the CDPA will be considered for coal leasing, unless specifically closed to mineral 

leasing. The coal-screening process will be completed on all newly identified lands 

having coal development potential.

All BLM-administered lands within the CDPA identified in the 2001 Buffalo RMP 

maintenance action are acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing. The 

only exceptions are those lands determined unacceptable within the area. The coal 

unsuitability criteria are re-evaluated whenever new coal lease applications are 

received.

Kemmerer RMP:

Process new coal lease applications by using the coal screening process. The coal 

screening process results will determine which lands may be available for further 

consideration for coal leasing and development. Appropriate NEPA analysis will be 

required prior to leasing. Federal land within the proposed Haystack project area is 

determined acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing and development. 

No coal LBAs will be considered for Rock Creek/Tunp and Bear River Divide 

management areas.

Pinedale RMP:

Decisions on lands acceptable for leasing consideration for coal development will 

be made after an application is received and the coal screening process is 

conducted.

Rawlins RMP:

Federal coal lease applications will be accepted only on those federal coal lands 

with development potential identified as suitable for further leasing consideration 

after application of the coal unsuitability criteria (the above-mentioned 

approximately 51,250 acres and 2,318.7 million tons of surface minable federal 

coal).

Green River RMP/JMH CAP:

Federal coal lands within the Coal Occurrence and Development Potential area 

(about 422,000 acres) are open to further consideration for coal leasing and 

development (i.e., new competitive leasing, emergency leasing, lease modifications, 

and exchange proposals, under the Federal Coal Management Program) with 

appropriate and necessary conditions and requirements for protection of other land 

and resource values and uses.

A-37 / MD MR 

18

Coal exploration activities will be allowed in PHMA if they can be completed in 

compliance to surface occupancy and disturbance and density stipulations analyzed 

through the DDCT process (see also MD SSS 4 through MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 

12).

A-38 / MD MR 

19

Exceptions to lease stipulations, COA, and terms and conditions:

Exceptions waivers, and modifications to lease stipulations, COAs, and terms and 

conditions, for Greater Sage-Grouse will continue to be considered on a case-bycase basis consistent with approved LUPs and other BLM policy and regulations as 

they relate to exceptions within PHMA and GHMA (see also MD SSS 4 through 

MD SSS 10 and MD SSS 12).
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

21

A-38 / MD 

Lands and 

Realty (LR) 1

Land Use Authorizations

Specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are amended as 

follows:

PHMA will be managed as ROW avoidance areas for new ROW or Special Use 

Authorization (SUA) permits (Map 2-7).

Within PHMA where new ROWs/SUAs are necessary, new ROWs/SUAs will be 

located within designated RMP corridors or adjacent to existing ROWs/SUAs 

where technically feasible. Subject to valid existing rights including nonfederal 

land inholdings, required new ROWs/SUAs will be located adjacent to existing 

ROWs/SUAs or where it best minimizes Greater Sage-Grouse impacts. Consider 

the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing activities, 

as defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework (2018 Proposed RMPA 

Appendix C D of the 2015 ROD/ARMPA) under valid existing rights.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect:

Portions of PHMA will be managed as ROW exclusion areas in accordance with 

existing RMP decisions for resource values other than Greater Sage-Grouse.

A-39 to A-42 / 

MD LR 3

Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

New Transmission Lines (greater than 115 kV):

New transmission lines greater than 115 kV in PHMA (core only) will be allowed 

only (1) within the 2-mile wide transmission line route through PHMA (core only) 

population areas in south-central and southwestern Wyoming (Attachment 1 from 

EO 2015-4); (2) when located within 0.5 miles or less of an existing 115 kV or 

greater transmission line constructed prior to 2008; or (3) in designated RMP 

corridors authorized for aboveground transmission lines. Transmission lines routed 

using one or more of the three criteria listed above will not be counted against the 

DDCT 5 percent disturbance cap. New transmission lines greater than 115 kV 

proposed outside of these areas will be considered where it can be demonstrated 

that declines in Greater Sage-Grouse populations can be avoided through project 

design and/or mitigation. These projects will be subject to the density and 

disturbance restrictions for PHMA.

Construction of new transmission lines will adhere to the restrictions associated 

with conducting activities within PHMA.

Review of transmission line proposals will incorporate the Framework for Sagegrouse Impacts Analysis for Interstate Transmission Lines and other appropriate 

documents consistent with the three routing criteria described above.

New projects within PHMA that may require future utility lines, including 

distribution and transmission lines or pipelines, will include the proposed utility 

lines in their DDCT as part of the proposed disturbance. Lines permitted but not 

located in the above mentioned routes or a designated corridor will be counted 

toward the 5 percent disturbance calculation (line disturbance is equal to the 

anticipated construction footprint or construction ROW width multiplied by length 

and includes all access roads, staging areas, and other surface disturbance 

associated with construction outside of the construction ROW).

New Electric Distribution Lines (less than 115 kV):

New electric distribution lines will be buried where feasible and economically 

feasible. If not economically feasible, distribution lines may be authorized when 

effectively designed/mitigated to protect Greater Sage-Grouse and the AO 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

22

determines that overhead installation is the action alternative with the fewest 

adverse impacts while still meeting the project need. Agricultural and residential 

lines will be considered to be adequately mitigated for Greater Sage-Grouse if 

constructed at least 0.6 miles from the lek perimeter with appropriate timing 

constraints and constructed to the latest APLIC guidance. These ROW 

authorizations will be subject to approval by the State Director.

Priority Transmission Lines:

PHMA are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage transmission line and 

pipeline ROWs, except for the transmission projects specifically identified below. 

All authorizations in these areas, other than the following identified projects, must 

comply with the conservation measures outlined in this proposed plan, including 

the RDF and avoidance criteria presented in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix B of 

this document. The BLM is currently processing an application for Gateway South, 

Gateway West, and TransWest Express and the NEPA review for these projects is 

well underway. The BLM is analyzing Greater Sage-Grouse mitigation measures 

through the project’s NEPA review process.

Pipelines:

New pipelines through PHMA will be allowed: (1) within an RMP corridor 

currently authorized for that use or designated through future RMP amendments; or 

(2) constructed in or adjacent to existing utilities (buried and aboveground) or 

roads. Pipelines constructed in RMP corridors or adjacent to existing utilities or 

roads will require completion of a DDCT analysis for baseline data collection but 

the project is not required to meet the threshold of 5 percent. However, within 6 

months of the completion of construction, the project proponent will provide the 

AO with as-built drawings so that total disturbance within core area can be 

calculated annually.

The following RMP decisions remain in effect with the modification described 

above:

Casper RMP:

No new corridor designations will be made in Bates Hole. When placement of a 

major ROW facility within a designated corridor is not possible, and for smaller 

ROW and other linear facilities, placement will be adjacent to existing facilities or 

disturbances. Cross-country placement of ROW and other linear facilities will be 

allowed only when placement in a designated corridor or adjacent to an existing 

facility is not practical or feasible. The extent of all surface disturbances will be 

minimized.

No new corridors will be established in the Sand Hills Management Area; ROWs 

will be allowed when management objectives for the area can still be achieved.

All currently designated corridors will be maintained. All special restrictions that 

apply to types of use/facilities on the corridors will be removed, except as noted for 

the Oregon Trail Road ROW Corridor, Segment A. The corridors include 351,020 

acres, of which 94,580 acres are federal surface. The widths/size of designated 

corridors will not change. Special restrictions applying to types of use/facilities on 

the corridors will be removed on a case-by-case basis. Existing corridors include:

Oregon Trail Road Corridor, Segment A

Oregon Trail Road Corridor, Segment B

Oregon Trail Road Corridor, Segment C

Poison Spider/Gas Hills Road Corridor

Highway 20-26 Corridor
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

23

Wyoming Highway 259/U.S. 87 Corridor

Wyoming Highway 387 Corridor

Lost Cabin-Arminto Road Corridor

RMP Change No. 2012-03, including the West-Wide Energy Corridor

Cabin Creek Corridor

Existing Oregon Trail Road ROW Corridor, Segment A.

Oregon Trail Road ROW Corridor, Segment A allows additional ROW facilities 

provided they are subsurface, surface, or low profile developments. ROW facilities 

that introduce visual intrusions on the skyline along the corridor will not be 

allowed. Special restrictions applying to types of use/facilities on the corridors will 

be removed on a case-by-case basis, and a new corridor, to be called the Cabin 

Creek Corridor, will be designated.

Future Corridor Adjustments and New Corridor Designations:

Future corridor adjustments and new corridor designations will be made only when 

facility placement within an existing designated corridor is incompatible, 

unfeasible, or impractical and when the environmental consequences can be 

adequately mitigated. Problems of technical compatibility between facilities and 

spacing of facilities in corridors will be solved on a case-by-case basis. Special 

restrictions applying to types of use/facilities on the corridors will be removed on a 

case-by-case basis.

South Bighorns/Red Wall Management Area:

No corridors will be designated; however, ROWs will be allowed on a case-by-case 

basis when management objectives for the area can still be achieved.

Kemmerer RMP:

Utility corridors will be designated, based on use (i.e., power lines, pipelines, and 

fiber optic lines).

Preferred utility corridors will be 2 miles wide (width will be determined based on 

resource values) and designated as follows, but variances will be allowed based on 

application where conflicts with other resources were minimal or can be mitigated 

through resource-specific stipulations:

High-voltage power line corridors will be established north of and parallel to I-80, 

and along Wyoming State Highway 89 from the junction of I-80 and the Wyoming 

state line.

Fiber optic and low-voltage power line corridors will be located along currently 

established road systems (e.g., interstate or state highways and paved county roads).

Newcastle RMP:

Utility/transportation systems will be located adjacent to existing 

utility/transportation systems whenever practical. Areas to be avoided for new 

facility placement and routes will be identified on a case-by-case basis, rather than 

attempting to establish utility corridors.

Pinedale RMP:

Utility facilities will be restricted to existing routes and designated corridors where 

practicable, including environmental and socioeconomic considerations. Corridor 

routes include U.S. Highways 189 and 191 and State Highways 189, 191, 350, 351, 

352, 353, and 354. New corridors may be established as oil and gas fields are 

developed.

Rawlins RMP:

All BLM-administered lands, except WSA and some SD/MAs (including 

ACEC/Special Interest Areas), will be open to consideration for placement of utility 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

24

ROW systems. Each utility ROW will be located adjacent to existing facilities, 

when possible. Areas with important or sensitive resource values will be avoided.

Existing major transportation and utility ROW routes will be designated corridors. 

However, major transportation routes within the planning area that are located east 

of the Carbon County-Albany County line will not be considered for ROW corridor 

designation because of the scattered public land ownership pattern in the area. All 

corridors will be designated for power lines (aboveground and buried), telephone 

lines, and fiber optic lines.

Specific proposals will require site-specific environmental analysis and compliance 

with established permitting processes.

Activities generally excluded from ROW corridors include mineral materials 

disposal, range and wildlife habitat improvements involving surface disturbance 

and facility construction, campgrounds, and public recreation facilities and other 

facilities that will attract public use.

ROW facilities will not be placed adjacent to each other if issues with safety or 

incompatibility or resource conflicts were identified. The designated width, 

allowable uses, and excluded uses for each corridor may be modified during 

implementation of the Approved RMP.

Green River RMP:

Areas designated as utility windows will be preferred locations for future grants. 

Five windows have been identified: 2 east-west, 3 north-south. Other areas will be 

considered for rights-of-way on a case-by-case basis. Windows 0.5 miles in width 

have been identified for the placement of utilities. The northern east-west window 

will be for underground facilities only, and the southern east-west window will be 

for both above and below ground facilities. A 0.5-mile wide north-south window on 

the west side of Flaming Gorge, a window south along Highway 430, and a northsouth window along the east side of Flaming Gorge have been identified for above 

and below ground utilities.

JMH CAP:

The planning area, with the exception of defined exclusion and avoidance areas, 

will be open to considering grants of rights-of-way if area objectives can be met. 

Exclusion areas are closed to rights-of-way. Avoidance and special management 

areas not identified as exclusion areas will be open to consideration only after sitespecific analysis demonstrates area objectives can be met (see glossary) in Greater 

Sage-Grouse potential nesting habitat.

A-42 / MD LR 4 Within PHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all RMPs are 

amended as follows:

Maintenance/replacement of existing structures will be allowed subject to valid and 

existing rights. Upgrades will be considered, subject to mandatory RDFs (2018 

Proposed RMPA Appendix B).

Existing guy wires shall be removed or appropriately marked with bird flight 

diverters to make them more visible to Greater Sage-Grouse in flight. Power lines 

(distribution and transmission) will be designed to minimize wildlife-related

impacts and constructed to the latest APLIC standards.

Outside of PHMA the following RMP decisions remain in effect:

Kemmerer RMP:

New utility lines will be buried or BLM-approved anti-perch devices will be 

installed on all new utility lines within sagebrush and/or semiarid shrub-dominated 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

25

habitats, unless NEPA analysis shows little or no impact without burial or 

modification.

A-43 / MD LR 7 Within PHMA and GHMA, specific to management for Greater Sage-Grouse, all 

RMPs are amended as follows:

Lands classified as PHMA for Greater Sage-Grouse will be retained in federal 

management unless: (1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, 

including land exchanges, that disposal of the parcel is in the public’s best interest 

will provide a net conservation gain to the Greater Sage-Grouse or (2) the agency 

can demonstrate that the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will have 

no direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Exceptions will be considered where there is mixed ownership and land exchanges 

will allow for additional or more contiguous federal ownership patterns within 

PHMA.

For PHMA with minority federal ownership, an additional, effective mitigation 

agreement will be included for any disposal of federal land. As a final preservation 

measure, consideration shall be given to pursuing a permanent conservation 

easement.

For lands in GHMA that are identified for disposal, the BLM will only dispose of 

such lands consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan, including, but not 

limited to, the RMP goal to conserve, recover, and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat on a landscape scale.

For values other than Greater Sage-Grouse, the following RMP decisions remain in 

effect with the modification described above:

Casper RMP:

224,830 acres of public lands are identified as potentially suitable for disposal. At 

the implementation stage, site-specific analysis with public participation will be 

conducted. Based on the analysis and public comments received, a determination 

will be made on whether disposal of the parcel is in the public’s best interest. If it is 

not in the public’s best interest, the parcel will be retained in public ownership.

Restricted Disposal – dispose of 5,450 acres on a restricted basis.

Allow land-use authorizations under FLPMA Section 302(b) leases and permits to 

meet public demand.

Evaluate on a case-by-case basis as proposals are presented. Potential lease and 

permit areas may include, but are not limited to the following:

Areas where there are documented or existing trespass facilities that can be 

resolved by an authorization under this section

Areas along major highways where developments may facilitate public needs

Areas in or adjacent to residential, agricultural, commercial, or industrial 

developments. The BLM will pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the 

South Bighorns/Red Wall area.

A-45 / MD REC 

2

Construction of recreation facilities within PHMA must conform with the 

avoidance and minimization measures of this plan. If it is determined that these 

conservation measures are inadequate for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, 

the BLM will consider require and ensure compensatory mitigation consistent with 

the applicable State management strategy (currently Governor of Wyoming’s 

Executive Order 2015-4 (see also MD SSS 4)that provides a net conservation gain 

to the species.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

26

A-48 / 

Compensatory 

Mitigation 

In all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, when authorizing third-party actions in 

designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the BLM will seek to achieve the 

planning-level Greater Sage-Grouse management goals and objectives through 

implementation of mitigation and management actions, consistent with valid 

existing rights and applicable law. Under this Proposed Plan Amendment, 

management would be consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse goals and 

objectives, and in conformance with BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management. In accordance with BLM Manual 6840, the BLM will undertake 

planning decisions, actions and authorizations “to minimize or eliminate threats 

affecting the status of [Greater Sage-Grouse] or to improve the condition of 

[Greater Sage-Grouse] habitat” across the planning area.

Accordingly, before authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will complete the following steps, in alignment with the 

Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4 (July 29, 2015):

1. Work jointly with the WGFD to evaluate projects and recommend 

mitigation in the form of avoidance and minimization.

2. The WGFD will determine if the State requires or recommends any 

additional mitigation – including compensatory mitigation – under State 

regulations, policies, or programs related to the conservation of Greater SageGrouse.

3. Incorporate state required or recommended mitigation into the BLM’s 

NEPA decision-making process, if the WGFD determines that compensatory 

mitigation is required to address impacts to GRSG habitat as a part of State policy 

or authorization, or if a proponent voluntarily offers mitigation.

4. Analyze whether the compensatory mitigation:

• achieves measurable outcomes for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat function on 

a landscape scale as determined by WGFD that are at least equal to the lost or 

degraded values in accordance with the Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 

2015-4.

• provides benefits that are in place for at least the duration of the impacts

• accounts for a level of risk that the mitigation action may fail or not persist 

for the full duration of the impact

5. Ensure mitigation outcomes are consistent with the State of Wyoming’s 

mitigation strategy and principles outlined in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix C, 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy

The BLM has determined that compensatory mitigation must be voluntary unless 

required by other applicable law and in recognition that State authorities may also 

require compensatory mitigation (IM 2019-0188-093, Compensatory Mitigation, 

July 24December 6, 2018). Therefore, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, when authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will consider voluntary compensatory mitigation actions 

only as a component of compliance with a State mitigation plan, program, or 

authority, or when offered voluntarily by a project proponent. 

Project-specific analysis will be necessary to determine how a compensatory 

mitigation proposal addresses impacts from a proposed action. The BLM will 

cooperate with the State to determine appropriate project design and alignment with 

State policies and requirements, including those regarding compensatory 

mitigation. When the BLM is considering compensatory mitigation as a component 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

27

of the project proponent’s submission or based on a mitigation requirement from 

the State, the BLM’s NEPA analysis would evaluate the need to avoid or minimize 

impacts of the proposed project and achieve the goals and objectives of this RMPA. 

The BLM will defer to the appropriate State authority to quantify habitat offsets, 

durability, and other aspects used to determine the recommended compensatory 

mitigation action. 

Adopt the State of Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Compensatory Mitigation 

Framework to the extent consistent with federal law, regulations, and policy. The 

BLM would follow the NEPA process in determining appropriate avoidance, 

minimization, and other mitigation measures in accordance with the CEQ 

mitigation hierarchy as appropriate at the site-specific project level and would defer 

to the State of Wyoming regarding the applicability, and, if deemed applicable, the 

determination of compensatory mitigation.

Remove the phrase “net conservation gain” from all management actions.

A-51 / Cody and 

Worland 

Decisions / 

Compensatory 

Mitigation

In all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, when authorizing third-party actions in 

designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the BLM will seek to achieve the 

planning-level Greater Sage-Grouse management goals and objectives through 

implementation of mitigation and management actions, consistent with valid 

existing rights and applicable law. Under this Proposed Plan Amendment, 

management would be consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse goals and 

objectives, and in conformance with BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management. In accordance with BLM Manual 6840, the BLM will undertake 

planning decisions, actions and authorizations “to minimize or eliminate threats 

affecting the status of [Greater Sage-Grouse] or to improve the condition of 

[Greater Sage-Grouse] habitat” across the planning area.

Accordingly, before authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will complete the following steps, in alignment with the 

Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4 (July 29, 2015):

1. Work jointly with the WGFD to evaluate projects and recommend 

mitigation in the form of avoidance and minimization.

2. The WGFD will determine if the State requires or recommends any 

additional mitigation – including compensatory mitigation – under State 

regulations, policies, or programs related to the conservation of Greater SageGrouse.

3. Incorporate state required or recommended mitigation into the BLM’s 

NEPA decision-making process, if the WGFD determines that compensatory 

mitigation is required to address impacts to GRSG habitat as a part of State policy 

or authorization, or if a proponent voluntarily offers mitigation.

4. Analyze whether the compensatory mitigation:

• achieves measurable outcomes for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat function on 

a landscape scale as determined by WGFD that are at least equal to the lost or 

degraded values in accordance with the Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 

2015-4.

• provides benefits that are in place for at least the duration of the impacts

• accounts for a level of risk that the mitigation action may fail or not persist 

for the full duration of the impact
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

28

5. Ensure mitigation outcomes are consistent with the State of Wyoming’s 

mitigation strategy and principles outlined in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix C, 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy

The BLM has determined that compensatory mitigation must be voluntary unless 

required by other applicable law and in recognition that State authorities may also 

require compensatory mitigation (IM 2019-0188-093, Compensatory Mitigation, 

July 24December 6, 2018). Therefore, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, when authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will consider voluntary compensatory mitigation actions 

only as a component of compliance with a State mitigation plan, program, or 

authority, or when offered voluntarily by a project proponent. 

Project-specific analysis will be necessary to determine how a compensatory 

mitigation proposal addresses impacts from a proposed action. The BLM will 

cooperate with the State to determine appropriate project design and alignment with 

State policies and requirements, including those regarding compensatory 

mitigation. When the BLM is considering compensatory mitigation as a component 

of the project proponent’s submission or based on a mitigation requirement from 

the State, the BLM’s NEPA analysis would evaluate the need to avoid or minimize 

impacts of the proposed project and achieve the goals and objectives of this RMPA. 

The BLM will defer to the appropriate State authority to quantify habitat offsets, 

durability, and other aspects used to determine the recommended compensatory 

mitigation action.

A-51 / Lander 

Decisions / 

Compensatory 

Mitigation

In all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, when authorizing third-party actions in 

designated Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the BLM will seek to achieve the 

planning-level Greater Sage-Grouse management goals and objectives through 

implementation of mitigation and management actions, consistent with valid 

existing rights and applicable law. Under this Proposed Plan Amendment, 

management would be consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse goals and 

objectives, and in conformance with BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management. In accordance with BLM Manual 6840, the BLM will undertake 

planning decisions, actions and authorizations “to minimize or eliminate threats 

affecting the status of [Greater Sage-Grouse] or to improve the condition of 

[Greater Sage-Grouse] habitat” across the planning area.

Accordingly, before authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will complete the following steps, in alignment with the 

Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 2015-4 (July 29, 2015):

1. Work jointly with the WGFD to evaluate projects and recommend 

mitigation in the form of avoidance and minimization.

2. The WGFD will determine if the State requires or recommends any 

additional mitigation – including compensatory mitigation – under State 

regulations, policies, or programs related to the conservation of Greater SageGrouse.

3. Incorporate state required or recommended mitigation into the BLM’s 

NEPA decision-making process, if the WGFD determines that compensatory 

mitigation is required to address impacts to GRSG habitat as a part of State policy 

or authorization, or if a proponent voluntarily offers mitigation.

4. Analyze whether the compensatory mitigation:
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

29

• achieves measurable outcomes for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat function on 

a landscape scale as determined by WGFD that are at least equal to the lost or 

degraded values in accordance with the Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 

2015-4.

• provides benefits that are in place for at least the duration of the impacts

• accounts for a level of risk that the mitigation action may fail or not persist 

for the full duration of the impact

5. Ensure mitigation outcomes are consistent with the State of Wyoming’s 

mitigation strategy and principles outlined in 2018 Proposed RMPA Appendix C, 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy

The BLM has determined that compensatory mitigation must be voluntary unless 

required by other applicable law and in recognition that State authorities may also 

require compensatory mitigation (IM 2019-0188-093, Compensatory Mitigation, 

July 24December 6, 2018). Therefore, consistent with valid existing rights and 

applicable law, when authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will consider voluntary compensatory mitigation actions 

only as a component of compliance with a State mitigation plan, program, or 

authority, or when offered voluntarily by a project proponent. 

Project-specific analysis will be necessary to determine how a compensatory 

mitigation proposal addresses impacts from a proposed action. The BLM will 

cooperate with the State to determine appropriate project design and alignment with 

State policies and requirements, including those regarding compensatory 

mitigation. When the BLM is considering compensatory mitigation as a component 

of the project proponent’s submission or based on a mitigation requirement from 

the State, the BLM’s NEPA analysis would evaluate the need to avoid or minimize 

impacts of the proposed project and achieve the goals and objectives of this RMPA. 

The BLM will defer to the appropriate State authority to quantify habitat offsets, 

durability, and other aspects used to determine the recommended compensatory 

mitigation action.

Table 2. Appendix B

Appendix B: Required Design Features

Page number 

Original Draft 

Appendix B

Draft Appendix B Revisions

B-5 Within PHMA (core only), new project noise levels, either individual or 

cumulative, should not exceed 10 dBA (as measured by L50) above baseline noise 

at the perimeter of the lek from 6:00 pm to 8:00 am during the breeding season 

(March 1–May 15). Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures 

(20–24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter of a lek during active lek season (Patricelli 

et al. 2010; Blickley et al. 2012).

B-5 Require noise shields when drilling during the lek / breeding, nesting, broodrearing, or wintering season.

Table 3. Appendix C

Appendix C: The Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Strategy
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

30

Page Number 

Original Draft 

Appendix C

Draft Appendix C Revisions

C-1 The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments (ARMPA) provides specific goals, objectives, management actions, 

and required design features for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Wyoming. These are the commitments made to meet the federal agencies’ national 

policy and direction for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse in light of the 

2010 US Fish and Wildlife Service listing decision as warranted but precluded from 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Through the National Planning Strategy,, in coordination with the State of 

Wyoming US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has have identified conservation 

measures, consistent with the Wyoming Executive Order 2015-4, to be included in 

the Wyoming land use plans as the principal regulatory mechanisms to assure 

adequate conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat throughout the 

state on public lands.

C-1 Wyoming has established core population areas to help delineate landscape 

planning units by distinguishing areas of high biological value. These areas are 

based on the locations of breeding areas and are intended to help balance Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat requirements with demand for energy development (Doherty et 

al. 2011). The ARMPA is consistent with the Core Area Strategy, but contains 

additional restrictions to protect other resources, which results in added protections 

to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and achieving conservation objectives identified in 

the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) report on BLM-managed public lands. 

The COT report indicates that the Core Area Strategy is a substantial regulatory 

mechanism that contributes to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse and 

balances the priorities of retaining a healthy Greater Sage-Grouse population on the 

landscape and energy development.

C-1 The implementation framework outlined here replaces Appendix D in the 2015 

Approved RMP Amendments and 2015 Bighorn Basin and Buffalo Field Office 

Revisions and Appendix H in the 2014 Lander Field Office RMP Revision. This 

Appendix C, intended to conform to the objectives of the Proposed RMP 

Amendment Alternative, is focused specifically towards Greater Sage-Grouse and is 

reflective of how the national strategy will be assimilated into the existing statewide 

implementation efforts currently in place in Wyoming. This framework has been 

developed mindful of the varying scales at which implementation will be evaluated 

at the local level to define successful conservation measures, at the state level to 

assess success of the statewide strategy, and across the species’ range.

C-2 The COT report identified priority areas for Greater Sage-Grouse population 

habitats as Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs). PACs are recognized as key 

areas across the landscape that are necessary to maintain redundant, representative, 

and resilient populations of the species. The COT Report describes maintaining the

integrity of PACs as “the essential foundation for sage-grouse conservation.” PACs 

cover nearly 73 million acres across the West; within Wyoming, more than 15 

million acres are considered priority habitat. Fifty-two percent of the priority habitat 

is BLM administered surface and 71 percent is BLM-administered minerals. Based 

upon 2007 through 2015 lek counts, PHMA in Wyoming contains an estimated 83 

percent of the state- wide population of Greater Sage-Grouse.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

31

Table 1. Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat within Wyoming

Populations / Subpopulations: Wyoming Portion, Powder River and 

Wyoming Basins; Laramie; Jackson Hole; WAFWA Management Zones I 

& II

Surface 

Estate

Priority Area 

Acres (%)

General Habitat 

Acres (%)

Non-Habitat 

Acres (%)

Private 5,655,716 (38) 14,028,015 (53) 7,004,437

State 1,119,078 (7) 1,766,279 (7) 754,053

BLM 7,823,055 (52) 9,296,487 (35) 328,750

Other1 483,710 (3) 1,104,942 (5) 10,363,760

Total 15,081,561 26,650,412 18,451,000

Fluid 

Mineral 

Estate

Priority Area 

Acres (%)

General Habitat 

Acres (%)

Non-Habitat 

Acres

Non-federal 4,360,416 (29) 10,450,584 (40) 6,433,438

BLM 

Managed2

10,721,145 (71) 15,745,138 (60) 12,017,562

Total 15,081,561 26,195,722

1Excludes Wind River Indian Reservation Acreages

2BLM Managed Minerals includes 10,335,190 acres within National Parks, State Parks 

and Historic Sites, National Forests, National Wildlife Refuges and DOD 

Reservations. Of this total, BLM has jurisdiction on only 1,682,372

acres.

The conservation objectives identified in the COT Report, targeted at maintaining 

redundant, representative, and resilient sage-grouse habitats and populations, is the 

basis on which Wyoming’s Sage-grouse Proposed RMP Amendments were developed. 

Due to the variability in ecological conditions and the nature of the threats across the 

range of the sage-grouse, developing detailed, prescriptive species or habitat actions 

was not attainable at the range-wide scale. Specific strategies and actions necessary to 

achieve the conservation objectives have been developed by the BLM in cooperation 

with state and local governments to ensure implementation of activities to meet the 

objectives identified in the COT report.

C-3 The COT report identified a series of threats to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and the 

extent of those threats at the population scale. The management actions identified in 

the ARMPA were specifically designed to reduce the threats, as they were 

identified. The Wyoming RMPs encompass lands within WAFWA Management 

Zones 1 and 2. To ensure that the threats are adequately addressed by the ARMPA, 

a strategy for reviewing activities and projects on public lands to determine the 

extent of their impact on Greater Sage-Grouse habitat has also been developed. The 

following outlines the process by which all activities on public lands will be 

reviewed.

C-3 The BLM will ensure that any activities or projects in Greater Sage-Grouse habitats 

would : 1) only occur in compliance with the Wyoming BLM’s Greater Sage-
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

32

Grouse goals and objectives for priority management areas.; and 2) maintain neutral 

or positive Greater Sage-Grouse population trends and habitat by avoiding, 

minimizing, and offsetting unavoidable impacts to assure a conservation gain at the 

scale of this land use plan and within Greater Sage-Grouse population areas, state 

boundaries, and WAFWA Management Zones through the application of mitigation 

for implementation-level decisions. The mitigation process will follow the 

regulations from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 

CFR 1508.20; e.g. avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter referred to as the 

mitigation hierarchy, while also following Secretary of the Interior Order 3330 and 

consulting BLM, USFWS and other current and appropriate mitigation guidance. If 

it is determined that residual impacts to Greater Sage-Grouse from implementationlevel actions would remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures to 

the extent possible, compensatory mitigation projects will be used to offset residual 

impacts, or the project may be deferred or denied if necessary to achieve the goals 

and objectives for priority and general management areas in the Wyoming BLM 

RMPs.

C-3 To ensure that impacts from activities proposed in sage-grouse Core Areas are 

appropriately approved and mitigated as necessary, the BLM will apply avoidance 

and minimization mitigation measures and conservation actions and potentially 

modify the location, design, construction, and/or operation of proposed land uses or 

activities to comply with statutory requirements for environmental protection. The 

avoidance and minimization mitigation measures and conservation actions 

(Appendix B C) for proposed projects or activities in these areas will be identified 

as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review 

process, through interdisciplinary analysis involving resource specialists, project 

proponents, government entities, landowners or other surface management 

agencies. The BLM has determined that compensatory mitigation is not compulsory 

unless required by other applicable law and in recognition that State authorities may 

also require compensatory mitigation (IM 2019-018, Compensatory Mitigation, 

December 6, 2018). Therefore, consistent with valid existing rights and applicable 

law, when authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, 

the BLM will consider compensatory mitigation actions only as a component of 

compliance with a State mitigation plan, program, or authority, or when offered 

voluntarily by a project proponent. Those measures selected for implementation 

will be identified in the record of decision (ROD) or decision record (DR) for those 

authorizations and will inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the 

requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered public lands and 

minerals to mitigate, per the mitigation hierarchy referenced above, impacts from 

the activity or project such that sage-grouse goals and objectives are met. Because 

these actions create a clear obligation for the BLM to ensure any proposed 

mitigation action adopted in the environmental review process is performed, there is 

assurance that mitigation will lead to a reduction of environmental impacts in the 

implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for enforcement (CEQ 

Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011).

C-4 Step 2.2 –The proposal will be reviewed to determine whether it conforms with the 

Density and Disturbance Limitations. If the proposed activity occurs within a 

priority habitat management area (PHMA), evaluate whether the disturbance from 

the activity exceeds the limit on the amount of disturbance allowed within the 

activity or project area (Density/Disturbance Calculation Tool [DDCT] process). If 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

33

current disturbance within the activity area or the anticipated disturbance from the 

proposed activity exceeds this threshold, the project would be deferred until such 

time as the amount of disturbance within the area has been reduced below the 

threshold, redesigned so as to not result in any additional surface disturbance 

(collocation) or redesigned to move it outside of PHMA. Should the project be a 

result of a valid existing right, BLM will work to minimize the disturbance and 

determine any residual impacts that may require appropriate mitigation.

C-4 The maximum density of disruptive activities and surface disturbance allowed will 

be analyzed via the DDCT, and may will be conducted by the Federal Land 

Management Agency on federal land or and the project proponent on non-federal 

(private, state) land and must be reviewed by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department for compliance based on with Wyoming EO 2015-4 and accepted by 

the BLM as consistent with this these RMP Amendment ARMPA.

C-4 to C-5 State agency permit is needed, without a need for a federal permit:

The first point of contact for addressing sage-grouse issues for any state permit 

application should be the WGFD. Project proponents (proponents) need to have a 

thorough description of their project and identify the potential effects on sagegrouse prior to submitting an application to the permitting agency. Project 

proponents should contact WGFD at least 45-60 days prior to submitting their 

application. More complex projects will require more time. It is understood that 

WGFD has a role of consultation, recommendation, and facilitation, and has no 

authority to either approve or deny the project. The purpose of the initial 

consultation with the WGFD is to become familiar with the project proposal and 

ensure the project proponent understands the DDCT and recommended stipulations.

C-5 Federal agency permit is needed, with or without a state permit:

When a project requires federal action prior to approval, the proponent should 

contact the federal agency responsible for reviewing the action. The federal agency 

and the proponent will determine the best process for completing the DDCT and 

receiving recommendations from WGFD. Project proponents (proponents) need to 

have a thorough description of their project and identify the potential effects on 

sage-grouse prior to submitting an application to the permitting agency.

C-5 Density and Disturbance Calculation

The Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool, or DDCT (shown within this 

appendix as an example of the process but may be modified based on best available 

science and technology), is a spatially-based tool that calculates both the average 

density of disruptive activities and total surface disturbance within the area affected 

by the project, or DDCT assessment area. The DDCT assessment area is created 

based on buffers around proposed projects (first buffer) in protected sage-grouse 

core areas, and subsequent buffers around any occupied, core area leks within the 

first buffer. A four mile buffer is used to identify 75% of the sage-grouse use 

around a lek. All activities will be evaluated within the context of maximum 

allowable disturbance (disturbance percentages, location and number of

disturbances) of suitable sage-grouse habitat within the DDCT assessment area. 

This tool allows for better siting of projects rather than averaging the 

density/disturbance calculation per section.

C-10 Step 2.3 – The BLM’s goal for any new activity or development proposal within 

core areas is to provide consistent implementation of project proposals which meet 

the BLM’s ARMPA goals and the population management objectives of the state. 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

34

Activities would be consistent with the strategy where it can be sufficiently 

demonstrated that no undue harm declines to core populations would be expected as 

a result of the proposed action and would not impact the statewide viability of the 

species. Published research suggests that impacts to sage-grouse leks associated 

primarily with infrastructure and energy development are discernible at a distance 

of at least 4 miles and that many leks within this radius have been extirpated as a 

direct result of development (Walker et al. 2007, Walker 2008). Research also 

suggests that an evaluation of habitats and sage-grouse populations that attend leks 

within an 11-mile radius from the project boundary in the context of “large” 

projects may be appropriate in order to consider all seasonal habitats that may be 

affected for birds that use the habitats associated with the proposal during some 

portion of the life-cycle of seasonally migratory sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000).

C-11 Step 3–Apply Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Comply with Sage-Grouse 

Goals and Objectives

The BLM will work jointly with the WGFD to evaluate projects and recommend 

avoidance and minimization measures. If the project can be relocated so as to not 

have an impact on sage-grouse and still achieve objectives of the proposal and the 

disturbance limitations, relocate the proposed activity and proceed with the 

appropriate process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision 

Record). This Step does not consider redesign of the project to reduce or eliminate 

direct and indirect impacts, but rather authorization of the project in a physical 

location that will not impact Greater Sage-Grouse. If the preliminary review of the 

proposal concludes that there may be adverse impacts to sage-grouse habitat or 

populations in Step 2 and the project cannot be effectively relocated to avoid these 

impacts, proceed with the appropriate process for review, decision and 

implementation (NEPA and Decision Record) with the inclusion of appropriate 

avoidance and minimization mitigation requirements to further reduce or eliminate 

impacts to sage-grouse habitat and populations and achieve compliance with sagegrouse objectives. Avoidance and minimization Mitigation measures could include 

design modifications of the proposal, site disturbance restoration, post project 

reclamation, etc. (see Appendix B C). The BLM will continue to require avoidance, 

minimization, and other onsite measures to adequately conserve Greater SageGrouse and its habitat, while remaining committed to implementing beneficial 

habitat management actions to reduce the threats of fire and invasive species. 

Compensatory or offsite mitigation may be required (Step 4) in situations where 

residual impacts remain after application of all avoidance and minimization 

measures.

C-11 Step 4 – Apply State-required Compensatory Mitigation or Reject / Defer Proposal

If screening of the proposal has determined that direct and indirect impacts cannot 

be eliminated through avoidance or minimization, the BLM will cooperate with the 

State to determine appropriate project design and alignment with State policies and 

requirements, including those regarding compensatory mitigation evaluate the 

proposal to determine if compensatory mitigation can be used to offset the 

remaining adverse impacts and achieve sage-grouse goals and objectives. The 

WGFD will determine if the State requires or recommends any additional 

mitigation – including compensatory mitigation – under State regulations, policies, 

or programs related to the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

35

The BLM will consider compensatory mitigation only as a component of 

compliance with a state mitigation plan, program, or authority, or when offered 

voluntarily by a project proponent. When the BLM is considering compensatory 

mitigation as a component of the project proponent’s submission or based on a 

mitigation requirement from the State, the BLM’s NEPA analysis will evaluate the 

need to avoid or minimize impacts of the proposed project and achieve the goals 

and objectives of this RMPA. The BLM will defer to the appropriate State authority 

to quantify habitat offsets, durability, and other aspects used to determine the Staterecommended compensatory mitigation action.

The BLM will incorporate state required or recommended mitigation into the 

BLM’s NEPA decision-making process, if the WGFD determines that 

compensatory mitigation is required to address impacts to GRSG habitat as a part of 

State policy or authorization, or if a proponent voluntarily offers mitigation.

Project-specific analysis will be necessary to determine how a compensatory 

mitigation proposal addresses impacts from a proposed action. The BLM will 

analyze whether the compensatory mitigation:

• achieves measurable outcomes for Greater Sage-Grouse habitat function on a 

landscape scale as determined by WGFD that are at least equal to the lost or 

degraded values in accordance with the Governor of Wyoming’s Executive Order 

2015-4.

• provides benefits that are in place for at least the duration of the impacts.

• accounts for a level of risk that the mitigation action may fail or not persist for the 

full duration of the impact.

The BLM will ensure mitigation outcomes are consistent with the State of 

Wyoming’s mitigation strategy and principles outlined in this appendix.

If the impacts cannot be effectively mitigated, reject or defer the proposal. The 

criteria for determining this situation could include but are not limited to:

• The current trend within the priority habitat is down and additional impacts, 

whether mitigated or not, could lead to further decline of the species or habitat.

• The proposed mitigation is inadequate in scope or duration, has proven to be 

ineffective or is unproven is terms of science based approach.

• The project would impact habitat that has been determined to be a limiting factor 

for species sustainability.

• Other site specific information and analysis that determined the project would 

lead to a downward change of the current species population or habitat and not 

comply with sage-grouse goals and objectives.

If, following application of available impact avoidance and minimization measures, 

the project can be mitigated to fully offset impacts and assure conservation gain to 

the species and comply with sage-grouse goals and objectives, proceed with the 

appropriate process for review, decision and implementation (NEPA and Decision 

Record).

C-12 In all Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, when authorizing third-party actions, the BLM 

will seek to achieve the planning-level Greater Sage-Grouse management goals and 

objectives through implementation of mitigation and management actions, 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

36

consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law. Under this Proposed Plan 

Amendment, management would be consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse goals 

and objectives, and in conformance with BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management. In accordance with BLM Manual 6840, the BLM will undertake 

planning decisions, actions and authorizations “to minimize or eliminate threats 

affecting the status of [Greater Sage-Grouse] or to improve the condition of 

[Greater Sage-Grouse] habitat” across the planning area.

C-12 In undertaking BLM management actions and, consistent with valid existing rights 

and applicable law, in authorizing third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, the BLM will require and assure mitigation that provides a net 

conservation gain to the species, including accounting for any uncertainty 

associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by 

avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial 

mitigation actions. In Wyoming, the USFWS has found that “the core area strategy, 

if implemented by all landowners via regulatory mechanism, would provide 

adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the state.” The BLM will 

implement actions to achieve the goal of net conservation gain consistent with the 

Wyoming Strategy (EO 2015-4). Compensatory mitigation would be used when 

avoidance and minimization measures consistent with EO 2015-4 are inadequate to 

protect core population area Greater Sage-Grouse.

C-12 The BLM will continue to apply the mitigation hierarchy as described in the CEQ 

regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20; however, the BLM would focus on avoiding, 

minimizing, rectifying, and reducing impacts over time. Compensation, which 

involves replacing or providing substitute resources for the impacts, would be 

considered only when voluntarily offered by a proponent or when imposed by the 

State. The BLM commits to cooperating with the State to analyze applicantproposed or state-imposed compensatory mitigation to offset residual impacts. 

Mitigation will follow the regulations from the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g. avoid, minimize, and 

compensate), hereafter referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM 

management actions and authorized third party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures (i.e. 

residual impacts), then compensatory mitigation projects will be used to provide a 

net conservation gain to the species. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, 

timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory 

mitigation (see glossary).

C-12 The BLM remains committed to achieving the planning-level management goals 

and objectives identified in this RMPA and the 2015 ARMPA by ensuring Greater 

Sage-Grouse habitat impacts are addressed through implementing mitigating 

actions consistent with the governing RMP. Accordingly, the BLM has coordinated 

with the State to develop a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to guide the 

application of the mitigation hierarchy and State required or voluntary 

compensatory mitigation actions for future project authorizations in Greater SageGrouse habitat on public lands. The BLM would not deny a proposed authorization 

in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat solely on the grounds that the proponent has not 

proposed or agreed to undertake voluntary compensatory mitigation. The MOA 

describes the State’s policies, authorities, and programs for Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation and the process regarding how the BLM would incorporate avoidance, 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

37

minimization, and other recommendations from the State necessary to improve the 

condition of Greater Sage-Grouse habitat consistent with RMPA goals and 

objectives, in one or more of the NEPA analysis alternatives. The MOA would be 

implemented to provide an improvement to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat at a State 

level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone or a Field Office), in 

collaboration with applicable partners (e.g., federal, tribal, and state agencies). 

Generally, and as described in the MOA, when the BLM receives applications for 

projects in Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, the BLM would ensure project design is 

aligned with State requirements and would ensure the proponent coordinates with 

the State to develop any additional mitigation—including compensatory 

mitigation—that the State may require in order to comply with State policies and 

programs for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse.

The BLM is relying on the State of Wyoming's mitigation framework, which, due to 

its provisions for durability and additionality, would still provide conservation gains 

and benefits consistent with the goals of this RMPA and the 2015 Plans. The 

implementation of compensatory mitigation actions would be directed by MOAs 

that describe how the BLM would align with State authorities and incorporated in 

the appropriate NEPA analysis subsequent to the Proposed RMP Amendment. 

While the conservation benefit of compensatory mitigation may be limited when 

weighed against the threats to Greater Sage-Grouse, particularly in the Great Basin 

region where wildland fire remains a key threat, the BLM is committed to 

implementing state-imposed mitigation requirements to help minimize the impacts 

of anthropogenic disturbance and habitat fragmentation throughout the range of 

Greater Sage-Grouse. The BLM is not proposing any action that would preclude 

proponents from offering compensatory mitigation; it is clarifying the BLM’s 

reliance on voluntary compensatory mitigation consistent with federal law.

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Team, will develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy 

that will inform the NEPA decision making process including the application of the

mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and third party actions that 

result in habitat loss and degradation. A robust and transparent Regional Mitigation 

Strategy will contribute to Greater Sage-Grouse habitat conservation by reducing, 

eliminating, or minimizing threats and compensating for residual impacts to Greater 

Sage-Grouse and its habitat.

C-12 The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual MS-1794 serves as a framework for 

developing and implementing a Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following 

sections provide additional guidance specific to the development and 

implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy.

C-12 Developing a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Team, will develop a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to 

guide the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and 

third party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. The strategy should 

consider any state-level Greater Sage-Grouse mitigation guidance that is consistent 

with the requirements identified in this appendix. The Regional Mitigation Strategy 

should be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available 

and standardized metrics.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

38

C-12 As described in the ARMPA, the BLM will establish a WAFWA Management 

Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the 

conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse, within 90 days of the issuance of the Record 

of Decision. The Strategy will be developed within one year of the issuance of the 

ROD.

C-13 The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on avoidance, 

minimization, and compensation, as follows:

• Avoidance

– Include avoidance areas (e.g. right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, no 

surface occupancy areas) already included in laws, regulations, policies, and/or land 

use plans (e.g. RMPs, state plans); and,

– Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g. additional 

avoidance best management practices) with regard to Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation.

• Minimization

– Include minimization actions (e.g. required design features, best 

management practices) already included in laws, regulations, policies, land use 

plans, and/or land-use authorizations; and,

– Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional 

minimization best management practices) with regard to Greater Sage-Grouse 

conservation.

C-13 • Compensation

– Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation 

options, siting, compensatory project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and 

program administration. Each of these topics is discussed in more detail below.

• Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

o A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the 

value of the residual impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation projects, 

including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of the 

projects.

o This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, 

and the size of the impact/project.

o For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability (see 

glossary), timeliness (see glossary), and the potential for failure (e.g. uncertainty 

associated with effectiveness) may require an upward adjustment of the valuation.

o The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application of the 

above guidance, result in proactive conservation measures for Greater Sage-Grouse 

(consistent with BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management, section

.02).

• Compensatory Mitigation Options

o Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, 

such as:

- Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit exchanges.

- Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund.

- Authorized-user conducted mitigation projects.

o For any compensatory mitigation project, the investment must be additional 

(i.e. additionality: the conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are 

demonstrably new and would not have resulted without the compensatory 

mitigation project).
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

39

• Compensatory Mitigation Siting

o Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation 

gain to the Greater Sage-Grouse, regardless of land ownership.

C-14 o Sites should be durable (see glossary).

o Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g. fire restoration plans, 

invasive species strategies, healthy land focal areas) should be considered, if those 

sites have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to Greater Sage-Grouse and 

are durable.

• Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

o Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to Greater SageGrouse (e.g. protection, conservation, and restoration projects).

o Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.

o Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance 

requirements, for the duration of the impact.

o To inform contributions to a mitigation/conservation fund, expected costs 

for these project types (and their monitoring and maintenance), within the WAFWA 

Management Zone, should be identified.

• Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

o Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are implemented as 

designed, and if not, there should be methods to enforce compliance.

o Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and 

objectives are met and that the benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

• Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

o Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically-defensible reporting 

requirements should be identified for mitigation projects.

o Reports should be compiled, summarized, and reviewed in the WAFWA 

Management Zone in order to determine if Greater Sage-Grouse conservation has 

been achieved and/or to support adaptive management recommendations.

• Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines

o Guidelines for implementing the state-level compensatory mitigation 

program should include holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, 

operating a transparent and credible accounting system, certifying mitigation 

credits, and managing reporting requirements.

C-14 Incorporating the Regional Mitigation Strategy into NEPA Analyses

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 

recommendations from the Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the 

NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM management actions and third party actions 

that result in habitat loss and degradation and the appropriate mitigation actions will 

be carried forward into the decision.

C-14 Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program

The BLM needs to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically 

implemented to provide a net conservation gain to the species, as identified in the 

Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with existing compensatory 

mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a statelevel (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone or a Field Office), in 

collaboration with our partners (e.g. federal, Tribal, and state agencies).
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

40

C-15 To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation 

funds, the BLM will enter into a contract or agreement with a third-party to help 

manage the state-level compensatory mitigation funds, within one year of the 

issuance of the Record of Decision. The selection of the third-party compensatory 

mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. 

The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect Federal lands.

C-15 Upon completion of the planning process, with issuance of this an Approved Plan 

and Record of Decision, subsequent implementation decisions will be put into 

effect by developing implementation (activity-level or project-specific) plans. These 

implementation decisions will be based upon the objectives identified in this the

Approved Plan and Record of Decisions, and will be coordinated with local 

working groups.

C-16 Implementation strategies for a landscape scale species requires coordination across 

multiple scales, as the work that is conducted at the local scale must be tracked and 

evaluated for overall success within core areas, across the state of Wyoming across 

the region. As the Greater Sage-Grouse is formally managed by the State of 

Wyoming, and has a statewide strategy through Governor’s Executive Order 2015-4 

2011-05, implementation must be evaluated at that scale as well. For this reason, 

Wyoming Plans will utilize both local and state-wide multiple types of working 

groups, representing each of the scales at which implementation will be tracked.

C-16 National Level

In December 2011, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead and Secretary of the Interior 

Ken Salazar co-hosted a meeting to address coordinated conservation of the sagegrouse across its range. Ten states within the range of the sage-grouse were 

represented, as were the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) — including representatives from the BLM and 

USFWS. The primary outcome of the meeting was the creation of a Sage-Grouse 

Task Force (Task Force) chaired by Governors Mead (Wyoming) and Hickenlooper 

(Colorado) and the Director of the BLM. The Task Force was directed to develop 

recommendations on how to best advance a coordinated, multi-state, range-wide 

effort to conserve the sage-grouse, including the identification of conservation 

objectives to ensure the long-term viability of the species.

C-16 Regional Level

Regional Level Teams (Sage-grouse Implementation Group)

C-16 Local Level

In 2000, a Statewide Local Working Group was established by the WGFD to 

develop and facilitate implementation of local conservation plans for the benefit of 

sage-grouse, their habitats, and whenever feasible, other species that use sagebrush 

habitats. This group prepared the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan 

(Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group 2003) to provide coordinated management 

and direction across the state. In 2004, local Greater Sage-Grouse working groups 

were formed to develop and implement local conservation plans. Eight local 

working groups around Wyoming have completed conservation plans, many of 

which prioritize addressing past, present, and reasonably foreseeable threats at the 

state and local levels, and prescribe management actions for private landowners to 

improve Greater Sage-Grouse conservation at the local scale, consistent with 

Wyoming’s Core Population Area Strategy.
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

41

C-17 In addition to the tracking databases being maintained by the State of Wyoming, a 

national- Greater Sage- Grouse Land Use Plan Decision Monitoring and Reporting 

Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM will consistently and 

systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity plans and 

implementation actions for all plans within the range of sage-grouse. A description 

of this tool for collection and reporting of tabular and spatially explicit data will be 

included in the Record of Decision or approved plan. The BLM will provide data 

that can be integrated with other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal 

partners.

C-17 A website where the public can quickly and easily access data concerning 

implementation will be developed and kept current on the Wyoming BLM database. 

Creating this website and maintaining it through the implementation cycle will be a 

vital part of implementation success. The public is welcome to provide 

implementation comments to the BLM any time during the cycle, but schedules for 

implementation planning decisions will be posted so the public can make timely 

comments. All Activity Plan Working Group meetings where recommendations are 

made to the BLM will be open to the public, and will provide for specific and 

helpful public involvement. This includes providing web-based information to the 

public prior to any Activity Plan Working Group meetings; such that members of 

the public can provide input to the working session, both early and mid-way 

through the scheduled meetings.

C-17 to C-18 In addition to the conservation activities identified through implementation of the 

Resource Management Plan in coordination with the Local Working Group 

Conservation Plans, BLM will continue to partner with other agencies and 

stakeholders to identify conservation actions to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse habitat. 

Actions which may occur could include, but is not limited to Candidate 

Conservation Agreements (CCA) with accompanying Candidate Conservation 

Agreements with Assurances (CCAA), and designation of conservation easements, 

habitat improvement projects, cooperative agreements, or several other options. For 

a more detailed list of Wyoming-based conservation activities and initiatives, 

consult the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust.

C-18 CCAs are entered into when a potential threat to habitat is identified. BLM enters 

into CCAs with USFWS to identify potential threats and plan for conservation 

measures to address potential threats. The purpose of federal land CCAs and the 

accompanying non-federal CCAAs is to encourage conservation actions for species 

that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered. The goal is that enhancements in 

conservation can preclude the need for federal listing or so that conservation can 

occur before the status of the species has become so dire that listing is necessary. 

Although a single property owner’s activities may not eliminate the need to list, 

conservation, if conducted by enough property owners throughout the species’ 

range, can eliminate the need to list.

C-18 Conservation Easements are identified private lands with Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat where the private landowners enter into voluntary agreements with the 

government to give up developmental rights which may adversely affect habitat. 

The most common way these areas may be used in Wyoming is for mitigation 

banks. Allowing development within some areas of historic Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat or marginal habitat will require appropriate mitigation. In some cases the 

most appropriate mitigation may be for project proponents to buy credits at a 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

42

conservation easement, thus creating a mitigation bank. Overall, the benefit is to the 

Greater Sage-Grouse, as it reduces the overall potential for fragmented habitat by 

ensuring there are areas with no development potential which could adversely affect 

the viability of the species.

To learn more about what CCAs and CCAAs are in place for Greater Sage-grouse, 

please see the US Fish and Wildlife website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06W.

C-18 Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank

The Sweetwater River Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank is the first 

conservation bank established for Greater Sage-Grouse. Located in central 

Wyoming, the bank manages habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse allowing energy 

development and other activities to proceed on other lands within Wyoming. A 

conservation bank is a site or suite of sites established under an agreement with the 

USFWS, intended to protect, and improve habitat for species. Credits may be 

purchased which result in perpetual conservation easements and conservation 

projects on the land to offset impacts occurring elsewhere. The Sweetwater River 

Conservancy Habitat Conservation Bank launched with 55,000 deeded acres of 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, and could expand up to 700,000 acres on other lands 

owned by the Sweetwater River Conservancy contingent upon demand (USFWS 

2015).

C-18 to C-19 Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative is a long-term science based effort 

to assess and enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitats at a landscape scale in 

southwest Wyoming, while facilitating responsible development through local 

collaboration and partnership. Collaborative efforts address multiple concerns at a 

scale that considers all activities on the landscape, and can leverage resources that 

might not be available for single agency projects. Greater Sage-Grouse initiatives 

from the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative have included habitat 

enhancement efforts (e.g., invasive weed treatment, prescribed grazing strategies), 

and Greater Sage-Grouse research studies (Wyoming Landscape Conservation 

Initiative 2013).

C-19 Powder River Basin Restoration Program

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is a collaborative partnership to 

restore and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat on a landscape level in the Powder 

River Basin. The basin encompasses 13,493,840 acres in northeast Wyoming and 

southeast Montana. Surface ownership is composed of approximately 70 percent 

private lands, 14 percent BLM-administered lands (including 8 percent in Wyoming 

and 6 percent in Montana), 8 percent Forest Service lands, and 8 percent States of 

Wyoming and Montana lands. Subsurface mineral ownership is 50 to 60 percent 

federal (BLM 2014).

The Powder River Basin Restoration Program is focusing on areas affected by the 

federal oil and gas development that has occurred over the past decade in the 

Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming. Its objectives are restoring or 

enhancing disturbed previously suitable habitat to suitable habitat for sagebrush 

obligate species, primarily Greater Sage-Grouse. This includes multiple sites 

affected by coal bed natural gas abandonment reclamation efforts, wildfires, and 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

43

noxious and invasive plants. Priority will be given to those areas recognized as 

priority habitats (e.g., core population areas and connectivity corridors).

Habitat objectives are meeting the needs for nesting, brood-rearing, and late broodrearing. The program would contribute to efforts focused on the management and 

control of mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus and would include funding, labor, 

treatment locations, and other needs as determined.

Additionally, efforts would be coordinated to reduce fuels in and near Greater SageGrouse habitat, to enhance sagebrush stands, support restoration efforts, and reduce 

the risk of high-severity wildfire. Pine stands and juniper woodlands would be 

managed for structural diversity and to reduce fuels, especially near PHMA, human 

developments, and recreation areas.

C-19 to C-20 Natural Resource Conservation Service Sage-Grouse Initiative

The US Department of Agriculture, NRCS Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI) is working 

with private landowners in 11 western states to improve habitat for Greater SageGrouse (Manier et al. 2013). With 13.5 million acres of Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat in private ownership within MZ II/VII (Manier et al. 2013, p. 118), a unique 

opportunity exists for the NRCS to benefit Greater Sage-Grouse and to ensure the 

persistence of large and intact rangelands by implementing the SGI.

Participation in the SGI program is voluntary, but willing participants enter into 

binding contracts or easements to ensure that conservation practices that enhance 

Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, such as fence marking, protecting riparian areas, and 

maintaining vegetation in nesting areas, are implemented. Participating landowners 

are bound by a contract (usually 3 to 5 years) to implement, in consultation with 

NRCS staff, conservation practices if they wish to receive the financial incentives 

offered by the SGI. These financial incentives generally take the form of payments 

to offset costs of implementing conservation practices and easements or rental 

payments for long-term conservation.

While potentially effective at conserving Greater Sage-Grouse populations and 

habitat on private lands, incentive-based conservation programs that fund the SGI 

generally require reauthorization from Congress under subsequent farm bills, 

meaning future funding is not guaranteed.

C-58 Causal Factor Assessment

The causal factor assessment will be completed within 180 days of determination 

that a hard trigger threshold has been crossed. Once the causal factor assessment is 

completed by the AMWG, the interim response strategy will be modified to 

adequately address the causal factors in consultation with the technical team. The 

AMWG would define a process to review and reverse adaptive management actions 

once the identified causal factor is resolved (e.g., returning to previous management 

once objectives of interim management strategy have been met). If a causal factor 

or factors cannot be identified, the interim response strategy shall stay in place until 

the cause can be determined and any new planning decision can be implemented.

C-60 Small Leks

Small leks will be given separate special consideration. Due to geographic 

variations a definition of “small” is not provided, rather determination of “small” 
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation for the Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Region 

Proposed RMPA / Final EIS 

Errata Sheet

44

will be made by the AMWG based upon recommendations of the scientific 

community. Generally, “small” is considered 10 or fewer males for a three year 

time period within a five-year range of analysis. If a trigger is hit based upon such a 

lek, then the adaptive management working group will evaluate the site-specific 

circumstances and determine appropriate remedial action.

C-60 Glossary Terms

Additionality: The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are 

demonstrably new and would not have resulted without the compensatory 

mitigation project. (BLM Manual Section 1794).

Avoidance mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action. (40 CFR 1508.20(a)) (e.g., may also include avoiding 

the impact by moving the proposed action to a different time or location.)

Compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments. (40 CFR 1508.20)

Compensatory mitigation projects: Specific, on-the-ground actions to improve 

and/or protect habitats (e.g. chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, 

conservation easements).

Compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory mitigation 

projects will occur.

Durability (protective and ecological): The administrative, legal, and financial 

assurances that secure and protect the conservation status of a compensatory 

mitigation site, and the ecological benefits of a compensatory mitigation project, for 

at least as long as the associated impacts persist. (BLM Manual Section 1794).

Minimization mitigation: Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude 

of the action and its implementation. (40 CFR 1508.20 (b))

Residual impacts: Impacts from an authorized land use that remain after applying 

avoidance and minimization mitigation; also referred to as unavoidable impacts.

Timeliness: The conservation benefits from compensatory mitigation accruing as 

early as possible or before impacts have begun. (BLM Manual Section 1794).