Oregon 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

Attachment 3 

From the USDI 2015 Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments for the Great Basin Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions 

of: Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and 

Utah 

Prepared by 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oregon/Washington State Office 

September 2015 
MISSION STATEMENT 

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most 

of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of 

Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. 

The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral 

estate throughout the nation. The BLM's mission is to manage and 

conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained 

yield. In Fiscal Year 2014, the BLM generated $5.2 billion in receipts 

from public lands. 

BLM/OR/WA/PL-15/051+1792 

[left intentionally blank] 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Description of the Oregon Planning Area .............................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-7

1.3 Oregon GRSG Conservation Summary .................................................................................. 1-8

1.4 Planning Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 1-12

2. APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT......................................... 2-1

2.1 Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment Instructions .................................... 2-1

2.2 Goals, Objectives, and Management Decisions ..................................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS) ......................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 Vegetation (VEG) ......................................................................................................... 2-10

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE) .......................................................................... 2-15

2.2.4 Livestock Grazing/Range Management (LG) ......................................................... 2-17

2.2.5 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB) ............................................................................. 2-21

2.2.6 Mineral Resources (MR) ............................................................................................ 2-22

2.2.7 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE) ............................................................. 2-25

2.2.8 Lands and Realty (LR) ................................................................................................. 2-26

2.2.9 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC) ................................................................... 2-29

2.2.10 Travel and Transportation (TTM) ........................................................................... 2-30

2.2.11 Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (SD) ......... 2-33

3. CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................ 3-1

3.1 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Section 7 Consultation ................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Native American Consultation ................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 3-3

4. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Implementing the Plan ................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Maintaining the Plan...................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Changing the Plan ......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Plan Evaluation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management ..................................................... 4-2

5. GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................... 5-1

6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 6-1

TABLES Page 

1-1 Land Management in the Planning Area ................................................................................................. 1-5

1-2 Acres of PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMPA ................................................ 1-5

1-3 Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area (BLM-Administered Lands Only) .... 1-6

1-4 Acres of GRSG Habitat by BLM District and RMP Area in the Decision Area 

(BLM-Administered Lands Only) ............................................................................................................. 1-7

1-5 Threats to GRSG in Oregon as Identified by the COT ..................................................................... 1-9

1-6 Key Components of the Oregon GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report Threats ................. 1-9
TABLES (continued) Page 

ii Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

2-1 Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas ...................................... 2-3

2-2 Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse ........................................................................................ 2-4

2-3 Greater Sage-Grouse Buffers ................................................................................................................... 2-8

2-4 Desired Mix of Sagebrush Classes by Sagebrush Type ..................................................................... 2-11

2-5 Decadal Treatment Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse Habitat ................................................. 2-12

2-6 Key ACECs and RNAs for ARMPA ...................................................................................................... 2-18

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Oregon Sub-Regional Planning Area, Surface Management and Sub-Surface Estate ................... 1-2

1-2 Oregon Sub-Regional Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas 

across All Jurisdictions ................................................................................................................................ 1-3

1-3 Oregon Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for 

BLM Administered Lands ........................................................................................................................... 1-4

Appendix A (Figures 2-1 through 2-13): 

2-1 Oregon Habitat Management Areas 

2-2 Oregon GRSG Biologically Significant Units (Oregon PACs) and Priority Habitat Management 

Areas 

2-3 Oregon Livestock Grazing 

2-4 Oregon Fluid Minerals (Oil, Gas, and Geothermal) 

2-5 Oregon Locatable Minerals 

2-6 Oregon Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials) 

2-7 Oregon Non-Energy Leasable Minerals 

2-8 Oregon Wind 

2-9 Oregon Solar 

2-10 Oregon Designated Utility Corridors 

2-11a Oregon Major Rights-of-Way 

2-11b Oregon Minor Rights-of-Way 

2-12 Oregon Land Tenure 

2-13 Oregon Trails and Travel Management (OHV) 

APPENDICES

A Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

B Lek Buffer Distances 

C Required Design Features and Best Management Practices 

D Monitoring Framework 

E Disturbance Cap Calculation Method 

F Mitigation 

G Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations 

H Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool 

I Sage-grouse Plant List 

J Adaptive Management Strategy 

K Biological Assessment Summary 

L Greater Sage-Grouse Noise Protocol 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

AML appropriate management level 

APD application for permit to drill 

ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

BSU biologically significant unit 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

CSU controlled surface use 

DOI Department of the Interior 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FIAT fire and invasives assessment tool 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act 

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

GDP geothermal drilling permit 

GHMA general habitat management area 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

HAF habitat assessment framework 

HMA herd management area 

HMAP herd management area plan 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NSO no surface occupancy 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ORV off-road vehicle 

PAC priority area for conservation 

PHMA priority habitat management area 

RDF required design feature 

RFD reasonably foreseeable development 

RMP resource management plan 

RNA research natural area 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SFA sage-grouse focal area 

SRMA special recreation management area 

TL timing limitation 

USC United States Code 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Table of Contents 

iv Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-1

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the US Department of the 

Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop and periodically revise or amend its 

resource management plans (RMPs), which guide management of BLM-administered lands. 

This Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) is the result of the March 2010 US 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered (75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010; 

USFWS 2010a). In that finding, the USFWS concluded that the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) was 

“warranted, but precluded” for listing as a threatened or endangered species. 

The USFWS reviewed the status of and threats to the GRSG in relation to the five listing factors 

provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. The USFWS determined that Factor A, “the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or range of the GRSG,” and Factor 

D, “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,” posed “a significant threat to the GRSG now and 

in the foreseeable future” (USFWS 2010a). The USFWS identified the principal regulatory mechanisms 

for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs. 

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE OREGON PLANNING AREA

The ARMPA planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction (see Figure 1-1, 

Oregon Sub-Regional Planning Area, Surface Management and Sub-Surface Estate, and Figure 1-2, 

Oregon Sub-Regional Planning Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas across All 

Jurisdictions). Table 1-1 outlines the amount of surface acres that are administered by specific federal 

agencies, states, local governments, and lands that are privately owned in the planning area. The planning 

area includes other BLM-administered lands that are not allocated as habitat management areas for 

GRSG. The ARMPAs do not establish any additional management for these lands, which will continue to 

be managed according to the existing, underlying land use plan for the areas. 

The decision area for the ARMPA is BLM-administered lands in GRSG habitat management areas (see 

Figure 1-3, Oregon Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for BLM 

Administered Lands), including surface and split-estate lands with BLM mineral-estate rights. 
1. Introduction 1-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015
1. Introduction September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-3
1. Introduction 1-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015
1. Introduction 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-5

Table 1-1

Land Management in the Planning Area

Surface Land Management Total Surface Land 

Management Acres

BLM 12,615,834

Forest Service 6,454,762

Private 10,907,628 

Indian reservations 191,940

USFWS 482,527 

Other federal 61,260 

State 723,091 

Bureau of Reclamation 52,714 

Local government 868 

Department of Defense 64,465 

Undetermined 11,331

Water 89,366

Total acres 31,655,786

Source: BLM Oregon Corporate GIS Database 2015

Any decisions in the Oregon ARMPA apply only to BLM-administered lands, including split-estate lands 

within GRSG habitat management areas (the decision area). These decisions are limited to providing 

land use planning direction specific to conserving GRSG and its habitat. 

GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands in the decision area consists of lands allocated as priority 

habitat management areas (PHMA) and general habitat management areas (GHMA; see Table 1-2).

Table 1-2

Acres of PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMPA

Surface Land Management PHMA GHMA Total 

Acres

BLM-administered surface estate 4,578,518 5,628,628 10,207,146

BLM-administered mineral estate1 5,162,359 6,072,419 11,234,778

Source: Oregon BLM GIS 2015

1 BLM-administered mineral estate includes BLM surface with mineral estate jurisdiction 

and non-BLM surface with BLM mineral estate jurisdiction.

PHMA and GHMA are defined as follows: 

 PHMA—BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest value to maintaining 

sustainable GRSG populations. Areas of PHMA largely coincide with areas identified as 

Priority Areas for Conservation in the USFWS’s COT report. These areas include breeding, 

late brood-rearing, winter concentration areas, and migration or connectivity corridors. 

 GHMA—BLM-administered lands where some special management will apply to sustain 

GRSG populations; areas of occupied seasonal or year-round habitat outside of PHMA. 

The ARMPA also identifies specific sagebrush focal areas (SFA), which is a subset of PHMA (see Figure 

1-3). The SFA was derived from GRSG stronghold areas described by the USFWS in a memorandum to 
1. Introduction 

1-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

the BLM titled Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use Allocations in 

Highly Important Landscapes (USFWS 2014). The memorandum and associated maps provided by the 

USFWS identify areas that represent recognized strongholds for GRSG that have been noted and 

referenced as having the highest densities of GRSG and other criteria important for the persistence of 

the species. 

PHMA (including SFA) and GHMA on BLM-administered lands in the decision area fall within eight 

counties in Oregon (see Table 1-3). The habitat management areas also span four BLM Oregon district 

offices (see Table 1-4).

The Burns, Lakeview, Prineville, and Vale BLM Districts administer the eight pertinent RMPs being 

amended by this ARMPA. The following BLM RMPs are hereby amended to incorporate appropriate 

GRSG conservation measures: 

 Andrews (2005) 

 Baker (1989) 

 Brothers/La Pine (1989) 

 Lakeview (2003) 

 Southeastern Oregon (2002) 

 Steens (2005) 

 Three Rivers (1992) 

 Upper Deschutes(2005) 

Table 1-3

Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area (BLM-Administered Lands Only)

County Name

PHMA GHMA

BLMAdministered 

Surface Estate

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate1

BLMAdministered 

Surface Estate

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate1

Baker 129,974 207,923 65,572 141,092

Crook 136,942 179,713 70,793 91,987

Deschutes 168,988 181,075 159,043 169,236

Grant 1,184 2,032 9,219 17,435

Harney 1,376,860 1,463,720 2,271,466 2,465,778

Lake 671,021 922,304 1,088,444 1,074,002

Malheur 2,092,865 2,201,814 1,963,780 2,111,463

Union 684 3,778 311 1,427

Grand Total 4,578,518 5,162,359 5,628,628 6,072,419

Source: Oregon BLM GIS 2015

1 BLM mineral estate includes BLM-administered surface with mineral estate jurisdiction and non-BLM surface with 

BLM mineral estate jurisdiction.
1. Introduction 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-7

Table 1-4

Acres of GRSG Habitat by BLM District and RMP Area in the Decision Area (BLMAdministered Lands Only)

BLM District PHMA GHMA

BLM-Administered Surface Estate

BLMAdministered 

Surface 

Estate

BLMAdministered

Mineral 

Estate1

BLMAdministered 

Surface 

Estate

BLMAdministered 

Mineral 

Estate1

Burns District 975,965 1,063,317 1,991,855 2,133,140

Andrews Management Unit RMP 2005 398,430 425,748 745,425 768,654

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and 

Protection Area RMP 2005

208,080 213,426 198,527 221,397

Three Rivers Resource Area RMP 1992 369,455 424,143 1,047,903 1,143,089

Lakeview District 1,004,613 1,255,369 1,329,511 1,343,703

Lakeview Resource Area RMP Amendment 1,004,613 1,255,369 1,329,511 1,343,703

Prineville District 329,725 387,046 299,924 327,794

Brothers/LaPine RMP 1989 329,520 386,841 210,267 238,967

Upper Deschutes Resource Area RMP 2005 205 205 89,657 88,827

Vale District 2,268,214 2,456,627 2,007,338 2,267,781

Baker Resource Management Plan Revision 139,220 220,916 66,298 142,908

Southeast Oregon RMP Amendment 2,128,994 2,235,711 1,941,040 2,124,873

Grand Total 4,578,518 5,162,359 5,628,628 6,072,419

Source: Oregon BLM GIS 2015.

1 BLM mineral estate includes BLM-administered surface with mineral estate jurisdiction and non-BLM surface with BLM mineral 

estate jurisdiction.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM has prepared this ARMPA with an associated EIS to amend RMPs for its field offices and 

district offices containing GRSG habitat. This planning process is needed to respond to the USFWS’s 

March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing petition decision for GRSG. The USFWS identified 

(1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range and (2) the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as significant threats, and identified the principal regulatory 

mechanisms for the BLM as conservation measures incorporated into land use plans. 

The purpose of the ARMPA is to identify and incorporate appropriate measures in existing land use 

plans to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for 

unavoidable impacts to GRSG habitat in the context of the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield 

mission under FLPMA. Changes in management of GRSG habitats are necessary to avoid the continued 

decline of populations across the species’ range. This ARMPA focuses on areas affected by threats to 

GRSG habitat identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision and in the USFWS 2013 COT 

report. 

The major threats to GRSG or GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands in Oregon are the following: 

 Wildfire—loss of large areas of GRSG habitat due to wildfire 

 Invasive species—spread of invasive annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead 

 Conifer expansion—encroachment of western juniper into GRSG habitat 
1. Introduction 

1-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

 Grazing—loss of habitat components due to improper livestock grazing 

 Hard rock mining—fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral exploration and 

development 

 Fluid mineral development—fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to mineral exploration and 

development 

 Infrastructure—fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to development, such as roads, 

pipelines, and communication towers 

 Recreation—fragmentation of GRSG habitat or modification of GRSG behavior due to 

human presence and activities, including travel management 

 Wild horses and burros—management of wild horses and burros in sage-grouse habitat 

 Sagebrush removal—fragmentation of GRSG habitat from BLM management activities 

Because the BLM administers a large portion of GRSG habitat in the affected states, changes in GRSG 

habitat management are anticipated to have a considerable beneficial impact on present and future 

GRSG populations. 

1.3 OREGON GRSG CONSERVATION SUMMARY

This ARMPA identifies and incorporates conservation measures to protect, restore, and enhance GRSG 

habitat by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable impacts of threats on GRSG habitat. 

The ARMPA addresses threats to GRSG and its habitat identified by the GRSG National Technical Team 

(NTT), by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision, as well as those threats described in the 

USFWS’s COT report. In accordance with that report, the USFWS identified threats by GRSG 

population across the range and stated whether that threat is present and widespread, present but 

localized, or unknown for that specific population. Table 1-5 identifies the Oregon GRSG populations 

and threats identified in the COT report. The Oregon portion of the Klamath population was excluded 

from this planning effort because GRSG were last recorded there in 1993. 

Table 1-6 displays how the ARMPA for Oregon addresses the threats from the COT report. 

The ARMPA also identifies and incorporates measures for other uses and resources that are designed to 

conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat. Specifically, the ARMPA requires the following 

summarized management decisions, subject to valid existing rights: 

 Providing a framework for prioritizing PHMA and GHMA for wildfire, invasive annual grass, 

and conifer treatments 

 Requiring specific design features for certain land and realty uses 

 Limiting new development where a disturbance cap has been reached 

 Including GRSR habitat objectives in land health standards 

 Adjusting grazing practices as necessary, based on GRSG habitat objectives, land health 

standards, and ecological site potential 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-9

Table 1-5

Threats to GRSG in Oregon as Identified by the COT

GRSG Identified 

Populations from the 

COT Report 

Applicable to Oregon 

Unit NumberIsolated Small SizeSagebrush EliminationAgriculture ConversionFireConifersWeeds/Annual GrassesEnergyMiningInfrastructureImproper GrazingFree-Roaming EquidsRecreationUrbanization

Baker 17 Y Y Y Y L Y L Y L U N L L

Northern Great Basin 

(Oregon, Idaho, Nevada)

26a N L L Y Y Y L L Y Y L Y Y

Central Oregon 28 N L L Y Y Y L Y L Y U L L

Western Great Basin 

(Oregon, California, 

Nevada)

31 N L L Y Y Y L L L Y Y U N

Source: COT 2013

Threats are characterized as Y = threat is present and widespread, L = threat present but localized, N = threat is 

not known to be present, and U = unknown.

Table 1-6

Key Components of the Oregon GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Oregon ARMPA

All threats  Implement the adaptive management plan, which allows for more 

restrictive land use allocations and management actions to be implemented 

if habitat or population hard triggers are met. 

 Require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to 

GRSG.

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats according to the GRSG monitoring framework. 

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMA—Implement a human disturbance cap of 3%, not to exceed a 1% 

increase per decade, within the biologically significant unit (BSU; also 

known as Oregon priority areas of conservation [PACs]) and proposed 

project analysis areas, as allowed under current law.

 PHMA—As allowed under current law, implement a density cap of an 

average of one energy and mining facility per 640 acres.

 Apply lek buffers, as necessary, based on project type and location to avoid

impacts on GRSG and GRSG habitat from BLM-authorized actions.

 Apply required design features (RDFs) when authorizing actions that affect 

GRSG habitat. 
1. Introduction 

1-10 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Table 1-6

Key Components of the Oregon GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Oregon ARMPA

 Minimize the effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, using the 

best available science, updated as monitoring information on current 

infrastructure projects becomes available.

Energy 

development—fluid 

minerals, including 

geothermal resources 

 PHMA—Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to no surface occupancy 

(NSO) stipulation without waiver or modification and with limited 

exception. In SFA, NSO without waiver, modification, or exception.

 GHMA—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to limited NSO, controlled 

surface use (CSU), and timing limitation (TL) stipulations.

 Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside 

GRSG habitat.

 Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside of 

GRSG habitat.

Energy 

development—wind 

energy

 PHMA—Exclusion area (not available for wind energy development under 

any conditions), except avoidance area in Harney, Lake, and Malheur 

Counties outside of SFA.

 GHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for wind energy development 

with special stipulations).

Energy 

development—solar 

energy

 PHMA—Exclusion area (not available for solar energy development under 

any conditions), except avoidance area in Harney, Lake, and Malheur 

Counties outside of SFA. 

 GHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for solar energy development 

with special conditions).

Infrastructure—major 

ROWs 

 PHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs with special 

stipulations).

 GHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs with special 

stipulations).

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

 PHMA—Avoidance area (may be available for minor ROWs with special 

stipulations).

Mining—locatable 

minerals

 SFA—Recommend withdrawal from the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, 

subject to valid existing rights. 

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

 PHMA—Closed area (not available for nonenergy leasable minerals).

Mining—salable 

minerals

 PHMA—Closed area (not available for salable minerals), with a limited 

exception (may remain open to free use permits and expansion of existing 

active pits if criteria are met).

Mining—coal  Not applicable in the Oregon planning area. 

Improper livestock 

grazing

 Prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits and leases in SFA,

followed by PHMA. 

 Include in the NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of grazing 

permits and leases specific management thresholds, based on the GRSG 

habitat objectives table, land health standards, and ecological site potential, 

to allow grazing adjustments that have already been subjected to NEPA 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-11

Table 1-6

Key Components of the Oregon GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Oregon ARMPA

analysis.

 Prioritize field checks in SFA, followed by PHMA, to ensure compliance 

with the terms and conditions of grazing permits. 

Free-roaming equid 

(wild horses and 

burros) management

 Manage herd management areas (HMAs) in GRSG habitat within established 

appropriate management level (AML) ranges to achieve and maintain GRSG 

habitat objectives.

 Prioritize rangeland health assessment, gathers, and population growth 

suppression techniques, monitoring, and review and adjustment of AMLs 

and preparation of HMA plans in GRSG habitat.

Range management 

structures

 Allow range improvements that do not impact GRSG or that provide a 

conservation benefit to GRSG, such as fences for protecting important 

seasonal habitats.

 Maintain, enhance, or reestablish riparian areas in PHMA and GHMA.

 Remove, modify, or mark fences identified as high risk for GRSG collision.

Recreation  PHMA—Do not construct new recreation facilities.

Fire  Identify and prioritize areas that are vulnerable to wildfires and prescribe 

actions important for GRSG protection. 

 Prioritize post-fire treatments in PHMA and GHMA. 

Nonnative, invasive 

plant species

 Improve GRSG habitat by treating annual grasses.

 Treat sites in PHMA and GHMA that contain invasive species infestations 

through an integrated pest management approach.

Sagebrush removal  PHMA—Maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but 

no less than 70%) with a minimum of 15% sagebrush cover or as consistent 

with specific ecological site conditions.

 Ensure that all BLM use authorizations contain terms and conditions 

regarding the actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting the 

habitat objectives for GRSG.

Pinyon and juniper 

expansion

 Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that 

considers tribal cultural values, prioritizing occupied GRSG habitat. 

Agricultural 

conversion and 

exurban development

 Retain GRSG habitat in federal management.

The ARMPA also establishes screening criteria and conditions for authorizing new human activities in 

PHMA and GHMA to ensure a net conservation gain to GRSG. The ARMPA will reduce habitat 

disturbance and fragmentation by limiting surface-disturbing activities, while addressing changes in 

resource condition and use by monitoring and adaptive management. 

The ARMPA adopts key elements of the Oregon’s Sage-Grouse Action Plan and Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and 
1. Introduction 

1-12 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Habitat (Hagen 2011). It does this by establishing conservation measures and focusing restoration in the 

same key areas most valuable to GRSG. 

For a full description of the BLM Oregon’s ARMPA, see Chapter 2. 

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are based on appropriate laws, regulations, BLM manual and handbook sections, and 

policy directives. Criteria are also based on public participation and coordination with cooperating 

agencies, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and Native American tribes. 

These criteria are the standards, rules, and factors used as a framework to resolve issues and develop 

alternatives. They are prepared to ensure decision-making is tailored to the issues and to ensure that 

the BLM avoid unnecessary data collection and analysis. Preliminary planning criteria were included in 

the Draft RMPA/Draft EIS and were further refined for the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. 

Planning criteria carried forward for this ARMPA are as follows: 

 The BLM used the WAFWA Conservation Assessment of GRSG and Sagebrush Habitats 

(Connelly et al. 2004) and any other appropriate resources to identify GRSG habitat 

requirements, best management practices, and required design features. 

 The ARMPA is consistent with the BLM’s 2011 National GRSG Conservation Strategy. 

 The ARMPA complies with BLM direction, such as FLPMA, NEPA, and CEQ regulations at 

40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508; DOI regulations at 43 CFR, Parts 4 and 1600; the BLM H-1601-1 

Land Use Planning Handbook, “Appendix C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific 

Decision Guidance Requirements” for affected resource programs (BLM 2005a); the 2008 

BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008e); and all other applicable BLM policies and 

guidance. 

 The ARMPA is limited to providing direction specific to conserving GRSG and its habitats. 

 The BLM considered land allocations, objectives, and management actions to restore, 

enhance, and improve GRSG habitat. 

 The ARMPA recognizes valid existing rights. 

 The ARMPA addresses BLM-administered land in GRSG habitats (including surface estate 

and split-estate lands) in GRSG habitats. Any decisions in the ARMPA apply only to federal 

lands administered by the BLM. 

 The BLM used a collaborative and multi-jurisdictional approach, where appropriate, to 

determine the desired future condition of BLM-administered lands for the conservation of 

GRSG and their habitats. 

 Predation effects on GRSG are addressed in this ARMPA through habitat management and 

infrastructure siting and design rather than directly removing or reducing predators. 

 As described by law and policy, the BLM ensured that conservation measures are as 

consistent as possible with other planning jurisdictions within the planning area boundaries. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-13

 The BLM considered a range of reasonable alternatives, including appropriate management 

prescriptions that focus on the relative values of resources, while contributing to the 

conservation of GRSG and GRSG habitat. 

 The BLM addressed socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives and updated socioeconomic 

analysis for the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. Socioeconomic analysis used such tools as the 

input-output quantitative models IMPLAN and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 

Jobs and Economic Development Impact model (JEDI) for renewable energy analysis, where 

quantitative data is available. 

 The BLM used the current scientific information, research, technologies, and results of 

inventory, monitoring, and coordination to determine appropriate local and regional 

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitats. 

 Management of GRSG habitat that intersects with designated wilderness areas on BLMadministered lands is guided by BLM Manual 6340 Management of Designated Wilderness 

Areas (BLM 2012b). Land use allocations made for GRSG are consistent with BLM Manual 

6340 and other laws, regulations, and policies related to wilderness area management. 

Management of GRSG habitat is also guided by the BLM manuals on wilderness (Manual 

Section 6340); Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (National 

Monument/National Conservation Area Manual Section 6220); Wild and Scenic Rivers 

(Manual Section 6400); and National Historic Trails (Manual Section 6280). 

 For BLM-administered lands, all activities and uses in GRSG habitats have followed existing 

land health standards. Also applicable for BLM-administered lands are Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and Washington 

(BLM 1997) and other programs that have developed standards and guidelines. 

 The BLM has consulted with Native American tribes to identify sites, areas, and objects 

important to their cultural and religious heritage in GRSG habitats. 

 The BLM has coordinated and communicated with state, local, and tribal governments to 

ensure that the BLM considered provisions of pertinent plans, sought to resolve 

inconsistencies between state, local, and tribal plans, and provided ample opportunities for 

state, local, and tribal governments to comment on the development of amendments. 

 The BLM developed vegetation management objectives, such as those for managing invasive 

plant species (including identifying desired future conditions for specific areas) in GRSG 

habitats. 

 The ARMPA is based on the principles of adaptive management. 

 The ARMPA was developed using an interdisciplinary approach to prepare RFD scenarios, 

identifying alternatives, and analyzing resource impacts, including cumulative impacts on 

natural and cultural resources and the social and economic environment. 

 The RFD scenario for geothermal development was sourced from the Geothermal 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2008). RFDs were not completed for 

other mineral potentials and developments in Oregon. However, the BLM did conduct trend 

analyses of past activity and development. 
1. Introduction 

1-14 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

 The most current approved BLM corporate spatial data are supported by current metadata 

and are used to ascertain GRSG habitat extent and quality. Data are consistent with the 

principle of the Information Quality Act of 2000. 

 ODFW’s GRSG data and expertise are used to the fullest extent practicable in making 

management determinations on BLM-administered lands. 

 Where more restrictive land use allocations or decisions are made in existing RMPs, they

will remain in effect and will not be amended by this ARMPA. 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-1

CHAPTER 2 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AMENDMENT

2.1 APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT INSTRUCTIONS

This ARMPA is now the baseline plan for managing GRSG in Oregon in the Burns, Lakeview, Prineville, 

and Vale District Offices. The ARMPA adopts the management described in the Oregon Greater Sagegrouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(2015), with modifications and clarifications, as described in the Modifications and Clarifications section of 

the ROD. 

In the event there are inconsistencies or discrepancies between previously approved RMPs and this 

ARMPA, the decisions contained in this ARMPA will be followed. The BLM will continue to tier to 

statewide, national, and programmatic EISs and other NEPA and planning documents, as well as consider 

and apply RDFs or other management protocols contained in other planning documents after 

appropriate site-specific analysis. 

All future resource authorizations and actions in GRSG habitat will conform to or be consistent with the 

decisions contained in this ARMPA. They will be followed unless there are more restrictive decisions in 

the existing plans, in which case, the more restrictive decisions will be implemented. All existing 

operations and activities authorized under permits, contracts, cooperative agreements, or other 

authorizations will be modified, as necessary, to conform to this plan amendment, within a reasonable 

time frame. However, this ARMPA does not repeal valid existing rights on public lands. This is a claim or 

authorization that takes precedence over the decisions developed in this plan. If such authorizations 

come up for review and can be modified, they will also be brought into conformance with this plan 

amendment, as appropriate. 

While the Final EIS for the Oregon Proposed GRSG RMPA constitutes compliance with NEPA for the 

broad-scale decisions made in this ARMPA, the BLM will continue to prepare environmental 

assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs), where appropriate, as part of 

implementation level planning and decision-making. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

2.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

This section of the ARMPA presents the goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management actions 

established for protecting and preserving Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat on public lands managed by 

the BLM in Oregon for each program. Land use allocations are depicted in Appendix A. A Monitoring 

Framework is also included (in Appendix D) to describe how the implemented program decisions will 

be monitored. 

This section is organized by program area beginning with the Special Status Species (SSS) program, which 

identifies specific goals, objectives, and management actions for Greater Sage-grouse and its habitat. For 

ease of identification into the future, each program area has identified abbreviations (see below) for these 

program areas and each decision in that program is numbered in coordination with the abbreviation: 

 Special Status Species (SSS)

 Vegetation (VEG) 

– Sagebrush Steppe 

– Conifer Encroachment 

– Invasive Species 

– Riparian and Wetlands 

 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE) 

– Pre-Suppression 

– Suppression 

– Fuels Management 

– Post-Fire Management 

 Livestock Grazing (LG)

 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB) 

 Minerals Resources (MR)

– Leasable Minerals 

– Locatable Minerals 

– Salable Minerals 

– Non-Energy Leasable Minerals 

– Mineral Split Estate

 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE)

 Lands and Realty (LR) 

– Utility Corridors and Communication Sites 

– Land Use Authorizations 

– Land Tenure 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-3

– Recommended Withdrawals 

 Recreation (REC)

 Travel and Transportation (TTM) 

 Special Designations (SD) 

Table 2-1 is a summary of the allocation decisions presented for each GRSG habitat management area. 

Table 2-1

Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA GHMA

Land Tenure Retain Retain

Solar Exclusion; Avoidance in Harney, 

Lake, and Malheur Counties

outside of SFA

Avoidance

Wind Exclusion; Avoidance in Harney, 

Lake, and Malheur Counties 

outside of SFA

Avoidance

Major ROWs Avoidance Avoidance

Minor ROWs Avoidance Open

Oil and Gas Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations

Geothermal Open with Major Stipulations Open with Minor Stipulations

Non-energy Leasables Closed Open

Salable Minerals Closed, with exceptions Open

Locatable Minerals SFA = Recommend Withdrawal

Other PHMA = Open

Open

Travel Management Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing Open

Exception – closed in subset of 

RNAs

Open

2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS) 

Goal SSS 1: Conserve, enhance, and restore the sagebrush ecosystem upon which GRSG 

populations depend in an effort to maintain and/or increase their abundance and distribution, in 

cooperation with other conservation partners. 

Objective SSS 1: Protect PHMA necessary to conserve 90 percent of Oregon’s Greater Sage-grouse 

population with emphasis on highest density and important use areas that provide for breeding, 

wintering, and connectivity corridors. Protect GHMA necessary to conserve occupied seasonal or yearround habitat outside of PHMA. 

Objective SSS 2: Maintain or improve habitat connectivity between PHMA within Oregon and 

adjoining states to promote Greater Sage-grouse movement and genetic diversity. 

Objective SSS 3: In addition to the net conservation gain mitigation requirement, manage Oregon 

PACs so that: discrete anthropogenic disturbances, whether temporary or permanent, cover less than 3 

percent of the total available Greater Sage-grouse habitat, regardless of ownership. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Objective SSS 4: Manage land resource uses in GRSG habitat to meet the desired conditions 

described in Table 2-2, Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse. Use the desired conditions to 

evaluate management actions that are proposed in GRSG habitat to ensure that habitat conditions are 

maintained if they are currently meeting objectives or habitat conditions move toward these objectives if 

the current conditions do not meet these objectives. 

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition 

(Habitat Objectives) Reference

Breeding Including Lekking, Pre-nesting, Nesting, and Early Brood Rearing (Seasonal Use Period 

March 1 – June 30 

Lek Security Proximity of trees or other 

tall structures

No conifers or tall structures 

within 1.0 mile of lek center, 

and confer cover less than 

5% within 4.0 miles of lek, 

excluding old trees, culturally 

significant, actively used by 

special status species, and old 

growth juniper stands.

Connelly et al. 2000; Fresse 

2009; Baruch-Mordo et al. 

2013; Knick et al. 2013

Proximity of sagebrush to 

leks

Lek has adjacent sagebrush 

cover

Connelly et al. 2000

Cover Sagebrush cover (%) 10 to 25 Doescher et al. 1986; Gregg 

et al. 1994; Hanf et al. 1994; 

Coggins 1998; Crawford 

and Carver 2000; Bates and 

Davies 2014; BLM 2015a

Sagebrush height (inches)

Arid sites (warm-dry)

Mesic sites (cool-moist)

11 to 31

15 to 31

Gregg et al. 1994; Hanf et al. 

1994; Coggins 1998; 

Crawford and Carver 2000; 

Freese 2009.

Predominant sagebrush 

shape

Spreading Connelly et al. 2000

Perennial grass cover (such 

as bunchgrass) (%)

Arid sagebrush

Warm-dry

Shallow-dry

Mesic sagebrush

Cool-moist

Warm-moist

10 to 30

10 to 25

20 to 45

20 to 50

Gregg at al. 1994; Coggins 

1998; Crawford and Carver 

2000; Freese 2009; NRCS 

2015; Bates and Davies 

2014; Jon Bates, USDA ARS, 

pers.comm. 2/10/2015; BLM 

2015a; BLM 2015b

Perennial grass and forb 

height (inches, including

residual grasses) – most 

important and appropriately 

measured in nest areas; 

excludes shallow-dry sites1

Arid sites (warm-dry)

Mesic sites (cool-moist)

≥ 7

≥ 9

Gregg et al. 1994; Hanf et al. 

1994; Crawford and Carver 

2000; Hagen et al. 2007; Jon 

Bates, USDA ARS, 

pers.comm. 2/10/2015
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-5

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition 

(Habitat Objectives) Reference

Perennial forb cover (%)2

Arid sagebrush

Warm-dry

Shallow-dry

Mesic sagebrush

Cool-moist

Warm-moist

2 to 10

2 to 10

6 to 12

5 to 15

Drut 1992; Drut et al. 1994; 

Crawford and Carver 2000; 

Freese 2009; NRCS 2015; 

Bates and Davies 2014; BLM 

2015a; Jon Bates, USDA 

ARS, pers.comm. 2/10/2015; 

BLM 2015b

Food Preferred forb diversity and 

availability

Preferred forbs are common 

with 5 to 10 species present2

Hanf et al. 1994; Crawford 

and Carver 2000; Freese 

2009; Bates and Davies 

2014; BLM 2015a; Jon Bates, 

USDA ARS, pers.comm. 

2/10/2015

Available Suitable 

Habitat (Landscape 

Context)

% of seasonal habitat within 

4.0 miles of leks meeting a 

majority of the desired 

conditions

Arid sagebrush

Mesic sagebrush

70 (55-85)

75 (60-90)

Connelly et al. 2000; Karl 

and Sadowski 2005; Evers 

2010; Hagen 2011; NRCS 

2015

Brood-rearing/Summer Including Late-brood Rearing, Summering, and Early Autumn (Seasonal 

Use Period July 1- October 31)

Cover Sagebrush cover (%) 10 to 25 Doescher et al. 1986; Drut 

et al. 1994; Connelly et al. 

2000; Crawford and Carver 

2000; Bates and Davies 

2014; Jon Bates, USDA ARS, 

pers.comm. 2/10/2015

Sagebrush height (inches) 15 to 31 Gregg et al. 1994; Hanf et al. 

1994; Crawford and Carver 

2000; Freese 2009

Perennial herbaceous (grass 

and forbs) cover (%)

Arid sagebrush

Warm-dry

Shallow-dry

Mesic sagebrush

Cool-moist

Warm-moist

Riparian3

15 to 30

10 to 25

20 to 45

30 to 55

≥ 50

Drut et al. 1994; Bates and 

Davies 2014; NRCS 2015; 

BLM 2015b; Jon Bates, 

USDA ARS, pers.comm. 

2/10/2015

Riparian areas/mesic 

meadows

Majority of areas are in PFC Stiver et al. 2010, or as 

updated

Food Upland and riparian 

perennial forb availability

Preferred forbs are common 

with 5 to 10 species present4

Hanf et al. 1994; Freese 

2009; Bates and Davies 

2014; BLM 2015b; Jon Bates, 

USDA ARS, pers.comm. 

2/10/2015
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Table 2-2

Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition 

(Habitat Objectives) Reference

Available Suitable 

Habitat (Landscape 

Context)

% of seasonal habitat within 

4.0 miles of leks meeting a 

majority of the desired 

conditions

Arid sagebrush

Mesic sagebrush

70 (55-85)

75 (60-90)

Connelly et al. 2000; Karl 

and Sadowski 2005; Evers 

2010; Hagen 2011; NRCS 

2015

Winter Including Late Autumn and Winter (Seasonal Use Period November 1 – February 28)

Cover and Food Sagebrush cover above 

snow (%)

> 10 Willis 1990 (in Hagen 2011); 

Bruce 2011 

Sagebrush height above 

snow (inches)

>10 Willis 1990 (in Hagen 2011); 

Bruce 2011

Available Suitable 

Habitat (Landscape 

Context)

% of wintering habitat 

meeting a majority of the 

desired conditions

Arid sagebrush

Mesic sagebrush

70 (55-85)

85 (68-100)

Connelly et al. 2000; Karl 

and Sadowski 2005; Evers 

2010; NRCS 2015

1Perennial grass and forb minimum height may not be achievable in years with below normal precipitation. Other indicators of 

desired condition may still render the site suitable, however. 

2 In very dry years, forb cover and availability may not be at the desired condition, and in certain plant associations such as 

Wyoming big sagebrush/Needle and Thread, these indicators may rarely be achieved even in years with normal precipitation. 

3 Riparian includes swales, wet meadows, and intermittent/ephemeral streams.

4Sage-grouse preferred forbs are listed in Appendix I.

Objective SSS 5: Manage anthropogenic uses and GRSG predator subsidies on public lands (landfills, 

transfer stations, predator perches and nest sites) to reduce the effects of predation on GRSG. 

Objective SSS 6: The BLM will coordinate with the State of Oregon regarding proposed management 

changes, the implementation of conservation measures, mitigation, and site-specific monitoring related 

to adaptive management and anthropogenic disturbance. 

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD SSS-1: Designate PHMA on 4,578,518 acres and designate GHMA on 5,628,628 acres. 

MD SSS-2: Designate Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) (1,929,580 acres) as shown on Figure 1-3. SFA will 

be managed as PHMA, with the following additional management: 

A. Recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, subject 

to valid existing rights. 

B. Managed as NSO, without waiver, exception, or modification, for fluid mineral leasing. 

C. Prioritized for vegetation management and conservation actions in these areas, including, but 

not limited to land health assessments, wild horse and burro management actions, review of 

livestock grazing permits/leases, and habitat restoration (see specific management sections). 

MD SSS-3: If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap, not to exceed 1% increase per decade, is 

exceeded on lands (regardless of landownership) within GRSG Priority Habitat Management Areas in 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-7

the affected Oregon PAC, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject to applicable 

laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, valid existing rights, etc.) will 

be permitted by BLM within GRSG Priority Habitat Management Areas in the affected Oregon PAC until 

the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap. 

MD SSS-4: If the 3% disturbance cap, not to exceed 1% increase per decade, is exceeded on all lands 

(regardless of landownership) within a proposed project analysis area in Priority Habitat Management 

Areas, then no further anthropogenic disturbance will be permitted by BLM until disturbance in the 

proposed project analysis area has been reduced to maintain the area under the cap (subject to 

applicable laws and regulations, such as General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, valid existing rights, 

etc.). Within existing designated utility corridors, the 3% disturbance cap may be exceeded at the 

project scale if the site specific NEPA analysis indicates that a net conservation gain to the species will be 

achieved. This exception is limited to projects which fulfill the use for which the corridors were 

designated (ex., transmission lines, pipelines) and the designated width of a corridor will not be 

exceeded as a result of any project co-location.

MD SSS-5: Subject to applicable laws and regulations and valid existing rights, if the average density of 

one energy and mining facility per 640 acres (the density cap) is exceeded on all lands (regardless of 

landownership) in the Priority Habitat Management Area within a proposed project analysis area, then 

no further disturbance from energy or mining facilities will be permitted by BLM: (1) until disturbance in 

the proposed project analysis area has been reduced to maintain the limit under the cap; or (2) unless 

the energy or mining facility is co-located into an existing disturbed area, as described in Appendix E. 

MD SSS-6: Using the habitat disturbance cap calculation methodology (Appendix E), in cooperation 

with ODFW, measure the direct area of influence of infrastructure, facilities, energy, and mining within 

Oregon PACs (Figure 2-2 in Appendix A) and maintain a current database of anthropogenic 

disturbance. 

MD SSS-7: Verify the accuracy of Greater Sage-grouse habitat data layers at the site/project scale. 

Consider ecological site potential when assessing habitat suitability for Greater Sage-grouse. Periodically 

update PHMA and GHMA in cooperation with ODFW using the best available information. 

MD SSS-8: When fine and site-scale Greater Sage-grouse habitat assessment and monitoring is needed 

or required, (e.g., as a component of a rangeland health assessment), measure the Greater Sage-grouse 

habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats identified in Table 2-2. Site suitability values may be 

adjusted regionally where there is scientific justification for doing so. When using the indicators to guide 

management actions or during land health assessments, consider that the indicators are sensitive to the 

ecological processes operating at the scale of interest and that a single habitat indicator does not 

necessarily define habitat suitability for an area or particular scale. 

MD SSS-9: Apply buffers and seasonal restrictions in Table 2-3 to all occupied or pending leks in 

PHMA and GHMA to avoid direct disturbance to Greater Sage-grouse. In undertaking BLM management 

actions, and consistent with valid and existing rights and applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, 

the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified in the USGS Report Conservation Buffer Distance 

Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) (Manier et al. 2014; 

Appendix B).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Table 2-3

Greater Sage-Grouse Buffers

Resource Program Activity Temporal Buffer

Spatial Buffer 

Miles from Lek

PHMA GHMA

Vegetation - Habitat 

Restoration

MD Veg 3

Sagebrush cutting or 

removal

Nesting and early broodrearing (March 1 through 

June 30)

4 4

Vegetation - Habitat 

Restoration

MD Veg 4

Juniper cutting Breeding season (March 1 

through June 30) - two 

hours before and after 

sunrise and sunset.

4 4

Vegetation - Habitat 

Restoration

MD Veg 5

Vegetation 

management activities 

that are timingsensitive for maximum 

effectiveness

No more than 5 days 

during the breeding and 

early brood-rearing period 

(Mar 1 –June 30; use local 

information to further 

refine this period)

4 4

Livestock Grazing and Range 

Management

MD LG 9

Reduce collision risk 

through fence 

removal, modification, 

or marking in areas 

with "high" collision 

risk

NA 1.2 1.2

Livestock Grazing and Range 

Management

MD LG 10

Livestock facilities and 

placement of livestock 

supplements 

NA 1.2 1.2

Special Status Species

MD SSS 13

Infrastructure: New 

anthropogenic 

disturbance

NA 1 1

Leasable Minerals –

Unleased Federal Fluid 

Mineral Estate (MLS)

MD MR 3

Fluid minerals 

development in 

GHMA

NA NA 1

Recreation

MD REC 1

New non-motorized 

SRPs 

Breeding season (March 1 

to June 30)

3 3

Recreation

MD REC2

Motorized and/or race 

SRPs, or competitive 

SRPs

Breeding season (March 1 

to June 30)

4 4

Travel Management

MD TM 8

Upgrading primitive 

roads

NA 4 4

MD SSS-10: 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 ensure 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. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-9

MD SSS-11: Anthropogenic disturbances or activities disruptive to GRSG (including scheduled 

maintenance activities) shall not occur in seasonal GRSG habitats unless the project plan and NEPA 

document demonstrate the project will not impair the life-cycle or behavioral needs of GRSG 

populations. Seasonal avoidance periods vary by GRSG seasonal habitat as follows: 

 In breeding habitat within four (4) miles of occupied and pending leks from March 1 through 

June 30. Lek hourly restrictions are from two hours before sunset to two hours after 

sunrise at the perimeter of an occupied or pending lek. 

 Brood-rearing habitat from July 1 to October 31 

 Winter habitat from November 1-February 28 

The seasonal dates may be modified due to documented local variations (e.g., higher/lower elevations) 

or annual climactic fluctuations (e.g., early/late spring, long and/or heavy winter) in coordination with 

ODFW, in order to better protect GRSG. 

MD SSS-12: Identify Greater Sage-grouse habitat outside of PHMA that can function as connecting 

habitat. Consider the habitat connectivity map developed by The Nature Conservancy and BLM for 

Oregon (Jones and Schindel, 2015). When conducting analysis for project level NEPA, include Greater 

Sage-grouse habitat and populations in adjoining states within 4 miles of leks in Oregon. 

MD SSS-13: All authorized actions in Greater Sage-grouse habitat are subject to RDFs and BMPs in 

Appendix C and these disturbance screening criteria: 

Where avoidance is not possible, disturbance will be allowed under the following conditions: 

 Development in each Oregon PAC and PHMA does not exceed the disturbance cap at 

either the Oregon PAC scale or the project scale (Appendix E). 

 New anthropogenic disturbance does not occur within 1.0 mile of an occupied or pending 

lek in PHMA or GHMA. 

 Development meets noise restrictions in PHMA and GHMA (Appendix L). 

 Analyze through implementation level NEPA seasonal protection and timing limitations of 

occupied and pending leks in PHMA and GHMA. 

 All disturbance is subject to net conservation gain mitigation to Greater Sage-grouse and its 

habitat (see Appendix F) in PHMA and GHMA. 

 All new permitted activities will follow Required Design Features (Appendix C) in PHMA 

and GHMA.

 To the extent feasible, development should only occur in non-habitat areas. If this is not 

possible, then development must occur in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-grouse. 

 Apply buffers and seasonal restrictions in Table 2-3 to all occupied or pending leks in 

PHMA and GHMA to avoid direct disturbance to Greater Sage-grouse. 

Screening criteria and conditions will not be applicable to vegetation treatments being conducted to 

enhance GRSG habitat, except noise and seasonal restrictions will apply. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-10 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

MD SSS-14: Assist ODFW and other partners with surveillance and, where appropriate, control of 

West Nile virus. Report observations of dead or sick Greater Sage-grouse or other bird deaths that 

could be attributed to disease or parasites. 

MD SSS-15: Implement adaptive management responses to hard and soft triggers established in the 

Adaptive Management Strategy (Appendix J). Hard trigger responses will be removed, either through a 

plan amendment or when the criteria for recovery have been met (see Appendix J - Longevity of 

Responses). Removal of the hard trigger responses returns management direction in the affected 

Oregon PAC to the plan decisions that are in force within those Oregon PACs that have not tripped a 

hard trigger.

2.2.2 Vegetation (VEG) 

Goal VEG 1: Increase the resistance of Greater Sage-grouse habitat to invasive annual grasses and the 

resiliency of Greater Sage-grouse habitat to disturbances such as fire and climate change to reduce 

habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Goal VEG 2: Within Greater Sage-grouse habitat, re-establish sagebrush cover, native grasses, and forbs 

in areas where they have been reduced below desired levels or lost. Use ecological site descriptions to 

determine appropriate levels of sagebrush cover and appropriate native grasses and forbs. 

Goal VEG 3: Use integrated vegetation management to control, suppress, and eradicate invasive plant 

species per BLM Handbook H-1740-2. Apply ecologically based invasive plant management principles in 

developing responses to invasive plant species.

Objective VEG 1: Within the boundaries of each Field Office establish a mix of sagebrush classes as 

identified in Table 2-4, Desired Mix of Sagebrush Classes by Sagebrush Type. Evaluate progress toward 

the objective every 10 years. 

Objective VEG 2: Reduce encroaching conifer cover to zero within 1.0 mile of all occupied or pending 

leks and to less than 5 percent within 4.0 miles of such leks at a rate at least equal to the rate of 

encroachment. Priorities for treatment are phase I and phase II juniper, and phase III juniper with a 

grass-forb understory. Retain all old trees, culturally significant trees, and trees in active use by special 

status species (e.g. nest, den, and roost trees) and all old growth stands of juniper within 4.0 miles of 

occupied or pending leks. See OSU Technical Bulletin 152, or its successor, for the key characteristics of 

old trees. Old growth stands are those where the dominant trees in the stand meet the key 

characteristics for old trees. Pending occupied leks and pending unoccupied leks are hereafter 

collectively referred to as “pending leks” (see Glossary). 

Objective VEG 3: Reduce the area dominated by invasive annual grasses to no more than 5 percent 

within 4.0 miles of all occupied or pending leks. Manage vegetation to retain resistance to invasion 

where invasive annual grasses dominate less than 5 percent of the area within 4.0 miles of such leks. 

Objective VEG 4: Thin sagebrush stands that exceed 30 percent cover in cool-moist sagebrush and 25 

percent cover warm-dry sagebrush to no less than 15 percent cover within 4.0 miles of all occupied or 

pending leks. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-11

Table 2-4

Desired Mix of Sagebrush Classes by Sagebrush Type

Sagebrush 

Type

General 

Description

Characteristic Plant 

Community

Class 

1(A)2

Class 

2(A)2

Class 3

(A, B)2

Class 4 

(A, B)2

Class 

5(A)2

Shallow-Dry Very shallow soils 

and very dry sites 

not capable of 

producing at least 

600 lb/ac of grass on 

any sites or in any 

type of year1.

Low sagebrush/ 

Sandberg’s bluegrass. 

Includes the driest 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

types.

15%

(0-

25%)

15%

(0-

25%)

70%

(50-

90%)

N/A3 N/A3

Warm-Dry Shallow to 

moderately deep 

soils and dry sites 

capable of producing 

at least 600 lb/ac of 

grass only on best 

sites or wet years1.

Wyoming big 

sagebrush/bluebunch 

wheatgrass-Thurber’s 

needlegrass. Includes 

some moderately 

productive low 

sagebrush sites and dry 

mountain big sagebrush 

sites.

15%

(0-

25%)

15%

(0-

25%)

25%

(10-

40%)

45%

(25-

70%)

N/A3

Cool-Moist Moderately deep to 

deep soils and moist 

sites capable of 

producing at least 

600 lb/ac of grass on 

average and high 

productivity sites or 

average and wet 

years1.

Mountain big sagebrushIdaho fescue. Includes 

productive low 

sagebrush communities 

and highly productive 

Wyoming big sagebrush 

sites. May include 

antelope bitterbrush as 

a co-dominant with big 

sagebrush.

15%

(0-

25%)

15%

(0-

25%)

20%

(10-

30%)

35%

(20-

60%)

15%

(5-

25%)

1 Based on Ecological Site Descriptions

2 Median value and range

3 Site not capable of producing this class

Objective VEG 5: Increase native plant diversity (number of species) to at least 50 percent of the 

potential diversity listed for the relevant ecological site description and sagebrush cover where it is less 

than 15 percent in half of crested wheatgrass seedings in PHMA. If existing diversity equals or exceeds 

50 percent of the potential diversity, no forb restoration is needed. 

Objective VEG 6: Conduct vegetation treatments based on the following 10-year (decadal) acreage 

objectives within four miles of occupied and pending leks, using results of the fire and invasives 

assessment tool (FIAT; Fire and Invasive Assessment Team 2014) to establish the priority PACs and 

treatments within PACs 

Objective VEG 7: Each Oregon PAC has at least 5 percent sagebrush cover on a minimum of 70 

percent of the area within the Oregon PAC that is capable of supporting sagebrush plant communities. 

Use ecological site descriptions to determine which sites are capable of supporting sagebrush plant 

communities. 

Objective VEG 8: Coordinate vegetation management activities with adjoining landowners. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-12 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Objective VEG 9: In all Sagebrush Focal Areas and Priority Habitat Management Areas, the desired 

condition is to maintain all lands ecologically capable of producing sagebrush (but no less than 70%) with 

a minimum of 15% sagebrush cover or as consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The 

attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland 

Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-6) and in Table 2-5. 

Table 2-5

Decadal Treatment Objectives for Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

Treatment Objective Average Annual 

Acres

Average Decadal 

Acres

Conifer reduction 40,250 402,500

Sagebrush thinning 53,217 532,170

Invasive plant control* 12,700 127,000

Crested wheatgrass restoration 1,844 18,440

*Principally annual grasses

These acreage estimates represent an objective for treatment over a ten-year (decadal) 

period to support achievement or progress toward GRSG habitat objectives. These

estimates account for variability in funding and do not reflect a maximum or minimum 

acreage for any one treatment objective should funding and site-specific conditions allow 

for more or less treatment acreage than described in order to meet habitat objectives.

Management Decisions (MDs) 

Habitat Restoration 

MD VEG 1: Priority areas for Greater Sage-grouse habitat restoration and maintenance projects are*: 

 Sites with a higher probability of success. 

 Seasonal habitats thought to be limiting to Greater Sage-grouse populations. 

 Connectivity corridors between Greater Sage-grouse populations and subpopulations. 

 Following stand-replacing events at least 100 acres in size. 

*Not in priority order. Incorporate these priorities in the assessments conducted using the FIAT 

process detailed in Appendix H. 

MD VEG 2: Base species composition, function, and structure of sagebrush communities on ecological 

site descriptions. Use climate change science concerning projected changes in species ranges and 

changes in site capability to adjust expected and desired native species compositions as that information 

becomes available. 

MD VEG 3: Do not treat sagebrush during nesting and early brood-rearing within 4.0 miles of occupied 

or pending leks. Conduct pre-treatment lek surveys to determine if the lek is active. Breeding and 

brood-rearing typically occur from March 1 to June 30; use local information to further refine this 

period. 

MD VEG 4: Cutting of juniper can occur within 4.0 miles of an occupied or pending lek during the 

breeding season from two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-13

MD VEG 5: Vegetation management activities that are timing-sensitive for maximum effectiveness, such 

as herbicide application or seeding operations, can occur during the breeding season within 4.0 miles of 

occupied or pending leks. Limit operations to no more than 5 days and to the period beginning two 

hours after sunrise and ending two hours before sunset during the breeding and early brood rearing 

period. Conduct pre-treatment surveys for nests and do not damage or destroy identified nests during 

treatment operations. Conduct operations so as to minimize the risk of accidentally killing chicks. 

Breeding and early-brood-rearing typically occur from March 1 through June 30; use local information to 

further refine this period. 

MD VEG 6: Use adaptive management principles (for example, monitoring and adjusting seed mixes, 

planting methods or timing of planting to increase success rates) to provide for persistence of seeded or 

planted species important to Greater Sage-grouse. 

MD VEG 7: Do not use non-specific insecticides in brood-rearing habitat during the brood-rearing 

period. Use instar-specific insecticides to limit impacts on Greater Sage-grouse chick food sources. 

MD VEG 8: Use native plant materials for restoration and rehabilitation based on availability, adaptive 

capacity, and probability of successful establishment (see Appendix I). Where native plant material 

availability or probability of successful establishment is low, use desirable non-native plant materials that 

are of a similar functional/structural group as native plant species (e.g. deep-rooted, tall perennial 

bunchgrass, tap-rooted perennial forb). 

MD VEG 9: When sufficient native plant materials are available, use native plant materials unless the 

area is immediately threatened by invasive plant species spread or dominance. 

Use non-native plant materials as necessary to: 

1. Limit or control invasive plant species spread or dominance. 

2. Create fuel breaks along roads and ROWs. 

3. Create defensible space within 0.5 mile of human residences. 

MD VEG 10: When seedings include non-native plant materials, evaluate post-planting within 10 years 

to determine the need to increase native species populations or compositions to be more 

representative of the ecological site description and capability. When existing native herbaceous 

diversity is less than 50 percent of the potential diversity for the applicable ecological site description, 

conduct treatments to increase the diversity. 

MD VEG 11: Do not conduct forage enhancement solely for domestic livestock in PHMA. 

MD VEG 12: Adjust discretionary land uses, such as active use for livestock grazing or recreational 

uses or seasons, as needed to facilitate attainment and persistence of vegetation restoration objectives. 

MD VEG 13: Use provisional and established seed zones identified by the Great Basin Native Plant 

Project (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/grassland-shrubland-desert/research/projects/gbnpsip/) to determine 

appropriate seed sources for grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Identify sagebrush seed collection areas to 

provide locally adapted sagebrush seed sources. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-14 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

MD VEG 14: Allowable methods for vegetation treatment include mechanical, biological (including 

targeted grazing), chemical, or wildland fire or combinations of these general treatment categories. 

MD VEG 15: Create mosaics of varying sagebrush density using spot treatments within the treatment 

area. Sagebrush density shall be equivalent to Classes 1 through 4 in cool-moist sagebrush and Classes 1 

through 3 in warm-dry sagebrush (see Table 2-4). Maximum stand-replacement patch size shall not 

exceed 25 acres and total stand-replacement patches shall not exceed 15 percent of the treatment 

block. See Required Design Features for additional details. 

MD VEG 16: Test new potential restoration methods in areas with a sagebrush overstory and an 

annual grass understory. 

MD VEG 17: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers tribal 

cultural values. Prioritize treatments closest to occupied GRSG habitats and near occupied leks, and 

where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use site-specific analysis and tools such as VDDT 

and the FIAT process (Appendix H), or their successors, to refine the specific locations to be treated. 

MD VEG 18: Apply additional restoration treatments, such as seeding or planting, in conjunction with 

juniper removal in areas with more than trace amounts of invasive annual grasses or where the pretreatment understory has less than 2 healthy bunchgrass plants per 10 square feet in cool-moist 

sagebrush or less than 4 healthy bunchgrass plants per 10 square feet in warm-dry sagebrush. 

MD VEG 19: Conduct jackpot burning of cut juniper when soils are frozen or snow-covered and 

moisture content of felled trees is low enough to promote complete or near complete consumption of 

branches. Leaving the bole portion is acceptable. 

Integrated Invasive Species 

MD VEG 20: In priority treatment areas for invasive annual grasses, apply early detection-rapid 

response principles on*: 

 New infestations. 

 Satellite populations. 

 Isolated populations. 

 Where invasive annual grasses are still sub-dominant. 

 Edges of large infestations 

 Where sites are frequently or commonly used for temporary infrastructure such as incident 

base camps, spike camps, staging areas, and helicopter landing areas. 

*Not in priority order. Incorporate these priorities in the assessments conducted using the process 

detailed in Appendix H (FIAT process). 

MD VEG 21: Allowable methods of invasive plant control include mechanical, chemical, biological 

(including targeted grazing, biocides, and bio-controls), or prescribed fire or combinations of these 

methods. Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to minimize 

competition and favor establishment of desired species. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-15

MD VEG 22: Use of approved herbicides, biocides, and bio-controls is allowed on all land allocations 

currently providing or reasonably expected to provide Greater Sage-grouse habitat. Follow the guidance 

in the 2010 Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon 

and subsequent step-down decision records, when complete, or successor/subsequent decisions 

governing the use of additional herbicides and biocides. 

MD VEG 23: On Type I through Type III wildfires provide and require the use of weed washing 

stations and acceptable disposal of subsequent waste water and material to minimize the risk of further 

spread. Wash all vehicles and equipment arriving from outside the local area before initial use in the fire 

area and during post-fire emergency stabilization and rehabilitation operations. Wash all vehicles and 

equipment prior to release from the incident to reduce the probability of transporting invasive plant 

materials to other locations. 

MD VEG 24: Wash vehicles and equipment used in field operations prior to use in areas without 

known infestations of invasive plants. Wash vehicles and equipment used in areas with known 

infestations prior to use in another area to limit the further spread of invasive species to other locations. 

MD VEG 25: Locate base camps, spike camps, coyote camps, or other temporary infrastructure in 

areas that lack invasive plant populations. Where no such options are available provide for postoperation invasive plant treatments.

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE) 

Objective FIRE 1: Manage wildland fire and hazardous fuels to protect, enhance, and restore Greater 

Sage-grouse habitat. 

Objective FIRE 2: Use a combination of vegetation management and wildfire response to minimize the 

probability of a wildfire tripping an adaptive management trigger for habitat within an Oregon PAC. (See 

Appendix J for adaptive management triggers). 

Objective FIRE 3: Within 4.0 miles of occupied or pending leks, maintain or develop a mosaic of 

structure and species of sagebrush consistent with site potential and vegetation management objectives. 

See Vegetation Objectives section for desired outcomes and conditions. 

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD FIRE 1: Complete an interagency landscape-scale assessment (Appendix H) to prioritize at-risk 

habitats and identify fuels management, preparedness, suppression, and restoration priorities based on 

the quality of habitat at risk as directed in the Secretarial Order for Rangeland Fire SO3336. Update 

these assessments as necessary or when major disturbances occur. Within Greater Sage-grouse habitat, 

prioritize suppression and fuels management activities based on an assessment of the quality of habitat at 

risk. 

MD FIRE 2: 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.. Prioritize Greater Sage-grouse habitat commensurate with property 

values and other habitat to be protected, with the goal to restore, enhance, and maintain these areas. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-16 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

MD FIRE 3: Within PHMA and GHMA, prioritize fire management activities in order to protect and 

restore Greater Sage-grouse habitat and reduce the impacts of large wildfires as follows: 

1. Habitat within 4.0 miles of an occupied or pending lek. 

2. Greater Sage-grouse winter range. 

MD FIRE 4: Incorporate locations of priority Greater Sage-grouse protection areas into the dispatch 

system. Provide local Greater Sage-grouse habitat maps to dispatch offices and initial attack Incident 

Commanders for use in prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics. 

MD FIRE 5: During fire management operations, retain unburned areas of sagebrush, including interior 

islands and patches between roads and the fire perimeter unless there is a compelling safety, resource 

protection, or wildfire management objective at risk. 

MD FIRE 6: Follow established direction in the current Interagency Standards for Fire Operations (Red 

Book) with respect to use of resource advisors, annual review of fire management plans for updates 

relevant to Greater Sage-grouse habitat, and contents of the Delegation of Authority letters. 

MD FIRE 7: Allow retardant and other fire suppressant chemicals use on all land allocations except 

where expressly prohibited by land allocation direction. Use of retardant and other fire suppressant 

chemicals can be specifically allowed by the authorized official when prohibited by land allocation 

direction. Allow retardant use on all land allocations regardless of management direction when there is 

imminent threat to human life. 

MD FIRE 8: Allow mechanical fire line except: 

 Where prohibited by other resource direction (e.g., wilderness, soils, hydrology, and 

riparian management) 

 Where inconsistent with direction for specific land allocations 

The authorized official may approve exceptions. 

MD FIRE 9: Allow use of naturally ignited wildfires to meet resource management objectives to 

improve Greater Sage-grouse habitat such as reducing juniper encroachment and creating mosaics of 

sagebrush classes. When natural ignitions occur, utilize an interdisciplinary process (including a wildlife 

biologist familiar with GRSG habitat requirements) to determine if the fire could be managed to meet 

GRSG and vegetation objectives. 

MD FIRE 10: Locate base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, helicopter landing areas, and 

other temporary wildfire infrastructure in areas where physical disturbance to Greater Sage-grouse 

habitat can be minimized, to the extent feasible. 

MD FIRE 11: Develop a system of fuel breaks to protect larger intact blocks of Greater Sage-grouse 

habitat. Locate these fuel breaks along existing roads and ROWs, where possible. 

MD FIRE 12: In Greater Sage-grouse habitat, reduce hazardous fuels created by other management 

actions, such as establishment of new roads, trails, or ROWs within 3 years of project completion. The 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-17

reduction should be sufficient to limit fire spread or undesirable fire behavior or fire effects in sagebrush 

ecosystems. 

MD FIRE 13: Use interagency- coordinated fire restrictions and public service announcements to 

reduce the number of human starts in or near Greater Sage-grouse habitat during periods of elevated 

fire danger. 

MD FIRE 14: Develop annual treatment and fire management programs in coordination with 

interagency partners and across jurisdictional boundaries based on priorities identified in the local 

District Landscape Wildfire and Invasive Species Assessment. 

MD FIRE 15: Complete an annual review of landscape assessment implementation efforts with 

interagency partners. 

MD FIRE 16: Implement appropriate fire operations and fuels management RDFs identified in 

Appendix C. 

MD FIRE 17: Include information on the resource value of Greater Sage-grouse habitat in existing 

prevention plans. 

MD FIRE 18: 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 would be met by its use; 

 how the COT Report objectives would be addressed and met; 

 a risk assessment to address how potential threats to Greater Sage-grouse habitat would 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 could be used to meet 

specific fuels objectives that would protect Greater Sage-grouse habitat in PHMA (e.g., creation of fuel 

breaks that would 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 would need to be 

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

winter range habitat quality. 

2.2.4 Livestock Grazing/Range Management (LG) 

Objective LG 1: Manage livestock grazing to maintain or improve Greater Sage-grouse habitat by 

achieving Standards for Rangeland Health (SRH). 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-18 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Objective LG 2: On BLM-managed lands, 12,083,622 acres will continue to be available for livestock 

grazing in Greater Sage-grouse habitat. In key RNAs, 22,765 acres will be unavailable to livestock 

grazing. See Table 2-6, Key ACECs and RNAs for ARMPA. 

Table 2-6

Key ACECs and RNAs for ARMPA

ACEC/RNA Name Type District

ACEC/RNA

ACEC/RNA 

Acres

RNA Acres 

Unavailable 

to Grazing

Estimated 

Reduction 

of AUMs

Abert Rim ACEC Lakeview 18,039 0 0

High Lakes ACEC Lakeview 38,952 0 0

Red Knoll ACEC Lakeview 11,119 0 0

TOTAL KEY ACEC 68,110 0 0

Black Canyon RNA Vale 2,639 2,640 225

Dry Creek Bench RNA Vale 1,637 622 101

East Fork Trout Creek RNA Burns 361 304 47

Fish Creek Rim RNA Lakeview 8,718 2,750 110

Foley Lake RNA Lakeview 2,228 1,269 51

Foster Flat * RNA Burns 2,687 0 0

Guano Creek—Sink Lakes * RNA Lakeview 11,185 0 0

Lake Ridge RNA Vale 3,860 769 229

Mahogany Ridge RNA Vale 682 155 22

North Ridge Bully Creek RNA Vale 1,569 164 46

Rahilly-Gravelly RNA Lakeview 18,678 8,282 630

South Bull Canyon RNA Vale 790 747 89

South Ridge Bully Creek RNA Vale 621 397 166

Spring Mountain RNA Vale 996 995 137

Toppin Creek Butte RNA Vale 3,998 2,865 504

TOTAL KEY RNA 60,652 21,957 2,388

Objective LG 3: Complete rangeland health assessments for grazing permits/leases that have not been 

renewed and prioritized by Allotment Categories I, M, and C. The priority order for completing 

rangeland health assessments in Greater Sage-grouse habitat is: 

1. Allotments containing SFA that have never been evaluated. 

2. Allotments containing SFA that have not been re-evaluated in 10 or more years. 

3. Allotments containing PHMA that have never been evaluated. 

4. Allotments containing PHMA that have not been re-evaluated in 10 or more years. 

5. Allotments containing GHMA that have never been evaluated. 

6. Allotments containing GHMA that have not been re-evaluated in 10 or more years. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-19

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD LG 1: All or portions of key RNAs will be unavailable to grazing (Table 2-6). Determine whether 

to remove fences, corrals, or water storage facilities (e.g. reservoirs, catchments, ponds). 

MD LG 2: When livestock management practices are determined to not be compatible with meeting or 

making progress towards achievable habitat objectives following appropriate consultation, cooperating 

and coordination, implement changes in grazing management through grazing authorization 

modifications, or allotment management plan implementation. Potential modifications include, but are 

not limited to, changes in: 

1. Season or timing of use; 

2. Numbers of livestock; 

3. Distribution of livestock use; 

4. Duration and/or level of use; 

5. Locations of bed grounds, sheep camps, trail routes, and the like; 

6. Extended rest or temporary closure from grazing through BLM administrative actions; 

7. Make allotment unavailable to grazing; 

8. Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, or goats) (Briske et al. 2011); and 

9. Grazing schedules (including rest or deferment). 

*Not in Priority Order 

When SRH are being met no changes in current management or activity plans or permits/leases are 

required, but could occur to meet other resource management objectives. 

MD LG 3: The timing and location of livestock turnout and trailing shall not contribute to livestock 

congregation on occupied or pending leks during the Greater Sage-grouse breeding season of March 1 

through June 30. 

MD LG 4: When fine and site-scale Greater Sage-grouse habitat assessment and monitoring is needed 

or required, (e.g., as a component of a rangeland health assessment), measure the Greater Sage-grouse 

habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats identified in Table 2-2. Site suitability values may be 

adjusted regionally where there is scientific justification for doing so. When using the indicators to guide 

management actions or during land health assessments, consider that the indicators are sensitive to the 

ecological processes operating at the scale of interest and that a single habitat indicator does not 

necessarily define habitat suitability for an area or particular scale. 

MD LG 5: During drought conditions use a recognized drought indicator, such as the Drought Monitor 

or Palmer Drought Severity Index, to determine when abnormally dry or drought conditions are 

developing, present, or easing. When such conditions are developing or present: 

1. Conduct pre-season assessments prior to livestock turn out. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-20 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

2. Monitor vegetation conditions during authorized livestock use periods to determine need 

for early removal or other changes to meet seasonal PHMA and GHMA objectives. 

If livestock grazing is deferred due to drought, reevaluate vegetation and Greater Sage-grouse habitat 

indicators that measure Greater Sage-grouse habitat prior to reauthorization of grazing. 

MD LG 6: Authorize new, relocate, or modify existing range improvements that use seeps or springs as 

a water source to enhance their year round functionality. Install or retrofit wildlife escape ramps in all 

livestock water troughs or water storage facilities (e.g., catchments, storage tanks). 

Maintain, enhance, or reestablish riparian areas in PHMA and GHMA. 

MD LG 7: Identify playas, wetlands, and springs that have been modified for livestock watering within 

PHMA and GHMA. Identify those water improvements that have Greater Sage-grouse population 

limiting implications, and develop projects for rehabilitation. Further actions should be instigated for 

development of water off site; new water should be available before existing water is eliminated. 

MD LG 8: Design new and maintain existing water projects to avoid standing pools of shallow water 

that would spread West Nile Virus. 

MD LG 9: Remove, modify, or mark fences identified as high risk for collisions, generally within 1.2 

miles of occupied or pending leks. 

MD LG 10: Avoid construction of livestock facilities and supplemental feeding of livestock within 1.2 

mile of occupied or pending leks in Greater Sage-grouse habitat unless it is part of an approved habitat 

improvement project or approved by the authorized officer to improve ecological health or to create 

mosaics in dense sagebrush stands that are needed for optimum Greater Sage-grouse habitat. 

Supplemental feeding in Greater Sage-grouse habitat must be part of an approved habitat improvement 

plan or approved by the authorized officer. 

MD LG 11: Sagebrush Focal Areas will be prioritized for management and conservation actions, 

including, but not limited to review of livestock grazing permits/leases. 

MD LG 12: The BLM will prioritize (1) the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine 

if modification is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing permits/leases in 

Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) followed by PHMA outside of the SFA. In setting workload priorities, 

precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land Health Standards, 

with focus on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria 

for prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g. fire) and legal obligations. 

MD LG 13: The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that 

include lands within SFA and PHMA will include specific management thresholds based on GRSG Habitat 

Objectives Table 2-2, Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2) and ecological site potential, and 

one or more defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-21

MD LG 14: Allotments within SFA, followed by those within PHMA, and focusing on those containing 

riparian areas, including wet meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with 

the terms and conditions of the grazing permits. Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, 

utilization, and use supervision. 

MD LG 15: At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes a permit or lease, the BLM will 

consider whether the public lands where that permitted use was authorized should remain available for 

livestock grazing or be used for other resource management objectives, such as reserve common 

allotments. This does not apply to or impact grazing preference transfers, which are addressed in 43 

CFR, Part 4110.2-3.

2.2.5 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB) 

Objective WHB 1: Manage wild horses and burros as components of BLM-administered lands in a 

manner that preserves and maintains a thriving natural ecological balance in a multiple use relationship.

Objective WHB 2: Manage wild horse and burro population levels within established appropriate 

management levels (AML). 

Objective WHB 3: Complete assessments of Greater Sage-grouse habitat indicators for HMAs 

containing PHMA and GHMA. The priorities for conducting evaluations are: 

1. HMAs containing SFA. 

2. HMAs containing PHMA. 

3. HMAs containing GHMA. 

4. HMAs without GRSG Habitat. 

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD WHB 1: Manage herd management areas (HMAs) in GRSG habitat within established AML ranges 

to achieve and maintain GRSG habitat objectives (Table 2-2).

MD WHB 2: Complete rangeland health assessments for HMAs containing GRSG habitat using an 

interdisciplinary team of specialists (e.g. range, wildlife, and riparian). The priorities for conducting 

assessments are: 

1. HMAs containing SFA; 

2. HMAs containing PHMA; 

3. HMAs containing only GHMA; 

4. HMAs containing sagebrush habitat outside of PHMA and GHMA mapped habitat; 

5. HMAs without GRSG habitat. 

MD WHB 3: Prioritize gathers and population growth suppression techniques in HMAs in GRSG 

habitat, unless removals are necessary in other areas to address higher priority environmental issues, 

including herd health impacts. Place higher priority on Herd Areas not allocated as Herd Management 

Areas and occupied by wild horses and burros in SFA followed by PHMA. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-22 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

MD WHB 4: In SFA and PHMA outside of SFA, assess and adjust AMLs through the NEPA process 

within HMAs when wild horses or burros are identified as a significant causal factor in not meeting land 

health standards, even if current AML is not being exceeded. 

MD WHB 5: In SFA and PHMA outside of SFA, monitor the effects of WHB use in relation to GRSG 

seasonal habitat objectives on an annual basis to help determine future management actions. 

MD WHB 6: Develop or amend herd management area plans (HMAPs) to incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives and management considerations for all HMAs within GRSG habitat, with emphasis placed on 

SFA and other PHMA. 

MD WHB 7: Consider removals or exclusion of WHB during or immediately following emergency 

situations (such as fire, floods, and drought) to facilitate meeting GRSG habitat objectives where HMAs 

overlap with GRSG habitat. 

MD WHB 8: When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse/burro management activities, water 

developments, or other rangeland improvements for wild horses, address the direct and indirect effects 

on GRSG populations and habitat. Implement any water developments or rangeland improvements using 

the criteria identified for domestic livestock. 

MD WHB 9: Coordinate with professionals from other federal and state agencies, researchers at 

universities, and others to utilize and evaluate new management tools (e.g., population growth 

suppression, inventory techniques, and telemetry) for implementing the WHB program. 

MD WHB 10: When WHB are a factor in not meeting Greater Sage-grouse habitat objectives or 

influence declining Greater Sage-grouse populations in PHMA, Oregon’s gather priority for 

consideration by the Washington Office is as follows: 

1. Response to an emergency. (e.g., fire, insect infestation, disease or other events of 

unanticipated nature). 

2. Greater Sage-grouse habitat. 

3. Maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. 

MD WHB 11: In PHMA, design any new and modify existing structural WHB improvements to 

conserve, enhance, or restore Greater Sage-grouse habitat. 

2.2.6 Mineral Resources (MR) 

Leasable Minerals 

Objective MR 1: Priority will be given to leasing and development of fluid mineral resources, including 

geothermal, outside of PHMA and GHMA. When analyzing leasing and authorizing development of fluid 

mineral resources, including geothermal, in PHMA and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for 

the conservation of Greater Sage-grouse, priority will be given to development in non-habitat areas first 

and then in the least suitable habitat for Greater Sage-grouse. The implementation of these priorities 

will be subject to valid existing rights and any applicable law or regulation, including, but not limited to, 

30 USC 226(p) and 43 CFR, Part 3162.3-1(h).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-23

Objective MR 2: Where a proposed fluid mineral development project on an existing lease could 

adversely affect GRSG populations or habitat, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, or other 

project proponents to avoid, minimize, and provide compensatory mitigation to reduce adverse impacts 

on GRSG to the extent compatible with lessees' rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The 

BLM will work with the lessee, operator, or project proponent in developing an Application for Permit 

to Drill (APD) or Geothermal Drilling Permit (GDP) on the lease to avoid and minimize impacts on 

GRSG or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about the GRSG and its habitat informs 

and helps to guide development of such Federal leases. 

Management Decisions (MD) 

Unleased Fluid Minerals 

MD MR 1: Stipulate all leases within PHMA as NSO. No waivers or modifications to a fluid mineral 

lease no-surface-occupancy stipulation will be granted. The authorized officer may grant an exception to 

a fluid mineral lease no-surface-occupancy stipulation only where the proposed action: 

i. Would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on Greater Sage-grouse or its habitat; 

or

ii. Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby 

parcel, and would provide a clear conservation gain to GRSG. 

Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in (a) PHMA of mixed ownership 

where federal minerals underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface, or (b) areas of the public 

lands where the proposed exception is an alternative to an action occurring on a nearby parcel subject 

to a valid Federal fluid mineral lease existing as of the date of this RMP amendment. Exceptions based on 

conservation gain must also include measures, such as enforceable institutional controls and buffers, 

sufficient to allow the BLM to conclude that such benefits will endure for the duration of the proposed 

action’s impacts.

Any exceptions to this lease stipulation may be approved by the Authorized Officer only with the 

concurrence of the State Director. The Authorized Officer may not grant an exception unless the 

applicable state wildlife agency, the USFWS, and the BLM unanimously find that the proposed action 

satisfies (i) or (ii). Such finding shall initially be made by a team of one field biologist or other GRSG 

expert from each respective agency. In the event the initial finding is not unanimous, the finding may be 

elevated to the appropriate BLM State Director, USFWS State Ecological Services Director, and state 

wildlife agency head for final resolution. In the event their finding is not unanimous, the exception will 

not be granted. Approved exceptions will be made publically available at least quarterly. 

MD MR 2: Stipulate all leases within Sagebrush Focal Areas as NSO, without waiver, exception, or 

modification. 

MD MR 3: GHMA is considered open for unleased fluid minerals with moderate constraints, including 

CSU and TL. Areas within 1.0 mile of an occupied or pending lek within GHMA will be open to leasing 

fluid minerals subject to NSO stipulations. Apply Fluid Mineral Stipulations, identified in Appendix G. 

MD MR 4: Allow geophysical exploration within PHMA and GHMA subject to seasonal restrictions, see 

Appendix G. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-24 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Leased Fluid Minerals 

MD MR 5: In PHMA, apply the conservation measures through RMP implementation decisions (e.g., 

approval of a Geothermal Drilling Permit (GDP)) and upon completion of the environmental record of 

review (43 CFR, Part 3162.5), including appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. In this 

process evaluate, among other things: 

1. Whether the conservation measure is “reasonable” (43 CFR, Part 3101.1-2) with the valid 

existing rights. 

2. Whether the action is in conformance with the approved RMP. 

Additionally, apply the 3 percent disturbance cap for development within Oregon PACs and PHMA (see 

Appendix E). 

Issue written orders of the authorized office requiring reasonable protective measures consistent with 

the lease terms where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts on Greater Sage-grouse populations and 

its habitat in accordance with the project habitat mitigation plan. 

MD MR 6: Implement RDFs in PHMA and GHMA as detailed in Appendix C, as allowed by law for 

existing leases. 

MD MR 7: Complete Master Leasing Plans in lieu of APD/GDP by APD/GDP or Operations/Utilization 

plans for fluid mineral lease development processing within PHMA. 

MD MR 8: Within an Oregon PAC, when permitting APDs or GDPs on existing leases that are not yet 

developed, the proposed anthropogenic disturbance must be under the 3 percent cap for that area, to 

the extent allowed by law. 

MD MR 9: Require unitization when the BLM determines it is necessary for proper development and 

operation of an area according to the Federal Lease Form, 3100-11 Sections 4 and 6. Where 10 percent 

or less of the land is federal, encourage rather than require unitization to minimize adverse impacts on 

Greater sage-grouse. 

MD MR 10: Identify areas where land acquisitions including mineral rights or conservation easements 

would benefit Greater Sage-grouse habitat. Proceed with acquisition process where appropriate. 

Locatable Minerals 

MD MR 11: To the extent consistent with the rights of a mining claimant under existing laws and 

regulations, limit surface disturbance, and provide recommendations for net conservation gain of 

Greater Sage-grouse habitat. 

MD MR 12: If a 3809 Plan of Operation is filed on mining claims in PHMA or GHMA, identify and 

evaluate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects on PHMA and GHMA, through the 

Plan of Operation NEPA process, as appropriate and to the extent allowable by law. For notice and 

casual use levels of activity, apply RDFs (to the extent consistent with applicable law) in Appendix C. 

MD MR 13: Sagebrush Focal Areas are recommended for withdrawal from the General Mining Law of 

1872, as amended, subject to valid existing rights. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-25

Salable Minerals 

MD MR 14: PHMA are closed to new mineral material sales. However, these areas remain “open” to 

free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are met: 

 The activity is within the Oregon PAC (also called BSU, and is the same footprint as PHMA) 

and project area disturbance cap. 

 The activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation framework in Appendix 

F. 

 All applicable required design features are applied and the activity is permissible under 

screening criteria (see SSS 13). 

Federal Highway Act material sites are a ROW and not subject to mineral sale requirements. See ROW 

section for management (MD LR 7). 

MD MR 15: GHMA remains open subject to stipulations that will protect Greater Sage-grouse and its 

habitat; see RDFs and BMPs in Appendix C. 

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals 

MD MR 16: Close PHMA to new leases and permits. Consider expansion of existing operations if the 

disturbance is within the cap and subject to compensatory mitigation. 

MD MR 17: GHMA remains open to new leases subject to stipulations that would protect Greater 

Sage-grouse and its habitat; see RDFs and BMPs in Appendix C. 

Mineral Split Estate 

MD MR 18: Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and GHMA, and the 

surface is in non-federal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or conservation measures 

and RDFs as applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered lands in that management 

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

landowner. 

MD MR 19: Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in non-federal 

ownership in PHMA and GHMA, 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. 

2.2.7 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE) 

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD RE 1: Designate PHMA as an exclusion area for new utility/commercial scale development of wind 

or solar ROWs, except in Lake, Harney, and Malheur Counties. 

MD RE 2: Designate PHMA outside of sagebrush focal areas (SFA) in Lake, Harney, and Malheur 

Counties as an avoidance area for new utility/commercial scale wind or solar ROWs. In Harney, Lake 

and Malheur counties, priority would be placed on locating commercial scale wind and solar energy 

development in non-habitat areas first (i.e., outside of PHMA and GHMA) before approving 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-26 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

development in PHMA. Where an Oregon PAC (PHMA) occurs in more than one county, the allocation 

for each Oregon PAC is determined by the county in which it occurs. For example, the Cow Valley PAC 

is located in Malheur and Baker Counties; the Baker County portion would be exclusion, and the 

Malheur portion would be avoidance. 

MD RE 3: Designate Sagebrush Focal Areas as exclusion areas for new utility/commercial scale wind or 

solar ROWs development. 

MD RE 4: Designate GHMA as an avoidance area for new utility/commercial scale wind or solar rightsof-way. If new utility/commercial scale wind or solar development in GHMA is unavoidable apply the 

following measures: 

1. If possible, construct meteorological towers without guy wires. 

2. If guy wires are necessary, mark with anti-strike devices. 

3. Analyze potential alternative site locations with known wind or solar potential outside of 

Greater Sage-grouse habitat in NEPA documents for ROW applications. 

2.2.8 Lands and Realty (LR) 

Objective LR 1: Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best 

available science, updated as monitoring information on current infrastructure projects becomes 

available.

Management Decisions (MD) 

Utility Corridors and Communication Sites 

MD LR 1: All Lands and Realty actions shall comport with SSS 13 disturbance screening criteria. 

MD LR 2: Designated existing utility corridors will remain open in PHMA and GHMA to utility rightsof-way. 

MD LR 3: Designate other ROWs (including permits and leases) in PHMA as avoidance areas: 

Road ROWs 

 New road ROWs will be authorized only when necessary for public safety, administrative 

access, or subject to valid existing rights. If the new ROW is necessary for public safety, 

administrative access, or subject to valid existing rights and creates new surface disturbance, 

mitigate the impacts on protect the Greater Sage-grouse or their habitat. New road ROWs 

will be allowed if the ROW applicant is pursuing a Title V FLPMA ROW grant and will 

create no new surface disturbance. 

 Only allow use of existing roads, or realignment of existing roads, when renewing or 

amending existing authorizations. 

 Co-locate new ROWs as close as technically possible to existing ROWs or where the 

ROW best minimize Greater Sage-grouse impacts. Use existing roads, or realignments, to 

access valid existing rights that are not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-27

accessed via existing roads, then construct any new road to the minimum standard 

necessary. 

 Existing Federal Highway Act (FHWA) appropriation ROWs are valid existing rights and 

new FHWA ROWs will continue to be considered subject to all disturbance screening 

criteria. See disturbance screening criteria in SSS 13. 

New proposals for power lines, access roads, pump storage, and other hydroelectric facilities licensed 

by FERC will be subject to all Greater Sage-grouse ROW screening criteria. 

Communication Sites: 

Locate new communication towers within an existing communication site where technically feasible. If 

not feasible, new sites will be considered where necessary for public safety but shall adhere to the ROW 

disturbance screening criteria as listed in SSS 13. 

MD LR 4: Renewing, Amending or Terminating ROW Grants in PHMA and GHMA: 

 Conduct rehabilitation when FLPMA ROW grant expires, is relinquished, or terminated, 

rehabilitation is required in compliance with 43 CFR, Part 2805.12(i). 

 Remove overhead lines and other infrastructure to eliminate existing avian predator nesting 

opportunities (e.g. remove power line and communication facilities no longer in service) 

when a ROW grant expires or is relinquished or terminated. 

 Add additional stipulations, if necessary, when renewal or amendment of existing ROW 

grants. 

Mitigate impacts on GRSG or their habitats during amendment of an existing ROW grant. Mitigation 

could include the disturbance screening criteria. 

MD LR 5: Designated ROW Corridors in PHMA and GHMA: 

 Manage existing designated ROW corridors as open. 

 Allow placement of new ROWs in existing designated corridors. Construct new ROWs as 

close as technically feasible to existing linear ROW infrastructure to limit disturbance to the 

smallest footprint. 

 Within existing designated utility corridors, the 3% disturbance cap may be exceeded at the 

project scale if the site specific NEPA analysis indicates that a net conservation gain to the 

species will be achieved. This exception is limited to projects which fulfill the use for which 

the corridors were designated (ex., transmission lines, pipelines) and the designated width of 

a corridor will not be exceeded as a result of any project co-location. 

MD LR 10: Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing activities 

– as defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D)−under valid existing rights prior 

to authorizing new projects in PHMA. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-28 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Land Use Authorizations 

MD LR 6: Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) and General Habitat Management Areas 

(GHMA) are designated as avoidance areas for high voltage (100kV or greater) transmission lines and 

major pipelines (24” or greater in diameter) ROWs (including permits and leases). All authorizations in 

these areas, other than the following identified projects, shall comply with the conservation measures 

outlined in this Approved Plan, including the RDFs (Appendix C) and screening criteria (see SSS 13) of 

this document. The BLM is currently processing an application for Boardman to Hemingway 

Transmission Line Project and the NEPA review for this project is well underway. Conservation 

measures for GRSG are being analyzed through the project’s NEPA review process, which should

achieve a net conservation benefit for the GRSG. 

Place new high voltage transmission lines in designated utility corridors where technically feasible; where 

not technically feasible, locate lines adjacent to existing infrastructure. 

If an existing transmission line is upgraded to a higher voltage the following is required: 

 The existing transmission line shall be removed within a reasonable amount of time after the 

new line is installed and energized. 

 The new line shall be constructed in the same alignment (ROW boundary) as the existing 

line unless an alternate route would benefit Greater Sage-grouse or its habitat.

Outside of designated corridors, bury new transmission lines where technically and financially feasible. 

 Where burying transmission lines is not technically and financially feasible, locate new 

transmission lines adjacent to existing transmission lines, and would be subject to Greater 

Sage-grouse ROW screening criteria. 

 Where determined to have a negative impact on Greater Sage-grouse or its habitat, remove 

existing guy wires or mark with bird flight diverters to make them more visible to Greater 

Sage-grouse in flight. 

Outside of designated corridors, bury new pipelines where technically and financially feasible. Pipelines 

should be located adjacent to existing infrastructure. 

MD LR 7: GHMA is open to other ROWs/Land Use Authorization/Permits but must adhere to 

screening criteria in SSS 13. 

 Existing Federal Highway Act (FHWA) Appropriation ROWs are valid existing rights. New 

FHWA ROWs will be subject to all Greater Sage-grouse screening criteria. 

 Construct new high-voltage transmission lines and new pipelines in GHMA as close as 

technically feasible to existing infrastructure (e.g. roads, distribution/transmission lines and 

pipelines) to limit disturbance to the smallest footprint. 

Land Tenure 

MD LR 8: Designate PHMA and GHMA as Z-1 and retain public ownership. Lands classified as priority 

habitat and general habitat for Greater Sage-grouse will be retained in federal management. Exception: 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-29

(1) the agency can demonstrate that disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net 

conservation gain to the Greater Sage-grouse or (2) the agency can demonstrate that the disposal, 

including land exchanges, of the lands will have no direct or indirect adverse impact on conservation of 

the Greater Sage-grouse. 

Withdrawals 

MD LR 9: Recommend SFA for withdrawal from the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended; subject 

to valid existing rights. 

2.2.9 Recreation and Visitor Services (REC) 

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD REC 1: Do not issue new non-motorized special recreation permits (SRPs) in PHMA or GHMA 

within 3.0 miles of occupied or pending leks from March 1 to June 30. Limited exceptions (e.g. river 

permits) are allowed and shall be based on site-specific rationale that biological impacts on Greater 

Sage-grouse are being avoided. 

Evaluate and modify existing SRPs lacking Greater Sage-grouse stipulations in PHMA. 

MD REC 2: Do not issue motorized and/or race SRPs or competitive SRPs within 4.0 miles of occupied 

or pending leks during breeding season from March 1 to June 30. 

MD REC 3: Evaluate and modify, if necessary, recreation sites in PHMA and GHMA to reduce avian 

predator perch sites. 

MD REC 4: In PHMA, do not construct new recreation facilities (e.g., campgrounds, trails, trailheads, 

staging areas) unless the development will have a net conservation gain to GRSG habitat (such as 

concentrating recreation, diverting use away from important areas, etc.), or unless the development is 

required for visitor health and safety or resource protection. 

MD REC 5: Evaluate recreation SRMAs for consistency with the Adaptive Management Strategy 

(Appendix J).

For existing SRMAs, recreation facilities or sites in all PHMA and GHMA, apply one or more of the 

following to get a neutral or positive response from Greater Sage-grouse populations using the adaptive 

management actions. Potential actions include, but are not limited to: 

 Seasonally close areas from March 1 to June 30 annually, and limit to existing roads, 

primitive roads, and trails, then designated routes upon completion of travel management 

plans. 

 Re-locate SRMAs in whole or in part, through land use plan amendments, in order to reduce 

negative effects on GRSG.

MD REC 6: Promote and encourage education and outreach regarding Greater Sage-grouse at kiosks 

and other public education sites. Promote, publish and engage public regarding the American Birding 

Association Principles of Birding Ethics. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-30 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

2.2.10 Travel and Transportation (TTM) 

Objective TTM 1: Manage OHV/ORV designations (open, limited, and closed) to conserve Greater 

Sage-grouse habitat and populations by taking actions that create neutral or positive responses. 

Objective TTM 2: Reduce disturbance to Greater Sage-grouse by evaluating or modifying OHV/ORV 

designations and route selection in accordance with minimization criteria.

Management Decisions (MD) 

MD TTM 1: Unless already designated limited or closed all PHMA and GHMA shall be designated as 

limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails, including existing SRMAs. Where areas are currently 

designated “closed” under existing applicable RMPs the closed designations shall be maintained. 

Travel management planning will be deferred to future implementation/activity level planning or 

concurrent with future RMP planning. 

In addition to the minimization criteria, districts will adopt the following Greater Sage-grouse specific 

planning elements only for BLM administered roads during implementation level planning. 

 During travel management planning, avoid designating roads, primitive roads, and motorized 

trails within 1.0 mile of occupied or pending leks when road traffic volume is greater than 8 

vehicle trips per 24 hour period in accordance with the ODFW mitigation framework. 

 When existing high traffic roads and primitive roads are closer than 1.0 mile to an occupied 

or pending lek, and are the only access, consider a seasonal restriction from March 1 to June 

30.

 When an existing road or primitive road is found to have an effect on Greater Sage-grouse 

population trends, work with the interdisciplinary team and ODFW to determine the best 

reroute or closure point for a section of an existing road. 

In addition, implementation level travel planning efforts will be guided by the goals, objectives and 

guidelines outlined in the SSS section, relevant National and Oregon specific guidance, and the following: 

 A timeline to complete travel planning efforts in will be identified, prioritized and updated 

annually in all relevant planning areas to accelerate the accomplishment of: data collection, 

route evaluation and selection, and on the ground implementation efforts including signing, 

monitoring and rehabilitation. 

 During subsequent travel management planning, consultation “with interested user groups, 

Federal, State, county and local agencies, local landowners, and other parties in a manner 

that provides an opportunity for the public to express itself and have its views given 

consideration.” Consequently, a public outreach plan to fully engage all interested 

stakeholders will be incorporated into future travel management plans. 

 Among other designation criteria from “areas and trails shall be located to minimize 

harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special attention would be 

given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats.”
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-31

 During subsequent travel management planning, all routes will undergo a route evaluation to 

determine its purpose and need and the potential resource and/or user conflicts from 

motorized travel. Where resource and/or user conflicts outweigh the purpose and need for 

the route, the route will be considered for closure or considered for relocation outside of 

sensitive GRSG habitat. 

– During subsequent travel planning, threats to GRSG and their habitat will be 

considered when evaluating route designations and/or closures. 

– During subsequent travel management planning, routes that do not have a purpose 

or need would be considered for closure. 

– During subsequent travel management planning, routes that are duplicative, parallel, 

or redundant will be considered for closure. 

– During subsequent travel management planning, seasonal restrictions on OHV use 

will be considered in important seasonal habitats where OHV use is a threat. During 

subsequent travel management planning, consider limiting over snow vehicles (OSV) 

designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, 

while in use over snow to designated routes or consider seasonal closures in GRSG 

wintering areas from November 1 through March 31. 

– During subsequent travel management planning, routes not required for public 

access or recreation with a current administrative/agency purpose or need will be 

evaluated for administrative access only. 

– During subsequent travel management planning, consider prioritizing restoration of 

routes not designated in a Travel Management Plan. 

– During subsequent travel management plan implementation, consider using seed 

mixes or transplant techniques that will maintain or enhance GRSG habitat when 

rehabilitating linear disturbances. 

During subsequent travel management plan implementation, consider scheduling road maintenance to 

avoid disturbance during sensitive periods and times to the extent practicable. Consider using time of 

day limits (exclude activities from 2 hours before sunset to 2 hours after sunrise) to reduce impacts on 

GRSG during breeding periods. 

MD TTM 2: ORV-OHV designations that are “closed” will be maintained as closed to motorized 

vehicles. OHV Areas designated as “limited to existing” within PHMA and GHMA will be managed as 

“limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails” until the completion of an implementation level 

travel planning (travel management planning). 

Individual route designations will occur during subsequent implementation level travel management 

planning efforts. Upon the completion of implementation level travel management plans OHV areas 

designated as “Limited” will transition to “limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails.” 

MD TTM 3: Avoid upgrading existing roads or construction of new roads that are found to contribute 

to Greater Sage-grouse mortality or lek abandonment. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-32 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

MD TTM 4: In PHMA and GHMA complete transportation plans in accordance with National BLM 

Travel Management guidance, requiring the BLM to maintain a current action plan and planning schedule 

to most effectively target available resources. The following GRSG population areas are Oregon’s top 

priority areas to designate comprehensive travel management plans: 

1. In Oregon PACs with declining population trends. 

2. In all other Oregon PACs.

3. In all GHMA. 

In PHMA and GHMA, travel systems will be managed with an emphasis on improving the sustainability of 

the travel network in a comprehensive manner to minimize impacts on GRSG, maintain motorist safety, 

and prevent unauthorized cross country travel while meeting access needs. To do so, it may be 

necessary to improve portions of existing routes, close existing routes or create new routes that meet 

user group needs, thereby reducing the potential for pioneering unauthorized routes. The emphasis of 

the comprehensive travel and transportation planning will be placed on having a neutral or positive 

effect on GRSG habitat. 

MD TTM 5: Initiate travel management planning within 5 years of RMP revisions. 

MD TTM 6: In PHMA and GHMA, limit route construction or realignment of existing designated 

routes to result in net conservation gain for PHMA and GHMA. 

MD TTM 7: Eliminate parallel roads travelling to the same destination when the destination can be 

accessed from the same direction and topography in PHMA and GHMA. 

MD TTM 8: Within 4.0 miles of occupied or pending leks, do not allow any upgrading of primitive 

roads that would change the maintenance level except for public safety, administrative use, and valid 

existing rights. 

MD TTM 9: Use proactive methods when necessary to reclaim roads. See BMPs in Appendix C. 

MD TTM 10: In PHMA and GHMA, temporary closures will be considered in accordance with 43 CFR, 

Part 8364 (Closures and Restrictions); 43 CFR, Part 8351 (Designated National Area); 43 CFR, Part 

6302 (Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties); 43 CFR, Part 8341 (Conditions of Use). 

Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities are enacted at the discretion of the 

authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect persons, property, and public lands and 

resources. Where an authorized officer determines that off-highway vehicles are causing or will cause 

considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical 

resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness suitability, other authorized uses, or other 

resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse 

effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures implemented to prevent recurrence. (43 

CFR, Part 8341.2) A closure or restriction order shall be considered only after other management 

strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of temporary closure or restriction orders 

shall be limited to 24 months or less; however, certain situations may require longer closures and/or 

iterative temporary closures. This may include closure of routes or areas. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-33

2.2.11 Special Designations – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (SD) 

Objective SD 1: Provide for Conservation of Greater Sage-grouse within Key Existing Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs ) (Table 2-6) and Research Natural Areas (RNAs). 

Objective SD 2: Manage all ACECs and RNAs for the values for which they were designated, per 

district resource management plans, following existing management actions, and consistent with 

proposed actions for PHMA and GHMA. 

Objective SD 3: Manage habitat maintenance and restoration, and conservation actions in key ACECs 

for Greater Sage-grouse consistent with the values the areas were designated. 

Objective SD 4: Manage key RNAs, or large areas within the RNAs, as undisturbed baseline reference 

areas for the sagebrush plant communities they represent that are important for Greater Sage-grouse. 

Manage key RNAs for minimum human disturbance allowing natural succession to proceed. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

2-34 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 3-1

CHAPTER 3 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT

The BLM land use planning activities are conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements, CEQ 

regulations, and Department of the Interior and BLM policies and procedures implementing NEPA. The 

NEPA and associated laws, regulations, and policies require the BLM to seek public involvement early in, 

and throughout, the planning process. Public involvement and agency consultation and coordination, 

which have been at the heart of the planning process leading to this ARMPA, were achieved through 

Federal Register notices, public and informal meetings, individual contacts, media releases, planning 

bulletins, and the Oregon GRSG website (http://www.blm.gov/or/energy/opportunity/finaleis.php).

3.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The BLM collaborated with numerous agencies, municipalities, and tribes throughout the preparation of 

this ARMPA. The BLM outreach efforts and collaboration with cooperating agencies are described in 

Section 6.3 of the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS. Twelve agencies1 accepted the offer to participate in 

the BLM planning process as cooperating agencies. The BLM formally invited them to participate in 

developing the alternatives for the RMPA and EIS and to provide data and other information related to 

their agency responsibilities, goals, mandates, and expertise. 

3.1.1 Section 7 Consultation 

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, the BLM sent a 

letter to the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identifying the species the BLM 

intended to assess on October 22, 2013. The USFWS response letter dated November 13, 2013, 

confirmed this list and recommended adding the North American wolverine, yellow-billed cuckoo, and 

Columbia spotted frog to the biological assessment. Over the ensuing months, regular meetings were 

held to address which actions could affect those species and to determine whether implementing the 

proposed plan may affect the species. The most recent list can be found in Appendix K of the ARMPA. 

 

1 Crook County, Deschutes County, Harney County, Lake County, Malheur County, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Oregon State University, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USFWS, USFS, and 

Harney Soil and Water Conservation District 
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement 

3-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

In May 2015, the BLM notified the USFWS and NMFS it had completed the biological assessment with 

the determination of “no effects” to federally listed and proposed species and designated and proposed 

critical habitat. 

3.1.2 Native American Consultation 

In accordance with FLPMA and BLM guidance, the BLM consulted with Native American representatives 

for the RMPA planning process. It began by requesting a meeting with area tribes to discuss the details 

of GRSG planning. The BLM State Director initiated the consultation in a letter in the fall of 2011 and 

followed up this letter to the tribes during the following time frames: 

 Summer 2012, expressing interest in meeting with tribes and initiating government-togovernment consultation 

 Summer 2013, an update on the planning process and initiating government-to-government 

consultation 

 Fall/winter 2014, expressing interest in meeting with tribal representatives to discuss the 

draft proposed plan 

In addition to sending letters, BLM Vale District staff held meetings with the Fort McDermitt Paiute 

Tribe in 2014. On February 10, 2015, the BLM Prineville District Manager and the GRSG project staff 

met with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. 

Each of the tribes was also invited to participate in planning as cooperating agencies. The list of tribes 

contacted is as follows: 

 Burns Paiute Tribe 

 Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

 Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma 

 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall 

 Fort McDermitt Paiute Tribe 

 Nez Perce Tribe 

 Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley 

 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

 Fort Bidwell Indian Community 

 Klamath Tribes 

As part of the NEPA scoping and consultation process, and as an opportunity to provide comment in 

accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the BLM notified the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO) seeking information on concerns with historic properties and land use planning direction 

in this ARMPA. The BLM incorporated the information it received into the Proposed RMPAs and 

considered such information in making the land use plan amendment decisions. The BLM has met its 
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 3-3

obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA, 54 USC, Section 306108, as outlined in the National PA and 

the state protocols. 

3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement process, consultation, and coordination conducted for the RMPA are described 

in Chapter 6 of the Proposed RMPA and Final EIS. As required by regulation, public scoping meetings 

were conducted following the publication in the Federal Register on December 9, 2011, of the notice of 

intent to prepare an EIS. 

A notice of availability (NOA) for the Draft RMPA/EIS was published in the Federal Register on 

November 26, 2013, which initiated a 90-day public comment period. The BLM held seven open houses 

in Oregon for public comment on the Draft RMPA/EIS, as follows: 

 Prineville on January 6, 2014 

 Burns on January 7, 2014 

 Ontario on January 8, 2014 

 Baker City on January 9, 2014

 Lakeview on January 13, 2014 

 Jordan Valley on January 22, 2014 

 Durkee on January 23, 2014 

All meetings were scheduled from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. The goal was to inform the public about the Draft 

RMPA/EIS and to obtain further input on the alternatives that were developed and analyzed. In addition, 

the BLM sought comments on potential impacts resulting from the six alternatives. 

The NOA for the Proposed RMP and Final EIS was published on May 29, 2015, initiating a 30-day public 

protest period and a 60-day governor’s consistency review period. The 30-day protest period ended on 

June 29, 2015. The BLM received thirty protest letters. 
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement 

3-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 4-1

CHAPTER 4 

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

After a BLM RMP or RMP amendment is approved, implementation is a continuous and active process. 

Management decisions can be characterized as immediate or one-time future decisions.

Immediate decisions—These decisions are the land use planning decisions that go into effect when the 

ROD is signed. They include goals, objectives, and allowable uses and management direction, such as 

designating lands as open or closed for salable mineral sales, as open with stipulations for oil and gas 

leasing, and lands for OHV use. These decisions require no additional analysis and guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions in the planning area. 

Proposals for future actions, such as oil and gas leasing, land adjustments, and other allocation-based 

actions, will be reviewed against these land use plan decisions to determine if the proposal is in 

conformance with the plan. 

One-time future decisions—These are the decisions that are not implemented until additional decisionmaking and site-specific analysis is completed. Examples are implementation of the recommendations to 

withdraw lands from locatable mineral entry or development of travel management plans. Future onetime decisions require additional analysis and decision-making and are prioritized as part of the BLM 

budget process. Priorities for implementing one-time RMP decisions will be based on the following 

criteria: 

 National BLM management direction 

 Available resources 

General implementation schedule of one-time decisions—Future decisions discussed in this ARMPA will 

be implemented over a period of years, depending on budget and staff availability. After issuing the 

ROD, the BLM will prepare implementation plans that establish tentative time frames for completing 

one-time decisions identified in the ARMPA. These actions require additional site-specific decisionmaking and analysis. 
4. Plan Implementation 

4-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in preparing budget requests and in scheduling work. 

However, the proposed schedule must be considered tentative and will be affected by future funding, 

nondiscretionary workloads, and cooperation by partners and the public. Yearly review of the plan will 

provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and information that can be used to develop annual 

budget requests to continue implementation. 

4.2 MAINTAINING THE PLAN

The ARMPA can be maintained as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. Plan maintenance is limited 

to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan or clarifying 

previously approved decisions. 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other 

agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data or support new management techniques, 

BMPs, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows land use plan actions or BMPs are not effective, 

the plan may be maintained or amended, as appropriate. 

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records. Plan maintenance does not require formal 

public involvement, interagency coordination, or the NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions. 

4.3 CHANGING THE PLAN

The ARMPA may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or plan revision 

process. A plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or to consider a 

proposal or action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results of monitoring, evaluation of 

new data, or policy changes and changing public needs might also provide a need for a plan amendment. 

If several areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become 

necessary. Plan amendments and revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level 

of environmental analysis conducted according to the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for 

implementing NEPA. 

The BLM, in cooperation with the ODFW and USFWS, will use monitoring data and best available 

scientific information to verify GRSG habitat suitability and PHMA and GHMA. Habitat suitability maps 

can be updated without changing habitat management areas. The ODFW plans to update and revise its 

core area and low-density maps. This will be done as new information is acquired on winter habitat use, 

lek distribution, disturbance thresholds to various types of development, and success of mitigation 

measures (Hagen 2011). The BLM will use this and other information to determine if adjustments to 

PHMA and GHMA are needed. Management area adjustments will be made periodically through plan 

maintenance or amendment or revision, as appropriate. 

4.4 PLAN EVALUATION, MONITORING, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Plan evaluation is the process by which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to determine if 

management goals and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. Land use plan 

evaluations determine if decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are satisfactory, if there 

are significant changes in the related plans of other entities, if there is new data of significance to the 

plan, and if decisions should be amended or revised. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined 

and used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, 
4. Plan Implementation 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 4-3

why not. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current 

management or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives. 

The BLM will use land use plan evaluations to determine if the decisions in the ARMPA, supported by 

the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data. 

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. The monitoring framework 

for this ARMPA can be found in Appendix D. 

The ARMPA also includes an adaptive management strategy that includes soft and hard triggers and 

responses. These triggers are not specific to any particular project but identify habitat and population 

thresholds. Triggers are based on the two key metrics that are being monitored during the life of the 

ARMPA: habitat loss and population declines. Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold 

indicating that management changes are needed at the implementation level to address habitat or 

population losses. If a soft trigger were tripped during the life of the plans, the BLM’s response would be 

to apply more conservative or restrictive conservation measures to mitigate for the specific cause in the 

decline of populations or habitats, with consideration of local knowledge and conditions. These 

adjustments will be made to preclude tripping a “hard” trigger (which signals more severe habitat loss or 

population declines). Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to 

stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the ARMPA. 

In the event that new scientific information becomes available demonstrating that the response to the 

hard trigger would be insufficient to stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set 

forth in the ARMPA, the BLM would implement interim management direction to ensure that 

conservation options are not foreclosed. The BLM would also undertake any appropriate plan 

amendments or revision if necessary. More information regarding the ARMPA’s adaptive management 

strategy can be found in Appendix J. 
4. Plan Implementation 

4-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-1

CHAPTER 5 

GLOSSARY

Acquisition. Lands can be acquired to facilitate various resource management objectives. Acquisitions, 

including easements, can be completed through exchange, Land and Water Conservation Fund 

purchases, donations, or receipts from the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act sales or exchanges. 

Activity plan. A type of implementation plan (see Implementation plan), this usually describes multiple 

projects and applies best management practices to meet land use plan objectives. Examples of activity 

plans are interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, recreation area management 

plans, and grazing plans. 

Actual use. The amount of animal unit months consumed by livestock based on the numbers of 

livestock and grazing dates submitted by the livestock operator and confirmed by periodic field checks 

by the BLM. 

Adaptive management. A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part 

of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and evaluating 

applied strategies and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and 

practices. 

Additionality. The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and would 

not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project (adopted and modified from BLM Manual 

Section 1794). 

Administrative Access: A term used to describe access for resource management and administrative 

purposes, such as fire suppression, cadastral surveys, permit compliance and for law enforcement and 

the military in the performance of their official duty, or other access needed to administer BLM‐

administered lands or uses. 

Administrative use. Administrative use includes BLM, county, municipal, BLM permittee, human 

health and safety, and valid existing rights. 
5. Glossary 

5-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Allotment. An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consist of BLM-administered lands but may include other federally managed, state-owned, and 

private lands. An allotment also may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and 

periods of use are specified for each allotment. 

Allotment Category I. Allotments where current livestock grazing management or level of use on 

public land is, or is expected to be, a significant cause in not achieving land health standards, or where a 

chance in mandatory terms and conditions in the grazing authorization is or may be necessary. When 

identifying category I allotments, the BLM reviews the condition of critical habitat and conflicts with 

sage-grouse and whether projects have been proposed specifically for implementing the Healthy Lands 

Initiative. 

Allotment Category M. Allotments where land health standards are met or where livestock grazing 

on public land is not a significant cause for not meeting the standards and where current livestock 

management is in conformance with guidelines developed by the State Directors in consultation with 

Resource Advisory Councils. Allotments are where an evaluation of land health standards has not been 

completed but existing monitoring data indicates that resource conditions are satisfactory. 

Allotment Category C. Allotments where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the forage or 

are less than 10 percent of the land area. An allotment generally should not be designated Category C if 

the public land in the allotment contains critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species or 

wetlands negatively affected by livestock grazing. 

Allotment management plan (AMP). A concisely written program of livestock grazing 

management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific, multiple-use 

management goals in a grazing allotment. An AMP is prepared in consultation with the permittees, 

lessees, and other affected interests. Livestock grazing is considered in relation to other uses of the 

range (such as watershed, vegetation, and wildlife) and to renewable resources. An AMP establishes 

seasons of use, the number of livestock to be permitted, the range improvements needed, and the 

grazing system. 

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions 

of approved resource management plans or management framework plans. Usually, only one or two 

issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area. 

Animal unit month. The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent 

for one month. 

Anthropogenic disturbance. Features include paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission 

lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, pipelines, 

landfills, agricultural conversion, homes, and mines. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). Special area designation established through 

the BLM’s land use planning process (43 CFR, Part 1610.7-2). An ACEC is designated where special 

management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is 

required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish 

and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-3

hazards. The level of allowable use within an ACEC is established through the collaborative planning 

process. Designating an ACEC allows for resource use limitations in order to protect identified 

resources or values. 

Authorized/authorized use. This is an activity (i.e., resource use) occurring on the BLM-administered 

lands that is explicitly or implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. This term may refer to 

those activities occurring on the public lands for which the BLM, Forest Service, or other appropriate 

authority (e.g., Congress for Revised Statutes 2477 rights-of-way [ROWs] and Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission for major interstate ROWs) has issued a formal authorization document, such 

as a livestock grazing lease or permit, ROW grant, coal lease, or oil and gas permit to drill. Formally 

authorized uses typically involve some type of commercial activity, facility placement, or event. These 

formally authorized uses are often limited by area and time. Unless constrained or bound by statute, 

regulation, or an approved LUP decision, legal activities involving public enjoyment and use of the public 

lands, such as for hiking, camping, and hunting, require no formal BLM or Forest Service authorization. 

Avoidance/avoidance area. These terms usually address mitigation of some activity (i.e., resource 

use). Paraphrasing the CEQ regulations (40 CFR, Part 1508.20), avoidance means to circumvent or 

bypass an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Therefore, avoidance 

does not necessarily prohibit a proposed activity, but it may require the relocation of an action, or the 

total redesign of an action to eliminate any potential impacts resulting from it. Also see the definition of 

right-of-way avoidance area.

Avoidance mitigation. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action (40 CFR, Part 1508.20[a]); for example, it may also include avoiding the impact by moving the 

proposed action to a different time or location.

Baseline. The preexisting condition of a defined area or resource that can be quantified by an 

appropriate measurement. During environmental reviews, the baseline is considered the affected 

environment that exists at the time of the review’s initiation and is used to compare predictions of the 

effects of the proposed action or a reasonable range of alternatives.

Best management practices (BMPs). A suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to 

management actions to aide in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction 

with land use plans, but they are not considered a planning decision unless the plans specify that they are 

mandatory. 

Big game. Indigenous, ungulate (hoofed) wildlife species that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bison, 

bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope. 

Biologically significant unit: A geographic unit of PHMA within GRSG habitat that contains relevant 

and important habitats. In Oregon, BSUs are synonymous with Oregon Priority Area for Conservation, 

which is used in calculating the human disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management habitat 

trigger. 

BLM-administered land. Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by 

the Secretary of the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired 
5. Glossary 

5-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

ownership, except lands on the outer continental shelf and lands held for the benefit of Native 

Americans, Aleuts, and Eskimos (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

BLM sensitive species. Those species that are not federally listed as endangered, threatened, or 

proposed under the Endangered Species Act but that are designated by the BLM State Director under 

16 USC, Section 1536(a)(2), for special management consideration. By national policy, federally listed 

candidate species are automatically included as sensitive species. Sensitive species are managed so they 

will not need to be listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

Breeding habitat. Leks and the sagebrush habitat surrounding leks that are collectively used for prelaying, breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing, from approximately March through June (Connelly et 

al. 2004). 

Candidate species. A species for which the USFWS has sufficient information on status and threats to 

propose it for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act but for which 

issuing a proposed rule is precluded by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists for plants, vertebrate 

animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the Federal Register (BLM Manual 6840, 

Special Status Species Manual). 

Casual use. Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public 

lands, resources, or improvements. For casual use examples for rights-of-ways, see 43 CFR, Part 2801.5; 

for casual use examples for locatable minerals, see 43 CFR, Part 3809.5. 

Chemical vegetation treatment. Application of herbicides to control invasive species/noxious 

weeds or unwanted vegetation. To meet resource objectives the preponderance of chemical treatments 

would be used in areas where cheatgrass or noxious weeds have invaded sagebrush steppe. 

Climate change. Any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or 

wind) lasting for decades or longer. Climate change may result from any of the following: 

 Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit 

around the sun 

 Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation) 

 Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., driving automobiles) and 

the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, or desertification) 

Closed area. An area where off-road vehicles (also known as OHVs) are prohibited. Use of off-road 

vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons, but such use would be made only with the 

approval of the BLM Authorized Officer (43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5 [h]). 

Collaboration. A cooperative process in which interested parties, often with widely varied interests, 

work together to seek solutions with broad support for managing public and other lands. Collaboration 

may take place with any interested parties, whether or not they are a cooperating agency. 

Collocate. To locate or be collocated in a common area, immediately adjacent, or together, such as 

two or more roads, transmission lines, or the like; share or designate to share the same place. 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-5

Communication site. Sites that include broadcast types of uses (e.g., television, AM/FM radio, cable 

television, and broadcast translator) and non-broadcast uses (e.g., commercial or private mobile radio 

service, cellular telephone, microwave, local exchange network, and passive reflector). 

Compensatory mitigation: Compensating for the (residual) impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments (40 CFR, Part 1508.20). 

Compensatory mitigation project. The restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of 

impacted resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR, Part 332), such as on-the-ground actions to 

improve or protect habitats, such as chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, and conservation 

easements (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794). 

Compensatory mitigation site. The durable area where compensatory mitigation projects will occur 

(adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794). 

Comprehensive trails and travel management. The proactive interdisciplinary planning, this is onthe-ground management and administration of travel networks (both motorized and nonmotorized) to 

ensure that public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. It consists of 

inventory, planning, designation, implementation, education, enforcement, monitoring, easement 

acquisition, mapping and signing, and other measures necessary to provide access to public lands for a 

variety of uses, such as recreational, traditional, casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, 

aeronautical, and other purposes. 

Condition class (fire regime). This is a measure describing the degree of departure from historical 

fire regimes, possibly resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components, such as species composition, 

structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. One or more of the following activities 

may have caused this departure: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and 

establishment of exotic plant species, insects, or disease, or other management activities. 

Condition of approval. Condition or requirement under which an application for a permit to drill or 

sundry notice is approved. 

Conformance. A proposed action would be specifically provided for in the LUP or, if not specifically 

mentioned, would be clearly consistent with the goals, objectives, or standards of the approved land use 

plan. 

Conservation measure. A measure to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat by reducing, 

eliminating, or minimizing threats. Conservation measures considered during land use plan revisions or 

amendments in GRSG habitat were developed by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team (NTT), a 

group of resource specialists, land use planners, and scientists from the BLM, state fish and wildlife 

agencies, USFWS, NRCS, and USGS. The NTT report, A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures, provides the latest science and best biological judgment to assist in making 

management decisions relating to GRSG. 

Conservation strategy. A strategy outlining current activities or threats that are contributing to the 

decline of a species, along with the actions or strategies needed to reverse or eliminate such a decline 

or threat. Conservation strategies are generally developed for species of plants and animals that are 
5. Glossary 

5-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

designated as BLM sensitive species or that have been determined by the USFWS or National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration-Fisheries to be federal candidates under the ESA. 

Conserve. To cause no degradation or loss of GRSG habitat. The term can also refer to maintaining 

intact sagebrush steppe by fine-tuning livestock use, watching for and treating new invasive species, and 

maintaining existing range improvements that benefit GRSG. 

Controlled surface use. This is a category of moderate constraint stipulations that allows some use 

and occupancy of public land, while protecting identified resources or values and is applicable to fluid 

mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing, such as truck-mounted drilling and 

geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, and construction of wells or pads. CSU areas 

are open to fluid mineral leasing, but the stipulation allows the BLM to require special operational 

constraints, or the activity can be shifted more than 656 feet to protect the specified resource or value.

Cooperating agency. Assists the lead federal agency in developing an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. This can be any agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise for 

proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR, Part 1501.6). Any tribe or federal, state, or local government 

jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement with the lead 

agency. 

Core area habitat. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW’s) Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (2011) identified core areas necessary to conserve 

90 percent of Oregon’s GRSG population. It emphasized areas with the highest density and most 

important for breeding and wintering and that may serve as connectivity corridors. Core area habitat 

encompasses the following areas 

 Those of very high, high, and moderate lek density strata 

 Those where low lek density strata overlap local connectivity corridors 

 Those where winter habitat use overlaps with either low lek density strata, connectivity 

corridors, or occupied habitat 

Core area habitats encompass approximately 90 percent of the known breeding populations of GRSG 

on 38 percent of the species’ range. However, not all lek locations are known, and some likely occur 

outside of the core areas. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). An advisory council to the president, established by 

NEPA. The CEQ reviews federal programs to analyze and interpret environmental trends and 

information. 

Cultural resources. Locations of human activity, occupation, or use. Cultural resources are 

archaeological, historical, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public and scientific 

uses and locations of traditional cultural or religious importance to specified social or cultural groups. 

Cumulative effects. The direct and indirect effects of a proposed project alternative’s incremental 

impacts when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of 

who carries out the action. 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-7

Decision area. The area where management directions and actions outlined in this ARMPA will apply. 

This includes only BLM-administered surface lands in the planning area and BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate that may lie beneath other surface ownership, often referred to as split-estate lands. 

Defer. To set aside or postpone a particular resource use or activity on BLM-administered lands to a 

later time. When this term is used, the period of the deferral is specified. They sometimes follow the 

sequence time frame of associated serial actions (e.g., action B will be deferred until action A is 

completed). 

Designation criteria. Among other designation criteria from 43 CFR, Part 8342.1(b), “areas and trails 

shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats. Special 

attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened species and their habitats.”

Designated roads and trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM where some type of 

motorized/nonmotorized use is appropriate and allowed, either seasonally or year-long (H-1601-1, BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Desired future condition. For rangeland vegetation, the condition of rangeland resources on a 

landscape scale that meet management objectives. It is based on ecological, social, and economic 

considerations during the land planning process. It is usually expressed as ecological status or 

management status of vegetation (species composition, habitat diversity, and age and size class of 

species) and desired soil qualities (soil cover, erosion, and compaction). In a general context, desired 

future condition is a portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and 

objectives are fully achieved. 

Desired outcomes. A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective. 

Development. Active drilling and production of wells. 

Disposal. Transfer of BLM-administered land out of federal ownership to another party through sale, 

exchange, Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, Desert Land Entry, or other land statutes. 

Disruptive activities. Those public land resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the 

behavior, displace, or cause excessive stress to animal or human populations at a specific location or

during a specific time. In this context, disruptive activities refers to those actions that alter behavior or 

displace individuals such that reproductive success is negatively affected or an individual’s physiological 

ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. This term does not apply to the physical 

disturbance of the land surface, vegetation, or features. When administered as a land use restriction, 

such as no disruptive activities, this term may prohibit or limit the physical presence of sound above 

ambient levels, light beyond background levels, or the nearness of people and their activities. The term is 

commonly used in conjunction with protecting wildlife during crucial life stages, such as breeding, 

nesting, and birthing, although it could apply to any resource value on public lands. This land use 

restriction is not intended to prohibit all activity or authorized uses. 

Diversity. The relative abundance of wildlife species, plant species, communities, habitats, or habitat 

features per unit of area. 
5. Glossary 

5-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Easement. A right afforded a person or agency to make limited use of another’s real property for 

access or other purposes. 

Ecological site. A distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other 

kinds of land in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation. 

Effectiveness monitoring. The process of collecting data and information in order to determine 

whether desired outcomes (expressed as goals and objectives in the land use plan) are being met (or 

progress is being made toward meeting them) as the allowable uses and management actions are being 

implemented. A monitoring strategy must be developed as part of the land use plan that identifies 

indicators of change, acceptable thresholds, methods, protocols, and time frames that will be used to 

evaluate and determine if desired outcomes are being achieved. 

Emergency stabilization. Planned actions to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation to 

natural and cultural resources, to minimize threats to life or property from the effects of a fire, or to 

repair/replace/construct physical improvements necessary to prevent degradation of land or resources. 

Emergency stabilization actions must be taken within one year following containment of a wildfire. 

Endangered species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range. Under the Endangered Species Act in the United States, endangered status is more

protective than threatened status. Designation as endangered (or threatened) is determined by the

USFWS, as directed by the Endangered Species Act (16 USC, Sections 1531-1544).

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). Designed to protect critically imperiled species 

from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate 

concern and conservation. The ESA is administered by two federal agencies, the USFWS and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its purpose is to protect species and also the 

ecosystems they depend on (16 USC, Sections 1531-1544). 

Enhance. To improve habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory components or 

attributes of the plant community to meet GRSG objectives. Examples are modifying livestock grazing 

systems to improve the quantity and vigor of desirable forbs, improving water flow in riparian areas by 

modifying existing spring developments to return more water to the riparian area below the 

development, or marking fences to minimize GRSG hits and mortality. 

Environmental assessment. A concise public document prepared to provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no 

significant impact. It includes a brief discussion of the need for the proposal, alternatives considered, 

environmental impact of the proposed action and alternatives, and a list of agencies and individuals 

consulted. 

Environmental impact statement. A detailed statement prepared by the responsible official in 

which a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment is described, 

alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and effects are analyzed (BLM National Management 

Strategy for Off-Highway Vehicle [OHV] Use on Public Lands). 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-9

Evaluation (plan evaluation). The process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid 

and whether the plan is being implemented. 

Exchange. A transaction whereby the federal government receives land or interests in land in exchange 

for other land or interests in land. 

Exclusion areas. An area on the BLM-administered lands where a certain activity is prohibited to 

ensure the protection of other resource values. The term is frequently used in reference to lands and 

realty actions and proposals (e.g., ROWs) but is not unique to them. This restriction is functionally 

analogous to no surface occupancy, a term used by the oil and gas program and applied as an absolute 

condition to those affected activities. The less restrictive analogous term is avoidance area. Also see 

right-of-way exclusion area definition.

Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by motorized vehicles, such as jeeps, allterrain vehicles, and motorized dirt bikes, mechanized uses, such as mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, and 

game carts, pedestrians (hikers), and horseback riders and that are, to the best of the BLM’s knowledge, 

in existence at the time of RMPA/EIS publication. 

Exploration. Active drilling and geophysical operations to determine the presence of a mineral 

resource or the extent of the reservoir or mineral deposit. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). An administrative unit that requires specific 

management consideration in order to address recreation use, demand or Recreation & Visitor Services

program investments. ERMAs are managed to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and 

the associated qualities and conditions of the ERMA. Management of ERMA areas is commensurate with 

the management of other resources and resource uses.

Facility. Any physical development, including land treatments and improvements, constructed on land 

or water, to aid the management of public lands (BLM Manual Section 9100). 

Facility, energy or mining. Human-constructed assets designed and created to serve a particular 

function and to afford a particular convenience or service that is affixed to a specific locations, such as 

oil and gas well pads and associated infrastructure. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, often 

referred to as the BLM’s “organic act,” which provides most of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction 

policy, and basic management guidance. 

Federal mineral estate. Subsurface mineral estate owned by the United States and administered by 

the BLM. Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction is composed of mineral estate underlying BLMadministered lands, privately owned lands, and state-owned lands. 

Fire management plan (FMP). A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire management and 

related activities within the context of approved land and resource management plans. It defines a 

program to manage wildland fires (wildfire, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use). The plan is 
5. Glossary 

5-10 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

supplemented by operational plans, including preparedness plans, dispatch plans, and prevention plans. 

FMPs ensure that wildland fire management goals and components are coordinated. 

Fire Regime Condition Classification System (FRCCS). Measures the extent to which vegetation 

departs from reference conditions, or how the current vegetation differs from a particular reference 

condition.

Fire suppression. All work and activities connected with control and fire-extinguishing operations, 

beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished. 

Fluid minerals. Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources. 

Forage. All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals. 

Free use permit. The BLM's authority to dispose of sand, gravel, and other mineral and vegetative 

materials, not subject to mineral leasing or location under the mining laws, from public lands without 

charge. Free use permits are allowed only for governmental and nonprofit use. Other uses under a free 

use permit are prohibited. 

General sage‐grouse habitat. Seasonally or year‐round occupied habitat outside of priority habitat. 

These areas have been identified by state fish and wildlife agencies in coordination with respective BLM 

offices. 

Geographic information system. A system of computer hardware, software, data, people, and 

applications that capture, store, edit, analyze, and display a potentially wide array of geospatial 

information. 

Geophysical exploration. Activity to locate deposits of oil and gas resources and to better define the 

subsurface. 

Geothermal energy. Natural heat from within the Earth captured for production of electric power, 

space heating, or industrial steam.

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome that is usually not quantifiable and may not have 

established time frames for achievement. 

Grazing preference. A superior or priority position for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or 

lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee. 

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or lessee, 

(with concurrence of any base property lienholder), of their priority (preference) to use a livestock 

forage allocation on public land as well as their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments do not 

require the BLM’s consent or approval. The BLM’s receipt of a relinquishment is not a decision to close 

areas to livestock grazing. 

Guidelines. Actions or management practices that may be used to achieve desired outcomes, 

sometimes expressed as best management practices. Guidelines may be identified during the land use 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-11

planning process, but they are not considered a land use plan decision unless the plan specifies that they 

are mandatory. Guidelines for grazing administration must conform to 43 CFR, Part 4180.2. 

Habitat. An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial 

characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for part or 

all of their life cycle. 

Habitat suitability. The relative appropriateness of a certain ecological area for meeting the life 

requirements of an organism: food, shelter, water, and space. 

Impact. The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action. 

Implementation decision. A decision that takes action to implement land use planning; generally it is 

appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 43 CFR, Part 4.410. 

Implementation monitoring. The process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or the 

progress toward implementation) of land use plan decisions. This should be done at least annually and 

should be documented on a tracking log or report. The report must be available for public review. 

Implementation plan. An area or site-specific plan written to implement decisions made in a land use 

plan. Includes both activity plans and project plans. 

Indicators. Factors that describe resource condition and change and can help the BLM determine 

trends over time. 

Intermittent stream. A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water 

from springs or from some surface sources, such as melting snow in mountainous areas. During the dry 

season and throughout minor droughts, these streams do not flow. Geomorphological characteristics 

are not well defined and are often inconspicuous. In the absence of external limiting factors, such as 

pollution and thermal modifications, species are scarce and adapted to the wet and dry conditions of the 

fluctuating water level. 

Interstate highways. Freeways and highways with multiple lanes. 

Jackpot burning. Burning oanly concentrations of fuels, as opposed to broadcast burning, which refers 

to burning across all or most surface fuels. 

Key areas of critical environmental concern. Special management areas that have been identified 

as having a high utility for GRSG conservation. These land allocations were designated in previous RMPs 

to protect other relevant and important resource values; however, they also contain quality GRSG 

habitat, are within PHMA, and contain leks. GRSG in these areas are proposed as an additional 

relevant/important value, and they will be managed for such. They should be priority areas for GRSG 

management; site-specific ACEC management plans will be prepared at the implementation level that 

will address special management for GRSG, as well as the other values for which the ACEC was 

originally designated. 

Key research natural area. A special type of ACEC that was designated in a previous RMP to protect 

specific intact representative native plant communities. These areas are in PHMA and are used for long-
5. Glossary 

5-12 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

term vegetation monitoring for native plant communities important for GRSG in the absence of BLM 

actions and human disturbance. These areas provide baseline vegetation information to document 

successional changes, to serve as areas for comparison to treated areas, and to document future 

vegetation shifts in the plant communities from changes in precipitation and temperature (climate 

change). Key RNAs either contain GRSG leks or are within 0.1 to 4 miles of leks and are, or likely are, 

used for nesting, brood-rearing, foraging, breeding or wintering. 

Land tenure adjustments. Landownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the manageability of 

the BLM-administered lands and their usefulness to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for 

repositioning lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing of lands, and entering into cooperative 

management agreements. These land pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of 

land exchanges but also through land sales, through jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and 

through the use of cooperative management agreements and leases. 

Land use allocation. The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development 

that are allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future 

conditions (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Land use plan (LUP). A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an 

administrative area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of LUP-level 

decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR, Part 1600, regardless of the scale 

at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and management framework plans 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Land use plan decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. Decisions 

are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR, Part 1600. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to the Interior 

Board of Land Appeals. 

Late brood-rearing habitat. A variety of GRSG habitats used from July through September. Habitat 

includes mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, wet meadows, and riparian areas, as well as 

some agricultural lands, such as alfalfa fields. 

Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. These include energy-related mineral resources, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal, 

and some nonenergy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Geothermal resources 

are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. 

Lease. Section 302 of the FLPMA provides the BLM’s authority to issue leases for the use, occupancy, 

and development of BLM-administered lands. Leases are issued for such purposes as commercial filming, 

advertising displays, commercial or noncommercial croplands, apiaries, livestock holding or feeding areas 

not related to grazing permits and leases, native or introduced species harvesting, temporary or 

permanent facilities for commercial purposes (does not include mining claims), residential occupancy, ski 

resorts, construction equipment storage sites, assembly yards, oil rig stacking sites, mining claim 

occupancy if the residential structures are not incidental to the mining operation, and water pipelines 

and well pumps related to irrigation and non-irrigation facilities. The regulations establishing procedures 

for processing these leases and permits are found in 43 CFR, Part 2920.
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-13

Lease stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the time of 

the lease sale. 

Lek. An area where male sage-grouse display during the breeding season to attract females (also 

referred to as strutting ground). Each state may have a slightly different definition of lek, active lek, 

inactive lek, occupied lek, and unoccupied leks. 

Lek complex. A collection of lek sites, typically with small numbers of males, that are associated with a 

larger lek site in the vicinity (less than or equal to a mile). A count of a lek complex generally includes 

systematically acquiring and recording information about all displaying males in a series of leks where no 

two lek sites are more than a mile apart. 

Lek Status Definitions: 

 Annual status. Lek status based on the following definitions of annual activity (Hagen 

2011): 

– Active lek—A lek attended by 1 male sage-grouse or more during the breeding 

season. Acceptable documentation of sage-grouse presence includes observation of 

birds using the site or recent signs of lek attendance, such as fresh droppings or 

feathers. New leks found during ground counts or surveys are given an annual status 

of active. 

– Inactive lek—A lek with sufficient survey data to suggest that there was no male 

attendance throughout a breeding season. (Absence of male GRSG during a single 

visit is insufficient documentation to establish that a lek is inactive.) This designation 

requires documentation of an absence of birds on the lek during at least two ground 

surveys separated by at least seven days. These surveys must be conducted under 

acceptable weather conditions (clear to partly cloudy and winds less than 10 miles 

per hour) and in the absence of obvious disturbance. Alternatively, there must be a 

ground check of the exact known lek site late in the strutting season that fails to 

find any sign of attendance, such as fresh droppings or feathers. Data collected by 

aerial surveys alone may not be used to designate inactive status. 

– Unknown lek—Lek status has not been documented during the course of a 

breeding season. New leks found during aerial surveys in the current year are given 

an annual status of unknown, unless they are confirmed on the ground or observed 

more than once by air. 

 Conservation status. Based on its annual status, a lek is assigned to one of the following 

categories for conservation or mitigation actions (Hagen 2011):

– Occupied lek—A regularly visited lek that has had one male or more counted in 

one or more of the last seven years. Surrounding areas are designated and 

protected as Category 1 habitat. 

– Occupied-pending—A lek not counted regularly in the last seven years, but birds 

were present at last visit. Designate and protect surrounding area as Category 1 

habitat. These leks should be resurveyed at a minimum of two additional years to 

confirm activity. 
5. Glossary 

5-14 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

– Pending lek—A lek not counted regularly in the last seven years, but birds were 

present one or more years of that period. 

– Unoccupied lek—A lek that has been counted annually and has had no birds for 

eight or more consecutive years. Mitigation category is based on habitat type and 

condition. 

– Unoccupied-pending—A lek not counted regularly in a seven-year period, but 

birds were not present at last visit. Designate and protect surrounding area as 

Category 1 habitat. These leks should be resurveyed at a minimum of two additional 

years to confirm activity 

– Historic lek—A lek that has been unoccupied prior to 1980 and remains so. 

Mitigation category based on habitat type and condition (1980 serves as the baseline 

for evaluating population objectives under ODFW’s Sage-grouse Conservation 

Strategy; thus, leks unoccupied prior to 1980 are not included in the baseline for 

population abundance and distribution.) 

Livestock facilities. These include livestock water troughs, dirt tanks, dugouts, storage tanks, wells, 

fences, corrals, dusting bags, and handling facilities used in managing livestock grazing. 

Local Implementation Team. Implementation of conservation guidelines outlined in Greater SageGrouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and 

Habitats will be guided by Local Implementation Teams comprised of ODFW, land managers, and 

landowners. Because these groups are not mutually exclusive and include a mix of public and private 

entities, the BLM is the primary land manager; local groups are based on BLM district boundaries (and in 

some cases on resource areas).

Locatable minerals. Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking mining 

claims, as authorized by the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of gold, silver, and 

other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale. 

Long-term effect. The effect could occur for an extended period after implementation of the 

alternative, several years or more. 

Maintenance level. Operation guidance to field personnel on the appropriate intensity, frequency, and 

type of maintenance activities that should be undertaken to keep the route in acceptable condition and 

provide guidance for the minimum standard of care for the annual maintenance of a route. 

Major roads. Federal and state highways that are not interstate highways. 

Master development plans. A set of information common to multiple planned wells, including drilling 

plans, surface use plans of operations, and plans for future production. 

Mineral. Any naturally formed inorganic material, solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be 

extracted from the earth; any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (such as stone, 

coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. Under federal 

laws, considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable (subject to the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947). 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-15

Mineral entry. The filing of a claim on BLM-administered land to obtain the right to any locatable 

minerals it may contain. 

Mineral estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations. 

Mineral materials. Common varieties of mineral materials, such as soil, sand and gravel, stone, 

pumice, pumicite, and clay, that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be 

acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended. 

Minimization mitigation. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

implementation (40 CFR, Part 1508.20 [b]).

Mining claim. A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining purposes, having acquired the 

right of possession by complying with the Mining Law and local laws and rules. A mining claim may 

contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are four categories of mining 

claims: lode, placer, mill site, and tunnel site. 

Mining Law of 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on BLM-administered 

lands. Also referred to as the General Mining Law or Mining Law. 

Minor Roads. All transportation routes with maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 on BLM-administered lands 

or its equivalent on lands not administered by the BLM. 

Mitigation. Includes specific means, measures, or practices that could reduce, avoid, or eliminate 

adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action, minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its 

implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, 

reducing or eliminating the impact over time using preservation and maintenance operations during the 

life of the action, and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

Modification. A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of 

the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within 

the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied. 

Monitoring (plan monitoring). The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning 

decisions. 

Motorized vehicles or uses. Vehicles that are motorized, including jeeps, all-terrain vehicles (such as 

four-wheelers and three-wheelers), trail motorcycles or dirt bikes, and aircraft. 

Multiple-use. The management of the BLM-administered lands and their various resource values so 

that they are used in a combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 

people. Multiple-use is implemented by the following: 
5. Glossary 

5-16 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

 Making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in 

use to changing needs and conditions 

 The use of some land for less than all of the resources 

 A combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term 

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including 

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, 

and historical values 

 Harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanently

impairing the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment and giving 

consideration to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination 

of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (FLPMA) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other items, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider 

environmental values in decision-making. 

Net conservation gain. The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions. Actions that result in 

habitat loss and degradation are those identified as threats that contribute to GRSG disturbance, as 

identified by the USFWS in its 2010 listing decision (75 FR 13910) and shown in Table 2 in the attached 

Monitoring Framework (Appendix D).

Nonenergy leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. Nonenergy minerals include such resources as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and 

sulfur. 

No surface occupancy. A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid 

mineral exploration or development and surface-disturbing activities is prohibited to protect identified 

resource values. Areas identified as NSO are open to fluid mineral leasing, but surface-disturbing 

activities cannot be conducted. Access to fluid mineral deposits will require directional drilling from 

outside the boundaries of the NSO. NSO areas are treated as avoidance areas for rights-of-way, which 

would not be granted unless there were no feasible alternatives. The NSO stipulation includes 

stipulations that may be worded as No Surface Use/Occupancy, No Surface Disturbance, Conditional 

NSO, or Surface Disturbance or Surface Occupancy Restriction (by location). 

Objective. A description of a desired outcome for a resource. An objective can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, can have established time frames for achievement. 

Occupied habitat. Area of suitable habitat (i.e., sagebrush cover 5% or greater and tree cover <5%) 

known to be used by GRSG within the last 10 years. Areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of 

known use that do not have effective barriers to GRSG movement from known use areas may be 

considered occupied habitat, unless specific information exists that documents the lack of GRSG use. 

Occupancy can be verified with telemetry locations, sightings of GRSG or their sign (e.g., droppings or 

feathers), local biological expertise, GIS data, or other data sources recognized by the BLM and ODFW. 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-17

Off-highway vehicle. Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over 

land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding the following: 

 Any nonamphibious registered motorboat 

 Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency 

purposes 

 Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer or otherwise 

officially approved 

 Vehicles in official use where official use is by an employee, agent, or designated 

representative of the federal government or one of its contractors, in the course of 

employment, agency, or representation 

 Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies 

(43 CFR, Part 8340.0 5) 

Open. Denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refers to specific program 

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. For 

example, 43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5, defines the specific meaning of open as it relates to OHV use. 

Oregon Priority Area for Conservation. A geographic unit of PHMA that the ODFW mapped from 

the priority areas of conservation (PACs) initially created by the USFWS in 2013. There are 20 Oregon 

PACs, each with a unique name. Oregon PACs are used in calculating the human disturbance threshold 

and in the adaptive management habitat trigger. Other planning efforts may call a similar unit a BSU. 

Parallel road. A road that follows the same topography and sight lines and ends at the same 

destination as another. Parallel roads are usually user created and occur because of the lack of 

maintenance on an existing road. 

Permitted use. The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in AUMs (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-

5). 

Permittee. A person or company permitted to graze livestock on BLM-administered land. 

Plan of operations. A plan required for all mining exploration on greater than five acres or surface 

disturbance greater than casual use on certain special category lands. Special category lands are 

described under 43 CFR, Part 3809.11(c), and include such lands as designated ACECs, lands within the 

National Wilderness Preservation System, and areas closed to off‐road vehicles. In addition, a plan of 

operations is required for activity greater than casual use on lands patented under the Stock Raising 

Homestead Act with federal minerals, where the operator does not have the written consent of the 

surface owner (43 CFR, Part 3814). The plan of operations needs to be filed in the BLM field office with 

jurisdiction over the land involved. It does not need to be on a particular form but must address the 

information required by 43 CFR, Part 3809.401(b). 

Planning area. The geographic area for which resource management plans are developed and 

maintained. The planning area boundary includes all lands regardless of jurisdiction that contain mapped 
5. Glossary 

5-18 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

preliminary priority habitat and preliminary general habitat. For this ARMPA, the planning area is the 

entire Oregon subregion and covers all or portions of 17 counties in Oregon and 1 county in 

Washington; however, PPH and PGH are only found in Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Grant, Harney, Lake, 

Malheur, and Union Counties in Oregon. Lands within the planning area include a mix of private, federal, 

and state lands. 

Planning criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary 

teams for their use in forming judgments about decision-making, analysis and data collection during 

planning. Planning criteria streamlines and simplifies the resource management planning actions. 

Planning issues. Concerns, conflicts, and problems with the existing management of BLM-administered 

lands. Frequently, issues are based on how land uses affect resources. Some issues are concerned with 

how land uses can affect other land uses or how the protection of resources affects land uses. 

Policy. This is a statement of guiding principles, or procedures, designed and intended to influence 

planning decisions, operating actions, or other affairs of the BLM or Forest Service. Policies are 

established interpretations of legislation, executive orders, regulations, or other presidential, secretarial, 

or management directives. 

Prescribed fire. Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist and NEPA requirements, where applicable, must be met before 

it is ignited. 

Primitive road. A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high clearance vehicles. 

Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards. 

Priority area for conservation. A term introduced by the USFWS to encompass the most important 

areas needed for maintaining GRSG representation, redundancy, and resilience across the landscape 

(USFWS 2013a). 

Priority sage‐grouse habitat. Areas that have been identified as having the highest conservation value 

to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. These areas include breeding, late brood‐rearing, and 

winter concentration areas. The BLM has identified them in coordination with respective state wildlife 

agencies. 

Range improvement. Any activity, structure, or program on or relating to rangelands that is designed 

for the following: 

 Improve production of forage 

 Change vegetative composition 

 Control patterns of use 

 Provide water 

 Stabilize soil and water conditions 

 Provide habitat for livestock and wildlife 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-19

The term includes structures, treatment projects, and mechanical means to accomplish the desired 

results. 

Reasonably foreseeable development scenario. The prediction of the type and amount of oil and 

gas activity that would occur in a given area. The prediction is based on geologic factors, past history of 

drilling, projected demand for oil and gas, and industry interest. 

Recreation management area. Includes special recreation management areas (SRMAs) and 

extensive recreation management areas (ERMAs); see SRMA and ERMA definitions. 

Renewable energy. Energy resources that constantly renew themselves or that are regarded as 

practically inexhaustible, for example, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass. Although particular 

geothermal formations can be depleted, the natural heat in the Earth is a virtually inexhaustible reserve 

of potential energy. 

Required design features (RDFs). These are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs 

establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project begins, when 

the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not 

apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations 

(e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs will require that at least one of the 

following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project or activity: 

 A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project or activity (e.g., due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable. 

 An alternative RDF, state-implemented conservation measure, or plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat. 

 A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat. 

Reserve common allotment. An area that is designated in the land use plan as available for livestock 

grazing but reserved for use as an alternative to grazing in another allotment in order to facilitate 

rangeland restoration treatments and recovery from natural disturbances such as drought or wildfire. It

would provide needed flexibility that would help the agency apply temporary rest from grazing where 

vegetation treatments or management would be most effective. 

Resistance to invasion. The ability of a site to retain its fundamental plant community species 

composition, ecological processes, and functioning when exposed to invasive plant species. 

Resource Management Plan. A land use plan, as prescribed by the FLPMA, that establishes land use 

allocations, coordination guidelines for multiple-use, objectives, and actions to be achieved for a given 

area of land. 

Restoration. Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and structure 

that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over the long 
5. Glossary 

5-20 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

term. The long‐term goal is to create functional high quality habitat that is occupied by GRSG. The 

short‐term goals may be to restore the landform, soils, and hydrology and to increase the percentage of 

preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, or treatment of undesired species. 

Restriction. A limitation or constraint on BLM-administered land uses and operations. Restrictions can 

be of any kind but most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, temporal or spatial constraints, 

or certain authorizations.

Revision. The process of completely rewriting a land use plan due to changes in the planning area 

affecting major portions of the plan or the entire plan. 

Right-of-way (ROW). A ROW grant is an authorization to use a specific piece of BLM-administered 

land for a certain project, such as roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and communication sites. A ROW 

grant authorizes rights and privileges for a specific use of the land for a specific period. Generally, a BLM 

ROW is granted for a term appropriate for the life of the project. Minor ROWs are typically less than 

about 15 miles in length and are not to exceed about 52 acres of disturbance. 

ROW avoidance area. An area identified through resource management planning to be avoided but 

may be available for ROW location with special stipulations. 

ROW exclusion area. An area identified through resource management planning that is not available 

for ROW location under any conditions. 

Riparian area. A form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland 

areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics that reflect the influence of permanent 

surface or subsurface water. Typical riparian areas are lands along perennially and intermittently flowing 

rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with stable water levels. 

Excluded are ephemeral streams or washes that lack vegetation and depend on free water in the soil. 

Road. A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having 

four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use. 

Routes. Multiple roads, trails, and primitive roads; a group of roads, trails, and primitive roads that 

represents less than 100 percent of the BLM transportation system. Generically, components of the 

transportation system are described as routes. 

Sagebrush focal areas. Areas identified by the USFWS that represent recognized strongholds for 

GRSG. They have been noted and referenced by the conservation community as having the highest 

densities of GRSG and other criteria important for the persistence of GRSG. 

Sale (BLM-administered land). A method of land disposal allowed by Section 203 of FLPMA, 

whereby the United States receives a fair-market payment for the transfer of land from federal 

ownership. BLM-administered lands determined suitable for sale are offered on the initiative of the BLM. 

Lands suitable for sale must be identified in the RMP. Any lands to be disposed of by sale that are not 

identified in the current RMP or that meet the disposal criteria identified in the RMP require a plan 

amendment before a sale can occur. 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-21

Scoping process. An early and open public participation process for determining the scope of issues 

to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. 

Season of use. The time during which livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area, as specified 

in the grazing lease. 

Seeding. A vegetation treatment that includes the application of grass, forb, or shrub seed, either by air 

or from the ground. In areas of gentle terrain, seed is often applied on the ground with a rangeland drill. 

Seeding allows the establishment of native species or placeholder species and restoration of disturbed 

areas to a perennial-dominated cover type, thereby decreasing the risk of subsequent invasion by exotic 

plant species. Seeding would be used primarily as a follow-up treatment in areas where disturbance or 

the previously described treatments have removed exotic plant species and their residue. 

Significant factor. This principal factor in the failure to achieve the land health standards and to 

conform with the guidelines. A significant factor would typically be a use that, if modified, would enable 

an area to achieve or make significant progress toward achieving the land health standards. To be a 

significant factor, a use may be one of several factors contributing to less-than-healthy conditions; it 

need not be the sole factor inhibiting progress toward the standard. 

Special recreation management area (SRMA). An administrative unit identified in land use plans 

where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation setting characteristics are 

recognized for their unique value, importance, or distinctiveness, especially as compared to other areas 

used for recreation. 

Special recreation permit (SRP). Authorization that allows for recreation on BLM-administered 

lands and related waters. Issued as a means to control visitor use, to protect recreational and natural 

resources, and to provide for the health and safety of visitors. Commercial SRPs are also issued as a 

mechanism to provide a fair return for the commercial use of BLM-administered lands. 

Special status species: BLM special status species are those listed, candidate, or proposed for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act and those requiring special management consideration to promote 

their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA. They are 

designated as BLM sensitive by the BLM State Directors. All federally listed candidate species, proposed 

species, and delisted species in the five years following delisting are conserved as BLM sensitive species. 

Split-estate. A circumstance where the surface of a particular parcel of land is owned by a different 

party than the one that owns the minerals below. Split-estates may have any combination of 

surface/subsurface owners: federal/state, federal/private, state/private, or percentage ownerships. When 

referring to the split-estate ownership on a particular parcel of land, it is generally necessary to describe 

the surface/subsurface ownership pattern of the parcel. 

Standard. A description of the physical and biological conditions or degree of function required for 

healthy sustainable lands (e.g., land health standards). To be expressed as a desired outcome (goal). 

Standards for Rangeland Health. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock 

Grazing Management for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of 
5. Glossary 

5-22 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Oregon and Washington (August 1997) are found at http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/ 

recreation/csnm/files/rangeland_standards.pdf. 

Strongholds. Large areas of intact habitat where populations appear stable (Wisdom et al. 2011). 

Stipulation (general). A term or condition in an agreement or contract. 

Stipulation (oil and gas). A provision that modifies standard oil and gas lease terms and conditions in 

order to protect other resource values or land uses and is attached to and made a part of the lease. 

Typical lease stipulations NSO, TL, and CSU. Lease stipulations are developed through the land use 

planning (RMP) process. 

Suitable Habitat. The area provides environmental conditions necessary for successful survival and 

reproduction to sustain stable populations. Suitable habitat commonly has sagebrush cover of 5 percent 

or greater and tree cover of less than 5 percent.

Surface disturbance. Suitable habitat is considered disturbed when it is removed and unavailable for 

immediate GRSG use. 

 Long‐term removal occurs when habitat is physically removed through activities that replace 

suitable habitat with long-term occupancy of unsuitable habitat, such as a roads, power lines, 

well pads, or active mines. Long‐term removal may also result from any activities that cause 

soil mixing, removal, and exposure to erosive processes. 

 Short-term removal occurs when vegetation is removed in small areas but is restored to 

suitable habitat in less than five years of disturbance, such as a successfully reclaimed pipeline 

or a successfully reclaimed drill hole or pit. 

 Suitable habitat is rendered unusable due to numerous anthropogenic disturbances. 

 Anthropogenic surface disturbance are surface disturbances meeting the above definitions 

and that result from human activities. 

Surface disruption. Resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the behavior of, displace, or 

cause stress to GRSG at a specific location or time. Surface disruption includes those actions that alter 

behavior or cause the displacement of GRSG such that reproductive success is negatively affected or the 

physiological ability to cope with environmental stress is compromised. Examples of disruptive activities 

are noise, vehicle traffic, or other human presence regardless of the associated activity. 

Surface use. This is all the various activities that may be present on the surface or near-surface (e.g., 

pipelines) of the BLM-administered lands. It does not refer to subterranean activities (e.g., underground 

mining) on BLM-administered lands or federal mineral estate. When administered as a use restriction 

(e.g., no surface use), this phrase prohibits all but specified resource uses and activities in a certain area 

to protect particular sensitive resource values and property. This designation typically applies to small 

acreage sensitive resource sites (e.g., plant community study exclosure) or administrative sites (e.g., 

government ware-yard), where only authorized agency personnel are admitted. 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-23

Sustained yield. The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular 

periodic output of the various renewable resources of the BLM-administered lands consistent with 

multiple uses. 

Technically/economically feasible. Actions that are practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the 

applicant. It is the BLM’s sole responsibility to determine what actions are technically and economically 

feasible. The BLM considers whether implementation of the proposed action is likely, given past and 

current practice and technology; this consideration does not necessarily require a cost-benefit analysis 

or speculation about an applicant’s costs and profit. (Modified from the CEQ’s 40 Most Asked 

Questions and BLM NEPA Handbook, Section 6.6.3). 

Temporary/temporary use. This is a relative term and has to be considered in the context of the 

resource values affected and the nature of the resource use/activity taking place. Generally, a temporary 

activity is considered to be one that is not fixed in place and is of short duration. 

Threatened species. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range (BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species 

Management). Under the ESA, threatened is the lesser protected of the two categories. Designation as 

threatened or endangered is determined by the USFWS under the ESA. 

Thriving natural ecological balance. Wild horses and burros are managed to ensure that significant 

progress is made toward achieving the land health standards for upland vegetation and riparian plant 

communities, watershed function, and habitat quality for animal populations, as well as other site-specific 

or landscape-level objectives, including those necessary to protect and manage threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species. 

Timing limitation (TL). The TL stipulation, a moderate constraint, is applicable to fluid mineral 

leasing, all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical 

exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells or pads), and other surfacedisturbing activities, such as those not related to fluid mineral leasing. Areas identified for TL are closed 

to fluid mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing activities, and intensive human activity 

during identified time frames. This stipulation does not apply to operation and basic maintenance 

activities, including associated vehicle travel, unless otherwise specified. Construction, drilling, 

completions, and other operations considered to be intensive are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, 

such as work overs on wells, is not permitted. TLs can overlap spatially with NSO and CSU, as well as 

with areas that have no other restrictions. Administrative activities are allowed at the discretion of the 

BLM Authorized Officer. 

Trail. A linear route managed for human power (e.g., hiking or bicycling), stock (e.g., equestrian), or 

OHV forms of transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for 

use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. 

Transfer of grazing preference. The BLM’s approval of an application to transfer grazing preference 

from one party to another or from one base property to another or both. Grazing preference means a 

superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This 

priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee. 
5. Glossary 

5-24 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Transition. A shift between two states. Transitions are not reversible by simply altering the intensity 

or direction of factors that produced the change. Instead, they require new inputs such as revegetation 

or shrub removal. Practices such as these that accelerate succession are often expensive. 

Travel management area. Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been taken to 

classify areas open, closed, or limited and have identified or designated a network of roads, trails, ways, 

landing strips, and other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area. All 

designated travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly identified need and 

purpose and clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and seasons or time frames for allowable 

access or other limitations (BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook). 

Trespass. Any unauthorized use of BLM-administered land. 

Tribal interests. Native American or Native Alaskan economic rights, such as Indian trust assets, 

resource uses, and access guaranteed by treaty rights and subsistence uses. 

Understory. That portion of a plant community growing underneath the taller plants on the site. 

Unitization. Operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator. 

Utility corridor. A designated parcel of land that is either linear or areal in character. Utility corridors 

are not usually wider than five miles, are limited by technological, environmental, and topographical 

factors, and are set in width as identified by the special use permit or ROW issued. Designation criteria 

are set forth in Section 503 of FLPMA for special use permits and ROWs and 43 CFR, Part 2802.11, for 

ROWs. 

Valid existing rights. Documented, legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or entity to 

use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include fee title ownership, 

mineral rights, ROWs, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, acquired, 

leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time. 

Vegetation treatments. Management practices that change the vegetation structure to a different 

stage of development. Vegetation treatment methods include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, 

mechanical, and seeding. 

Vegetation type. A plant community with immediately distinguishable characteristics based on and 

named after the apparent dominant plant species. 

Warranted but precluded. When the public files a petition with the USFWS to have a species listed 

under the Endangered Species Act, the USFWS can make one of three findings: listing is warranted, 

listing is not warranted, or listing is warranted but precluded. The warranted by precluded listing 

indicates that a species should be listed based on the available science, but listing other species takes 

priority because they are more in need of protection. 

West Nile virus. A virus that is found in temperate and tropical regions of the world and most 

commonly transmitted by mosquitos. West Nile virus can cause flu-like symptoms in humans and can be 

lethal to birds, including GRSG. 
5. Glossary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-25

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zones. GRSG 

management zones established based on populations across its entire range. Oregon falls into WAFWA 

Management Zones IV and V. WAFWA management zones are used in the cumulative effects analysis. 

WAFWA management zones will be used to identify and address cross-state issues, such as regional 

mitigation and adaptive management monitoring response, through WAFWA Management Zone GRSG 

Conservation Teams (Teams). These Teams will convene and respond to issues at the appropriate scale, 

and will utilize existing coordination and management structures to the extent possible. 

Wildfires (separate from Wildland Fire) from NWCG #024-2010 Memorandum, April 30, 

2010. Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires. Wildfires may be managed to 

meet one or more objectives as specified in the RMP, and these objectives can change as the fire 

spreads across the landscape.

Wildland fire. Any non‐structure fire that occurs in the vegetation or natural fuels. Includes both 

prescribed fire and wildfire (NWCG Memo #024‐2010 April 30, 2010. www.nwcg.gov). 

Wilderness. A congressionally designated area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval 

character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, that is protected and 

managed to preserve its natural conditions and that (1) generally appears to have been affected mainly 

by the forces of nature, with human imprints substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 acres 

or is large enough to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may 

also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

The definition is contained in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 891). 

Wilderness characteristics. These attributes include the area’s size, its apparent naturalness, and 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation. They may also 

include supplemental values. Lands with wilderness characteristics are those that the BLM has 

inventoried and determined to contain wilderness characteristics, as defined in section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act. 

Wilderness Study Area (WSA). A designation made through the land use planning process of a 

roadless area found to have wilderness characteristics, as described in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964. 

Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of BLM-administered land and segregates it from the 

operation of some or all of the BLM-administered land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to 

transfer jurisdiction of management of BLM-administered lands to other federal agencies. 

Winter concentration areas. GRSG winter habitats that they occupy annually and that provide 

sufficient sagebrush cover and food to support birds throughout the entire winter (especially periods 

with above-average snow cover). Many of these areas support several different breeding populations of 

GRSG. The species typically shows high fidelity for these areas, and loss or fragmentation can result in 

significant population impacts. 
5. Glossary 

5-26 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 6-1

CHAPTER 6 

REFERENCES

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, 

et al. 2013. “Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to 

a candidate species.” Biological Conservation 167: 233-241.

Bates J. D. and K. W. Davies. 2014. Wyoming big sagebrush Associations of Eastern Oregon; Vegetation 

Attributes. USDA-ARS, Burns, Oregon, ARS-Burns-Report-1-2015 (unpublished file data). 

BLM. 1989a. Baker Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision (ROD). Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. July 1989. 

_____. 1989b. Brothers/LaPine Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision (ROD). 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. July 1989. 

_____. 1992. Three Rivers, Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision (ROD). Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September 1992. 

_____. 1997. Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in the States of Oregon and 

Washington. Bureau of Land Management. August 1997. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/csnm/files/rangeland_standards.pdf. 

_____. 2002. Southeastern Oregon Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision (ROD). 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September 2002. 

_____. 2003. Lakeview Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision (ROD). Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. November 2003. 

_____. 2004a. Andrews Management Unit/Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection 

Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 
6. References 

6-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

_____. 2005a. Andrews Management Unit Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision 

(ROD). Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. August 2005. 

_____. 2005b. Upper Deschutes Resource Management Plan (RMP) Record of Decision (ROD). 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. October 2005. 

_____. 2005a. Handbook H-1601-1: Land Use Planning Handbook. Rel. 1-1693, March 11, 2005. BLM, 

Washington, DC. 

_____. 2005b. Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), Resource 

Management Plan (RMP), Record of Decision (ROD). Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. August 2005. 

_____. 2008a Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing 

in the Western United States. BLM, Washington, DC. December 2008. 

_____. 2008b. BLM Special Status Species Manual (6840). 

_____. 2008e Handbook H-1790-1: NEPA Handbook. Rel. 1-1710, January 30, 2008. BLM, Washington, 

DC. 

_____. 2011. BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-044: BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use 

Planning Strategy. BLM, Washington, DC. December 27, 2011.

_____. 2012a. Manual 6400—Wild and Scenic Rivers – Policy and Program Direction for Identification, 

Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Rel. 6-136. BLM, Washington, DC. July 13, 2012. 

_____. 2012b. Manual 6340—Management of Designated Wilderness Areas. Rel. 6-135. BLM, 

Washington, DC. July 13, 2012. 

_____. 2012c. Manual 6280—Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails under Study 

or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation. Rel. 6-139. BLM, Washington, DC. 

September 14, 2012. 

_____. 2012d. 2012t. Manual 6220—National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, and Similar 

Designations. Rel. 6-132. BLM, Washington, DC. July 13, 2012. 

_____. 2015a. Research Natural Areas Vegetation Monitoring Report Summaries: 2014. Bureau of Land 

Management, Portland, Oregon. 

_____. 2015b. Ecological Site Inventory data summary, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District, 

Oregon. 

Bruce, J. R., W. D. Robinson, S. L. Petersen, and R. F. Miller. 2011. “Greater sage-grouse movements 

and habitat use during winter in central Oregon.: Western North American Naturalist 71(3):418-

424.
6. References 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 6-3

Coggins, K. A. 1998. “Relationship between habitat changes and productivity of sage grouse at Hart 

Mountain National Antelope Refuge, Oregon.” Master’s thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis. 

Crawford, J. A., and L. A. Carter. 2000. Habitat Use by Sage Grouse on the Beatys Butte Allotment. 

Final Report. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. “Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

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

Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Doescher, P. S., R. F. Miller, S. R. Swanson, and A. H. Winward. 1986. “Identification of the Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. wyomingensis/Festuca idahoensis habitat type in eastern Oregon.” Northwest Science

60:55–60.

Drut, M. S. 1992. “Habitat use and selection by sage grouse broods in southeastern Oregon.” Master’s 

thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford. 1994. “Diets and food selection of sage grouse chicks in 

Oregon.” Journal of Range Management 47(1):90-93.

Evers, Louisa B. 2010. “Modeling sage-grouse habitat using a state-and-transition model.” Doctoral 

dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Fire and Invasive Assessment Team. 2014. Greater Sage-Grouse Wildfire, Invasive Annual Grasses and 

Conifer Expansion Assessment. June 2014. 

Freese, M. T. 2009. “Linking greater sage-grouse habitat use and suitability across spatiotemporal scales 

in central Oregon.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Gregg, M. A. 1991. “Use and selection of nesting habitat by sage grouse in Oregon.” Master’s thesis, 

Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. “A meta-analysis for greater sage-grouse 

nesting and brood rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Hagen, C. A. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitats. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bend. 

April 22, 2011. 

Hanf, J. M., P. A. Schmidt, and E. B. Groshens. 1994. Sage Grouse in the High Desert of Central Oregon: 

Results of a Study, 1988-1993. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon. 
6. References 

6-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Jones, A., M. Schindel, and S. Scott. 2015. Mapping Habitat Connectivity for Greater Sage-Grouse in 

Oregon’s Sage-Grouse Conservation Partnership (SageCon) Assessment Area. Produced by The 

Nature Conservancy (Portland, Oregon), in partial fulfillment of BLM Cooperative Agreement 

L12AC20615. 

Karl, M., and J. Sadowski. 2005. Assessing Big Sagebrush at Multiple Scales: An Example in Southeast 

Oregon. Tech. Note 417. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, 

Colorado. 

Knick, S. T., S. E. Hanser, and K. L. Preston. 2013. “Modeling ecological minimum requirements for 

distribution of Greater Sage-Grouse leks: Implications for population connectivity across their 

western range, U.S.A.” Ecology and Evolution, pp.1-13.

Manier, D. J., Z. H. Bowen, M. L. Brooks, M. L. Casazza, P. S. Coates, P. A. Deibert, S. E. Hanser, and D. 

H. Johnson. 2014. Conservation buffer distance estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A review. 

US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1239. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/ 

10.3133/ofr20141239. November 21, 2014. 

NRCS. 2015. Field Office Technical Guides. Internet website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ 

portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/fotg/. 

NTT (Sage-Grouse National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December 2011. 

ODFW. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. April 22, 2011. 

Richardson, B. A., N. L. Shaw, and R. L. Pendleton. 2012. Chapter 4, Plant Vulnerabilities and Genetic 

Adaptation. In: Climate Change in Grasslands, Shrublands, and Deserts of the Interior American 

West. USDA/Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report 285. 

August 2012. 

Stiver S. J., E. T. Rinkes, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework. United 

States Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished report. BLM, Idaho State Office, Boise. 

USFWS. 2010a. 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered: Notice of 12-month petition findings. Federal 

Register 75 13910. March 23, 2010. 

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. February 2013. 

_____. 2014. Memorandum: Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. October 27, 2014. 
Appendices

Appendix A 

Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 
Appendix B 

Lek Buffer Distances

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment B-1 

APPENDIX B 

LEK BUFFER DISTANCES 

APPLYING LEK BUFFER DISTANCES WHEN APPROVING ACTIONS

Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts to Leks

Evaluate impacts to leks from actions requiring NEPA analysis. In addition to any other relevant 

information determined to be appropriate (e.g. State wildlife agency plans), the BLM will assess and 

address impacts from the following activities using the lek buffer-distances as identified in the USGS 

Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A Review (Open File Report 2014-

1239). The BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances specified as the lower end of the interpreted range in 

the report unless justifiable departures are determined to be appropriate (see below). The lower end of 

the interpreted range of the lek buffer-distances is as follows:

• Linear features (roads) within 3.1 miles of leks. 

• Infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of leks.

• Tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers, transmission lines) within 2 

miles of leks.

• Low structures (e.g., fences, rangeland structures) within1.2 miles of leks.

• Surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or remove the natural vegetation) 

within 3.1 miles of leks.

• Noise and related disruptive activities including those that do not result in habitat loss (e.g., 

motorized recreational events) at least 0.25 miles from leks.

Justifiable departures to decrease or increase from these distances, based on local data, best available 

science, landscape features, and other existing protections (e.g., land use allocations, state regulations) 

may be appropriate for determining activity impacts. The USGS report recognized “that because of 

variation in populations, habitats, development patterns, social context, and other factors, for a 

particular disturbance type, there is no single distance that is an appropriate buffer for all populations 

and habitats across the sage-grouse range”. The USGS report also states that “various protection 

measures have been developed and implemented... [which have] the ability (alone or in concert with 
B. Lek Buffer Distances

B-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

others) to protect important habitats, sustain populations, and support multiple-use demands for public 

lands”. All variations in lek buffer-distances will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of 

activity authorization.

In determining lek locations, the BLM will use the most recent active or occupied lek data available from 

the state wildlife agency.

For Actions in GHMA

The BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required conservation measures to fully 

address the impacts to leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. Impacts should first be avoided by locating 

the action outside of the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above. 

If it is not possible to relocate the project outside of the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified 

above, the BLM may approve actions in GHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer-distance 

identified above only if: 

• Based on best available science, landscape features, and other existing protections, (e.g., land 

use allocations, state regulations), the BLM determines that a lek buffer-distance other than 

the applicable distance identified above offers the same or a greater level of protection to 

GRSG and its habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed 

buffer area; or 

• The BLM determines that impacts to GRSG and its habitat are minimized such that the 

project will cause minor or no new disturbance (ex. co-location with existing 

authorizations); and

• Any residual impacts within the lek buffer-distances are addressed through compensatory 

mitigation measures sufficient to ensure a net conservation gain, as outlined in the Mitigation 

Strategy (Appendix E).

For Actions in PHMA

The BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified above as required conservation measures to fully 

address the impacts to leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. Impacts should be avoided by locating the 

action outside of the applicable lek buffer-distance(s) identified above. 

The BLM may approve actions in PHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer-distance identified 

above only if: 

• The BLM, with input from the state fish and wildlife agency, determines, based on best 

available science, landscape features, and other existing protections, that a buffer distance 

other than the distance identified above offers the same or greater level of protection to 

GRSG and its habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed 

buffer area. 

Range improvements which do not impact GRSG, or, range improvements which provide a conservation 

benefit to GRSG such as fences for protecting important seasonal habitats, meet the lek buffer 

requirement. 
B. Lek Buffer Distances

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment B-3 

The BLM will explain its justification for determining the approved buffer distances meet these 

conditions in its project decision.
B. Lek Buffer Distances

B-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C 

Required Design Features and 

Best Management Practices 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-1 

APPENDIX C 

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES AND BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES

Required Design Features (RDFs) are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs establish 

the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project level when 

the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not 

apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations 

(e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs would require that at least one of the 

following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project or activity:

• A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project or activity, for example, due to site limitations or engineering considerations). 

Economic considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be 

varied or rendered inapplicable.

• An alternative RDF, state-implemented conservation measure, or plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat. 

• A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

In addition, state-implemented conservation measures or protections may be considered as an

alternative in the application of RDFs, as appropriate, on a site specific basis. 

The RDFs are applicable to PHMA and GHMA, unless otherwise indicated in the RMPA/EIS alternatives. 

Common to All

1. Cluster disturbances, operations and facilities.

2. Minimize authorizations to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

3. Restrict the construction of fences and tall structures to the minimum number and amount 

needed. Tall structures are any man-made structure that has the potential to disrupt lekking 
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

or nesting birds by creating perching and nesting opportunities for predators (e.g., raptors

and ravens) or that decrease the use of an area by GRSG. This includes communication 

towers, meteorological towers, electrical transmission or distribution towers, power poles, 

wind turbines, and associated structures.

4. Design or site permanent structures that create movement (e.g., a pump jack) to minimize 

impacts on GRSG. 

5. Construct new ROWs, tanks, and other structures with perch deterrents or other antiperching devices, and with structures or devices that discourage raptors and corvids from 

nesting. 

6. Refer to the model by Bryan Stevens (2011) to identify fences that pose a threat to GRSG. 

Remove any unneeded or unused fences and mark needed fences with anti-strike markers if 

they pose a threat to the GRSG. Remove or mark fences within 1.2 mile of newly 

discovered leks that were not included in the model. Update the model when new leks are 

found (PHMA only).

7. Place new utility developments (power lines and pipelines, for example) and transportation 

routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

8. Clean up refuse and eliminate subsidized food sources for GRSG predators.

9. Train all personnel and contractors on GRSG biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of local areas used by the birds.

10. Locate on-site work/project camps and staging areas outside of priority habitat (PHMA 

only). 

11. Power wash all vehicles and equipment involved in land and resource management activities 

prior to allowing them to enter the project area to minimize the introduction and spread of 

invasive plant species.

12. Use native plant species, locally sourced where available, recognizing that use of nonnative 

species may be necessary, depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site 

conditions. 

13. Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from the 

BLM or state wildlife agency biologist and promote use by GRSG. 

14. Reduce encroaching conifer cover to zero within one mile of all occupied or pending leks 

and to less than 5 percent within 4 miles of such leks. Retain all trees that originated prior 

to 1850 (old trees), those that are culturally significant, and trees in active use by special 

status species (e.g. nest,, den, and roost trees) and all old-growth stands of juniper within 

4.0 miles of occupied or pending leks. See OSU Technical Bulletin 152 or its successor for 

the key characteristics of old trees. Old growth stands are those where the dominant trees 

in the stand meet the key characteristics for old trees. 

15. Focus restoration outward from existing intact habitat.

16. Consider using available organic material or mats to reduce vegetation disturbance for 

activities and for roads between closely spaced authorizations to reduce soil compaction 

and maintain soil structure for increasing the likelihood of vegetation reestablishment.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-3 

Remove or incorporate cover at the decommissioning stage of the project or authorized 

use period. 

17. Cover, for example, with fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques, all pits and 

tanks regardless of size to reduce GRSG deaths. 

18. Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during field and fire operations in GRSG

habitat. 

19. There will be no disruptive activities two hours before sunset to two hours after sunrise 

from March 1 through June 30 within 1.0 mile of the perimeter of occupied leks, unless brief 

occupancy is essential for routine ranch activities (e.g., herding or trailing livestock into or 

out of an area at the beginning or end of the grazing season). Disruptive activities are those 

that are likely to alter GRSG behavior or displace birds such that reproductive success is 

negatively affected or an individual’s physiological ability to cope with environmental stress is 

compromised. Examples of disruptive activities are noise, human foot or vehicle traffic, or 

other human presence.

20. Remove all branches on cut juniper stumps to prevent regrowth. Remove branches on cut 

trees that extend more than four feet above the ground or more than one foot above the 

general height of the sagebrush to eliminate potential perch sites for GRSG predators. 

Roads

1. Construct road crossings at a right angle to ephemeral drainages and any stream crossings.

2. Use existing roads or realignments of existing roads to the extent possible. 

3. Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

4. Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their 

intended purpose.

5. Locate and build new roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

6. Restrict vehicle traffic on newly constructed project access routes to authorized users, such 

as through the use of signs and gates, in PHMA only. 

7. Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads when authorizing activities where dust 

abatement is necessary. 

8. Eliminate parallel roads travelling to the same destination when the destination can be 

accessed from the same direction and topography.

Reclamation

1. Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and other disturbances, 

including reshaping, top soiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

2. Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation and duplicate roads to the predisturbance 

landforms and desired plant community.

3. Irrigate sites during interim reclamation, if necessary, for the purpose of establishing 

seedlings more quickly.

4. Use mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

5. Include restoration objectives to meet GRSG habitat needs during reclamation (Pyke 2011). 

Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan so that clear goals and objectives 

are known to enhance or restore their habitat. 

Lands and Realty

Bury distribution power lines and communication lines, preferably within existing disturbance (PHMA 

only).

Fluid Minerals Development

1. Establish trip restrictions (Lyon and Anderson 2003) or minimization through use of 

telemetry and remote well control (e.g., supervisory control and data acquisition).

2. Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

3. Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

4. Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the 

frequency of vehicle use. 

5. Use only closed‐loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve pits.

6. Remove or reinject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West 

Nile virus. If surface disposal of produced water continues, refer to the West Nile virus 

RDFs, below. 

7. Place pipelines, transmission lines, or other infrastructure under or next to a road or other 

infrastructure first, before locating them with other ROWs.

Fire, Fuels and Vegetation

Vegetation and Fuels Management

1. Where applicable, design treatment objectives to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, 

modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns that most benefit 

GRSG habitat. 

2. When treating dense sagebrush with prescribed fire:

a. Design burn prescriptions to limit fire spread

b. Target individual sagebrush plants or small patches of sagebrush with at least 50 

percent dead crown

c. Ensure burn patches are well distributed through the treatment block

d. In warm-dry sagebrush, do not count burn patches of less than a quarter-acre

toward the maximum allowed stand replacement area

e. In cool-moist sagebrush, do not count burn patches of less than half an acre toward 

the maximum allowed stand replacement area

3. Use burning prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., 

minimize destruction of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of annual grass 

invasion by retaining biological crusts). 
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-5 

4. Use native plant species, locally sourced where available, recognizing that use of nonnative 

species may be necessary to achieve site-specific management objectives. 

5. Fuel Breaks: 

a. Incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design, where applicable

b. Design fuel breaks in areas of high fire frequency to facilitate firefighter safety, 

reduce the potential acres burned, and reduce the fire risk to GRSG habitat 

c. Develop maps of existing fuel breaks in relation to GRSG habitat to assist wildfire 

response activities

d. Use perennial vegetation (e.g., green strips) paralleling road rights‐of‐way 

e. Incorporate key habitats or important restoration areas (such as where investments 

in restoration have already been made) in fuel break design

Fire Operations 

1. Compile BLM District level GRSG information into state-wide tool boxes. Tool boxes 

should contain maps, a list of resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and 

other relevant information for each BLM District, which will be aggregated into a state-wide 

document. 

2. Assign a resource advisor with GRSG expertise, or who has access to GRSG expertise, to 

all extended attack fires in or near GRSG habitat. Prior to the fire season, provide training 

to GRSG resource advisors on wildfire suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and 

procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals. Involve ODFW in fire operations 

through use of the following: 

a. Instructing resource advisors during preseason trainings

b. Ascertaining their qualification as resource advisors

c. Coordinating with resource advisors during fires 

d. Contributing to incident planning with such information as habitat features or other 

key data useful in fire decision-making 

3. On critical fire weather days, position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a 

quick and efficient response in GRSG habitat areas. 

4. Use existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete changes in fuel type, as control lines in 

order to minimize fire spread. 

5. During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities. 

6. Minimize burnout operations in key GRSG habitat areas by constructing direct fire lines

whenever safe and practical to do so. 

7. Use retardant, mechanized equipment, and other available resources to minimize burned 

acreage. 

8. When safe, maintain and protect areas of unburned islands and fingers of sagebrush and 

treat these areas as a highly valued resource to be protected. Safe and risk-based use of 
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

aircraft and mechanized equipment should be considered in order to keep fire from burning 

out these islands. 

9. On all fires, clearly document the following as they apply: 

a. Locations and sizes of burnout operations, mechanical fire lines, and retardant drops

b. Interagency coordination concerning the strategy and tactics used

c. Resource advisors used (name and whether GRSG qualified; see RDF #2, above) 

d. Summaries of weather and fire behavior, particularly during major fire growth 

events

e. Whether ES&R is anticipated to occur

10. Coordinate with rangeland fire protection associations (RFPAs) and rural fire protection 

districts (RFPDs) to increase initial attack and extended attack capability and effectiveness. 

a. Establish minimum requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE), training, 

experience and qualifications, physical fitness levels, and currency standards for 

wildland fire positions, which all participating agencies agree to meet 

(NWCG 310-1) 

b. Assist RFPAs and RFPDs in meeting agreed on minimum standards by providing joint 

training and development opportunities. 

c. Develop interagency training exercises with local, state, and federal agencies to 

enhance safety, coordination, communication, and effectiveness during fire 

management operations

d. Within 5 years, incorporate RFPAs into the interagency "closest forces" protocol 

for dispatching qualified firefighting resources to initial attack wildfires.

11. Locate wildfire suppression facilities—base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, 

and helicopter landing areas—in areas where physical disturbance to GRSG habitat can be 

minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails, or in other areas 

where there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover. 

Livestock Grazing

1. Do not place salt or mineral supplements within 1.2 miles of the perimeter of an occupied 

lek.

2. Do not concentrate livestock in nesting habitat or leks from March 1 through June 30. The 

timing and location of livestock turnout and trailing should not contribute to livestock 

concentrations on leks during the GRSG breeding season. 

3. Locate new or relocate existing livestock water developments within GRSG habitat to 

maintain or enhance habitat quality.

4. Construct or modify spring developments to maintain their free-flowing, natural, and wet 

meadow characteristics.

5. Fence wetlands (e.g., springs, seeps, wet meadows, and riparian areas) to maintain or foster 

progress toward PFC and to facilitate management of GRSG habitat objectives. Where 
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-7 

constructing fences or exclosures to improve riparian or upland management, incorporate 

fence marking or other BMPs/RDFs as appropriate. 

6. Ensure wildlife accessibility to water and install escape ramps in all new and existing water 

troughs. 

7. Construct new livestock facilities, such as livestock troughs, fences, corrals, handling 

facilities, and “dusting bags,” at least 1.2 miles from leks or other important areas of GRSG

habitat (i.e., wintering and brood-rearing areas) to avoid concentrating livestock, collision 

hazards to flying birds, or avian predator perches.

8. Place new taller structures, including corrals, loading facilities, water storage tanks, 

windmills, out of the line of sight or at least 1.2 miles from occupied leks, where such 

structures would increase the risk of avian predation. 

Noise (RDFs apply to all activities)

1. Limit noise at the perimeter of occupied or pending leks from two hours before to two 

hours after sunrise and sunset during the breeding season to less than 10 decibels above 

ambient sound levels. 

2. Require noise shields for noise creating authorizations, such as drilling. 

3. Locate new compressor stations and other authorized noise-creating equipment outside 

priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be directed toward priority 

habitat. 

West Nile Virus

1. Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile 

virus (Doherty 2007).

2. Use the following steps for reservoir design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

a. Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and unvegetated shorelines

b. Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions

c. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas

d. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict downslope seepage or overflow

e. Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock

f. Construct spillways with steep sides and line them with crushed rock

g. In areas experiencing a West Nile virus outbreak, treat waters with larvicides to 

reduce mosquito production

Locatable Minerals Development (RDFs apply to locatable minerals to the extent 

consistent with applicable law) 

Roads

1. Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their 

intended purpose.

2. Locate and build new roads to avoid important areas and habitats. 
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

3. Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

4. Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and any stream crossings.

5. Restrict vehicle traffic on newly constructed project access routes to authorized users, such 

as through the use of signs and gates in PHMA only. 

6. Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads when authorizing activities where dust 

abatement is necessary. 

7. Eliminate parallel roads travelling to the same destination when the destination can be 

accessed from the same direction and topography. 

Operations 

1. Cluster disturbances, operations, and facilities.

2. Place pipelines, transmission lines, or other infrastructure under or next to a road or other 

infrastructure first, before collocating them with other ROWs.

3. Restrict the construction of fences and tall facilities to the minimum number needed. Tall 

structures are any man-made structure that could disrupt lekking or nesting birds by 

creating perching/nesting opportunities for predators, such as raptors and ravens, or 

decrease the use of an area by GRSG. This includes communication towers, meteorological 

towers, electrical transmission or distribution towers, power poles, wind turbines, and 

associated structures.

4. Minimize authorizations to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

5. Place new utility developments, such as power lines and pipelines, and transportation routes 

in existing utility or transportation corridors.

6. Bury distribution power and communication lines, preferably within existing disturbed areas

(PHMA only). 

7. Cover, for example, with fine-mesh netting, or use other effective techniques on all pits 

(mining-related water filled impoundment) and tanks regardless of size to reduce GRSG 

deaths. 

8. Construct new ROWs, tanks, and other structures with perch deterrents or other antiperching devices and with structures or devices that discourage nesting raptors and corvids. 

9. Use native plant species, locally sourced where available, recognizing that use of nonnative 

species may be necessary, depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site 

conditions. 

10. Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile 

virus (Doherty 2007).

11. Remove or reinject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West 

Nile virus. If surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for 

reservoir design to limit favorable mosquito habitat:

a. Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and unvegetated shorelines

b. Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-9 

c. Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas

d. Construct dams or impoundments that restrict downslope seepage or overflow

e. Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock

f. Construct spillways with steep sides and line them with crushed rock

g. In areas experiencing a West Nile virus outbreak, treat waters with larvicides to 

reduce mosquito production 

12. Require GRSG‐safe fences around sumps. 

13. Clean up refuse and eliminate subsidized food sources for GRSG predators. 

14. Locate on-site work/project camps outside of priority GRSG (PHMA only). 

Reclamation 

1. Include restoration objectives to meet GRSG habitat needs during reclamation. Address 

post-reclamation management in reclamation plan so that goals and objectives are to 

enhance and restore GRSG habitat. 

2. Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads, including 

reshaping, top soiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

3. Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to predisturbance landform and desired plant 

community. 

4. Irrigate sites during interim reclamation, if necessary, to establish seedlings more quickly.

5. Use mulch to expedite reclamation and protect soils.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Most management actions and practices specifically applicable to GRSG and the purpose and need of 

this document are addressed in the RDF portion of this appendix. The following best management 

practices (BMPs) are additional management actions and practices. They were developed from the 

National Technical Team (NTT) Report and other sources and are also BMPs for Alternatives B, C, D, 

and F, and the Proposed Plan in the RMPA/EIS.

The BMPs are applicable to PHMA and GHMA unless otherwise indicated.

Post-Fire and Restoration Seeding

1. Use ecological site descriptions to determine appropriate seed mixes. Seed mixes should 

include a diversity of forbs that maximize blooming times when pollinators are most active 

and include nectar and pollen-producing plants.

2. When using locally collected seed, handle and store it properly to maintain maximum 

viability.

3. When using nonnative grasses, do not mix crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum or A. 

desertorum) with native perennial grass species. If crested wheatgrass is needed to compete 

with invasive annual grasses, use a nonnative grass mix.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C-10 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

4. Prefer minimum-till and standard drill seeding to aerial or broadcast seeding, particularly to 

control invasive annual grasses. Where possible, prefer minimum-till drill seeding to 

standard drill seeding.

5. Where live Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda) is well distributed post-fire or after vegetation 

treatment, do not drill seed; this is because drill seeding reduces surviving Sandberg 

bluegrass with little concomitant establishment of seeded grass species.

6. In areas where average annual precipitation is less than 10 to 12 inches, test alternative and 

experimental methods, such as use of coated seed, to establish perennial grasses, 

particularly when using native species. Limit seeding to priority areas within these low 

precipitation zones to meet vegetation objectives, and favor drought-tolerant forbs and 

grasses.

7. Prefer planting sagebrush and other shrubs to aerial or drill seeding until alternative 

methods for seeding are developed. Plant on microsites with a higher probability of success, 

such as at higher elevation, on northerly aspects, higher precipitation zones, or in deeper 

soils to create sagebrush patches rather than uniform spacing of individuals. 

8. In large burn areas or similar settings, where all or nearly all sagebrush has been lost and 

where annual grass dominance is considered unlikely, plant sagebrush as scattered islands. 

Exclude such areas from grazing by domestic livestock and wild horses and burros until 

sagebrush establishment objectives are met. 

9. Focus seeding treatments within 4 miles of occupied and pending leks and lek complexes 

with designated PHMA as a higher priority than designated GHMA. Within PHMA, higher 

priority areas to treat are leks or lek complexes with a higher number of birds, on average, 

and leks or lek complexes with stable or increasing GRSG populations.

10. Perennial grass should be seeded at no more than 3 to 5 pounds per acre as pure live seed if 

big sagebrush establishment is one of the treatment objectives.

11. Limit forage kochia use to fuel breaks, road edges, under power lines and other areas 

expected to see regular disturbance, such as mowing, as part of the maintenance needed to 

maintain the function of the site. Forage kochia may be used in other areas on a case-bycase basis; document the rationale for why forage kochia is needed and why a native species 

cannot be used instead.

12. Rest seeded and planted areas from grazing by livestock for at least two growing seasons. 

When possible, exclude seeded or planted areas from wild horses and burros as well. 

Grazing should not resume until vegetation objectives have been met. Plans must clearly 

describe the vegetation objectives and how attainment will be measured and determined. 

West Nile Virus

Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb 

shorelines, enrich sediments with manure, and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to 

breeding mosquitoes.
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-11 

Livestock Grazing

Restrict off-trail vehicle use, where authorized, to areas more than 2 miles from leks during the breeding 

season, unless travel is essential for routine ranch activities, such as repairing fence, “doctoring” 

livestock, and finding lost livestock. 

Travel Management

1. Allow primitive roads to be reclaimed naturally and where necessary use pitting, water bars, 

or vertical mulch to create physical structures that accelerate native vegetation growth.

2. If possible, attempt to disguise road entrances to discourage use, by using vertical mulch, 

native seeding, and natural barriers that blend in with the natural surroundings.

3. Inspect closed roads to ensure that vegetation stabilization measures are operating as 

planned, drainage structures are operational, and noxious weeds are not providing erosion 

control. Conduct vegetation treatments and drainage structure maintenance as needed.

4. Fully decommission or obliterate temporary roads on completion of use.

5. Consider decommissioning low-volume permanent roads not needed for future resource 

management located in or draining into wetlands, riparian management areas, floodplains, or 

Waters of the State. 

6. Prevent vehicular traffic, using such methods as gates, guardrails, or earth/log barricades, to 

reduce or eliminate erosion and sedimentation due to traffic on roads, when possible.

7. Convert existing drainage structures, such as ditches and cross drain culverts, to a longterm maintenance-free drainage configuration, such as out-sloped road surface and water 

bars. 

8. Remove stream crossing culverts and entire in-channel fill material during any ODFW 

instream work period.

9. Place excavated material from removed stream crossings on stable ground outside of 

wetlands, riparian management areas, floodplains, and Waters of the State. In some cases, 

use material for recontouring old road cuts or spread it across roadbeds and treat them to 

prevent erosion.

10. Reestablish stream crossings to the natural stream gradient. Excavate sideslopes back to the 

natural bank profile. Reestablish natural channel width and floodplain.

11. On each side of a stream crossing, construct water bars or cross ditches that will remain 

maintenance free.

12. Following culvert removal and prior to the wet season, apply erosion control and sediment 

trapping measures (e.g., seeding, mulching, straw bales, jute netting, native vegetative 

cuttings) where sediment can be delivered into wetlands, riparian management areas, 

floodplains, and Waters of the State.1 Implement decompaction measures, including ripping 

or subsoiling to an effective depth. Treat compacted areas, including the roadbed, landings, 

construction areas, and spoils sites.

 

1 Be aware that some desert soils do better with no decompaction, such as aridisoils. These soils often have near 

surface layers that retain water, while physical treatments, such as ripping may disturb those layers; always consult 

your soils scientist. 
C. Required Design Features and Best Management Practices

C-12 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

13. After decompacting the road surface, pull back unstable road fill and either end-haul or 

recontour to the natural slopes.

14. On active haul roads, during the wet season, use durable rock surfacing and sufficient 

surface depth to resist rutting or development of sediment on road surfaces that drain 

directly to wetlands, floodplains, and Waters of the State. 

15. Prior to winter hauling, implement structural road treatments; examples of this are

increasing the frequency of cross drains, installing sediment barriers or catch basins, applying 

gravel lifts or asphalt road surfacing at stream crossing approaches, and cleaning and 

armoring ditchlines. 

16. Suspend commercial use where the road surface is deeply rutted or covered by a layer of 

mud or when runoff from the road surface is visibly increasing stream turbidity in the 

receiving stream.
Appendix D 

Monitoring Framework

THE GREATER 

SAGE-GROUSE

MONITORING

FRAMEWORK

Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Forest Service 

Developed by 

the Interagency 

Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Disturbance 

and Monitoring 

Subteam 

May 30, 2014 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework
 

Developed by the Interagency Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam 

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3
 

I. Broad and Mid Scales.................................................................................................................. 7
 

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring ..................................................................................... 7
 

B. Habitat Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 8
 

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)....................................................................................... 10
 

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer .......................................................................... 11
 

b. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability ................................................................................ 19
 

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) ................................................................. 22
 

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions............................................................. 22
 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation ............................................ 26
 

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3)......................................................................... 26
 

a. Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions................................................. 28
 

b. Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation ................................ 28
 

C. Population (Demographics) Monitoring .................................................................................. 29
 

D. Effectiveness Monitoring......................................................................................................... 29
 

II. Fine and Site Scales................................................................................................................. 35
 

III. Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 37
 

IV. The Greater Sage-Grouse Disturbance and Monitoring Subteam Membership ...................... 37
 

Figure 1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority
 

Areas for Conservation as of 2013.................................................................................... 5
 

Table 1. Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, 

RMP/LUP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the 

broad and mid scales......................................................................................................... 6
 

Table 2. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures
 

for monitoring. ................................................................................................................ 9
 

Table 3. Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in sagebrush availability.................. 13
 

Table 4. Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

and capable of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse................. 13
 

Table 5. Ecological Systems with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. .. 18
 

Table 6. Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2). ........................................ 27
 

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 39
 

Attachment A: An Overview of Monitoring Commitments......................................................... 43
 

Attachment B: User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within 

LANDFIRE Map Zones....................................................................................... 45
 

Attachment C: Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for
 

Building the EVT and BpS Layers ...................................................................... 47
 

1 
2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION
 

The purpose of this U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (hereafter, monitoring framework) is to describe 

the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the BLM’s 

national planning strategy (attachment to BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-044), the BLM 

resource management plans (RMPs), and the USFS’s land management plans (LMPs) to 

conserve the species and its habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the 

USFS (36 CFR part 209, published July 1, 2010) require that land use plans establish intervals 

and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations based on the sensitivity of the 

resource to the decisions involved. Therefore, the BLM and the USFS will use the methods 

described herein to collect monitoring data and to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of 

the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) (hereafter, sage-grouse) planning strategy and the conservation 

measures contained in their respective land use plans (LUPs). A monitoring plan specific to the 

Environmental Impact Statement, land use plan, or field office will be developed after the 

Record of Decision is signed. For a summary of the frequency of reporting, see Attachment A, 

An Overview of Monitoring Commitments. Adaptive management will be informed by data 

collected at any and all scales. 

To ensure that the BLM and the USFS are able to make consistent assessments about sagegrouse habitats across the range of the species, this framework lays out the methodology—at 

multiple scales—for monitoring of implementation and disturbance and for evaluating the 

effectiveness of BLM and USFS actions to conserve the species and its habitat. Monitoring 

efforts will include data for measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, 

anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush conditions. Implementation monitoring results 

will allow the BLM and the USFS to evaluate the extent that decisions from their LUPs to 

conserve sage-grouse and their habitat have been implemented. State fish and wildlife agencies 

will collect population monitoring information, which will be incorporated into effectiveness 

monitoring as it is made available. 

This multiscale monitoring approach is necessary, as sage-grouse are a landscape species and 

conservation is scale-dependent to the extent that conservation actions are implemented within 

seasonal habitats to benefit populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used 

in this monitoring framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and were applied 

specifically to the scales of sage-grouse habitat selection by Stiver et al. (in press) as first order 

(broad scale), second order (mid scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order (site scale). 

Habitat selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occur at multiple scales and are driven by 

multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats 

are complicated by the differences in habitat selection across the range and habitat use by 

individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the tendency to look at a single indicator of 

habitat suitability or only one scale limits managers’ ability to identify the threats to sage-grouse 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and to respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat suitability indicators for 

each scale, see “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment 

Tool” (HAF; Stiver et al. in press). 

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current 

peer-reviewed science. Rangewide, best available datasets for broad- and mid-scale monitoring 

will be acquired. If these existing datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but they are 

necessary to inform the indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, 

and sagebrush conditions, the BLM and the USFS will strive to develop datasets or obtain 

information to fill these data gaps. Datasets that are not readily available to inform the fine- and 

site-scale indicators will be developed. These data will be used to generate monitoring reports at 

the appropriate and applicable geographic scales, boundaries, and analysis units: across the range 

of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. (2004), and clipped by Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone (MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and 

other areas as appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on Connelly et al. 2004). (See Figure 

1, Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013.) This broad- and mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide 

context for RMP/LMP areas; states; GRSG Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sagegrouse designated management areas; and Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs), as defined in 

“Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” 

(Conservation Objectives Team [COT] 2013). Hereafter, all of these areas will be referred to as 

“sage-grouse areas.” 

4 
Figure 1. Map of Greater Sage-Grouse range, populations, subpopulations, and Priority Areas for 

Conservation as of 2013. 

5 
This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad- and mid-scale methods, 

described in Section I, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor 

implementation decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability 

and habitat degradation), and population changes to determine the effectiveness of the planning 

strategy and management decisions. (See Table 1, Indicators for monitoring implementation of 

the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse 

populations at the broad and mid scales.) For sage-grouse habitat at the fine and site scales, 

described in Section II, this monitoring framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., 

indicators and methods) for monitoring sage-grouse seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and 

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

normal budget process. For an overview ofBLM and USFS multiscale monitoring commitments, 

see Attachment A. 

Table 1. 	 Indicators for monitoring implementation of the national planning strategy, RMP/LMP 

decisions, sage-grouse habitat, and sage-grouse populations at the broad and mid scales. 

Implementation Habitat Population 

(State Wildlife 

Agencies) 

Geographic 

Scales 

Availability 

Broad Scale: 

From the 

range of sagegrouse to 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zones 

BLM/USFS Distribution and 

National planning amount of 

strategy goal and sagebrush within 

objectives the range 

Degradation 

Distribution and 

amount of 

energy, mmmg, 

and 

infrastructure 

facilities 

Demographics 

WAFWA 

Management 

Zone 

population 

trend 

Mid Scale: RMP/LMP Mid-scale habitat 

From decisions indicators (HAF; 

WAFWA Table 2 herein, 

Management e.g., percent of 

Zone to sagebrush per 

populations; unit area) 

PACs 

Distribution and Individual 

amount of population 

energy, mmmg, trend 

and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 2 

herein) 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. BROAD AND MID SCALES
 

First-order habitat selection, the broad scale, describes the physical or geographical range of a 

species. The first-order habitat of the sage-grouse is defined by populations of sage-grouse 

associated with sagebrush landscapes, based on Schroeder et al. 2004, and Connelly et al. 2004, 

and on population or habitat surveys since 2004. An intermediate scale between the broad and 

mid scales was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces within which similar 

environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the 

WAFWA Sage-Grouse Management Zones (MZs). Although no indicators are specific to this 

scale, these MZs are biologically meaningful as reporting units. 

Second-order habitat selection, the mid-scale, includes sage-grouse populations and PACs. The 

second order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). 

Populations range in area from 150 to 60,000 mi2 and are nested within MZs. PACs range from 

20 to 20,400 mi2 and are nested within population areas. 

Other mid-scale landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage 

areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. in press) will also be assessed. The 

methods used to calculate these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 

2011, Leu and Hanser 2011, Knick and Hanser 2011). 

A. Implementation (Decision) Monitoring 

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or 

the progress toward implementation) of RMP/LMP decisions. The BLM and the USFS will 

monitor implementation of project-level and/or site-specific actions and authorizations, with 

their associated conditions of approval/stipulations for sage-grouse, spatially (as appropriate) 

within Priority Habitat, General Habitat, and other sage-grouse designated management areas, at 

a minimum, for the planning area. These actions and authorizations, as well as progress toward 

completing and implementing activity-level plans, will be monitored consistently across all 

planning units and will be reported to BLM and USFS headquarters annually, with a summary 

report every 5 years, for the planning area. A national-level GRSG Land Use Plan Decision 

Monitoring and Reporting Tool is being developed to describe how the BLM and the USFS 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 and the USFS will provide data that can be integrated with 

other conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Habitat Monitoring 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in its 2010 listing decision for the sage-grouse, 

identified 18 threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse 

habitat or range (75 FR 13910 2010). The BLM and the USFS will, therefore, monitor the 

relative extent of these threats that remove sagebrush, both spatially and temporally, on all lands 

within an analysis area, and will report on amount, pattern, and condition at the appropriate and 

applicable geographic scales and boundaries. These 18 threats have been aggregated into three 

broad- and mid-scale measures to account for whether the threat predominantly removes 

sagebrush or degrades habitat. (See Table 2, Relationship between the 18 threats and the three 

habitat disturbance measures for monitoring.) The three measures are: 

Measure 1: Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area) 

Measure 2: Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

Measure 3: Energy and Mining Density (facilities and locations per unit area) 

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands, regardless of 

land ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the goal of accounting for 

actual removal of sagebrush on which sage-grouse depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat 

degradation as a surrogate for human activity. Measure 1 (sagebrush availability) examines 

where disturbances have removed plant communities that support sagebrush (or have broadly 

removed sagebrush from the landscape). Measure 1, therefore, monitors the change in sagebrush 

availability—or, specifically, where and how much of the sagebrush community is available 

within the range of sage-grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the ecological systems 

that have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and seasonal sage-grouse habitats 

within the range of sage-grouse (see Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability). Measure 2 (see 

Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 (see Section I.B.3., Energy and 

Mining Density) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring by using the footprint/area of 

direct disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid scale to identify the relative amount of 

degradation per geographic area of interest and in areas that have the capability of supporting 

sagebrush and seasonal sage-grouse use. Measure 2 (habitat degradation) not only quantifies 

footprint/area of direct disturbance but also establishes a surrogate for those threats most likely to 

have ongoing activity. Because energy development and mining activities are typically the most 

intensive activities in sagebrush habitat, Measure 3 (the density of active energy development, 

production, and mining sites) will help identify areas of particular concern for such factors as 

noise, dust, traffic, etc. that degrade sage-grouse habitat. 

8 
 

 

Table 2. Relationship between the 18 threats and the three habitat disturbance measures for monitoring. 

Note: Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers. See the detailed methodology 

for more information. 

Energy and 

Sagebrush Habitat Mining 

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Availability Degradation Density 

Agriculture X
 

Urbanization X
 

Wildfire X
 

Conifer encroachment X
 

Treatments X
 

Invasive Species X
 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development X X facilities) 

Energy (coal mines) X X
 

Energy (wind towers) X X
 

Energy (solar fields) X X
 

Energy (geothermal) X X
 

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable X X developments) 

Infrastructure (roads) X
 

Infrastructure (railroads) X
 

Infrastructure (power lines) X
 

Infrastructure (communication towers) X
 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X
 

Other developed rights-of-way X
 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in Manier et 

al. 2013, which provided a baseline environmental report (BER) of datasets of disturbance across 

jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the BER data were for federal lands only. 

In addition, threats were assessed individually, using different assumptions from those in this 

monitoring framework about how to quantify the location and magnitude of threats. The 

methodology herein builds on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and procedures to 

use the best available data across the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a consistent 

approach to quantify impact of the threats through time. This methodology also describes an 

approach to combine the threats and calculate each of the three habitat disturbance measures. 

B.1. Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1) 

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the 

landscape is maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by 

sagebrush availability. Measure 1 has been divided into two submeasures to describe sagebrush 

availability on the landscape: 

Measure 1a: the current amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest, and 

Measure 1b: the amount of sagebrush on the geographic area of interest compared with 

the amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this 

formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic area of interest]. The 

appropriate geographic areas of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, 

WAFWA MZs, populations, and PACs. In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need to be 

aggregated to provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an acceptable level of accuracy. 

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the geographic area of interest) will be 

calculated using this formula: [existing sagebrush divided by [pre-EuroAmerican settlement 

geographic extent of lands that could have supported sagebrush]. This measure will provide 

information to set the context for a given geographic area of interest during evaluations of 

monitoring data. The information could also be used to inform management options for 

restoration or mitigation and to inform effectiveness monitoring. 

The sagebrush base layer for Measure 1 will be based on geospatial vegetation data adjusted for 

the threats listed in Table 2. The following subsections of this monitoring framework describe 

the methodology for determining both the current availability of sagebrush on the landscape and 

the context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid scales. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the rangewide distribution of sagegrouse populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the Existing Vegetation 

Type (EVT) layer in LANDFIRE (2013). LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the 

sagebrush base layer for five reasons: 1) it is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that 

has been updated multiple times since 2001; 2) the ecological systems classification within 

LANDFIRE EVT includes multiple sagebrush type classes that, when aggregated, provide a 

more accurate (compared with individual classes) and seamless sagebrush base layer across 

jurisdictional boundaries; 3) LANDFIRE performed a rigorous accuracy assessment from which 

to derive the rangewide uncertainty of the sagebrush base layer; 4) LANDFIRE is consistently 

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

Knick and Hanser 2011); and 5) LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the geographic 

extent of lands that are believed to have had the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement [LANDFIRE Biophysical Setting (BpS)]. This fifth reason 

provides a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in a defined 

geographic area of interest compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 

1b). Therefore, the BLM and the USFS have determined that LANDFIRE provides the best 

available data at broad and mid scales to serve as a sagebrush base layer for monitoring changes 

in the geographic extent of sagebrush. The BLM and the USFS, in addition to aggregating the 

sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, will aggregate the accuracy assessment reports 

from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush base layer. The 

BLM—through its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) program and, specifically, the 

BLM’s landscape monitoring framework (Taylor et al. 2014)—will provide field data to the 

LANDFIRE program to support continuous quality improvements of the LANDFIRE EVT layer. 

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of the 

existing percent of sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will 

be adjusted by changes in land cover and successful restoration for future calculations of 

sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 1b). 

This layer will also be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, such as patch 

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

et al. in press). In the future, changes in sagebrush availability, generated annually, will be 

included in the sagebrush base layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine 

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

information will be included in effectiveness monitoring (See Section I.D., Effectiveness 

Monitoring). 

Within the USFS and the BLM, forest-wide and field office–wide existing vegetation 

classification mapping and inventories are available that provide a much finer level of data than 

what is provided through LANDFIRE. Where available, these finer-scale products will be useful 

for additional and complementary mid-scale indicators and local-scale analyses (see Section II, 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine and Site Scales). The fact that these products are not available everywhere limits their utility 

for monitoring at the broad and mid scale, where consistency of data products is necessary across 

broader geographies. 

Data Sources for Establishing and Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

There were three criteria for selecting the datasets for establishing and monitoring the change in 

sagebrush availability (Measure 1): 

 Nationally consistent dataset available across the range 

 Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset 

 Continual maintenance of dataset and known update interval 

Datasets meeting these criteria are listed in Table 3, Datasets for establishing and monitoring 

changes in sagebrush availability. 

LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) Version 1.2 

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived from remote 

sensing data. Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected in approximately 2001. 

Since the initial mapping there have been two update efforts: version 1.1 represents changes 

before 2008, and version 1.2 reflects changes on the landscape before 2010. Version 1.2 will be 

used as the starting point to develop the sagebrush base layer. 

Sage-grouse subject matter experts determined which of the ecological systems from the 

LANDFIRE EVT to use in the sagebrush base layer by identifying the ecological systems that 

have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and that could provide suitable seasonal 

habitat for the sage-grouse. (See Table 4, Ecological systems in BpS and EVT capable of 

supporting sagebrush vegetation and capable of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater 

Sage-Grouse.) Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological systems were added to the 

EVT: Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland 

Alliance. These alliances have species composition directly related to the Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system, both of which are ecological systems in 

LANDFIRE BpS. In LANDFIRE EVT, however, in some map zones, the Rocky Mountain 

Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel OakMixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance, respectively. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Datasets for establishing and monitoring changes in sagebrush availability. 

Dataset Source 

Update 

Interval 

Most Recent 

Version Year Use 

BioPhysical Setting 

v1.1 

LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

sagebrush availability 

Existing Vegetation 

Type v1.2 

LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for 

sagebrush availability 

Cropland Data Layer National 

Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

Annual 2012 Agricultural updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

National Land Cover 

Dataset Percent 

Imperviousness 

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics 

Consortium 

(MRLC) 

5-Year 2011 (next 

available in 2016) 

Urban area updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Fire Perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000-acre fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

Burn Severity Monitoring 

Trends in Burn 

Severity 

Annual 2012 (2-year delay 

in data 

availability) 

> 1,000-acre fire 

updates; removes 

existing sagebrush 

from numerator of 

sagebrush availability 

except for unburned 

sagebrush islands 

Table 4. Ecological systems in BpS and EVT capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation and capable 

of providing suitable seasonal habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse. 

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability of Producing 

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia frigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

13 
Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida 

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp. 

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita 

Artemisia frigida 

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata 

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 

Scrub 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia spinescens 

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis 

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppe Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed Grass 

Prairie 

Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia frigida 

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia frigida 

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana 

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush 

Shrubland and Steppe 

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only) 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT 

only) 

Artemisia tridentata 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets 

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all 

ecological systems listed in Table 4 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush 

base layer. With all ecological systems aggregated, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base 

layer (EVT) will be much greater than if all categories were treated separately. 

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of its EVT product on a map zone 

basis. There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historical range of sage-grouse as 

defined by Schroeder (2004). (See Attachment B, User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated 

Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE Map Zones.) The aggregated sagebrush base layer for 

monitoring had user accuracies ranging from 57.1% to 85.7% and producer accuracies ranging 

from 56.7% to 100%. 

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reports of the percent 

sagebrush statistic for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent 

sagebrush will increase as the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should 

never be used at the 30m pixel level (900m2 resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The 

smallest geographic extent for using the data to determine percent sagebrush is at the PAC level; 

for the smallest PACs, the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have greater uncertainties 

compared with the much larger PACs. 

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated 

annually, with estimated producer accuracies for “large area row crops ranging from the mid 

80% to mid-90%,” depending on the state 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0). Specific 

information on accuracy may be found on the NASS metadata website 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only 

dataset that matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and 

periodically updated) for use in this monitoring framework and represents the best available 

agricultural lands mapping product. 

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes and nonagricultural classes. For this effort, and in 

the baseline environmental report (Manier et al. 2013), nonagricultural classes were removed 

from the original dataset. The excluded classes are: 

Barren (65 & 131), Deciduous Forest (141), Developed/High Intensity (124), Developed/Low 

Intensity (122), Developed/Med Intensity (123), Developed/Open Space (121), Evergreen Forest 

(142), Grassland Herbaceous (171), Herbaceous Wetlands (195), Mixed Forest (143), Open 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water (83 & 111), Other Hay/Non Alfalfa (37), Pasture/Hay (181), Pasture/Grass (62), Perennial 

Ice/Snow (112), Shrubland (64 & 152), Woody Wetlands (190). 

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands (and for updating the 

base layer for agricultural lands in the future) is that once an area is classified as agriculture in 

any year of the CDL, those pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer even if a new 

version of the CDL classifies that pixel as one of the nonagricultural classes listed above. The 

assumption is that even though individual pixels may be classified as a nonagricultural class in 

any given year, the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush community that 

would be included in Table 4. A further assumption is that once an area has moved into 

agricultural use, it is unlikely that the area would be restored to sagebrush. Should that occur, 

however, the method and criteria for adding pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would 

follow those found in the sagebrush restoration monitoring section of this monitoring framework 

(see Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). 

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Fry et al. 2011) includes a percent imperviousness 

dataset that was selected as the best available dataset to be used for urban adjustments and 

monitoring. These data are generated on a 5-year cycle and are specifically designed to support 

monitoring efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial specificity that was 

captured in the NLCD product. Any new impervious pixel in NLCD will be removed from the 

sagebrush base layer through the monitoring process. Although the impervious surface layer 

includes a number of impervious pixels outside of urban areas, this is acceptable for the 

adjustment and monitoring for two reasons. First, an evaluation of national urban area datasets 

did not reveal a layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to 

screen impervious pixels outside of urban zones. This is because unincorporated urban areas 

were not being included, thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels unaccounted for in this rule 

set. Second, experimentation with setting a threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that 

would isolate rural features proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of values could be 

identified that would result in the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside urban 

areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in the monitoring estimates, all impervious pixels will be 

used. 

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Two datasets were selected for performing fire adjustments and updates: GeoMac fire 

perimeters and Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the 

BLM requires that all fires of more than 10 acres are to be reported to GeoMac; therefore, there 

will be many small fires of less than 10 acres that will not be accounted for in the adjustment and 

monitoring attributable to fire. Using fire perimeters from GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling 

16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

within the perimeter of fires less than 1,000 acres will be used to adjust and monitor the 

sagebrush base layer. 

For fires greater than 1,000 acres, MTBS was selected as a means to account for unburned 

sagebrush islands during the update process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program 

(http://www.mtbs.gov) is an ongoing, multiyear project to map fire severity and fire perimeters 

consistently across the United States. One of the burn severity classes within MTBS is an 

unburned to low-severity class. This burn severity class will be used to represent unburned 

islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter for the sagebrush base layer. Areas within the other 

severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base sagebrush layer during 

the update process. Not all wildfires, however, have the same impacts on the recovery of 

sagebrush habitat, depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, 

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed, restoration 

than does the warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These cooler, moister areas will likely be detected 

as sagebrush in future updates to LANDFIRE. 

Conifer Encroachment Adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of sage-grouse habitat 

(Davies et al. 2011, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity for 

encroaching into sagebrush vegetation resulting in sage-grouse habitat loss include various 

juniper species, such as Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), western juniper (Juniperus 

occidentalis), Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum), pinyon species, including 

singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Gruell et 

al. 1986, Grove et al. 2005, Davies et al. 2011). 

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to adjust the sagebrush base layer. To capture 

the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer encroachment, ecological 

systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were identified if they had the 

capability of supporting both the conifer species (listed above) and sagebrush vegetation. Those 

ecological systems were deemed to be the plant communities with conifers most likely to 

encroach into sagebrush vegetation. (See Table 5, Ecological systems with conifers most likely 

to encroach into sagebrush vegetation.) Sagebrush vegetation was defined as including sagebrush 

species or subspecies that provide habitat for the Greater Sage-Grouse and that are included in 

the HAF. (See Attachment C, Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection 

Criteria for Building the EVT and BpS Layers.) An adjacency analysis was conducted to identify 

all sagebrush pixels that were directly adjacent to these conifer ecological systems, and these 

pixels were removed from the sagebrush base layer. 

17 
Table 5. Ecological systems with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. 

EVT Ecological Systems 

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush Vegetation that 

the Ecological System has the Capability of 

Producing 

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia pygmaea 

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna 

Juniperus occidentalis 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia rigida 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia nova 

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 

Woodland and Savanna Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland 

Juniperus osteosperma 

Juniperus scopulorum 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Pinus ponderosa 

Artemisia tridentata 

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland 

Pinus edulis 

Juniperus monosperma 

Artemisia bigelovii 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland 

Pinus ponderosa 

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pinus edulis 

Pinus contorta 

Juniperus spp. 

Artemisia nova 

Artemisia tridentata 

Artemisia arbuscula 

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to the present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) 

that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically 

updated) for use in the determination of the sagebrush base layer. For a description of how 

invasive species land cover will be incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see 

Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability. 

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer 

There are no datasets from 2010 to the present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base 

layer from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level 

of accuracy, and periodically updated); therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush 

base layer calculated from the LANDFIRE EVT (version 1.2) attributable to restoration 

activities since 2010. Successful restoration treatments before 2010 are assumed to have been 

captured in the LANDFIRE refresh. 

b. Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability 

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base 

layer attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the 

existing sagebrush base layer updates is as follows: 

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 Imperviousness Layer] 

minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires that are less than 1,000 acres] minus 

[2009/10 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands 

within the perimeter] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer] minus [2011 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 

acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned 

sagebrush islands within the perimeter] 

Monitoring Existing Sagebrush post 2012 = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] minus 

[Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus [Next 2 

years of GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years of MTBS Fires that are greater than 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus 

[restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]
 

Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration 

Restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after 

treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that 

can add sagebrush vegetation back into sagebrush availability in the landscape. When restoration 

has been determined to be successful through rangewide, consistent, interagency fine- and sitescale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add sagebrush pixels back into the broadand mid-scale sagebrush base layer. 

Measure 1b: Context for Monitoring the Amount of Sagebrush in a Geographic Area of 

Interest 

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with the 

amount of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the 

potential to support sagebrush were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush 

pre-EuroAmerican settlement (v1.2 of LANDFIRE). 

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are 

believed to have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of 

the historical (pre-EuroAmerican settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical 

disturbance regime operated on the current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map 

units that are based on NatureServe (2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification. 

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological 

systems that are capable of supporting sagebrush vegetation and of providing seasonal habitat for 

sage-grouse (Table 4). Ecological systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies that 

are included in the HAF and listed in Attachment C. 

The BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy assessment, given the lack of any reference 

data. Visual inspection of the BpS data, however, reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels 

among LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies is that the rule sets used to 

map a given ecological system will vary among map zones based on different physical, 

biological, disturbance, and atmospheric regimes of the region. These variances can result in 

artificial edges in the map. Metrics will be calculated, however, at broad spatial scales using BpS 

potential vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels. Therefore, the magnitude of 

these observable errors in the BpS layer will be minor compared with the size of the reporting 

units. Since BpS will be used to identify broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, these 

inconsistencies will have only a minor impact on the percent sagebrush availability calculation. 

As with the LANDFIRE EVT, LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. 

LANDFIRE data should never be used at the 30m pixel level for reporting. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In conclusion, sagebrush availability data will be used to inform effectiveness monitoring and 

initiate adaptive management actions as necessary. The 2010 estimate of sagebrush availability 

will serve as the base year, and an updated estimate for 2012 will be reported in 2014 after all 

datasets become available. The 2012 estimate will capture changes attributable to wildfire, 

agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates will always include new fire and 

agricultural data and new urban data when available. Restoration data that meet the criteria for 

adding sagebrush areas back into the sagebrush base layer will be factored in as data allow. 

Given data availability, there will be a 2-year lag (approximately) between when the estimate is 

generated and when the data used for the estimate become available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush 

availability will be included in the 2016 estimate). 

Future Plans 

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through the BLM’s 

EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy 

datasets will be preserved so that trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment 

data for all source datasets will be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or 

through the metadata. Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to help users 

understand the limitation of the sagebrush estimates; it will be summarized spatially by map zone 

and will be included in the portal. 

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to 

improve the overall quality of data products greatly, primarily through the use of higher-quality 

remote sensing datasets. Additionally, the BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium (MRLC) are working to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broadand mid-scale analyses through the Grass/Shrub mapping effort. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort 

applies the Wyoming multiscale sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to depict 

spatially the fractional percent cover estimates for five components rangewide and West-wide. 

These five components are percent cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, percent 

herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs combined), annual vegetation, and percent shrubs. A 

benefit of the design of these fractional cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “within” 

class variation (e.g., examination of declining trend in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). 

This “within” class variation can serve as one indicator of sagebrush quality that cannot be 

derived from LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The Grass/Shrub mapping effort is not a substitute 

for fine-scale monitoring but will leverage fine-scale data to support the validation of the 

mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to determine if either dataset is of great 

enough quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush layers. At the earliest, this evaluation 

will occur in 2018 or 2019, depending on data availability. 

21 
 

 

 

B.2. Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2) 

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats 

identified in Table 2. The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy 

and infrastructure; it is used as a surrogate for human activity. Although these analyses will try to 

summarize results at the aforementioned meaningful geographic areas of interest, some may be 

too small to report the metrics appropriately and may be combined (smaller populations, PACs 

within a population, etc.). Data sources for each threat are found in Table 6, Geospatial data 

sources for habitat degradation. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area 

assumptions for point and line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined 

measure, are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and midscale year-to-year changes and to calculate trends in habitat degradation to inform adaptive 

management. A 5-year summary report will be provided to the USFWS. 

a. Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

This dataset will compile information from three oil and gas databases: the proprietary IHS 

Enerdeq database, the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) database, and 

the proprietary Platts (a McGraw-Hill Financial Company) GIS Custom Data (hereafter, Platts) 

database of power plants. Point data from wells active within the last 10 years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of influence 

centered on the well point, as recommended by the BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty 

Management). Plugged and abandoned wells will be removed if the date of well abandonment 

was before the first day of the reporting year (i.e., for the 2015 reporting year, a well must have 

been plugged and abandoned by 12/31/2014 to be removed). Platts oil and gas power plants data 

(subset to operational power plants) will also be included as a 5-acre (2.0ha) direct area of 

influence. 

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation. This dataset will include 

those wells that have been plugged and abandoned. This measure thereby attempts to 

measure energy-related degradation that has been reclaimed but not necessarily fully 

restored to sage-grouse habitat. This measure will establish a baseline by using wells that 

have been plugged and abandoned within the last 10 years from the IHS and AFMSS 

datasets. Time lags for lek attendance in response to infrastructure have been documented 

to be delayed 2–10 years from energy development activities (Harju et al. 2010). 

Reclamation actions may require 2 or more years from the Final Abandonment Notice. 

Sagebrush seedling establishment may take 6 or more years from the point of seeding, 

depending on such variables as annual precipitation, annual temperature, and soil type and 

depth (Pyke 2011). This 10-year period is conservative and assumes some level of habitat 

improvement 10 years after plugging. Research by Hemstrom et al. (2002), however, 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

proposes an even longer period—more than 100 years—for recovery of sagebrush habitats, 

even with active restoration approaches. Direct area of influence will be considered 3 acres 

(1.2ha) (J. Perry, personal communication, February 12, 2014). This additional 

layer/measure could be used at the broad and mid scale to identify areas where sagebrush 

habitat and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded. This layer/measure could 

also be used where further investigation at the fine or site scale would be warranted to: 1) 

quantify the level of reclamation already conducted, and 2) evaluate the amount of 

restoration still required for sagebrush habitat recovery. At a particular level (e.g., 

population, PACs), these areas and the reclamation efforts/success could be used to inform 

reclamation standards associated with future developments. Once these areas have 

transitioned from reclamation standards to meeting restoration standards, they can be 

added back into the sagebrush availability layer using the same methodology as described 

for adding restoration treatment areas lost to wildfire and agriculture conversion (see 

Monitoring Sagebrush Restoration in Section I.B.1.b., Monitoring Sagebrush Availability). 

This dataset will be updated annually from the IHS dataset. 

Energy (coal mines) 

Currently, there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the footprint of active coal 

mining across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and polygon datasets will be used each year to 

identify coal mining locations. Data sources will be identified and evaluated annually and will 

include at a minimum: BLM coal lease polygons, U.S. Energy Information Administration mine 

occurrence points, U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement coal mining 

permit polygons (as available), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Data 

System mine occurrence points. These data will inform where active coal mining may be 

occurring. Additionally, coal power plant data from Platts power plants database (subset to 

operational power plants) will be included. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize manually 

the active coal mining and coal power plants surface disturbance in or near these known 

occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery varies by scale, the most current data 

available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate (generally at 1:50,000 and below) and 

digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active coal mine and power plant direct area of 

influence. Coal mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each 

digitized coal polygon at the time of creation. Subsurface facility locations (polygon or point 

location as available) will also be collected if available, included in density calculations, and 

added to the active surface activity layer as appropriate (if an actual direct area of influence can 

be located). 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Digital Obstacles 

point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be included. Direct area of influence of 

these point features will be measured by converting to a polygon dataset as a direct area of 

23 
 

 

 

influence of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each tower point. See the BLM’s “Wind Energy 

Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement” (BLM 2005). Additionally, Platts 

power plants database will be used for transformer stations associated with wind energy sites 

(subset to operational power plants), also with a 3-acre (1.2ha) direct area of influence. 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

This dataset will include solar plants as compiled with the Platts power plants database (subset to 

operational power plants). This database includes an attribute that indicates the operational 

capacity of each solar power plant. Total capacity at the power plant was based on ratings of the 

in-service unit(s), in megawatts. Direct area of influence polygons will be centered over each 

point feature representing 7.3ac (3.0ha) per megawatt of the stated operational capacity, per the 

report of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), “Land-Use Requirements for 

Solar Power Plants in the United States” (Ong et al. 2013). 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

This dataset will include geothermal wells in existence or under construction as compiled with 

the IHS wells database and power plants as compiled with the Platts database (subset to 

operational power plants). Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured by 

converting to a polygon dataset of 3 acres (1.2ha) centered on each well or power plant point. 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

This dataset will include active locatable mining locations as compiled with the proprietary 

InfoMine database. Aerial imagery will then be used to digitize manually the active mining 

surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery 

varies by scale, the most current data available from Esri and/or Google will be used to locate 

(generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active mine 

direct area of influence. Mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each 

digitized polygon at the time of creation. Currently, there are no known compressive databases 

available for leasable or saleable mining sites beyond coal mines. Other data sources will be 

evaluated and used as they are identified or as they become available. Point data may be 

converted to polygons to represent direct area of influence unless actual surface disturbance is 

available. 

Infrastructure (roads) 

This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary Esri StreetMap Premium for ArcGIS. Dataset 

features that will be used are: Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets to capture 

most paved and “crowned and ditched” roads while not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive 

routes. These minor roads, while not included in the broad- and mid-scale monitoring, may 

support a volume of traffic that can have deleterious effects on sage-grouse leks. It may be 

24 
 

 

 

appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a proposed 

project. This fine- and site-scale analysis will require more site-specific data than is identified in 

this monitoring framework. The direct area of influence for roads will be represented by 240.2ft, 

84.0ft, and 40.7ft (73.2m, 25.6m, and 12.4m) total widths centered on the line feature for 

Interstate Highways, Major Roads, and Surface Streets, respectively (Knick et al. 2011). The 

most current dataset will be used for each monitoring update. Note: This is a related but 

different dataset than what was used in BER (Manier et al. 2013). Individual BLM/USFS 

planning units may use different road layers for fine- and site-scale monitoring. 

Infrastructure (railroads) 

This dataset will be a compilation from the Federal Railroad Administration Rail Lines of the 

USA dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail lines will not be used. The 

direct are of influence for railroads will be represented by a 30.8ft (9.4m) total width (Knick et 

al. 2011) centered on the non-abandoned railroad line feature. 

Infrastructure (power lines) 

This line dataset will be derived from the proprietary Platts transmission lines database. Linear 

features in the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. 

Only “In Service” lines will be used; “Proposed” lines will not be used. Direct area of influence 

will be determined by the kV designation: 1–199 kV (100ft/30.5m), 200–399 kV (150ft/45.7m), 

400–699 kV (200ft/61.0m), and 700-or greater kV (250ft/76.2m) based on average right-of-way 

and structure widths, according to BLM WO-300 (Minerals and Realty Management). 

Infrastructure (communication towers) 

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be removed. It will be converted to a 

polygon dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each 

communication tower point (Knick et al. 2011). 

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) 

This point dataset will be compiled from the FAA’s Digital Obstacles point file. Points where 

“Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate points from the FCC communication 

towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon dataset 

using a direct area of influence of 2.5 acres (1.0ha) centered on each vertical structure point 

(Knick et al. 2011). 

Other Developed Rights-of-Way 

Currently, no additional data sources for other rights-of-way have been identified; roads, power 

lines, railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are represented in the categories 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

described above. The newly purchased IHS data do contain pipeline information; however, this 

database does not currently distinguish between above-ground and underground pipelines. If 

additional features representing human activities are identified, they will be added to monitoring 

reports using similar assumptions to those used with the threats described above. 

b. Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation 

The threats targeted for measuring human activity (Table 2) will be converted to direct area of 

influence polygons as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be 

combined and features dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of 

active human activity in the range of sage-grouse. Individual datasets, however, will be 

preserved to indicate which types of threats may be contributing to overall habitat degradation. 

This measure has been divided into three submeasures to describe habitat degradation on the 

landscape. Percentages will be calculated as follows: 

Measure 2a. Footprint by geographic area of interest: Divide area of the active/direct 

footprint by the total area of the geographic area of interest (% disturbance in geographic 

area of interest). 

Measure 2b. Active/direct footprint by historical sagebrush potential: Divide area of the 

active footprint that coincides with areas with historical sagebrush potential (BpS 

calculation from habitat availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the 

total area with sagebrush potential within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance 

on potential historical sagebrush in geographic area of interest). 

Measure 2c. Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush: Divide area of the active 

footprint that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat 

availability) within a given geographic area of interest by the total area that is current 

sagebrush within the geographic area of interest (% disturbance on current sagebrush in 

geographic area of interest). 

B.3. Energy and Mining Density (Measure 3) 

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of 

energy and mining threats identified in Table 2. This measure will provide an estimate of the 

intensity of human activity or the intensity of habitat degradation. The number of energy 

facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by the area of meaningful geographic 

areas of interest to calculate density of these activities. Data sources for each threat are found in 

Table 6. Specific assumptions (inclusion criteria for data, width/area assumptions for point and 

line features, etc.) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure, are detailed 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad- and mid-scale year-to-year 

changes and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation. 

Table 6. Geospatial data sources for habitat degradation (Measure 2). 

Direct Area of Area 

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Influence Source 

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300 

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface Polygon area Esri/ 

Mining Reclamation and (digitized) Google 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral Imagery 

Resources Data System 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area Esri Imagery 

(digitized) 

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WOAdministration 300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300 

Energy (solar) Fields/Power Platts (power plants) 7.3ac NREL 

Plants (3.0ha)/MW 

Energy Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO-

(geothermal) 300 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area Esri Imagery 

(digitized) 

Mining Locatable InfoMine Polygon area Esri Imagery 

Developments (digitized) 

Infrastructure Surface Streets Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS 

(roads) (Minor Roads) 

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS 

Interstate Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft USGS 

Highways (73.2m) 

Infrastructure Active Lines Federal Railroad 30.8ft (9.4m) USGS 

(railroads) Administration 

Infrastructure 1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO-

(power lines) 300 

200-399 kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300 

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300 

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300 

Infrastructure Towers Federal Communications 2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO-

(communication) Commission 300 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.	 Energy and Mining Density Datasets and Assumptions 

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (coal mines) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (wind energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (solar energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Energy (geothermal energy facilities) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable) 

(See Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring.) 

b.	 Energy and Mining Density Threat Combination and Calculation 

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g., 

wells) and polygon areas (e.g., surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to 

calculate density for meaningful geographic areas of interest including standard grids and per 

polygon: 

1)	 Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the 

methodology described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close 

to a wind tower) will be retained. 

2)	 Polygons will not be merged, or features further dissolved. Thus, overlapping 

facilities will be retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon 

data input for the density calculation. 

3)	 The analysis unit (polygon or 640-acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting 

the number of mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit, all 

point features will be summed, and any individual polygons will be counted as one 

(e.g., a coal mine will be counted as one facility within population). Where polygon 

features overlap multiple units (polygons or pixels), the facility will be counted as one 

in each unit where the polygon occurs (e.g., a polygon crossing multiple 640-acre 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sections would be counted as one in each 640-acre section for a density per 640-acresection calculation). 

4)	 In methodologies with different-sized units (e.g., MZs, populations, etc.) raw facility 

counts will be converted to densities by dividing the raw facility counts by the total 

area of the unit. Typically this will be measured as facilities per 640 acres. 

5)	 For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will 

also be converted to facilities per 640 acres. 

6)	 Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics 

may be used to smooth smaller grids to help display and convey information about 

areas within meaningful geographic areas of interest that have high levels of energy 

and/or mining activity. 

7)	 Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to 

include only the area with the historical potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas 

currently sagebrush (EVT). 

Individual datasets and threat combination datasets for habitat degradation will be available 

through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and geospatial gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved 

so that trends may be calculated. 

C.	 Population (Demographics) Monitoring 

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations 

within their respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data 

by state agencies. These data will be made available to the BLM according to the terms of the 

forthcoming Greater Sage-Grouse Population Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) (2014) between WAFWA and the BLM. The MOU outlines a process, timeline, and 

responsibilities for regular data sharing of sage-grouse population and/or habitat information for 

the purposes of implementing sage-grouse LUPs/amendments and subsequent effectiveness 

monitoring. Population areas were refined from the “Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report” (COT 2013) by individual state wildlife 

agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature for future data analyses. These population 

data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement habitat effectiveness 

monitoring of management actions and to inform the adaptive management responses. 

D.	 Effectiveness Monitoring 

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the data needed to evaluate BLM and USFS actions 

toward reaching the objective of the national planning strategy (BLM IM 2012-044)—to 

conserve sage-grouse populations and their habitat—and the objectives for the land use planning 

29 
 

 

 

area. Effectiveness monitoring methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, 

from areas as large as the WAFWA MZ to the scale of this LUP. Effectiveness data used for 

these larger-scale evaluations will include all lands in the area of interest, regardless of surface 

ownership/management, and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as 

population areas smaller than an LUP or PACs within an LUP (described in Section II, Fine and 

Site Scales). Data will also include the trend of disturbance within these areas of interest to 

inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the land use plan. 

Effectiveness monitoring reported for these larger areas provides the context to conduct 

effectiveness monitoring at finer scales. This approach also helps focus scarce resources to areas 

experiencing habitat loss, degradation, or population declines, without excluding the possibility 

of concurrent, finer-scale evaluations as needed where habitat or population anomalies have been 

identified through some other means. 

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse national planning strategy, the BLM and the 

USFS will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a broad- and mid-scale 

effectiveness report: 

1)	 Sagebrush Availability and Condition: 

a.	 What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount 

and condition of sagebrush? 

b.	 What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in 

the amount relative to the pre-EuroAmerican historical distribution of 

sagebrush (BpS)? 

c.	 What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse?
 

2) Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities:
 

a.	 What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount? 

b.	 What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity? 

c.	 What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in 

the amount? 

3) What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in the population 

estimation? 

4) How are the BLM and the USFS contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush? 

5) How are the BLM and the USFS contributing to disturbance? 

The compilation of broad- and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an 

effectiveness monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see Attachment A), 

which may be accelerated to respond to critical emerging issues (in consultation with the 

USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, effectiveness monitoring results will be used to 

identify emerging issues and research needs and inform the BLM and the USFS adaptive 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

management strategy (see the adaptive management section of this Environmental Impact 

Statement). 

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of the land use plan, the BLM and 

the USFS will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness 

report: 

1) Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives? 

2) Are sage-grouse areas within the LUP meeting, or making progress toward meeting, land 

health standards, including the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat standard? 

3) Is the plan meeting the disturbance objective(s) within sage-grouse areas? 

4) Are the sage-grouse populations within this plan boundary and within the sage-grouse 

areas increasing, stable, or declining? 

The effectiveness monitoring report for this LUP will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see 

Attachment A) or more often if habitat or population anomalies indicate the need for an 

evaluation to facilitate adaptive management or respond to critical emerging issues. Data will be 

made available through the BLM’s EGIS web portal and the geospatial gateway. 

Methods 

At the broad and mid scales (PACs and above) the BLM and the USFS will summarize the 

vegetation, disturbance, and (when available) population data. Although the analysis will try to 

summarize results for PACs within each sage-grouse population, some populations may be too 

small to report the metrics appropriately and may need to be combined to provide an estimate 

with an acceptable level of accuracy. Otherwise, they will be flagged for more intensive 

monitoring by the appropriate landowner or agency. The BLM and the USFS will then analyze 

monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of sagebrush; the condition of the vegetation in 

the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); the trend in the amount of disturbance; the 

change in disturbed areas owing to successful restoration; and the amount of new disturbance the 

BLM and/or the USFS has permitted. These data could be supplemented with population data 

(when available) to inform an understanding of the correlation between habitat and PACs within 

a population. This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response of 

populations to habitat changes (Garton et al. 2011). 

Calculating Question 1, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush 

available in the large area of interest will use the information from Measure 1a (I.B.1., Sagebrush 

Availability) and calculate the change from the 2012 baseline to the end date of the reporting 

period. To calculate the change in the amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the 

historical areas with potential to support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (I.B.1., 

Sagebrush Availability) will be used. To calculate the trend in the condition of sagebrush at the 

mid scale, three sources of data will be used: the BLM’s Grass/Shrub mapping effort (Future 

Plans in Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability); the results from the calculation of the landscape 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

indicators, such as patch size (described below); and the BLM’s Landscape Monitoring 

Framework (LMF) and sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and 

sage-grouse intensification effort data are collected in a statistical sampling framework that 

allows calculation of indicator values at multiple scales. 

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of sagebrush patches on 

the landscape at the broad and mid scale provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse 

dispersal needs (see the HAF). The configuration of sagebrush habitat patches and the land cover 

or land use between the habitat patches at the broad and mid scales also defines suitability. There 

are three significant habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal, and movement across 

populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the connectivity of habitat patches (linkage 

areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope of unsuitable and non-habitats between habitat patches). 

The most appropriate commercial software to measure patch dynamics, connectivity, and 

fragmentation at the broad and mid scales will be used, along with the same data layers derived 

for sagebrush availability. 

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). The objective of the LMF effort is to provide unbiased estimates of vegetation 

and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced sample design across BLM lands. 

Recognizing that sage-grouse populations are more resilient where the sagebrush plant 

community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life stage of sage-grouse (Knick and 

Connelly 2011, Stiver et al. in press), a group of sage-grouse habitat and sagebrush plant 

community subject matter experts identified those vegetation indicators collected at LMF 

sampling points that inform sage-grouse habitat needs. The experts represented the Agricultural 

Research Service, BLM, NRCS, USFWS, WAFWA, state wildlife agencies, and academia. The 

common indicators identified include: species composition, foliar cover, height of the tallest 

sagebrush and herbaceous plant, intercanopy gap, percent of invasive species, sagebrush shape, 

and bare ground. To increase the precision of estimates of sagebrush conditions within the range 

of sage-grouse, additional plot locations in occupied sage-grouse habitat (Sage-Grouse 

Intensification) were added in 2013. The common indicators are also collected on sampling 

locations in the NRCS National Resources Inventory Rangeland Resource Assessment 

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/nri/?&cid=stelprdb10416 

20). 

The sage-grouse intensification baseline data will be collected over a 5-year period, and an 

annual sage-grouse intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the indicators. 

Beginning in year 6, the annual status report will be accompanied with a trend report, which will 

be available on an annual basis thereafter, contingent on continuation of the current monitoring 

budget. This information, in combination with the Grass/Shrub mapping information, the midscale habitat suitability indicator measures, and the sagebrush availability information will be 

used to answer Question 1 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculating Question 2, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: Evaluations of the amount of 

habitat degradation and the intensity of the activities in the area of interest will use the 

information from Measure 2 (Section I.B.2., Habitat Degradation Monitoring) and Measure 3 

(Section I.B.3., Energy and Mining Density). The field office will collect data on the amount of 

reclaimed energy-related degradation on plugged and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The data 

are expected to demonstrate that the reclaimed sites have yet to meet the habitat restoration 

objectives for sage-grouse habitat. This information, in combination with the amount of habitat 

degradation, will be used to answer Question 2 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness 

Report. 

Calculating Question 3, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse 

estimated populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when 

available. This population data (Section I.C., Population [Demographics] Monitoring) will be 

used to answer Question 3 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 4, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM or the USFS to the change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will use 

the information from Measure 1a (Section I.B.1., Sagebrush Availability). This measure is 

derived from the national datasets that remove sagebrush (Table 3). To determine the relative 

contribution of BLM and USFS management, the current Surface Management Agency 

geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management 

agency for this measure in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to 

answer Question 4 of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 5, National Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by 

the BLM or the USFS to the change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will use 

the information from Measure 2a (Section I.B.2., Monitoring Habitat Degradation) and Measure 

3 (Section I.B.3., Energy and Mining Density). These measures are all derived from the national 

disturbance datasets that degrade habitat (Table 6). To determine the relative contribution of 

BLM and USFS management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer 

will be used to differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for these two 

measures in the geographic areas of interest. This information will be used to answer Question 5 

of the National Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Answers to the five questions for determining the effectiveness of the national planning strategy 

will identify areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate 

identification of population areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad-scale 

monitoring identifies increasing sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, 

decreasing disturbance, and a stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there is 

evidence that the objectives of the national planning strategy to maintain populations and their 

habitats have been met. Conversely, where information indicates that sagebrush is decreasing 

and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in sage-grouse areas is increasing, and/or 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence that the objectives of the 

national planning strategy are not being achieved. Such a determination would likely result in a 

more detailed analysis and could be the basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive 

management measures. 

With respect to the land use plan area, the BLM and the USFS will summarize the vegetation, 

disturbance, and population data to determine if the LUP is meeting the plan objectives. 

Effectiveness information used for these evaluations includes BLM/USFS surface management 

areas and will help inform where finer-scale evaluations are needed, such as seasonal habitats, 

corridors, or linkage areas. Data will also include the trend of disturbance within the sage-grouse 

areas, which will inform the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in the 

land use plan. 

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and the 

allotments meeting land health standards (as articulated in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland 

Health Standards”) in sage-grouse areas will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in 

meeting the vegetation objectives for sage-grouse habitat set forth in the plan. The field 

office/ranger district will be responsible for collecting this data. In order for this data to be 

consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent methods, and an unbiased sampling 

framework will be implemented following the principles in the BLM’s AIM strategy (Taylor et 

al. 2014; Toevs et al. 2011; MacKinnon et al. 2011), in the BLM’s Technical Reference 

“Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et al. 2005), and in the HAF (Stiver et al. 

in press) or other approved WAFWA MZ–consistent guidance to measure and monitor sagegrouse habitats. This information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: Sage-grouse areas within the LUP that are 

achieving land health stands (or, if trend data are available, that are making progress toward 

achieving them)—particularly the Special Status Species/wildlife habitat land health standard— 

will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in achieving the habitat objectives set forth in 

the plan. Field offices will follow directions in “BLM Handbook 4180-1, Rangeland Health 

Standards,” to ascertain if sage-grouse areas are achieving or making progress toward achieving 

land health standards. One of the recommended criteria for evaluating this land health standard is 

the HAF indicators. 

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in sagegrouse areas identified in this LUP will be used to determine the LUP’s effectiveness in meeting 

the plan’s disturbance objectives. National datasets can be used to calculate the amount of 

disturbance, but field office data will likely increase the accuracy of this estimate. This 

information will be used to answer Question 3 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report. 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculating Question 4, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sage-grouse 

populations will be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available, 

and will be used to determine LUP effectiveness. This population data (Section I.C., Population 

[Demographics] Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 4 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report. 

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the LUP will be used to inform the need for 

finer-scale investigations, initiate adaptive management actions as described in the land use plan, 

initiate causation determination, and/or determine if changes to management decisions are 

warranted. The measures used at the broad and mid scales will provide a suite of characteristics 

for evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptive management strategy. 

II. FINE AND SITE SCALES 

Fine-scale (third-order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and 

geographic area within home ranges during breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this level, 

habitat suitability monitoring should address factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and 

movements between, seasonal use areas. The habitat monitoring at the fine and site scale (fourth 

order) should focus on indicators to describe seasonal home ranges for sage-grouse associated 

with a lek or lek group within a population or subpopulation area. Fine- and site-scale monitoring 

will inform LUP effectiveness monitoring (see Section I.D., Effectiveness Monitoring) and the 

hard and soft triggers identified in the LUP’s adaptive management section. 

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation 

characteristics of seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and 

height of sagebrush and the associated understory vegetation. They also include vegetation 

associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that 

may support sage-grouse habitat needs during different stages in their annual cycle. 

As described in the Conclusion (Section III), details and application of monitoring at the fine and 

site scales will be described in the implementation-level monitoring plan for the land use plan. 

The need for fine- and site-scale-specific habitat monitoring will vary by area, depending on 

proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Examples of 

fine- and site-scale monitoring include: habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current habitat 

conditions; monitoring and evaluation of the success of projects targeting sage-grouse habitat 

enhancement and/or restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to provide localized 

disturbance measures to inform proposed project review and potential mitigation for project 

impacts. Monitoring plans should incorporate the principles outlined in the BLM’s AIM strategy 

(Toevs et al. 2011) and in “AIM-Monitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and 

Monitoring Strategy” (Taylor et al. 2014). Approved monitoring methods are: 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011); 

	 The BLM’s Technical Reference “Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” 

(Pellant et al. 2005); and, 

	 “Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multiscale Assessment Tool” (Stiver 

et al. in press). 

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models include: the BLM’s Wyoming Density and 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (http://ddct.wygisc.org/) and the BLM’s White River Data 

Management System in development with the USGS. Population monitoring data (in cooperation 

with state wildlife agencies) should be included during evaluation of the effectiveness of actions 

taken at the fine and site scales. 

Fine- and site-scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are identified 

in the HAF. The HAF has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) sage-grouse guidelines as well 

as many of the core indicators in the AIM strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There may be a need to 

develop adjustments to height and cover or other site suitability values described in the HAF; 

any such adjustments should be ecologically defensible. To foster consistency, however, 

adjustments to site suitability values at the local scale should be avoided unless there is strong, 

scientific justification for making those adjustments. That justification should be provided. 

WAFWA MZ adjustments must be supported by regional plant productivity and habitat data for 

the floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site-scale indicators, they must be made 

using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat designation (breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, 

winter) collected from sage-grouse studies found in the relevant area and peer-reviewed by the 

appropriate wildlife management agency(ies) and researchers. 

When conducting land heath assessments, the BLM should follow, at a minimum, “Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health” (Pellant et. al. 2005) and the “BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators 

and Methods” (MacKinnon et al. 2011). For assessments being conducted in sage-grouse 

designated management areas, the BLM should collect additional data to inform the HAF 

indicators that have not been collected using the above methods. Implementation of the 

principles outlined in the AIM strategy will allow the data to be used to generate unbiased 

estimates of condition across the area of interest; facilitate consistent data collection and rollup 

analysis among management units; help provide consistent data to inform the classification and 

interpretation of imagery; and provide condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse habitat (see Section I.D., Effectiveness Monitoring). 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. CONCLUSION
 

This Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statements involved in the sage-grouse planning effort. As such, it 

describes the monitoring activities at the broad and mid scales and provides a guide for the BLM 

and the USFS to collaborate with partners/other agencies to develop the land use plan- specific 

monitoring plan. 

IV. THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUBTEAM 

MEMBERSHIP 

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) Robert Skorkowsky (USFS) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) Dalinda Damm (USFS) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) Rob Mickelsen (USFS) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) Tim Love (USFS) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) Pam Bode (USFS) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 

37 
38
 
 

 

LITERATURE CITED
 

Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski, 

C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: A proactive solution to reducing a 

key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167:233–241. 

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

Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sagegrouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf. 

Connelly, J.W., K.P. Reese, and M.A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse habitats and 

populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, University of Idaho, 

Moscow, ID. 

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967–985. 

Davies, K.W., C.S. Boyd, J.L. Beck, J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, and M.A. Gregg. 2011. Saving the 

sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush plant communities. Biological 

Conservation 144:2573–2584. 

Fry, J.A., G. Xian, S. Jin, J.A. Dewitz, C.G. Homer, L. Yang, C.A. Barnes, N.D. Herold, and J.D. 

Wickham. 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United 

States. PE&RS 77(9):858–864. 

Garton, E.O., J.W. Connelly, J.S. Horne, C.A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. Greater SageGrouse population dynamics and probability of persistence. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 293–382. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Grove, A.J., C.L. Wambolt, and M.R. Frisina. 2005. Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big sagebrush 

wildlife habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74–80. 

Gruell, G.E., J.K. Brown, and C.L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed fire opportunities in grasslands invaded by 

Douglas-fir: State-of-the-art guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 19pp. 

Harju, S.M., M.R. Dzialak, R.C. Taylor, L.D. Hayden-Wing, J.B. Winstead. 2010. Thresholds and time 

lags in effects of energy development on Greater Sage-Grouse populations. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 74(3):437–448. 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia Basin, USA. 

Conservation Biology 16:1243–1255. 

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

rangeland habitat modeling in southwest Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008– 

1027. 14pp. 

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

preference. Ecology 61:65–71. 

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

landscape species and its habitats. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, 

Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 383–405. Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Knick, S.T., S.E. Hanser, R.F. Miller, D.A. Pyke, M.J. Wisdom, S.P. Finn, E.T. Rinkes, and C.J. Henny. 

2011. Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 203–251. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. (2013, June – last update.) U.S. Department of 

the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. [Online.] Available at: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [2013, 

May 8]. 

Leu, M., and S.E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns: 

implications for sage-grouse conservation. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 253–271. Studies in Avian 

Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and J.E. Herrick. 2011. 

BLM core terrestrial indicators and methods. Tech Note 440. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

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

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

programs, and policies that influence the rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus): U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2013–1098. 170pp. 

40 
 

 

 

NatureServe. 2011. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial ecologicalclassifications. 

NatureServe Central Databases, Arlington, VA. Data current as of July 31, 2011. 

Ong, S., C. Campbell, P. Denholm, R. Margolis, and G. Heath. 2013. Land-use requirements for solar 

power plants in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy 

Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-56290. 39pp. Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf. 

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, 

version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Science and Technology Center, Denver, CO. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 122pp. 

Perry, J. Personal communication. February 12, 2014. 

Pyke, D.A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats, edited by S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, 531–548. 

Studies in Avian Biology, vol. 38. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 

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

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

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

Condor 106: 363–376. 

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

McCarthy, and M.A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage‐Grouse comprehensive conservation strategy. 

Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, WY. Available at 

http://www.wafwa.org/documents/pdf/GreaterSage-grouseConservationStrategy2006.pdf. 

Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl. In press. Sage-grouse 

habitat assessment framework: Multiscale habitat assessment tool. Bureau of Land Management and 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Technical Reference. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 

Taylor, J., E. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. 2014. AIMmonitoring: A component of the BLM assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy. Tech Note 445. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. 

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, M.R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land 

Management assessment, inventory, and monitoring strategy: For integrated renewable resources 

management. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 

Denver, CO. 

41 
 

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}. 

Published crop-specific data layer [online]. USDA-NASS, Washington, D.C. Available at 

http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/(accessed {DATE}; verified {DATE}). 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Handbook H-4180-1, 

Release 4-107. Rangeland health standards handbook. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook. 

Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Wind Energy Development 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). BLM Washington Office, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2011. BLM national Greater Sage-Grouse 

land use planning strategy. Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. BLM Washington Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 12-month findings for petitions to list the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

threatened or endangered. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 75: 13910–14014 (March 23, 2010). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) conservation objectives: Final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 

42 
Attachment A. An Overview of Monitoring Commitments 

Broad and Mid Scales Fine and Site 

Implemen- Sagebrush Habitat Scales 

Population Effectiveness tation Availability Degradation 

How will Track and Track changes Track changes in Track trends in Characterize the Measure seasonal 

the data be document in land cover disturbance sage-grouse relationship habitat, 

used? implementation (sagebrush) and (threats) to sage- populations among connectivity at 

ofland use plan inform adaptive grouse habitat (and/or leks; as disturbance, the fine scale, and 

decisions and management and inform determined by implementation habitat conditions 

inform adaptive adaptive state wildlife actions, and at the site scale, 

management management agencies) and sagebrush calculate 

inform adaptive metrics and disturbance, and 

management inform adaptive inform adaptive 

management management 

Who is BLMFOand NOC and NIFC National datasets State wildlife Comes from BLM FO and SO, 

collecting USFS Forest (NOC), BLM agencies other broad- and USFS Forests and 

the data? FOs, and USFS through mid-scale RO (with 

Forests as WAFWA monitoring partners) 

applicable types, analyzed 

by the NOC 

How often 

are the 

data 

collected, 

reported, 

and made 

available 

to 

USFWS? 

Collected and Updated and 

reported changes 

annually; reported 

summary report annually; 

every 5 years summary 

report every 5 

years 

Collected and State data 

changes reported reported 

annually; annually per 

summary report W AFW A 

every 5 years MOU; 

summary report 

every 5 years 

Collected and Collection and 

reported every 5 trend analysis 

years (coincident ongoing, reported 

with LUP every 5 years or 

evaluations) as needed to 

inform adaptive 

management 

What is Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Summarized by Variable (e.g., 

the spatial LUP with PACs (size PACs (size PACs (size MZ and LUP projects and 

scale? flexibility for dependent) dependent) with dependent) with flexibility seasonal habitats) 

reporting by with fl exibility flexibility for with flexibility for reporting by 

other units for reporting by reporting by for reporting by other units (e.g., 

other units other units other units PAC) 

What are Additional At a minimum, At a minimum, No additional Additional Additional 

the capacity or re­ current skills current skills and personnel or capacity or re- capacity or repotential prioritization of and capacity capacity must be budget impacts prioritization of prioritization of 

personnel ongoing must be maintained; data for the BLM or ongoing ongoing 

and budget monitoring maintained; management and the USFS monitoring work monitoring work 

impacts? work and data data layer and budget and budget 

budget management purchase cost are realignment realignment 

realignment costs are TBD TBD 

43 
Who has 1) BLMFO 1) NOC 1) NOC 1) WAFWA 1) Broad and 1) BLMFO& 

primary &SO; 2) wo 2) BLMSO, & state mid scale at USFS Forests 

and USFS USFSRO, wildlife theNOC, 2) BLMSO& 

secondary Forest & & agencies LUPat USFS RO 

responsi- RO appropriate 2) BLMSO, BLMSO, 

bilities for 2) BLM & programs USFSRO, USFSRO 

reporting? USFS NOC 

Planning 

What new National Updates to Data standards Standards in Reporting Data standards 

processes/ implementation national land and roll up population methodologies data storage; and 

tools are datasets and cover data methods for monitoring reporting 

needed? analysis tools these data (WAFWA) 

FO (field office); NIFC (National Interagency Fire Center); NOC (National Operations Center); RO 

(regional office); SO (state office); TBD (to be determined); WO (Washington Office) 

44 
Attachment B. User and Producer Accuracies for Aggregated Ecological Systems within LANDFIRE 

Map Zones 

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy 

Producer 

Accuracy 

% of Map Zone 

within Historical 

Schroeder 

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5% 

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4% 

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3% 

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3% 

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1% 

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9% 

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7% 

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8% 

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3% 

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5% 

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5% 

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8% 

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4% 

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3% 

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3% 

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3% 

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0% 

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6% 

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7% 

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 

45 
 

 

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies, attributable to no 

available reference data for the ecological systems of interest. 

User accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a class and 

determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I select any 

sagebrush pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand 

when I visit that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel in a class 

when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s accuracy). 

Producer accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions produced 

for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if I know that a 

particular area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that the digital 

map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to excluding a pixel that 

should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 1 – producer’s accuracy). 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment C. Sagebrush Species and Subspecies Included in the Selection Criteria for Building the 

EVT and BpS Layers 

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis 

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba 

 Artemisia bigelovii 

 Artemisia nova 

 Artemisia papposa 

 Artemisia pygmaea 

 Artemisia rigida 

 Artemisia spinescens 

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola 

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita 

 Tanacetum nuttallii 

 Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi 

 Artemisia cana subspecies cana 

 Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis 

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis 

 Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora 

 Artemisia frigida 

 Artemisia pedatifida 

47 
Appendix E 

Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-1 

APPENDIX E 

DISTURBANCE CAP CALCULATION METHOD

In the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for sage-grouse (75 FR 13910 2010), the USFWS identified 18 

threats contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the sage-grouse’s habitat or 

range. The 18 threats have been aggregated into three measures (Table E-1): 

• Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

• Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

• Density of Energy and Mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Habitat Degradation and Density of Energy and Mining will be evaluated under the Disturbance Cap and 

Density Cap, respectively, and are further described in this appendix. The three measures, in 

conjunction with other information, will be considered during the NEPA process for projects authorized 

or undertaken by the BLM. 

DISTURBANCE CAP

This land use plan has incorporated a 3% disturbance cap within Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Priority 

Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and the subsequent land use planning actions if the cap is met: 

If the 3% anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded, not to exceed 1% per decade, on lands 

(regardless of land ownership) within GRSG Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) in any given 

Oregon PAC, then no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject to applicable laws and 

regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, valid existing rights, etc.) will be 

permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMAs in any given Oregon PAC until the disturbance has been reduced 

to less than the cap.

If the 3% disturbance cap, not to exceed 1% per decade, is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land 

ownership) within a proposed project analysis area in a PHMA, then no further anthropogenic 

disturbance will be permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been 

reduced to maintain the area under the cap (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 

General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, valid existing rights, etc.).
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

E-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Table E-1 

Relationship Between the 18 Threats and the Three Habitat Disturbance Measures for 

Monitoring and Disturbance Calculations

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Energy and 

Mining 

Density

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities)

X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable 

developments) 

X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-way X

The disturbance cap applies to the PHMA within both Oregon Priority Areas for Conservation (Oregon 

PACs) and at the project authorization scale. For the Oregon PACs, west-wide habitat degradation 

(disturbance) data layers (Table E-2) will be used at a minimum to calculate the amount of disturbance 

and to determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded as the land use plans (LUP) are being 

implemented. Locally collected disturbance data will be used to determine if the disturbance cap has 

been exceeded for project authorizations, and may also be used to calculate the amount of disturbance 

in the Oregon PACs. Although locatable mine sites are included in the degradation calculation, mining 

activities under the 1872 mining law may not be subject to the 3% disturbance cap. Details about 

locatable mining activities will be fully disclosed and analyzed in the NEPA process to assess impacts to 

sage-grouse and their habitat as well as to BLM goals and objectives, and other BLM programs and 

activities.

Oregon PACs are based on current boundaries of ODFW Core Areas established in Hagen (2011). 

ODFW plans to update its Core Area maps as new information is obtained on winter habitat use, lek 

distribution, disturbance thresholds from various types of development, and success of mitigation 

measures (Hagen et al. 2011). These changes could affect Oregon PACs and measurements of 

anthropogenic disturbance. However, BLM does not anticipate ODFW will make substantial changes to 

Core Area boundaries.
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-3 

Table E-2 

Anthropogenic Disturbance Types for Disturbance Calculations

Data Sources are Described for the West-Wide Habitat Degradation Estimates

(Table copied from the GRSG Monitoring Framework)

Degradation Type Subcategory Data Source Direct Area 

of Influence 

Area 

Source

Energy (oil & gas) Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0ac (2.0ha) BLM WO300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral 

Resources Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/

Google 

Imagery 

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration 

3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power 

Plants 

Platts (power plants) 7.3ac 

(3.0ha)/MW 

NREL

Energy 

(geothermal) 

Wells IHS 3.0ac (1.2ha) BLM WO300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets 

(Minor Roads)1 

Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7ft (12.4m) USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0ft (25.6m) USGS

Interstate 

Highways 

Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2ft 

(73.2m) 

USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads) 

Active Lines Federal Railroad 

Administration 

30.8ft (9.4m) USGS

Infrastructure 

(power lines)

1-199kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100ft (30.5m) BLM WO300

200-399 kV 

Lines

Platts (transmission lines) 150ft (45.7m) BLM WO300

400-699kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 200ft (61.0m) BLM WO300

700+kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250ft (76.2m) BLM WO300

Infrastructure 

(communication) 

Towers Federal Communications 

Commission 

2.5ac (1.0ha) BLM WO300 1

Minor roads include transportation routes with maintenance level 3, 4, or 5 on BLM lands or its equivalent on 

non-BLM lands. 
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

E-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in an Oregon PAC and/or in a 

proposed project area are as follows: 

• For the Oregon PACs: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1) ÷ (acres 

of all lands within the PHMAs in an Oregon PAC) x 100. 

• For the Project Analysis Area: 

% Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats2 plus the 7 

site scale threats3) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMA in the project analysis area) x 

100. 

The denominator in the disturbance calculation formula consists of all acres of lands classified as PHMA 

within the analysis area (Oregon PAC or project area). Areas that are not sage-grouse seasonal habitats, 

or are not currently supporting sagebrush cover (e.g., due to wildfire), are not excluded from the acres 

of PHMA in the denominator of the formula. Information regarding sage-grouse seasonal habitats, 

sagebrush availability, and areas with the potential to support sage-grouse populations will be considered 

along with other local conditions that may affect sage-grouse during the analysis of the proposed project 

area. 

Agency Coordination

The BLM will cooperate with State of Oregon agencies to calculate baseline disturbance, develop a 

disturbance data base, and co-manage the disturbance cap to ensure BLM does not authorize new 

disturbance above the cap. The BLM will monitor disturbance and the adaptive management triggers 

identified in the Greater Sage-Grouse Adaptive Management Strategy (Appendix D).

Decadal Disturbance Cap 

Research indicates leks are absent from historic range with relatively low levels of anthropogenic 

development and infrastructure (Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; Knick et al. 2013). Because 

the level of disturbance at which leks are abandoned varies across the species range and cannot be 

accurately predicted, the rate of new disturbance permitted in Oregon PACs will be metered to allow 

for further research, support adaptive management, and provide incentives for restoration and recovery 

from non-anthropogenic impacts such as fire and invasive species. In the first 10 years of this metering 

approach, a maximum 1 percent new discretionary disturbance may be allowed in Oregon PACs with 

existing disturbance below 3 percent. After the initial 10-year period, and at 10-year intervals thereafter, 

additional 1 percent discretionary disturbance may be permitted in Oregon PACs. New discretionary 

disturbance on BLM administered lands will not be allowed to result in 3 percent or greater total 

disturbance within an Oregon PAC or project authorization area at any time. 

EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF DECADAL DISTURBANCE

In this example, the Oregon PAC contains 400,000 acres. Using the procedures described above, BLM 

calculates existing disturbance in the Oregon PAC, regardless of land ownership, totals 2,000 acres, or 

0.5 percent. To remain below the 3 percent disturbance cap, no more than 9,960 acres (2.49% of 

 

1

 See Table E-1 2 See Table E-1 3 See Table E-3
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-5 

400,000) of new surface disturbance may be allowed over the 30-year period. In the first ten year period 

(starting with the first new approved disturbance), up to 4,000 acres (1% of 400,000 acres) of new 

disturbance may be allowed in this Oregon PAC. 

A development is proposed in the Oregon PAC that would result in 1,000 acres of new disturbance. 

Since total disturbance in the PAC would remain below 3 percent, the BLM may consider this proposal. 

However, the proposed project also must not exceed the 3 percent disturbance cap at the projectanalysis level scale. If BLM approves the proposal, it may consider additional proposals for new 

disturbance in this PAC up to but not exceeding 3,000 acres in the first 10 years. In this example, 

maximum total surface disturbance at the end of the first decade would be 6,000 acres or 1.5 percent. 

At no time will the 3 percent total disturbance cap be exceeded within the Oregon PAC and within the 

project-analysis area. 

In the next 10-year period (beginning 10 years after the first approved new disturbance in the Oregon 

PAC), an additional 4,000 acres of new disturbance (1% of 400,000 acres) may be authorized. Maximum 

total surface disturbance by the end of the second decade would be 10,000 acres or 2.5 percent. In the 

final decade, no more than 1,960 acres or 0.49 percent new disturbance may be authorized to prevent 

total disturbance in this Oregon PAC from reaching 3.0 percent. 

At no point can BLM authorize discretionary disturbance that would result in more than 1 percent new 

disturbance in an Oregon PAC within a 10-year period, or authorize disturbance to exceed 3 percent in 

an Oregon PAC and project-analysis area, regardless of land ownership. If less than 1 percent new 

disturbance occurs in a 10-year period, disturbance will not exceed 1 percent in the following 10-year 

period (there is no “carry over”). Existing disturbance may be removed or reduced to provide 

“decision space” for authorizing new disturbance. For example, a utility provider could remove or 

relocate an existing power line to avoid Oregon PACs or co-locate the line with another existing line in 

the same Oregon PAC. Another example would be removing a communication tower, mine 

development, or redundant roadway. Treatments that restore natural vegetation to achieve GRSG 

habitat objectives also may reduce total surface disturbance.

DENSITY CAP

This land use plan has also incorporated a cap on the density of energy and mining facilities at an average 

of one facility per 640 acres in the PHMA in a project authorization area. If the disturbance density in

the PHMA in a proposed project area is on average less than 1 facility per 640 acres, the analysis will 

proceed through the NEPA process incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. If the 

disturbance density is greater than an average of 1 facility per 640 acres, the proposed project will either 

be deferred until the density of energy and mining facilities is less than the cap or co-located into 

existing disturbed areas (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law, valid 

existing rights, etc.). Facilities included in the density calculation (Table E-1) are:

• Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

• Energy (coal mines)

• Energy (wind towers)

• Energy (solar fields)

• Energy (geothermal)
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

E-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

• Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable developments)

PROJECT ANALYSIS AREA METHOD FOR PERMITTING SURFACE DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES

• Determine potentially affected occupied leks by placing a four mile boundary around the 

proposed area of physical disturbance related to the project. All occupied and pending leks 

located within the four mile project boundary and within PHMA will be considered affected 

by the project. 

• Next, place a four mile boundary around each of the affected leks. 

• The PHMA within the four mile lek boundary and the four mile project boundary creates 

the project analysis area for each individual project. If there are no occupied or pending leks 

within the four-mile project boundary, the project analysis area will be that portion of the 

four-mile project boundary within the PHMA. 

• Digitize all existing anthropogenic disturbances identified in Table E-2 and the 7 additional 

features that are considered threats to sage-grouse (Table E-3). Using 1 meter resolution 

NAIP imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if available. 

• Calculate percent existing disturbance using the formula above. If existing disturbance is less 

than 3% and the rate of increase per decade since implementing the cap is less than 1%, 

proceed to next step. If existing disturbance is greater than 3% and/or exceeds 1% increase 

per decade, defer the project.

• Add proposed project disturbance footprint area and recalculate the percent disturbance. If 

disturbance is less than 3% and less than 1% increase per decade, proceed to next step. If 

disturbance is greater than 3% and/or exceeds 1% increase per decade, defer project.

• Calculate the disturbance density of energy and mining facilities (listed above). If the 

disturbance density is less than 1 facility per 640 acres, averaged across project analysis area, 

proceed to the NEPA analysis incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. If the 

disturbance density is greater than 1 facility per 640 acres, averaged across the project 

analysis area, either defer the proposed project or co-locate it into existing disturbed area.

• If a project that would exceed the degradation cap or density cap cannot be deferred due to 

valid existing rights or other existing laws and regulations, fully disclose the local and 

regional impacts of the proposed action in the associated NEPA.
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-7 

Table E-3 

The Seven Site Scale Features Considered Threats to Sage-Grouse Included in the 

Disturbance Calculation for Project Authorizations

1. Coalbed Methane Ponds

2. Meteorological Towers

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure

5. Military Range Facilities & Infrastructure

6. Hydroelectric Plants

7. Recreation Areas Facilities and Infrastructure

Definitions:

1. Coalbed Methane and other Energy-related Retention Ponds – The footprint boundary will 

follow the fenceline and includes the area within the fenceline surrounding the impoundment. If the 

pond is not fenced, the impoundment itself is the footprint. Other infrastructure associated with the 

containment ponds (roads, well pads, etc.) will be captured in other disturbance categories.

2. Meteorological Towers – This feature includes long-term weather monitoring and temporary 

meteorological towers associated with short-term wind testing. The footprint boundary includes the 

area underneath the guy wires.

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (fence, road, etc.) 

and undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure (public and private) – The footprint boundary will 

follow the boundary of the airport or heliport and includes mowed areas, parking lots, hangars, 

taxiways, driveways, terminals, maintenance facilities, beacons and related features. Indicators of the 

boundary, such as distinct land cover changes, fences and perimeter roads, will be used to 

encompass the entire airport or heliport.

5. Military Range Facilities & Infrastructure – The footprint boundary will follow the outer edge 

of the disturbed areas around buildings and includes undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

6. Hydroelectric Plants – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (fence, road, etc.) and 

undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

7. Recreation Areas & Facilities – This feature includes all sites/facilities larger than 0.25 acres in 

size. The footprint boundary will include any undisturbed areas within the site/facility.
E. Disturbance Cap Calculation Method

E-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F 

Mitigation

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-1 

APPENDIX F 

MITIGATION

GENERAL

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 

ensure 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. 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).

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.

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. 

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 
F. Mitigation

F-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

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. 

As described in Chapter 2, 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 Record of Decision. BLM Oregon will ensure that coordination within with ODFW, 

USFWS, NRCS, and local government occurs through participation in the State of Oregon’s consistency 

review or similar process. This will occur prior to participation at the Team level to facilitate a 

coordinated proposal from Oregon to the Team. 

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. Resource Management Plans or 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 landuse authorizations; and,

– Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g. additional minimization 

best management practices) with regard to greater sage-grouse conservation.

• 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.
F. Mitigation

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-3 

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). 

 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. 

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 sage-grouse (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. 
F. Mitigation

F-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

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 sagegrouse 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. 

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.

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 

State-level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone or a Field Office), in collaboration with our 

partners (e.g. Federal, Tribal, and State agencies). 

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 thirdparty compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. 

The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect Federal lands.

OREGON SUB-REGION MITIGATION PROCEDURES

Introduction

The steps below identify a sequential screening process for review of proposed anthropogenic activities.

This process applies to all BLM authorizations including those proposed by applicants, as well as BLM 

originated proposals. The goal of the process is to provide a consistent approach regardless of the 

administrative location of the project and to ensure that authorization of these projects will not 

contribute to the decline of GRSG. 
F. Mitigation

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-5 

Step 1 

For applicant proposals: the screening process is initiated upon formal submittal of a proposal for 

authorization for use of BLM-administered lands. The actual documentation would include, at a 

minimum, a description of the location, size of the project, and timing of the disturbance and would be 

consistent with existing protocol and procedures for the specific type of use. BLM anticipates that third 

parties (e.g. rural electric cooperatives) would be submitting the proposals. 

For BLM proposals: the screening process would be incorporated into the NEPA analysis for the 

proposal. 

Step 2

Evaluate whether the proposal could be allowed as prescribed in the applicable RMP. For example, 

certain activities are prohibited in PHMA such as wind or solar energy development. If the proposal is an 

activity that is specifically prohibited, inform the submitter that the proposal is rejected since it is not 

consistent with the applicable RMP, regardless of the project design. 

In addition to consistency with program allocations, the GRSG RMP amendment identifies a limit on the 

amount of new discretionary disturbance that is allowed within an Oregon Priority Area for 

Conservation (Oregon PAC). If current disturbance within the affected unit exceeds this threshold, the 

project would be deferred until the amount of disturbance within the area has been reduced to the 

identified level. Similarly, if a population or habitat adaptive management trigger is reached; the 

proposed project may be deferred. 

Step 3

Determine if the project would have a direct or indirect impact on population or habitat (regardless of 

ownership). This can be done by: 

1. Reviewing habitat maps. 

2. Reviewing the Summary of science, activities, programs, and policies that influence the 

rangewide conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Manier, 2013) which identifies the area of 

direct and indirect effects for various anthropogenic activities.

3. Consultation with, USFWS, or State Agency wildlife biologist.

4. Reviewing the decisions in the plan amendments (such as required design features for the 

proposed activity).

5. Other methods acceptable to the BLM/authorized officer.

If the proposal will not have a direct or indirect impact on either the habitat or population, proceed 

with the appropriate process for review, decision, and implementation of the project.

Step 4

If the project could have a direct or indirect impact to sage-grouse habitat or population, evaluate 

whether the proposal can be relocated to not have the impact and still achieve the intent of the 

proposal. If the project can be relocated so as to not have an impact on sage-grouse and still achieve 

objectives of the proposal, inform applicant and proceed with the appropriate process for review, 

decision, and implementation of the relocated project.
F. Mitigation

F-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Step 5

For applicant proposals: If the preliminary review of the proposal concludes that there may be impacts 

to sage-grouse habitat and/or population, and the project cannot be effectively relocated to eliminate 

these impacts; evaluate whether the agency has the authority to modify or deny the project. If the 

agency does NOT have the discretionary authority to modify or deny the proposal, proceed with the 

authorization process (decision) and include appropriate mitigation requirements that minimize impacts 

to sage-grouse habitat and populations. Mitigation (to achieve a net conservation gain to sage-grouse) 

would be the financial responsibility of the applicant and could include a combination of actions such as 

timing of disturbance, design modifications of the proposal, site disturbance restoration, and 

compensatory mitigation actions. 

Step 6

If this is a BLM originated proposal or the agency has the discretionary authority to deny the applicant 

proposed project and after careful screening of the proposal (Steps 1-4) has determined that direct and 

indirect cannot be eliminated, evaluate the proposal to determine if the adverse impacts can be 

mitigated with a net conservation gain. If the impacts cannot be effectively mitigated to a net 

conservation gain, select the no action alternative for BLM proposals; for applicant proposals, reject or 

defer the proposal. The criteria for determining this situation would include but are not limited to:

• Disturbance within the Oregon PAC is substantial and allowing additional activities within 

the area would adversely impact the species (See habitat and population triggers in the 

adaptive management strategy). 

• The population or habitat trend within the Oregon PAC is down and allowing additional 

impacts, whether mitigated or not, could lead to further decline of the species or habitat

(See habitat and population triggers in the adaptive management strategy). 

• Monitoring or current research indicates the proposed mitigation is ineffective, insufficient,

or unproven.

• The additional impacts, after applying effective mitigation, would exceed the disturbance 

threshold for the Oregon PAC. 

• The project would impact habitat that has been determined, through monitoring, to be a 

limiting factor for species sustainability within the Oregon PAC. 

• Other site-specific criteria that determined the project would lead to a downward trend to 

the current species population or habitat with the Oregon PAC. 

If the project can be mitigated to provide for a net conservation gain to the species, as determined 

through coordination with ODFW and FWS, proceed with the design of the mitigation plan and 

authorization (through NEPA analysis and decision) of the project. The authorization process could 

identify issues that may require additional mitigation or denial/deferring of the project based on site 

specific impacts to the Greater Sage-grouse.

GLOSSARY TERMS

Additionality: The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and would 

not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project. (adopted and modified from BLM 

Manual Section 1794).
F. Mitigation

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-7 

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: The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation of 

impacted resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR 332), such as on-the-ground actions to 

improve and/or protect habitats (e.g. chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation 

easements). (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Compensatory mitigation sites: The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will 

occur. (adopted and modified from BLM Manual Section 1794).

Durability (protective and ecological): The maintenance of the effectiveness of a mitigation site and 

project for the duration of the associated impacts, which includes resource, administrative/legal, and 

financial considerations. (adopted and modified from 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 that remain after applying avoidance and minimization mitigation; also 

referred to as unavoidable impacts. 

Timeliness: The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory mitigation 

goals and objectives (BLM Manual Section 1794).
F. Mitigation

F-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix G 

Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-1 

APPENDIX G 

FLUID MINERAL LEASING STIPULATIONS

This appendix identifies surface stipulations for geothermal and oil and gas leasing referred to 

throughout this Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) and Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). These surface stipulations would also apply, where appropriate and practical, to other 

surface-disturbing activities and occupancy associated with land use authorizations, permits, and leases 

issued on BLM-administered lands. The stipulations would not apply to other activities and uses where 

they are contrary to laws, regulations, or policy for specific land use authorizations. The intent is to 

manage other activities and uses as consistently as possible with geothermal and oil and gas leasing.

Surface-disturbing activities are those that normally result in more than negligible disturbance to public 

lands. These activities normally involve disturbance to soils and vegetation to the extent that 

reclamation is required. They include the following:

• Use of mechanized earth-moving equipment

• Truck-mounted drilling equipment

• Geophysical exploration 

• Off-road vehicle travel in areas designated as limited or closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

use

• Placement of surface facilities, such as utilities, pipelines, structures, and oil and gas wells

• New road construction

• Use of pyrotechnics, explosives, and hazardous chemicals

Surface-disturbing activities would not include livestock grazing, cross-country hiking, driving on 

designated routes, and minimum impact filming permits.

DESCRIPTION OF SURFACE STIPULATIONS

Table G-1 shows the stipulations for the approved plan, including exceptions, modifications, and 

waivers. Three surface stipulations could be applied to land use authorizations: 
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

G-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

• No surface occupancy (NSO)

• Timing limitations (TL)

• Controlled surface use (CSU) 

All stipulations for other resources, besides GRSG, included in the existing land use plans would still be 

applicable.

Areas identified as NSO would be closed to surface-disturbing activities for fluid minerals. 

Areas identified as TL would be closed to surface-disturbing activities during identified time frames. TL 

areas would be open to operational and maintenance activities, including associated vehicle travel, during 

the closed period unless otherwise specified in the stipulation. 

Areas identified as CSU would require proposals to be authorized only according to the controls or 

constraints specified. The controls would be applicable to all surface-disturbing activities. 

EXCEPTIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WAIVERS

Surface stipulations could be excepted, modified, or waived by the BLM Authorized Officer. An 

exception exempts the holder of the land use authorization document from the stipulation on a onetime basis. A modification changes the language or provisions of a surface stipulation, either temporarily 

or permanently. A waiver permanently exempts the surface stipulation. 

The environmental analysis document prepared for site-specific proposals, such as geothermal and oil 

and gas development (i.e., applications for permit to drill [APD] or sundry notices), also would need to 

address proposals to exempt, modify, or waive a surface stipulation. This would require the 

environmental analysis document to show that the following:

• That the circumstances or relative resource values in the area had changed following 

issuance of the lease

• That less restrictive requirements could be developed to protect the resource of concern

• That operations could be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS

All surface-disturbing activities are subject to standard terms and conditions. These include the 

stipulations that are required for proposed actions in order to comply with the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Standard terms and conditions for geothermal and oil and gas leasing provide for relocation of 

proposed operations up to 200 meters and for prohibiting surface-disturbing operations for a period not 

to exceed 60 days. The stipulations addressed in Table G-1 that are within the parameters of 200 

meters and 60 days are considered open to geothermal and oil and gas leasing subject to standard terms 

and conditions.
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-3 

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

NSO within sagebrush focal areas 

(SFA)

Purpose: To maintain and enhance SFA to achieve the desired 

conditions of maintaining a minimum of 70% of lands capable of 

producing sagebrush with 10 to 30% sagebrush cover. The 

attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in 

Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (BLM Tech Ref 1734-

6) and Table 2-2. In accordance with its October 27, 2014, 

memorandum, the USFWS identifies areas that represent 

recognized strongholds for GRSG that have been noted by the 

conservation community as having the highest densities of GRSG 

and other criteria important for the persistence of the species.

Exception: None 

Waiver: None

Modification: None 

NSO in PHMA Purpose: To protect key seasonal habitat, life history

requirements, or behavioral needs of GRSG near leks from 

habitat fragmentation and loss and GRSG populations from 

disturbance inside priority habitat areas and connectivity habitat 

areas 

Exception: The BLM Authorized Officer may grant an 

exception to a fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation only where 

the proposed action: 

(i) Would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on 

GRSG or its habitat or 

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar 

action occurring on a nearby parcel and would provide a 

clear conservation gain to GRSG

Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be 

considered in (a) PHMAs of mixed ownership where federal 

minerals underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface or 

(b) areas of the public lands where the proposed exception is an 

alternative to an action occurring on a nearby parcel subject to a 

valid federal fluid mineral lease existing as of the date of this 

ARMPA. Exceptions based on conservation gain must also 

include such measures as enforceable institutional controls and 

buffers, sufficient to allow the BLM to conclude that such 

benefits would last for the duration of the proposed action’s 

impacts. 

The BLM Authorized Officer may approved any exceptions to 

this lease stipulation but only with the concurrence of the State

Director. The BLM Authorized Officer may not grant an 

exception unless the ODFW, the USFWS, and the BLM 
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

G-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

unanimously find that the proposed action satisfies (i) or (ii)

above. Such finding would initially be made by a team of one 

GRSG expert from each respective agency. In the event the 

initial finding is not unanimous, it may be elevated to the BLM 

State Director, the USFWS State Ecological Services Director, 

and the ODFW Director for final resolution. In the event their 

finding is not unanimous, the exception would not be granted.

Approved exceptions would be made publically available at least 

quarterly.

Modification: None 

Waiver: None

No surface disturbance within one 

mile of a pending or occupied lek in 

GHMA. 

Purpose: To protect GRSG leks and the life history needs of 

GRSG near the lek from habitat loss and GRSG populations from 

disturbance inside and out of GHMA

Exception: The BLM Authorized Officer may grant an 

exception, in coordination with the ODFW, during project 

implementation and if BMPs (e.g., anti-perch devices for raptors) 

are implemented. 

Modification: None 

Waiver: The BLM Field Manager may waive application of the 

above use restrictions and meeting objectives within general 

habitat if off-site mitigation were successfully completed in 

priority habitat or opportunity areas, following discussions with 

the BLM and ODFW. Even in situations where use restrictions 

are waived in general habitat, to avoid direct disturbance or 

mortality of GRSG, disturbances would not be approved during 

the sensitive seasons. 

NSO in areas outside of PHMA but 

within one mile of a pending or 

occupied lek, when the lek is in 

PHMA

Purpose: To protect occupied GRSG leks and the life-history 

needs of GRSG near the lek from habitat loss, GRSG from 

disturbance inside and out of priority habitat areas, and PHMA 

leks when they occur near PHMA boundary

Exception: The BLM Authorized Officer may grant an 

exception to a fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation only where 

the proposed action: 

(i) Would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on 

GRSG or its habitat or 

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar 

action occurring on a nearby parcel and would provide a 

clear conservation gain to GRSG

Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may be considered 

only in (a) PHMAs of mixed ownership where federal minerals 
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-5 

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

underlie less than fifty percent of the total surface or (b) on

public lands where the proposed exception is an alternative to 

an action on a nearby parcel subject to a valid federal fluid 

mineral lease as of the date of this ARMPA. Exceptions based on 

conservation gain must also include such measures as 

enforceable institutional controls and buffers sufficient to allow 

the BLM to conclude that such benefits will last for the duration 

of the proposed action’s impacts. 

Any exceptions to this lease stipulation may be approved by the

BLM Authorized Officer only with the concurrence of the State 

Director. The BLM Authorized Officer may not grant an 

exception unless the ODFW, the USFWS, and the BLM 

unanimously find that the proposed action satisfies (i) or (ii)

above. Such finding would initially be made by a team of one 

GRSG expert from each respective agency. In the event the 

initial finding is not unanimous, the finding may be elevated to the 

BLM State Director, the USFWS State Ecological Services 

Director, and the ODFW Director for final resolution. In the 

event their finding is not unanimous, the exception would not be 

granted. Approved exceptions would be made publically available 

at least quarterly.

Modification: None 

Waiver: None

Required design features (RDFs) RDFs for fluid minerals, as found in Appendix C, would be 

applied during the permitting process, unless at least one of the 

following can be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated 

with the specific project:

• A specific design feature is documented to not be applicable 

to the site-specific conditions of the project or activity

• A proposed design feature or BMP is determined to 

provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat

• Analysis shows that following a specific feature would

provide no more protection to GRSG or its habitat than 

not following it, for the specific project being proposed

GHMA beyond 1 mile of an 

occupied lek, if the lek is within 

general habitat, would be designated 

as open to oil and gas leasing subject 

to CSU stipulations and the 

following timing stipulations: 

• Winter habitat from 

November 1 to February 28

See Exceptions, Modifications, and Waivers below.
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

G-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

• Breeding, nesting, and earlybrood-rearing habitat from 

March 1 to June 30

• Brood rearing/summer habitat 

from July 1 to October 31

Where lease surface development is 

allowed within GHMA, development 

could occur only if it adheres to the 

following controlled surface use 

stipulations: 

• The development meets noise 

restrictions (noise at occupied 

lek less than 10 decibels above 

ambient sound levels from 2 

hours before to 2 hours after 

sunrise and sunset during 

breeding season)

• The development meets tall 

structure restrictions (e.g., tall 

structures are any man-made 

structure within GHMA that 

could disrupt lekking or 

nesting birds by creating 

perching or nesting 

opportunities for predators 

(e.g., raptors and ravens) or 

decrease the use of an area by 

GRSG) 

• Operators must submit a sitespecific plan of development 

for roads, wells, pipelines, and 

other infrastructure before any 

development is authorized; this 

plan should outline how 

development on the lease 

would limit habitat 

fragmentation 

GHMA within and beyond the 1-mile 

NSO area would require 

coordination with the ODFW during 

project and BMP implementation. 

GHMA beyond 1-mile NSO; 

Winter Habitat TL: No surface 

Purpose: To seasonally protect winter GRSG habitat from 
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-7 

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

disturbance allowed between 

November 1 and February 28

disruptive activity in GHMA

Exception: The BLM Field Manager could grant exceptions to 

the seasonal restrictions and use restrictions if the project plan 

and NEPA document demonstrate that impacts from the 

proposed action can be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: Additionally, the BLM Field Manager may modify 

the seasonal restrictions and use restrictions under the following 

conditions:

• If portions of the area do not include winter habitat 

(lacking the principle habitat components of winter GRSG 

habitat, as defined in GRSG habitat indicators Table 2-2) 

or are outside the current defined winter habitat area, as 

determined by the BLM in discussion with the ODFW, and 

indirect impacts would be mitigated

• If documented local variations (e.g., higher or lower 

elevations) or annual climate fluctuations (e.g., early or late 

spring, long or heavy winter) reflect a need to change the 

given dates to better protect GRSG in a given area and the 

proposed activity would not take place beyond the season 

being excepted

Waiver: None

GHMA beyond 1-mile NSO: 

Breeding, Nesting, and Early 

Brood-Rearing Habitat TL—No 

surface disturbance allowed between 

March 1 and June 30

Purpose: To seasonally protect breeding, nesting, and early 

brood-rearing GRSG habitat from disruptive activity in GHMA 

Exception: The BLM Field Manager could grant exceptions to 

the seasonal and use restrictions under the following conditions:

• If surveys determine there are no active or occupied leks 

within 4 miles of the proposed project during the year 

(based on ODFW lek survey protocol) and the proposed 

activity would not take place beyond the season being 

excepted

• If the project plan and NEPA document demonstrate that 

impacts from the proposed action could be adequately 

mitigated 

Modification: Additionally, the BLM Field Manager may modify 

the seasonal and use restrictions under the following conditions:

• If portions of the area do not include habitat (lacking the 

principle components of GRSG habitat, as defined in the 

GRSG habitat indicators Table 2-2) or are outside the 

current defined breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing

habitat area, as determined by the BLM in discussion with 

the ODFW, and indirect impacts would be mitigated
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

G-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

• If documented local variations (e.g., higher or lower 

elevations) or annual climate fluctuations (e.g., early or late 

spring, long or heavy winter) reflect a need to change the 

given dates in order to better protect GRSG in a given 

area and the proposed activity would not take place 

beyond the season being excepted

Waiver: None

GHMA beyond 1-mile NSO: BroodRearing and Summer Habitat 

TL—No surface disturbance 

allowed between July 1 and October 

31

Purpose: To seasonally protect brood-rearing and summer 

GRSG habitat from disruptive activity in GHMA

Exception: The BLM Field Manager could grant exceptions to 

the seasonal and use restrictions under the following conditions:

• If surveys determine there are no active or occupied leks 

within 4 miles of the proposed project during the year 

(based on ODFW lek survey protocol) and the proposed 

activity would not take place beyond the season being 

excepted

• If the project plan and NEPA document demonstrate that 

impacts from the proposed action could be adequately 

mitigated 

Modification: Additionally, the BLM Field Manager may modify 

the seasonal and use restrictions under the following conditions:

• If portions of the area do not include habitat (lacking the 

principle components of GRSG habitat, as defined in the 

GRSG habitat indicators Table 2-2) or are outside the 

current defined breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing

habitat area, as determined by the BLM in discussion with 

the ODFW, and indirect impacts would be mitigated

• If documented local variations (e.g., higher or lower 

elevations) or annual climate fluctuations (e.g., early or late 

spring, long or heavy winter) reflect a need to change the 

given dates in order to better protect GRSG in a given 

area and the proposed activity would not take place 

beyond the season being excepted 

Waiver: None

• Surface-disturbing activities 

within GHMA would require 

coordination with the ODFW

during project and BMP 

implementation. 

Purpose: To minimize disturbance to GRSG within GHMA

Exception: None 

Modification: None 

Waiver: The BLM Field Manager could waive application of the 

above use restrictions and meeting objectives within GHMA if 

off-site mitigation were successfully completed in priority habitat 
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-9 

Table G-1 

Fluid Mineral Stipulations and Exceptions, Modifications, and Waiver Criteria of This 

ARMPA

Stipulation Stipulation Description

or opportunity areas, following discussion with the BLM and 

ODFW. Even in situations where use restrictions are waived in 

general habitat, to avoid direct disturbance and mortality of 

birds, disturbances would not be approved during the sensitive 

seasons.
G. Fluid Mineral Leasing Stipulations

G-10 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix I 

Sage-grouse Plant List

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment I-1 

APPENDIX I 

SAGE-GROUSE PLANT LIST

Table I-1 

Native Plant Species Important for Greater Sage-grouse in Oregon

Family Common name Latin name Lifeform Food or Cover

Amaranthaceae Nuttall monolepis Monolepis nuttalliana Forb Food

Amaranthaceae Dwarf monolepis M. pusilla Forb Food

Apiaceae Biscuitroot Lomatium cous Forb Food

Apiaceae Donnell’s desert parsely L. donnellii Forb Food

Apiaceae Bigseed biscuitroot L. macrocarpum Forb Food

Apiaceae Nineleaf biscuitroot L. triternatum Forb Food

Asteraceae Common yarrow Achillea millefolium Forb Food

Asteraceae Mountain dandelion Agoseris glauca Forb Food

Asteraceae Annual agroseris A. heterophylla Forb Food

Asteraceae Pearly everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea Forb Food

Asteraceae Low pussytoes Antennaria dimorpha Forb Food

Asteraceae Narrow-leaved pussytoes A. stenophylla Forb Food

Asteraceae Long-leaved aster Aster ascendens Forb Food

Asteraceae Hairy balsamroot Balsamorhiza hookeri Forb Food and cover

Asteraceae Arrowleaf balsamroot B. sagittata Forb Food and cover

Asteraceae Rough eyelashweed Blepharipappus scaber Forb Food

Asteraceae Long-leaved hawksbeard Crepis acuminata Forb Food

Asteraceae Slender hawksbeard C. atribarba Forb Food

Asteraceae Modoc hawksbeard C. modocensis Forb Food

Asteraceae Western hawksbeard C. occidentalis Forb Food

Asteraceae Hoary aster Dieteria canescens Forb Food

Asteraceae Foothill daisy Erigeron corymbosus Forb Food

Asteraceae Threadleaf fleabane E. filifolius Forb Food

Asteraceae Desert daisy E. linearis Forb Food

Asteraceae Shaggy daisy E. pumilus Forb Food

Asteraceae Curlycup gumweed Grindelia squarrosa Forb Food

Asteraceae Nodding microseris Microseris nutans Forb Food

Asteraceae Sagebrush false dandelion Nothocalais troximoides Forb Food
I. Sage-grouse Plant List

I-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table I-1 

Native Plant Species Important for Greater Sage-grouse in Oregon

Family Common name Latin name Lifeform Food or Cover

Boraginaceae Leafy bluebells Mertensia longiflora Forb Food

Boraginaceae Sagebrush bluebells M. oblongifolia Forb Food

Fabaceae Threadstalk milk vetch Astragalus filipes Forb Food

Fabaceae Freckled milk vetch A. lentiginosus Forb Food

Fabaceae Arcane milk vetch A. obscurus Forb Food

Fabaceae Wooly pod milk vetch A. purshii Forb Food

Fabaceae Western prairie-clover Dalea ornata Forb Food

Fabaceae Velvet lupine Lupinus leucophyllus Forb Food and Cover

Fabaceae Rock lupine L. polyphyllus var. saxosus Forb Food and cover

Fabaceae Silky lupine L. sericeus Forb Food and cover

Fabaceae Big-head clover Trifolium macrocephalum Forb Food

Liliaceae Green-banded mariposa Calochortus macrocarpus Forb Food

Linaceae Western blue flax Linum lewisii Forb Food

Malvaceae Gooseberry-leaved 

globemallow

Sphaeralcea grossularifolia Forb Food and cover

Malvaceae Scarlet globemallow S. munroana Forb Food and cover

Orobanchaceae Violet desert paintbrush Castilleja angustifolia Forb Food

Orobanchaceae Desert paintbrush C. chromosa Forb Food

Phrymaceae Dwarf monkeyflower Mimulus nanas Forb Food

Plantaginaceae Giant Blue-eyed mary Collinsia grandiflora Forb Food

Plantaginaceae Blue-eyed mary C. parviflora Forb Food

Polemoniaceae Harkness gilia Linanthus harknessii Forb Food

Polemoniaceae Annual phlox Phlox gracilis Forb Food

Polemoniaceae Longleaf phlox P. longifolia Forb Food

Polygonaceae Creamy buckwheat Eriogonum heracleoides Forb Food

Polygonaceae Round-headed desert 

buckwheat

E. sphaerocephalum Forb Food

Polygonaceae Thyme buckwheat E. thymoides Forb Food

Ranunculaceae Sagebrush buttercup Ranunculus glaberrimus Forb Food

Poaceae Indian ricegrass Achnatherum hymenoides Grass Cover

Poaceae Thurber needlegrass A. thurberianum Grass Cover

Poaceae Bottlebrush squirreltail Elymus elymoides Grass Cover

Poaceae Slender wheatgrass E. trachycaulus Grass Cover

Poaceae Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis Grass Cover

Poaceae Needle and thread grass Heterostipa comata Grass Cover

Poaceae June grass Koeleria micrantha Grass Cover

Poaceae Great basin wildrye Leymus cinereus Grass Cover

Poaceae Western wheatgrass Pascopyrum smithii Grass Cover

Poaceae Sandberg’s bluegrass Poa secunda Grass Cover

Poaceae Blue bunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Grass Cover

Poaceae Hair dropseed Sporobolus airoides Grass Cover

Poaceae Sand dropseed S. cryptandrus Grass Cover

Amaranthaceae Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens Shrub Cover

Amaranthaceae Shadscale A. confertifolia Shrub Cover

Amaranthaceae Black greasewood Sarcobatus vermiculatus Shrub Cover
I. Sage-grouse Plant List

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment I-3 

Table I-1 

Native Plant Species Important for Greater Sage-grouse in Oregon

Family Common name Latin name Lifeform Food or Cover

Asteraceae Low sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Silver sagebrush A. cana Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Black sagebrush A. nova Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Fuzzy sagebrush A. papposa Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Scabland sagebrush A. rigida Shrub Food and Cover

Asteraceae Basin big sagebrush A. tridentata spp. tridentata Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Mountain big sagebrush A. t. spp. vaseyana Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Wyoming big sagebrush A. t. spp. wyomingensis Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Threetip sagebrush A. tripartita Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Gray rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa Shrub Food and cover

Asteraceae Lanceleaf rabbitbrush E. viscidiflora Shrub Food and cover

Rosaceae Curl-leaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius Shrub Cover

Rosaceae Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata Shrub Cover

Barnett, J. K. 1992. “Diet and nutrition of female sage grouse during the pre-laying period.” Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis.

Barnett, J. K., and J. A. Crawford. 1994. “Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon.” Journal of Range Management

47:114-118. 

Dahlgren, D. 2007. “Adult and Juvenile Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal Diet Selection.” Utah State University unpublished paper. 

March 2007.

Klebenow, D. A., and G. M. Gray. 1968. “Food habits of juvenile sage grouse.” Journal of Range Management 21(2):80-83. 

Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford. 1994. “Diets and food selection of sage grouse chicks in Oregon.” Journal of Range 

Management 47(1):90-93. 

Drut, M. S., J. A. Crawford, and M. A. Gregg. 1994. “Brood habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon.” Great Basin Naturalist

54(2):170-176. 

Dunn, P. O., and C. E. Braun. 1986. “Summer habitat use by adult female and juvenile sage grouse.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 50(2):228-235. 

Gregg, M. A., J. K. Barnett, and J. A. Crawford. 2008. “Temporal variation in diet and nutrition of preincubating greater sagegrouse.” Rangeland Ecology & Management 61(5):535-542. 

Huwer, S. L. 2004. “Evaluating greater sage grouse brood habitat using human imprinted chicks.” Thesis, Department of Fishery 

and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University,Fort Collins. 

Martin, N. S. 1970. “Sagebrush control related to habitat and sage grouse occurrence.” Journal of Wildlife Management 34(2):313-

320. 

McDowell, M. K. D. 2000. “The Effects of burning in mountain big sagebrush on key sage grouse habitat characteristics in 

southeastern Oregon.” Thesis, Oregon State University, Covallis.

Nelle, P. J., K. P. Reese, and J. W. Connelly. 2000. “Long-term effects of fire on sage grouse habitat.” Journal of Range 

Management 53(6):586-591. 

Peterson, J. G. 1970. “The food habits and summer distribution of juvenile sage grouse in central Montana.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 34(1):147-155. 

Remington, T. E., and C. E. Braun. 1985. “Sage grouse food selection in winter, North Park, Colorado.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 49(4):1055-1061. 

Wallstead, R. O. 1971. “Summer movements and habitat use by sage grouse broods in central Montana.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 35(1): 129-136. 
I. Sage-grouse Plant List

I-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix J 

Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-1 

APPENDIX J 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Adaptive management is a process that promotes flexible resource management decision-making that 

can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events 

become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps with adjusting resource management directions. 

Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological 

resilience and productivity. It is not a trial and error process, but rather emphasizes learning while 

doing. It is not an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. 

On February 1, 2008, the Department of the Interior published its Adaptive Management 

Implementation Policy (522 DM 1) and in 2009 a technical guide (Williams et al. 2009). The adaptive 

management strategy in this EIS complies with this policy and direction. 

In relation to the BLM and Forest Service’s National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy (BLM 2012), 

adaptive management will help identify if GRSG conservation measures in this EIS contain the needed 

level of certainty for effectiveness. Incorporating principles of adaptive management into the 

conservation measures in this plan amendment increases the likelihood that the conservation measures 

will be effective in reducing threats to GRSG. 

The following provides the adaptive management strategy for the Oregon Subregion RMP Amendment. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

The overarching goal for this RMP amendment is to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and 

distribution by conserving, enhancing, or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem on which populations 

depend, in cooperation with other landowners and partners. This strategy has two overarching 

objectives: 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

• Habitat—Seventy percent of the landscape within each Oregon PAC1 that is capable of 

supporting sagebrush has at least five percent sagebrush canopy cover2 and less than five 

percent tree canopy cover. The remaining 30 percent can include areas of juniper 

encroachment, non-sagebrush shrubland, and grassland that should be managed to increase 

available habitat within GRSG range. 

• Population—GRSG population trends within Oregon PACs as indicated by counts of males 

at lek complexes are stable or growing.3 

Project-level effects analysis will identify an individual project’s contribution toward either objective and 

whether a given project, as initially designed, would fail to meet either the habitat or population 

objective above, thus tripping an adaptive management trigger. When an individual project would trip a 

trigger, the project proponent should consider modifying the project to avoid tripping the trigger, 

dropping the project, or providing mitigation to address the trigger along with justification for why the 

project should proceed.

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT THRESHOLDS (TRIGGERS) 

Adaptive management triggers are essential for identifying when potential management changes are 

needed to continue meeting GRSG conservation objectives. The BLM will use soft triggers and hard 

triggers for specific populations and responses. These triggers are not specific to any particular project 

but identify habitat and population thresholds.

Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold, indicating that management changes are needed at the 

implementation level to address habitat or population losses. If a soft trigger is tripped, the BLM would

apply more conservative or restrictive implementation (project-level) conservation measures to mitigate 

for the causes of the decline of populations or habitats, with consideration of local knowledge and 

conditions. 

These types of adjustments would be made to reduce the likelihood of tripping a hard trigger, which 

signals more severe habitat loss or population declines. While there should be no expectation of hitting 

a hard trigger, if unforeseen circumstances were to occur that trip either a habitat or population hard 

trigger, more restrictive management would be required.

Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate and more restrictive plan-level action is 

necessary to stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the resource 

management plan amendment. What follows are the adaptive management hard and soft triggers 

(thresholds). 

 

1 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with the SageCon Partnership, grouped the PACs within 

a WAFWA population initially created by the USFWS (2013a) into 20 individual units and gave each a unique 

name. The BLM Oregon refers to these units as Oregon PACs. 2 While minimum sagebrush cover for productive GRSG habitat is 10 percent (Connelly et al. 2000), the vegetation 

and habitat management objective is based on providing sagebrush structural classes 3, 4, and 5 (Karl and Sadowski 

2005; Hagen 2011). Class 3 is greater than 5 percent to 15 percent sagebrush canopy cover. 3 For smaller Oregon PACs, the only applicable scale may be the entire PAC. For larger Oregon PACs, both scales 

may apply.
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-3 

Habitat Trigger Thresholds 

Two critical thresholds have been defined, based on GRSG response to the amount of sagebrush in the 

landscape (Chambers et al. 2014b), as follows: 

• Soft trigger—When the area with at least 5 percent sagebrush canopy cover and less than 5 

percent tree canopy cover (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013) drops below 65 percent of the 

sagebrush capable area within an individual Oregon PAC but remains above 30 percent (see 

also Figure 2-3) 

• Hard trigger—When the area with at least 5 percent sagebrush canopy cover and less than 

5 percent tree cover drops below 30 percent of the sagebrush capable area within an 

individual Oregon PAC or when the area supporting at least 5 percent sagebrush canopy 

cover and less than 5 percent tree cover drops 5 percent or more in one year in the 

sagebrush capable area of an Oregon PAC (see also Figure 2-3) 

The above percentages are based on the area within each Oregon PAC that is capable of producing a 

sagebrush plant community, such as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), low sagebrush (A. arbuscula), silver 

sagebrush (A. cana), threetip sagebrush (A. tripartita), black sagebrush (A. nova) and stiff sagebrush (A. rigida) 

community types. Other plant community types within each Oregon PAC, such as salt desert scrub, 

mountain brush, aspen, marsh, and historical juniper woodland, are not included in the calculations.

Table J-1 lists the percentage of each Oregon PAC that currently supports sagebrush cover equal to or 

greater than 5 percent and tree cover less than 5 percent. These data were derived from two datasets 

developed by the Integrated Landscape Analysis Program (ILAP 2013). Current vegetation is derived 

from 2011/2013 Landsat Thematic Mapper data, updated with information obtained from newer, postfire plots and imagery, including the large areas burned in 2012. 

Potential vegetation types developed from state-and-transition models include burned areas, juniper 

encroachment, crested wheatgrass plantings, agriculture, and other vegetation types capable of 

supporting sagebrush but not currently suitable for GRSG.

Population Trigger Thresholds

The BLM based the population thresholds on both interannual changes and a five-year running mean in 

the estimated minimum number of males. It used the state-provided data on lek counts and procedures 

similar to what the ODFW uses to fill in missing data and to estimate the minimum number of male 

birds each year (see Population Analysis Process for a detailed description). 

Although the ODFW has GRSG population estimates as far back as the 1940s (Hagen 2011, p. 18), only 

a small number of leks were monitored prior to the 1980s. Monitored leks did not exceed 100 until the 

1990s and now approach 300 leks or lek complexes per year. By the mid-1990s, the ODFW considered 

the data robust enough to calculate five-year running means. Data quantity and quality are sufficient to 

calculate this for most Oregon PACs, although data remain limited for a small number of Oregon PACs. 

Available data for the Burns PAC is too sparse to draw any conclusions about current populations or 

population trends. The Louse Canyon and Trout Creeks PACs do not have enough data to develop fiveyear running means, requiring that the BLM use only a limited level of interannual change to assess 

population status. As a result, the BLM developed a special hard trigger based on annual population 

trends for these two PACs. 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table J-1 

Acres and Percent of Existing and Potential Sage-grouse Habitat in Oregon PACs as of 2014

Oregon 

PAC

Existing Habitat Acres Potential Habitat Acres Total 

Habitat 

Acres

Total 

PAC 

Acres BLM Other Percent BLM Other Percent

12 Mile 113,751 220,890 83.2 25,643 41,866 16.8 402,149 431,001

Baker 89,980 153,279 75.9 20,807 56,627 24.1 320,693 336,539

Beatys 496,470 262,261 93.2 24,944 30,228 6.8 813,903 840,792

Brothers/N 

Wagontire

164,003 71,370 86.5 18,463 18,382 13.5 272,218 293,461

Bully Creek 145,164 48,232 73.1 51,895 19,281 26.9 264,571 279,854

Burns 13,440 8,684 68.4 6,621 3,619 31.6 32,364 35,769

Cow Lakes 115,916 33,176 62.1 67,007 24,057 37.9 240,156 249,732

Cow Valley 71,242 229,366 83.2 16,003 44,823 16.8 361,433 368,615

Crowley 314,003 82,832 81.7 68,787 20,107 18.3 485,730 491,050

Drewsey 146,114 103,072 74.4 43,038 42,677 25.6 334,901 368,707

Dry Valley/

Jack Mtn.

323,954 11,111 75.1 102,374 8,737 24.9 446,175 449,389

Folly Farm/

Saddle Butte

129,440 29,802 68.5 58,442 14,696 31.5 232,381 251,558

Louse 

Canyon

475,389 28,097 71.4 192,900 8,930 28.6 705,317 707,150

Picture 

Rock

28,084 3,416 84.7 4,828 870 15.3 37,199 42,592

Pueblos/

S Steens

126,359 53,502 87.5 15,844 9,844 12.5 205,549 208,793

Soldier 

Creek

166,261 46,270 73.5 59,775 16,667 26.5 288,973 295,424

Steens 80,322 26,415 64.3 53,004 6,323 35.7 166,064 185,730

Trout 

Creeks 

195,719 17,428 62.1 120,114 10,052 37.9 343,312 358,167

Tucker Hill 14,985 12,229 89.5 1,027 2,159 10.5 30,401 31,531

Warners 199,202 54,354 80.4 42,391 19,568 19.6 315,515 330,088

Total 3,409,798 1,495,787 77.9 993,906 399,513 22.1 6,299,004 6,555,941

Source: ILAP 2013

The hard and soft trigger thresholds calculated using data through 2014 will remain fixed for a minimum 

of five years. After that, the BLM, ODFW, and USFWS will evaluate whether these values should be 

recalculated and new thresholds established. Establishing new thresholds may require a plan amendment.

Based on observed fluctuations in both annual population and the five-year running mean of population

(Figure J-1), the following soft and hard triggers have been defined:

• Soft trigger (all PACs)

– Annual population drops by 40 percent or greater in a single year OR

– Annual population drops by 10 percent or greater for three consecutive years OR
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-5 

– The five-year running mean population drops below the lower 95 percent 

confidence interval value

• Hard trigger 

– For PACs with adequate population data, the five-year running mean population 

drops below the lower standard deviation value

– For PACs with inadequate population data (Louse Canyon and Trout Creeks), the 

annual population declines by a total of 60 percent or more over two consecutive 

years

– When soft triggers for both population and habitat are met within the same PAC

For the five-year running mean criteria, the population trigger would be tripped the first year the mean 

dropped below the identified threshold. Generally, the trigger response area would be the seasonal 

habitat and use locations within four miles of the lek or lek complex specifically affected or the entire 

Oregon PAC, depending on the size and the percentage of the PAC affected. However, the response 

area, with the exception of the immediate hard trigger responses, could include the GHMA linking the 

affected Oregon PAC to the nearest unaffected Oregon PAC, as needed. 

MONITORING

Monitoring is essential to adaptive management, both to identify when a trigger has been tripped and 

whether management actions taken, including adaptive responses, are effective. This ARMPA/EIS 

contains a monitoring framework plan (AppendixD, Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework), 

that includes an effectiveness monitoring component. 

To determine when a soft or hard trigger for habitat has been reached, the BLM intends to use the data 

collected from the effectiveness monitoring to identify any changes in habitat conditions related to the 

goals and objectives of the plan and other range-wide conservation strategies (US DOI 2004; Stiver et al. 

2006; USFWS 2013a). The BLM intends to use the remotely sensed data collected from the 

effectiveness monitoring at the mid-scale (Oregon PAC), supplemented with local data where needed 

and available at the lek-scale to identify when a soft or hard trigger for habitat has been reached. The 

BLM will make its determination concerning habitat in the fall, after the wildfire season ends.

To determine when a soft or hard trigger for population has been reached, the BLM will rely on 

population data collected by the ODFW; it is responsible for monitoring GRSG populations and typically 

finalizes population estimates in the fall. Then the BLM, in conjunction with the ODFW, will calculate the 

latest five-year running mean of population and the degree of population change for each Oregon PAC; 

after that, the BLM will evaluate whether population changes and the five-year running mean reach a soft 

or hard trigger. 

The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the ROD is signed

and then, at a minimum, annually thereafter.

The State of Oregon is not developing as adaptive management strategy and has no plans to do so. 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-6 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RESPONSES

Ensuring meaningful adaptive responses to a soft or hard trigger for an individual Oregon PAC requires 

that the BLM conduct a cause analysis. This may take three to six months to complete (see discussion 

under Soft Trigger Responses and Hard Trigger Responses, below). While the cause analysis is underway, 

the BLM will consider whether certain actions should proceed as planned on a case-by-case basis to 

limit further loss of GRSG habitat or populations. Types of actions the BLM could evaluate or consider 

applying in or near the affected Oregon PAC during the analysis include the following: 

• Halting or delaying planned broadcast burning

• Increasing fire prevention patrols and messages

• Increasing fire prevention inspections of motorized equipment

• Prohibiting open campfires outside of established fire pits and outside of stoves in 

designated recreation areas

• Halting or delaying planned vegetation treatments that reduce sagebrush canopy cover

• Increasing inspections to ensure BMPs for limiting the spread of invasive plants are followed 

on construction projects

• Increasing surveys to detect and treat new infestations of invasive plants, especially invasive 

annual grasses

• Delaying any planned vegetation treatments until after the breeding and early brood-rearing 

period

• Halting or delaying planned fuels treatments in GRSG winter range

• Delaying issuance of new authorizations for minerals and energy development, including 

geothermal exploration

• Delaying issuance of permits for mineral material disposal

• Installing anti-perching devices on tall structures

• Installing bird flight diverters on guy wires and fences

• Delaying issuance of new or pending ROWs outside of existing designated corridors or 

where not collocated within previously authorized ROWs, including Federal Highway Act 

authorizations 

• Delaying authorizations of new tall structures outside of designated corridors

• Adjusting grazing practices to ensure retention of adequate residual plant cover and 

diversity in the understory

• Delaying planned construction of new recreation facilities (e.g., kiosks, toilets, and signs) 

within two miles of occupied or pending leks

• Increasing litter patrols in and around heavily used recreation areas

• Increasing educational contacts with visitors concerning the role of litter and garbage in 

attracting GRSG predators 

• Increasing enforcement efforts on travel restrictions
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-7 

The BLM Authorizing Officer will provide formal documentation for the record on what measures or 

actions were taken during the cause analysis period. 

Soft Trigger Responses 

A key part of adaptive management is to identify the potential causes of the observed change in order to 

develop potential adaptive responses. For this adaptive management strategy, a cause is most likely tied 

to a threat that the USFWS (2010) identified in its listing determination. While one or more causes can 

be linked to a habitat or population decline, this does not assume a cause-and-effect relationship. Many 

factors has been suggested as affecting GRSG populations and habitats throughout the species’ range. 

These factors can interact in many complex relationships that can be difficult to tease apart. It can be 

difficult to separate proximate factors from ultimate factors leading to population declines. 

On determining that a soft trigger has been reached, the BLM will convene an adaptive management 

working team at the district level. It will consist of local experts for the affected resource programs and 

field personnel from local ODFW and USFWS offices to conduct the cause analysis. This team will 

convene as soon as possible, but within one month of determining that a soft trigger has been reached. 

Subject to the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act, the team may contact potentially affected 

stakeholders for suggestions and comments on potential adaptive responses. They will develop a list of 

recommended actions as soon as possible, but no later than within three months of convening. The 

selected responses will be formally documented as a BLM District Office memorandum. Additional 

project-level NEPA analyses may be required to implement some responses, such as a temporary 

closure. Soft trigger adaptive responses may consist of the following actions: 

• Prioritizing the affected Oregon PAC for restoration treatments, construction or 

maintenance of fuel breaks, mapping vegetation in high resolution to inform project planning, 

closing and rehabilitating unauthorized roads, installing bird flight diverters on fences, 

assessing rangeland health, modifying new and existing water projects to reduce West Nile 

virus risks, or establishing wild horse and burro gathers

• Providing additional guidance for the types and timing of vegetation treatments

• Providing additional guidance on the location and design of fuel breaks

• Reevaluating seed mixes and native seed sources for post-fire restoration work

• Cancelling planned recreational site improvements or developments or vegetation 

treatments 

• Reevaluating the location or design of recreational improvements or new developments 

(may require additional NEPA analysis)

• Allowing only those special recreation permits in PHMA that have neutral or beneficial 

effects on PHMA (43 CFR, Part 2031.3) 

• Modifying seasons of use, location of use, or activities allowed in a SRMA located within the 

affected Oregon PAC (43 CFR, Part 8364.1

• Moving wild horses and burros to other areas within the applicable herd management area

• Disallowing any exceptions to the NSO requirement
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-8 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

• Temporarily closing areas to certain uses, such as OHV travel, mineral and energy 

development, geothermal exploration, and mineral materials disposal, up to 24 months 

(requires a Federal Register notice and additional analysis under NEPA [43 CFR, Parts 8364.1 

and 8341.2) 

• Applying new travel restrictions (requires a Federal Register notice and additional NEPA 

analysis under

• Developing alternative right-of-way routes that avoid the affected Oregon PAC for new 

requests

The BLM may also choose to conduct certain actions while the cause analysis is underway, such as 

increased fire prevention and litter patrols, educational efforts, and enforcement of existing regulations, 

permit stipulations, and laws. 

Hard Trigger Responses 

As noted above, hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate and more restrictive

action is necessary to stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the 

resource management plan amendment. Once the BLM, in consultation with USFWS and ODFW, has 

determined that a hard trigger has been reached, it will immediately implement the responses below 

within the affected Oregon PAC. These responses consist of more restrictive conservation actions from 

one or more other alternatives analyzed in the FEIS (the applicable action from another alternative is 

identified in parentheses). 

• Do not use prescribed fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones. As a 

last resort and after all other treatment options have been explored and as site-specific 

variables allow, consider using prescribed fire for fuel breaks in stands where annual grass is 

a very minor component in the understory (Action B-WFM 1). 

• Do not conduct mechanical sagebrush treatments in known GRSG winter habitat (Action EVG 15). 

• Limit broadcast burning of juniper-invaded sagebrush to no more than 160 acres per 

treatment block in PHMA (Action E-VG 26). 

• Issue no new geophysical exploration permits in PHMA (Action C-MLS 8). 

• Make PHMA exclusion areas for new ROW authorizations (Action B-LR 1). 

• Restrict OHV use to areas greater than 2 miles from leks during the breeding season 

(March 1 through June 30) (Action E-TM 1; 43 CFR, Parts 8364.1 and 8341.2).

• When reseeding closed roads, primitive roads, and trails, use appropriate native seed mixes 

and require use of transplanted sagebrush (Action F-TM 6). 

• Prohibit new road construction within 4 miles of active GRSG leks, subject to valid existing 

rights and to protect human health and safety (Action F-TM 2; 43 CFR 8364.1).

• Prohibit construction of recreational facilities (e.g., kiosks, toilets, and signs) within 2 miles 

of leks (Action E-RC 8). 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-9 

After the immediate hard trigger response is put in place, the BLM State Director will convene a 

statewide adaptive management working team at the consisting of experts for the affected resource 

programs and personnel from ODFW and USFWS offices. This team will convene as soon as possible, 

but within one month of determining that a hard trigger has been reached. 

Subject to the provisions of FACA, the team will also contact potentially affected stakeholders for 

suggestions and comments on potential additional responses. The team will develop recommendations 

for additional responses as soon as possible, but no later than within six months of convening. 

If the ultimate cause cannot be determined, the adaptive response would be based on the proximate 

causes. If the final recommendations include any additional adaptive management responses beyond 

those in the list above, the BLM State Director would issue a memorandum listing these additional 

responses and would identify which responses require a plan amendment or additional plan-level analysis 

under NEPA. For example, an additional hard trigger response may be permanent closure to a particular 

use within the affected Oregon PAC. 

Responses may include continuation of certain actions taken while the cause analysis is underway, such 

as increased fire prevention and litter patrols, as well as site-specific project-level responses typically 

associated with soft triggers; an example of this is providing additional guidance on the types and timing 

of vegetation treatments.

When a hard trigger is hit in the Beatys, Trout Creeks, Louse Canyon, Soldier Creek, or Cow Lakes 

Oregon PACs (BSU; see Figure 2-3), the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Team will convene to determine the cause, will put project-level responses in place, as 

appropriate, and will discuss further appropriate actions to be applied. The team will also investigate the 

status of the hard triggers in adjoining BSUs in other states and will invoke the appropriate plan 

response.

Exception to Hard Trigger Response

When the cause for a hard trigger is wildfire or insect outbreak, more restrictive allocations or 

management actions will be implemented (see bulleted list above) within the affected Oregon PAC. 

However, pending and new authorizations could continue within the affected Oregon PAC if the 

disturbance cap has not been reached and one of the following occurs: 

• As designed, the project would have no direct or indirect impact on the GRSG population

or habitat

• The project has been modified so that it would not have direct or indirect impacts on the 

GRSG population or habitat

DEVELOPING RESPONSES

Adaptive Management Working Team

On determining that a hard trigger has been reached, and in addition to the hard trigger response that is 

put in place, the BLM will convene the statewide adaptive management working team. This team will 

help the BLM identify the cause that may have tripped the adaptive management trigger and will 

recommend adaptive responses to the appropriate BLM Authorized Officer (decision-maker). 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-10 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Team members will consist of, at minimum, a wildlife biologist, a fuels specialist, a weed coordinator or 

botanist, and a range management specialist from the BLM and representatives at the state or regional 

level from the USFWS and ODFW. Other specialists will be added depending on the nature of the hard 

trigger and the probable ultimate causes.

Adaptive management requires stakeholder involvement as well as agency involvement in order to 

succeed. The adaptive management working team will contact representatives from other federal 

agencies, research, environmental groups, producer groups, user groups, tribes, and local government as 

needed for suggestions and comments on potential final responses. The provisions under FACA may 

apply to input from nongovernmental organizations.

The BLM would develop a new adaptive response through a plan amendment or site specific NEPA as 

appropriate, based on the new information, to protect GRSG and its habitat and to ensure that 

conservation options are not foreclosed. This would be the case if new scientific information were to 

become available, demonstrating that one or more of the immediate hard trigger responses would be 

insufficient to stop the severe degradation. This would initiate recovery toward the GRSG conservation 

objectives set forth in the resource management plans. As a result, after a cause analysis is complete, 

implementing additional hard trigger responses could take one year or longer to complete the necessary 

environmental analysis or analyses. 

Causal Factor Analysis

Identifying the ultimate cause of crossing a threshold and appropriate responses requires answering a 

series of questions, usually about the proximate cause, since that is often more easily observed. These 

questions should examine the factors supporting the proximate cause in order to better identify 

whether a portion of the resource management plan failed and which part and whether an adjustment is 

needed. For example, a large wildfire is a likely proximate cause for tripping both a habitat and 

population trigger. However, the plan includes several objectives, actions, and RDFs in the vegetation 

and wildland fire sections intended to reduce or minimize the potential to trigger an adaptive 

management response. 

The review should examine the relevant plan direction and answer a series of questions, such as the 

following: 

• Had all or some of the plan direction been implemented in the affected area?

• Did the plan direction perform as intended?

• Did the conditions associated with the event or activity exceed the design standards?

• What role did factors and events outside the affected area play in the event or activity 

outcomes? 

• Did the event or outcome arise from the interaction of more than one potentialcausal 

factor? 

Determining the appropriate adaptive response also requires asking a series of questions, such as the 

following: 

• What is the magnitude of the impact?
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-11 

• Is the impact temporary or permanent?

• Can habitat or population recover on its own without intervention?

• What is the expected length of the recovery period?

• Can the management actions already included in the plan accelerate recovery or are 

different actions necessary?

LONGEVITY OF RESPONSES

All immediate hard trigger responses will remain in place until a plan amendment is completed to 

remove them or when one of the following relevant conditions is met: 

• If the hard trigger tripped was for habitat, the immediate hard trigger responses can be 

removed when 70 percent of the affected Oregon PAC capable of supporting sagebrush has 

at least 5 percent sagebrush canopy cover and less than 5 percent tree canopy cover, 

exclusive of retained old juniper (see vegetation management objectives and actions for 

details on retention of old juniper).

• If the hard trigger tripped was for population and the affected Oregon PAC has adequate 

population data (see the Population Trigger Development Process for which PACs have 

adequate data), the immediate hard trigger responses can be removed when the five-year 

running mean for population rises above the lower 95th percentile confidence interval value 

and is on an upward trend.

• If the hard trigger tripped was for population and the affected Oregon PAC did not have 

adequate population data, additional criteria apply. Once the criteria below are met, the 

immediate hard trigger responses can be removed if the five-year running mean for 

population is above or rises above the lower 95th percentile confidence interval value and is 

on an upward trend.

– A minimum of 12 years of population data are available

– At least one lek/lek complex has been monitored for the full 12 years

– A five-year running mean and 95th percentile confidence interval have been 

calculated

• If the hard triggers for both habitat and population were tripped, then the immediate hard 

trigger responses can be removed once both the habitat and population criteria above are 

met. 

Removal of the immediate hard trigger responses returns management direction in the affected Oregon 

PAC to the plan decisions that are in force within those Oregon PACs that have not tripped a hard 

trigger. 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-12 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Figure J-1 Population Status of Each PAC Relative to the Soft and Hard Triggers
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-13 

Figure J-1 Population Status of Each PAC Relative to the Soft and Hard Triggers (continued)
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-14 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Figure J-1 Population Status of Each PAC Relative to the Soft and Hard Triggers (continued)
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-15 

Figure J-1 Population Status of Each PAC Relative to the Soft and Hard Triggers (continued)
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-16 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Figure J-1 Population Status of Each PAC Relative to the Soft and Hard Triggers (continued)
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-17 

HABITAT TRIGGER DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Understanding that there are natural minor fluctuations in sagebrush cover, its percent cover in the 

landscape serves as an indicator for GRSG habitat quality (Karl and Sadowski 2005; Hagen 2011). Shortterm losses of sagebrush due to such factors as fire or insect defoliation are to be expected, recognizing 

that recovery rates vary considerably between the type and scale of disturbance and the specific 

ecological sites involved. However, sagebrush landscape cover of less than or equal to 25 percent has a 

low probability of maintaining GRSG leks, while greater than 65 percent sagebrush landscape cover has a 

high probability of sustaining GRSG populations (Aldridge et al. 2008; Wisdom et al. 2011; Knick et al. 

2013; Chambers et al. 2014b). 

The BLM developed habitat objectives for the plan based on the scientific information cited above (see 

Tables 2-2 and 2-3). The soft trigger indicates the level of landscape sagebrush cover that still provides 

some use by GRSG but does not meet the level of cover indicated by scientific studies and 

recommended by the NTT report to sustain GRSG populations. The hard trigger indicates the level of 

landscape sagebrush cover that does not provide sufficient habitat to sustain GRSG populations over the 

long term. 

POPULATION TRIGGER DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

In order to set adaptive management soft and hard triggers for GRSG populations, the BLM analyzed 

male GRSG population data provided by the ODFW in spreadsheets. The state uses counts of males at 

leks to estimate populations of both males and females (see Hagen 2011, Section III, for details on state 

methods for estimating population based on lek counts). The data provided assigned leks and lek 

complexes to individual PACs as well as the statewide data. 

The initial data consisted of survey results conducted as far back as 1980. However, because the survey 

effort was much less, involving far fewer leks, and survey effort increased beginning in the mid-1990s, the 

BLM discarded data prior to the mid-1990s. This resulted in approximately 20 years of data for most 

PACs and on a statewide basis.

The State of Oregon does not survey every lek every year due to limited resources and accessibility 

problems. The lack of roads in the largest PACs along Oregon’s southern border with Nevada as well as 

the sheer distance limits the State’s ability to survey these areas in particular. Years with high snowpack 

or wet conditions during the mating period often limit the State’s ability to reach more remote leks; as a 

consequence, data are sparse, particularly for smaller and more remote PACs. Before analyzing 

population trends, the BLM used a similar process to what the State uses to fill in missing data, 

projecting forward and backward from actual counts.

For this analysis, the BLM defined a trend lek as one with no more than one year of missing data over 

the analysis period and identified trend leks for each PAC. This definition differs from the definition used 

by the ODFW for a trend lek (Hagen 2011, p. 14). 

The: Burns, Louse Canyon, and Trout Creeks PACs did not have any leks that met the BLM definition. 

The BLM did not conduct a population analysis or establish PAC-specific soft and hard population 

triggers for these PACs. Ten PACs had usable population data back to 1994 (21 years), four had usable 

data back to 1995 (20 years), the Pueblos-South Steens PAC had usable data back to 1996 (19 years), 

the Cow Valley PAC had population data back to 1997 (18 years), and the Tucker Hill PAC had usable 

data back to 2003 (12 years). 
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-18 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

To fill in missing data and allow population levels to fluctuate over time, the BLM summed the 

observations for all trend leks in each PAC and calculated the interannual rate of change (lambda) for 

each PAC by dividing the total for the current year by the total for the previous year. The BLM assumed 

that population change for the PAC as a whole followed the same pattern as in the trend leks. Rates of 

change varied between 0 and 3 using this method. A lambda of less than one indicated a population 

decline, while a lambda greater than one indicated a population increase.

When there were one or more observations, the BLM projected backward by dividing the observation 

in the source cell by the lambda associated with the source cell year and projected forward by 

multiplying the observation in the source cell by the lambda associated with the destination cell year. 

For example, to project backward in 2000 from an observation in 2001, the BLM divided the 

observation in 2001 by the lambda for 2001; to project forward to 2002, the BLM multiplied the 

observation in 2001 by the lambda for 2002. 

Where two numbers (excluding zero) bracketed a period of no surveys, the BLM projected half the 

years backward and half the years forward. 

Where a positive number and zero bracketed a period of no surveys, the BLM projected backward or 

forward from the positive number to the year with a zero. the BLM could not make projections when 

the observation was zero males because multiplying by zero yields zero and dividing by zero is 

mathematically undefined. Thus, population estimates over time remain incomplete both statewide and 

in all PACs analyzed. 

To deal with this remaining data gap, the BLM followed a procedure used by the ODFW for estimating 

total male GRSG population. The BLM calculated the average male population over the most recent 

eight years and grouped leks and lek complexes based on estimated annual lek population size. Using 

ODFW definitions, the BLM created between two and five strata per PAC, as follows: 

• Inactive—average male population = 0

• Small—average male population = 0.01-10

• Medium—average male population = 11-25

• Large—average male population = 26-50

• Extra large—average male population = 51+

The BLM estimated the annual population for each stratum by averaging the population estimate in each 

year and multiplying that average by the number of leks and lek complexes in that stratum. The BLM 

often did not estimate stratum population for inactive leks because all values were either “not surveyed” 

or zero. However, it did include the inactive stratum for PACs where the population earlier than the 

most recent eight years was largely positive. Most PACs had some leks or lek complexes where no 

surveys had occurred over the analysis period; these were not included in the estimate. 

The BLM then summed the strata population estimate for each year. Both the BLM and ODFW consider 

the resulting estimate to be a minimum male population estimate.
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment J-19 

To set the soft and hard triggers for population, the BLM estimated the average population over the 

analysis period for each PAC and calculated the standard deviation, the 95 percent confidence interval of 

the average, and five-year running mean. The five-year running mean equals the average of the current 

year plus the previous four years. 

The BLM used large drops in the annual population estimate as soft trigger criteria and the five-year 

running mean population estimates in relation to the lower 95 percent confidence interval and the lower 

standard deviation values for both soft and hard trigger criteria. 

The BLM established all triggers in consultation with the ODFW and USFWS. The State GRSG

management strategy (Hagen 2011, p. 35) was to use a greater than 7 percent decline for three 

consecutive years in the state-wide five-year running mean. The BLM used 10 percent since greater 

fluctuation in estimated populations should be expected at the smaller scale. At the state-wide scale, 

decreases in some PACs are often partially offset by increases in other PACs.

PAC Name

Number of 

Leks/Lek 

Complexes 

Number of 

Trend 

Leks

Effective 

Period of 

Record

Average 

Minimum 

Male 

Population

Lower 95th 

Percentile 

Confidence 

Interval 

Value

Lower 

Standard 

Deviation 

Value

Baker 36 3 1995-2014 313 256 182

Beatys 74 2 1995-2014 1221 1048 825

Brothers/North 

Wagontire

19 9 1994-2014 174 156 132

Bully Creek 30 2 1995-2014 232 195 147

Burns 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cow Lakes 40 2 1994-2014 377 314 230

Cow Valley 38 2 1997-2014 606 506 388

Crowley 33 3 1994-2014 190 152 101

Drewsey 22 2 1994-2014 234 204 164

Dry Valley/Jack 

Mountain

20 6 1994-2014 354 302 233

Folly Farm/ Saddle 

Butte

17 1 1994-2014 200 156 97

Louse Canyon 50 0 2007-2014 N/A N/A N/A

12 Mile 36 1 1995-2014 337 300 252

Picture Rock 5 2 1994-2014 40 34 25

Pueblos/South 

Steens 

20 2 1996-2014 386 237 54

Solider Creek 30 4 1994-2014 298 251 188

Steens 10 3 1994-2014 368 246 82

Trout Creeks 42 0 2007-2014 N/A N/A N/A

Tucker Hill 5 1 2003-2014 54 44 36

Warners 46 4 1994-2014 672 566 424
J. Adaptive Management Strategy

J-20 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix K 

Biological Assessment Summary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment K-1 

APPENDIX K

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared an amendment to its Resource Management Plans 

(RMP), resulting in a Proposed RMP Amendment (RMPA) and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS). Its purpose is to provide direction for the conservation of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus, GRSG) in the following plans in Oregon: 

 Andrews RMP (Andrews Resource Area) 

 Baker RMP (Baker Resource Area) 

 Brothers/La Pine RMP (Central Oregon Resource Area) 

 Lakeview RMP (Lakeview Resource Area) 

 Southeastern Oregon RMP (Jordan and Malheur Resource Areas) 

 Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area RMP (Andrews Resource 

Area) 

 Three Rivers RMP (Three Rivers Resource Area) 

 Upper Deschutes RMP (Deschutes Resource Area) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 US Code, Section 1531 

et seq.), requires each federal agency to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency that it has reason to believe will likely affect any 

endangered, threatened, or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat. Section 7(c) 

requires each federal agency to conduct a Biological Assessment (BA) for the purpose of identifying any 

listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical habitat that is likely to be affected by such 

action. 

The BLM in cooperation with USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) conducted a BA for 

the Proposed Plan in the RMPA/FEIS. Because the RMPA is a planning document, the BA focuses on the 

effect of management actions to be implemented as a part of this planning. This appendix summarizes 
K. Biological Assessment Summary 

K-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

the findings from the BA (BLM 2015). For purposes of brevity, only the findings from the BA are 

presented in this appendix. 

SUMMARY

The effects determinations from the BA are summarized in Table K-1. The BLM has determined the 

Proposed Plan will have no effect to any of these species or critical habitat. The BLM coordinated the 

determination with USFWS and NMFS. No consultation, formal or informal, was required. 

Table K-1 

Summary of the Species Analyzed in This RMPA/EIS and Their Determinations 

Species Status1 Determination2 Rationale

Gray wolf 

Canis lupus

E No effect There is no known overlap between the area 

occupied by the wolves where federally listed in 

Oregon and priority habitat management areas 

(PHMA) or general habitat management areas 

(GHMA). In the event that the gray wolf occupies 

the decision area, any effects would be addressed 

under project-specific National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analysis.

Canada lynx

Lynx canadensis

T No effect There is currently no known occurrence of 

Canada lynx in the decision area. In addition, there 

is no overlap of habitat described as suitable for 

Canada lynx and GRSG PHMA and/or GHMA. 

Western yellowbilled cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus

T No effect The decision area may overlap with riparian 

habitat. However, the type or intensity of the 

activity in the Proposed Plan is expected to have 

no effect on this species or its habitat.

Western yellowbilled cuckoo

Proposed critical 

Habitat

T No effect No critical habitat proposed for the yellow-billed 

cuckoo occurs in the decision area.

Oregon spotted 

frog Rana pretiosa

T No effect Potential habitat for the species does not occur in 

the decision area.

Oregon spotted 

frog 

Proposed critical 

habitat

T No effect Proposed critical habitat for the species does not 

occur in the decision area.

Borax Lake chub 

Gila boraxobius

E No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact aquatic habitat or cause water 

depletions in lakes, rivers, or streams occupied by 

this species.

Borax Lake chub

Critical habitat

E No effect There are no actions within this RMPA decision 

that would impact aquatic habitat or cause water 

depletions in Borax Lake or aquatic environments 

associated with its outflow.

 

1

E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P-T = Proposed threatened 

2NE = No effect (will not affect the species) 
K. Biological Assessment Summary 

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment K-3 

Species Status1 Determination2 Rationale

Bull trout 

Salvelinus 

confluentus

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact aquatic habitat or deplete water in 

lakes, rivers, or streams occupied by bull trout.

Bull trout 

Critical habitat

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact primary constituent elements 

described for bull trout.

Lahontan cutthroat 

trout Oncorhynchus 

clarkii henshawi

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact aquatic habitat or deplete water in 

lakes, rivers, or streams occupied by Lahontan 

cutthroat trout.

Chinook salmon

O. tshawytscha

T No effect Snake River spring/summer run—There are no 

actions in this RMPA decision that would impact 

aquatic habitat or deplete water in chinook 

salmon habitat.

Chinook salmon

Critical habitat

T No effect Snake River spring/summer run—There are no 

actions in this RMPA decision that would impact 

primary constituent elements described for this 

evolutionarily significant unit (ESU).

Foskett speckled 

dace 

Rhinichthys osculus

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact aquatic habitat or deplete water in 

lakes, rivers, or streams occupied by this species.

Hutton tui chub 

Gila bicolor ssp.

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact aquatic habitat or deplete water in 

lakes, rivers, or streams occupied by this species.

Steelhead trout

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

T No effect Middle Columbia River ESU—There are no 

actions in this RMPA decision that would impact 

aquatic habitat or deplete water in steelhead trout 

habitat.

Steelhead trout 

Critical habitat

T No effect Middle Columbia River ESU—There are no 

actions in this RMPA decision that would impact 

primary constituent elements described for this 

ESU.

Steelhead trout 

O. mykiss 

T No effect Snake River Basin ESU—There are no actions in 

this RMPA decision that would impact aquatic 

habitat or deplete water in steelhead trout habitat.

Steelhead trout 

Critical Habitat

T No effect Snake River Basin ESU—There are no actions in 

this RMPA decision that would impact primary 

constituent elements described for this ESU.

Warner sucker 

Catostomus 

warnerensis

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact aquatic habitat or deplete water in 

lakes, rivers, or streams occupied by this species.

Warner sucker

Critical habitat

T No effect There are no actions in this RMPA decision that 

would impact primary constituent elements 

described for this ESU.

Howell’s 

spectacular 

thelypody 

Thelypodium howellii

ssp. spectabilis

T No effect Howell’s spectacular thelypody does not occur in 

PHMA or GHMA. Because the Proposed Plan 

would apply only to BLM-administered lands, and 

all known occurrences are on private lands, the 

proposed RMPA would not affect this species.
K. Biological Assessment Summary 

K-4 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

Species Status1 Determination2 Rationale

MacFarlane’s fouro’clock

Mirabilis macfarlanei

T No effect MacFarlane’s four-o’clock habitat does not overlap 

with PHMA or GHMA, and no occurrences are 

known to exist on BLM-administered lands; 

therefore, the proposed RMPA would not affect 

this species.

Malheur wirelettuce 

Stephanomeria 

malheurensis

E No effect Although GRSG habitats are nearby, Malheur 

wire-lettuce does not occur in PHMA or GHMA. 

Because the Proposed Plan would apply to PHMA 

and GHMA habitats only, and the South Narrows 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

already excludes livestock grazing and off-road 

vehicle use, the proposed RMPA would not affect 

this species.

Malheur wirelettuce

Critical habitat

E No effect Malheur wire-lettuce critical habitat does not exist 

in PHMA or GHMA. Because the Proposed Plan 

would apply to PHMA and GHMA habitats only, 

and the South Narrows ACEC already excludes 

livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use, and mining, 

the proposed RMPA would not affect the 

designated critical habitat for this species.

Spalding’s catchfly 

Silene spaldingii

T No effect Spalding’s catchfly occurrences and suitable habitat 

are found only to the north of PHMA and GHMA; 

therefore, the proposed RMPA would not affect 

this species.
Appendix L 

Greater Sage-Grouse Noise Protocol

September 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment L-1 

APPENDIX L 

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE NOISE PROTOCOL

The following protocol provides direction for collecting noise measurements in areas of existing and 

proposed development in GRSG habitat. The intent is to provide guidelines to experienced 

personnel so that measurements are made in a consistent and accurate manner and to highlight areas 

where specialized training and equipment is required. The goal is to develop a protocol that is efficient, 

effective, and produces consistent results. The protocol was written to facilitate the gathering of noise 

measurements relevant to stipulations for GRSG protection. Use of a standard protocol for noise 

monitoring will ensure that future measurements are comparable across locations, times, and surveyors. 

This protocol should be updated, as data needs and availability change (Blickley and Patricelli 2013). 

SUMMARY OF NOISE-MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 

• Measurements should be made by qualified personnel experienced in acoustical monitoring. 

• Measurements should be made with a high quality, calibrated Type I (noise floor < 25 dB) 

sound level meter (SLM) with a microphone windscreen and (where applicable) 

environmental housing. 

• Measurements should be collected during times when noise exposure is most likely to affect 

GRSG—nights and mornings (i.e., 6 pm – 9 am) and should be taken for ≥1 hour at each 

site, ideally over multiple days with suitable climactic conditions. To capture typical 

variability in noise levels at the site of interest, deployment of SLM units for multiple days is 

preferred. 

• Environmental conditions should be measured throughout noise measurement periods so 

that measurements made during unsuitable conditions can be excluded. 

• Measurements should be made at multiple (3-4) locations between each noise source and 

the edge of the protected area (NSO or PHMA boundary, or lek perimeter). On-lek

measurements should exclude time periods when birds are lekking. 

• Accurate location data should be collected for each measurement location. Surveyors also 

should catalog the type and location of all nearby sources of anthropogenic noise. 

• Critical metrics should be collected: L50, L90, L10, Leq, and Lmax. All measurements should 

be collected in A-weighted decibels (dBA) and, if possible, also collected in unweighted 
L. Greater Sage-Grouse Noise Protocol

L-2 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

(dBF) and C-weighted (dBC) decibels. If possible, SLM should log 1/3-octave band levels 

throughout the measurement period. Additional metrics may be collected, depending on the 

goals of the study.