Name: Alternative3_PHMA

Display Field: OBJECTID

Type: Feature Layer

Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon

Description: This feature class contains polygons for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) in the proposed management area in Wyoming. This data was compiled and analyzed as part of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) GRSG range-wide planning effort to prepare Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) amendments with an associated environmental impact statement (EIS) for the State of Wyoming. Data was created, modified, and analyzed to assist with the resource management decision-making for a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and resources administered by the BLM in Wyoming’s 10 BLM Field Offices: Buffalo, Casper, Cody, Kemmerer, Lander, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, Rock Springs, and Worland. The purpose of the 2023-24 BLM RMPA is to amend a sub-set of the GRSG management actions to ensure management actions on BLM-administered lands support GRSG conservation goals, respond to changing land uses in GRSG habitats, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of GRSG management actions, provide for consistent conservation outcomes in GRSG habitat, and provide the BLM with locally relevant decisions that accord with range-wide GRSG conservation goals. The purpose of this amendment is focused on the following cross-cutting management actions/topics that are applicable throughout the planning area: GRSG RMP goal; GRSG habitat management area alignments and the major land use allocations therein, including criteria-based management for non-habitat within the habitat management areas; Mitigation; GRSG habitat objectives; Disturbance cap; Fluid mineral development and leasing objective; Fluid mineral leasing waivers, exceptions, and modifications; Renewable energy development and associated transmission; Minimizing threats from predation; Livestock grazing; Wild horse and burro management; Areas of Critical Environmental Concern; and Adaptive Management. Since these issues/topics conditions affecting GRSG are range-wide in nature, this RMPA/EIS focuses on issues that affect GRSG management across multiple states. However, some issues/topics do not occur throughout the planning area but are related to circumstances specific to one state. As such, the purpose of this planning effort includes amending specific RMP management actions associated with these state-specific circumstances to improve the conservation efforts for GRSG habitat. Changes in RMP decisions are needed to: address the continued GRSG habitat losses that are contributing to declines in GRSG populations; ensure habitat management areas and associated management incorporate recent relevant science to prioritize management where it will provide conservation benefit (including providing for durable planning decisions when considering the effects of climate change); provide continuity in managing GRSG habitats based on biological information versus political boundaries, where appropriate, while allowing for management flexibility to address state- and local-circumstances; and refine planning decisions where litigation and implementation have indicated a lack of clarity. Original source description: BLM first considered the existing GRSG Habitat Management Area boundaries as identified in the 2015 and 2019 GRSG RMPs. These Habitat Management Area boundaries were updated and revised based on the following data sources: (A) modeled GRSG lek persistence (Wann et al. 2023), (B) modeled sagebrush habitats that currently have high ecological integrity (Doherty et al. 2022), (C) modeled sagebrush habitats that are projected to have high ecological integrity into the near future (2030-2060) (Doherty et al. 2022), (D) genetic connectivity (Row et al. 2018; Cross et al. 2023), (E) sagebrush, invasive annual grass and conifer canopy cover (estimated in 2021; Rigge et al. 2021a,b); (F) terrain ruggedness (i.e., a measure of the variation in terrain slope and aspect; Welty and Jefferies 2018); (G) fire perimeter data from 1985 to 2021 (National Interagency Fire Center); (H) active energy development data (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission); (I) GRSG lek activity status (Whitford and Bish 2022); (J) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery (2019); and (K) local expertise and data. The State of Wyoming refined Version 4 of the sage-grouse core areas for inclusion in this planning effort. Data referenced during the State’s core area revision efforts included: NAIP 2019 imagery, oil/gas development, oil/gas unit boundaries, mining permit boundaries, EIS boundaries, transmission corridors, land ownership, permitted wind development, GRSG leks, updated GRSG current range, statewide existing disturbance data from the Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT), baseline data (roads, counties, etc.), sagebrush habitat maps, WGFD Wildlife Observation System data, research locations from Chapter 33 permits issued by WGFD, updated GRSG breeding density polygons, and other supplemental datasets to make decisions. Each of the GRSG Local Working Groups (LWG)’ examined the core area boundaries in their area and heard proposals from NGO’s, government agencies, private landowners, and industry to modify the boundaries. The LWG recommendations were passed along to the mapping subgroup of the Sage-grouse Implementation Team (SGIT). The mapping subgroup held public meetings where the original proposals were reviewed and new proposals to modify the core area boundaries were considered. The mapping subgroup presented its findings to the SGIT along with the original LWG suggestions. All options and suggestions were weighed by the SGIT and they made formal recommendations to the Governor’s office to decide the final core area boundaries. The version of the core areas recommended by the Wyoming Governor’s Office were adopted by the BLM as presented.

Copyright Text: BLM Wyoming Sate Office

Default Visibility: true

MaxRecordCount: 2000

Supported Query Formats: JSON, geoJSON, PBF

Min Scale: 0

Max Scale: 0

Supports Advanced Queries: true

Supports Statistics: true

Has Labels: false

Can Modify Layer: true

Can Scale Symbols: false

Use Standardized Queries: true

Supports Datum Transformation: true

Extent:

XMin: -1.2455166239693264E7
YMin: 4935406.35656334
XMax: -1.1534596787783407E7
YMax: 5687422.865997975
Spatial Reference: 102100  (3857)

Drawing Info:

Renderer:
Simple Renderer:
Symbol:
Style: esriSFSSolid
Color: [130, 130, 130, 0]
Outline:
Style: esriSLSNull
Color: [156, 156, 156, 255]
Width: 0
Label: N/A
Description: N/A
Transparency: 0
Labeling Info:

Advanced Query Capabilities:

Supports Statistics: true
Supports OrderBy: true
Supports Distinct: true
Supports Pagination: true
Supports TrueCurve: true
Supports Returning Query Extent: true
Supports Query With Distance: true
Supports Sql Expression: true
Supports Query With ResultType: false
Supports Returning Geometry Centroid: false
Supports Binning LOD: false
Supports Query With LOD Spatial Reference: false
Supports Percentile Statistics: true
Supports Having Clause: true
Supports Count Distinct: true
Supports Time Relation: true
Supports Sql Format: false
Supports Query Analytic: true
Supports Query With Current User: true

HasZ: false

HasM: false

Has Attachments: false

HTML Popup Type: esriServerHTMLPopupTypeAsHTMLText

Type ID Field: null

Fields:

• OBJECTID_1 ( type: esriFieldTypeOID, alias: OBJECTID_1 )
• OBJECTID ( type: esriFieldTypeInteger, alias: OBJECTID )
• Shape_Leng ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Shape_Leng )
• Acres ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Acres )
• SQmiles ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: SQmiles )
• Shape ( type: esriFieldTypeGeometry, alias: Shape )
• Shape.STArea() ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Shape.STArea() )
• Shape.STLength() ( type: esriFieldTypeDouble, alias: Shape.STLength() )

Supported Operations:   Query   Query Attachments   Query Analytic   Generate Renderer   Return Updates

  Iteminfo   Thumbnail   Metadata