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

Utah

Prepared by:

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Washington, DC 

September 2015

United States Department ofthe Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


Washington, D.C. 20240 


http://www.b1m.gov 


SEP 1 8 2015 

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed are the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) Record ofDecision (ROD) and Approved 

Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMP As) for the Great Basin Region Greater SageGrouse Sub-regions (Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, 

Oregon, and Utah). · 

The documents are the product of an unprecedented effort to respond to the deteriorating health 

ofthe sagebrush landscapes ofthe American West and the declining population ofthe Greater 

Sage-Grouse, a ground-dwelling bird that has been under consideration by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) for protection under the Endangered Species Act. Based on the best 

available science and with extensive participation from the public, partners, and stakeholders, 

these documents, and those published today for the Rocky Mountain Region, serve as the 

cornerstone of the broader, landscape-level National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy 

(Strategy). 

This Strategy responds to the threats identified in the FWS's 2010 "warranted, but precluded" 

finding and was guided by over a decade of research, analyses, and recommendations for Greater 

Sage-Grouse conservation, including the FWS Conservation Objectives Team Report and the 

BLM National Technical Team Report. These underlying Reports were developed through a 

collaboration of state, Federal, and research scientists with extensive experience in sage-grouse 

management and research. 

The BLM's actions are guided by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires 

that RMPs for managing public lands be developed and maintained, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act, which requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be 

prepared for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality ofthe human environment. 

In fulfillment of these requirements, the BLM prepared 15 EISs for the associated Draft RMPs 

and RMPAs, which were published in 2012 and 2013. 1 Each document incorporated analyses 

and input from the public; Native American tribes; cooperating agencies and other local, state, 

and Federal agencies and organizations; and BLM resource specialists. 

The public had 90 days to comment following publication ofthe Draft RMPAs and EISs. The 

BLM received 1,348 unique letters with more than 4,990 substantive comments on all the Great 

Basin Region Draft documents. The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service reviewed, summarized, 

and took into consideration these comments when preparing the Proposed RMP As and Final 

EISs, which were published May 29, 2015, for a 60-day Governor's consistency review and a 

30-day public protest period. 

1 The BLM published one ofthe 15 Draft EISs- that associated with the Lander RMP Revision - in 2011. 
The BLM received consistency review letters from the Governors of California, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, Oregon, and Utah in the Great Basin Region and has worked closely with these States to 

address their concerns. Across all ofthe Proposed RMPAs and their associated EISs in the Great 

Basin Region, government entities, private citizens, non-governmental organizations, and other 

stakeholders submitted 133 protest letters. Ofthose, 124 letters contained valid protest issues, in 

accordance with 43 Code ofFederal Regulations 1610.5-2. The BLM addressed these issues in 

the Director's Protest Resolution Reports. These Reports are available on the Internet at: 

http://www. blm. gov /wo/st/ en/prog/planning/planning_ overview /protest _reso 1 ution/protestreports 

.html. 

The Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management ofthe U.S. Department ofthe 

Interior and I have signed the attached ROD, approving the RMPAs. These plans will guide 

future land and resource management on ELM-administered land in this region to benefit the 

Greater Sage-Grouse and more than 350 other species ofwildlife that depend on healthy 

sagebrush-steppe landscapes, while maintaining multiple uses, including grazing and recreation. 

This ROD applies to the BLM plans for the Great Basin Region and applies only to ELMmanaged lands and subsurface mineral estate. However, the complete Strategy on BLM- and 

U.S. Forest Service-administered lands consists ofthis ROD, the BLM ROD for the Rocky 

Mountain Region, the BLM ROD for the Lander RMP, 2 and the two Forest Service RODs for 

each ofthese regions. Together these five RODs and the underlying plans implement the 

Strategy across the remaining range ofthe species. 

Copies ofthe ROD and RMPAs can be obtained from the BLM's National Greater Sage-Grouse 

website at: http://www. blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse.html. 

The BLM extends its sincere appreciation to the public; Native American tribal representatives; 

local, state, and other Federal agencies; and the cooperating agencies, all ofwhom contributed 

significantly to the completion ofthese plans. Your participation informed and improved the 

land use plans presented here. Together with our partners, we have taken action that ensures a 

bright future for wildlife, the sagebrush sea, and a thriving economy in the American West. 

We look forward to working with you to implement the Strategy. 

• 


Enclosure: 

1. Record ofDecision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments 

2 The BLM signed the ROD approving the Lander RMP in June 2014 

2 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions S-1 

SUMMARY 

This Record of Decision (ROD) is the culmination of an unprecedented effort to conserve Greater 

Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitat on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It

is consistent with the BLM’s multiple-use and sustained yield mission and the joint objective established 

by Federal and State leadership through the GRSG Task Force to conserve GRSG habitat on Federal, 

State, and private land such that additional protections under the Endangered Species Act may be 

avoided. 

In response to a 2010 determination by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that the listing of the 

GRSG under the Endangered Species Act was “warranted, but precluded” by other priorities, the BLM, 

in coordination with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, developed a landscape-level 

management strategy, based on the best available science, that was targeted, multi-tiered, coordinated, 

and collaborative. This strategy offers the highest level of protection for GRSG in the most important 

habitat areas. It addresses the specific threats identified in the 2010 FWS “warranted, but precluded”

decision and the FWS 2013 Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report. 

This ROD and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments (ARMPAs) are for the Great Basin 

Region GRSG Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, 

Oregon, and Utah. The ARMPAs include GRSG habitat management direction that avoids and minimizes 

additional disturbance in GRSG habitat management areas. Moreover, they target restoration of and 

improvements to the most important areas of habitat. Management under the ARMPAs is directed 

through land use allocations that apply to GRSG habitat. These allocations accomplish the following: 

 Eliminate most new surface disturbance in the most highly valued sagebrush ecosystem areas 

identified as Sagebrush Focal Areas 

 Avoid or limit new surface disturbance in Priority Habitat Management Areas, of which 

Sagebrush Focal Areas are a subset 

 Minimize surface disturbance in General Habitat Management Areas 

In addition to protective land use allocations in habitat management areas, the ARMPAs include a suite 

of management actions, such as establishing disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives, mitigation 
Summary 

S-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

requirements, monitoring protocols, and adaptive management triggers and responses. They also include 

other conservation measures that apply throughout designated habitat management areas. 

The cumulative effect of these measures is to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat across the 

species’ remaining range in the Great Basin Region and to provide greater certainty that BLM resource 

management plan decisions in GRSG habitat in the Great Basin Region can lead to conservation of the 

GRSG and other sagebrush-steppe associated species in the region. The targeted resource management 

plan protections presented in this ROD and ARMPAs apply not only to the GRSG and its habitat but 

also to over 350 wildlife species associated with the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem; this is widely 

recognized as one of the most imperiled ecosystems in North America. In addition to protecting habitat, 

reversing the slow degradation of this valuable ecosystem will also benefit local economies and a variety 

of rangeland uses, including recreation and grazing. This also will safeguard the long-term sustainability, 

diversity, and productivity of these important and iconic landscapes. 

This conservation strategy has been developed in conjunction with the 10 states in which the ARMPAs 

apply, including the ARMPAs and ARMPs for the sub-regions in the BLM’s Rocky Mountain Region ROD. 

In combination with additional State and Federal actions underway and in development, the strategy 

represents an unprecedented coordinated collaboration among Federal land management agencies and 

the States to manage an entire ecosystem and associated flora and fauna. The goal is to achieve the 

COT Report objective of “conserv[ing] the sage-grouse so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or 

likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.” [Dan Ashe, Director, FWS. 

Transmittal letter to COT Report. 2013] 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

DEAR READER LETTER

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. S-1

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

1.1 Great Basin Region Planning Area ............................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 Early GRSG Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................. 1-5

1.3 Threats to GRSG in the Great Basin Region ......................................................................... 1-7

1.4 National Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy ....................................................... 1-9

1.5 How the ARMPAs Address the Identified Threats to the Conservation of GRSG ... 1-12

1.6 Key Components of the BLM GRSG Conservation Strategy .......................................... 1-20

1.6.1 Avoid and Minimize Surface Disturbance .............................................................. 1-20

1.6.2 Improving Habitat Condition .................................................................................... 1-24

1.6.3 Reducing Threats of Rangeland Fire to GRSG and Sagebrush Habitat ........... 1-26

1.6.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ............................................. 1-28

1.7 Unique Aspects of the Great Basin ARMPAs ...................................................................... 1-29

1.8 Decision Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 1-33

1.9 Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 1-40

1.9.1 Additional Implementation Guidance and Considerations ................................ 1-41

2. DECISION ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Summary of the Approved Management Decisions ............................................................. 2-1

2.2 What the ROD and ARMPAs Provide .................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 What the ROD and ARMPAs Do Not Provide .................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Modifications and Clarifications ................................................................................................ 2-3

2.4.1 Idaho and Southwestern Montana ............................................................................. 2-5

2.4.2 Nevada and Northeastern California ........................................................................ 2-7

2.4.3 Oregon ............................................................................................................................. 2-9

2.4.4 Utah ................................................................................................................................ 2-10

2.5 Protest Resolution ...................................................................................................................... 2-12

2.5.1 Idaho and Southwestern Montana ........................................................................... 2-12

2.5.2 Nevada and Northeastern California ...................................................................... 2-13

2.5.3 Oregon........................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.5.4 Utah ................................................................................................................................ 2-14

2.6 Governor’s Consistency Review............................................................................................. 2-15

3. ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Alternative A—No Action Alternative .................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Alternative B—National Technical Team Report Alternative ............................3-2

3.1.3 Alternative C—Citizen Groups’ Recommended Alternative One....................3-2

3.1.4 Alternative D—Draft RMP Amendments’ Preferred Alternative......................3-3

3.1.5 Alternative E: State/Governor’s Alternative ........................................................... 3-3

3.1.6 Alternative F—Citizen Groups’ Recommended Alternative Two ....................3-5

3.1.7 Proposed Plan Amendment ......................................................................................... 3-5

3.1.8 Environmentally Preferable Alternative .................................................................... 3-5

3.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail .......................................................... 3-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page 

ii ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION ................................ 4-1

4.1 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................. 4-2

4.3 FWS Section 7 Consultation ...................................................................................................... 4-5

4.4 Native American and State Historic Preservation Office Consultation .......................... 4-5

5. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 5-1

6. APPROVAL..................................................................................................................... 6-1

TABLES Page 

1-1 Land Management in the Great Basin Planning Area .......................................................................... 1-2

1-2 Threats to GRSG in the Great Basin Region as identified by the COT ....................................... 1-10

1-3 Surface Acres of PHMAs, GHMAs, OHMAs, and IHMAs in the Decision Area for the 

Great Basin Region .................................................................................................................................... 1-15

1-4 Key Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG ARMPAs that Address the COT 

Report Threats ........................................................................................................................................... 1-17

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Great Basin Region Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions ..................................................................... 1-3

1-2 Great Basin Region Planning Area ........................................................................................................... 1-4

1-3 Great Basin Region Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas 

(BLM-administered Lands) ......................................................................................................................... 1-6

1-4 Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas for Conservation, Populations, and WAFWA 

Management Zones ..................................................................................................................................... 1-8

1-5 Regional and Sub-Regional Boundaries with PHMAs and GRSG Habitat Management 

Areas (BLM-Administered Lands) .......................................................................................................... 1-13

1-6 FY 2015 FIAT Priority Project Planning Areas with Focus on Invasive Annual Grasses 

and Conifer Expansion Assessments ..................................................................................................... 1-39

ATTACHMENTS

1 Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

2 Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendment 

3 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

4 Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

AML appropriate management level 

ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BSU biologically significant unit 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FIAT Fire and Invasives Assessment Team (also Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool) 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

FR Federal Register

FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

GHMAs General Habitat Management Areas 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

IHMAs Important Habitat Management Areas 

IM instruction memorandum 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MZ management zone 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NTT National Technical Team 

OHMAs Other Habitat Management Areas 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PACs Priority Areas for Conservations 

PGH preliminary general habitat 

PHMAs Priority Habitat Management Areas 

PPH preliminary priority habitat 

RDF required design feature 

RMP resource management plan 

RMPA resource management plan amendment 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SFAs sagebrush focal areas 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WHBs wild horses and burros 
Table of Contents 

iv ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-1 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the United States (US) Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management’s (BLM’s) attached approved resource management plan amendments (ARMPAs) for 

the Great Basin Region GRSG Sub-Regions (Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and 

Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah). This ROD and the attached ARMPAs provide a set of 

management decisions focused on specific GRSG conservation measures across the Great Basin Region 

on BLM-administered lands. 

The BLM prepared the ARMPAs under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA; 43 United States Code [USC], Section 1701 et seq.), BLM planning regulations (43 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1600), and other applicable laws. The BLM prepared environmental 

impact statements (EISs) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 USC, 

Sections 4321-4347), as amended, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) and the US 

Department of the Interior’s regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

1500.1 et seq. and 43 CFR 46.01 et seq., respectively). 

Throughout the GRSG planning process, the Forest Service has been a cooperating agency on the Idaho 

and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, and the Utah planning efforts. All 

three of these Draft RMPAs/EISs and Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs included proposed GRSG management 

direction for National Forest System lands. The Forest Service has completed two separate RODs with 

associated resource management plan amendments under their planning authorities; these are available 

at http://www.fs.usda.gov/r4/. 

This ROD, in conjunction with the ARMPs and ARMPAs approved through the Rocky Mountain ROD, 

constitutes BLM land use planning decisions to conserve the GRSG and its habitats throughout its

remaining range that is administered by the BLM under authority of FLPMA. The efforts of the BLM, in 

coordination with the Forest Service on National Forest System lands within the remaining range of the 

species, constitute a coordinated strategy for conserving the GRSG and the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem 

on most Federal lands on which the species depends. These decisions complement those implemented 

by Federal agencies through An Integrated Rangeland Fire Strategy: Final Report to the Secretary of the Interior
1. Introduction 

1-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

(US Department of the Interior 2015) and the Sage Grouse Initiative, as well as those implemented by 

State and local governments, private landowners, and other partners. 

1.1 GREAT BASIN REGION PLANNING AREA

The Great Basin Region Planning Area is composed of four sub-regions: the Idaho and Southwestern 

Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah. (see Figure 1-1, Great Basin Region 

Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions). The BLM prepared a separate EIS for each of these sub-regions, and 

each sub-region conducted its own planning effort, with input from local cooperators, stakeholders, and 

members of the public. The sub-regional boundaries were constructed to align with BLM administrative 

offices, state boundaries, and areas that share common threats to GRSG and its habitat. The boundaries 

for these sub-regions largely coincide with zones III, IV, and V identified by the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006)

to delineate management zones (MZs) with similar ecological and biological issues. 

The Great Basin Region Planning Area boundaries include all lands regardless of jurisdiction (see Figure 

1-2, Great Basin Region Planning Area). Table 1-1 outlines the amount of surface acres that are 

administered by specific Federal agencies, States, local governments, and privately owned lands in the 

four sub-regions that make up the Great Basin. 

The Planning Area also includes other BLM-administered lands that are not identified as habitat 

management areas for GRSG. The ARMPAs generally do not establish any additional management for 

these lands outside of GRSG habitat management areas, and they will continue to be managed according 

to the existing land use plans for these Planning Areas.

Table 1-1

Land Management in the Great Basin Planning Area

Surface Land 

Management

Nevada/NE 

California

Idaho/SW 

Montana Utah Oregon Great Basin Total

BLM 45,359,000 12,449,000 20,387,200 12,615,900 90,811,100

Forest Service 9,719,900 13,252,400 7,396,300 6,454,800 36,823,400

Private 11,857,800 13,637,700 10,818,200 10,907,900 47,221,600

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(tribal) 

922,000 343,600 1,140,000 191,900 2,597,500

FWS 805,900 81,400 121,900 482,500 1,491,700

Other 326,100 414,400 30,400 100,700 871,600

State 195,600 2,646,100 5,137,200 723,100 8,702,000

National Park Service 160,100 511,700 1,365,600 0 2,037,400

Other Federal 3,200 562,200 0 61,300 626,700

Bureau of Reclamation 431,200 116,300 800 52,700 601,000

Local government 17,800 0 0 900 18,700

Department of Defense 402,000 127,400 1,812,300 64,500 2,406,200

Total acres 70,200,600 44,142,300 48,209,900 31,656,200 194,208,900

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Note: Acres have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
1. Introduction September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-3
1. Introduction 1-4 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-5 

The decision area for the Great Basin Region ARMPAs is BLM-administered lands, including split-estate 

lands where the BLM has subsurface mineral rights in GRSG habitat management areas (see Figure 1-3, 

Great Basin Region Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas [BLMadministered]). For a description of these habitat management areas, refer to Section 1.5. 

The decision areas for the ARMPAs are the surface acres identified in Table 1-1 that the BLM manages. 

The decision areas also include subsurface mineral estate that the BLM administers within the ARMPAs 

Planning Area boundaries. 

1.2 EARLY GRSG CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Currently, GRSG occupy an estimated 56 percent of the historically occupied range. The BLM manages 

most of the GRSG habitat on Federal lands (i.e., the range of GRSG that does not include the Columbia 

Basin or Bi-State populations). The BLM and other wildlife conservation agencies and organizations have 

been trying to conserve GRSG habitat for many years; this has provided an important foundation for the 

GRSG conservation strategy that guides these plans. 

The WAFWA 2004 Range-wide Conservation Assessment for Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats

(Connelly et al. 2004) was the first range-wide assessment of GRSG using the vast amount of population 

data collected over the previous 60 years, habitat information spanning the previous 100 years, and 

literature dating back 200 years. The goal of the assessment, which includes contributions from the BLM, 

was to present an unbiased and scientific assessment of dominant issues and their effects on GRSG 

populations and sagebrush habitats. 

In November 2004, the BLM released its National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, which 

encouraged GRSG habitat conservation through consultation, cooperation, and communication with 

WAFWA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Forest Service, the US Geological Survey (USGS), 

State wildlife agencies, local GRSG working groups, and various other public and private partners. 

In 2006, WAFWA completed a Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 

2006), with the assistance of the BLM, the Forest Service, and other contributors. The overall goal of 

the strategy was to maintain and enhance populations and distribution of GRSG by protecting and 

improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain those populations. The strategy outlined the 

critical need to develop the associations among local, State, provincial, tribal, and Federal agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to design and implement cooperative actions to support 

robust populations of GRSG and the landscapes and habitats they depend on. The catalyst for this was 

widespread concern for declining populations and reduced distribution of GRSG. 

In 2008, the BLM created two national teams to investigate possible BLM management options for 

GRSG conservation and to summarize the BLM’s ongoing conservation efforts. A product of this 

investigation was one of the first range-wide maps of GRSG priority habitat, referred to as “key habitat.”

At the time, the primary purpose for the key habitat map was to inform and help prioritize fire 

suppression in GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands. 

An additional outcome of this team’s work was signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) among 

the WAFWA, the BLM, FWS, and USGS (in the US Department of the Interior), and the Forest Service 

and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; in the US Department of Agriculture). The MOU’s 
1. Introduction 1-6 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-7 

purpose was to provide for cooperation among the participating State and Federal land managers and 

wildlife management and science agencies to conserve and manage GRSG sagebrush habitats and other 

sagebrush-dependent wildlife throughout the western US. 

In 2010, the BLM commissioned the mapping and modeling of breeding GRSG densities across the 

West. It convened a conference with State wildlife agencies to coordinate the lek survey data needed 

for this project. Through an agreement with the FWS, this modeling project mapped known active leks 

across the West, which served as a starting point for all States to identify priority habitat for the species. 

In March 2010, the FWS published its 12-Month Finding for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). In that finding, 

the FWS concluded that GRSG was “warranted, but precluded” under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). This finding indicates that, although the species meets the criteria for listing, immediate 

publication of a proposed rule to list the species is precluded by higher-priority listing proposals; that is, 

the species should be listed based on the available science, but listing other species takes priority 

because they are more in need of protection. 

As part of its 2010 finding, the FWS 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 FWS 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” (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). 

In addition, the FWS found that existing local, State, and Federal regulatory mechanisms were not 

sufficient to address threats to their habitat. The FWS identified the BLM’s resource management plans 

(RMPs) as the primary regulatory mechanisms. The BLM manages approximately 67 million acres of the 

remaining habitat for the species (see Figure 1-3). 

1.3 THREATS TO GRSG IN THE GREAT BASIN REGION 

In its 2010 finding, the FWS identified a number of specific threats to GRSG in the Great Basin Region. 

The primary threats are the widespread present and potential impacts of wildfire, the loss of native 

habitat to invasive species, and conifer encroachment. Other threats, some of which are more localized, 

are habitat fragmentation due to human disturbances associated with energy development, mining, 

infrastructure, recreation, urbanization, and sagebrush elimination, as well as impacts on habitat 

associated with free-roaming equids (horses and burros) and improper livestock grazing. 

In 2011, the BLM established the GRSG National Technical Team (NTT), comprised of BLM, USGS, 

NRCS, and State specialists. The NTT’s charge was to identify science-based conservation measures for 

the GRSG to promote sustainable populations. These measures would be focused on the threats 

identified in the FWS listing determination (75 Federal Register [FR] 13910) in each of the regional 

WAFWA Sage-Grouse MZs (Figure 1-4). The NTT produced A Report on National Greater Sage-grouse 

Conservation Measures (NTT Report; NTT 2011) in which it proposed conservation measures based on 

habitat and other life history requirements for GRSG. The NTT Report described the scientific basis for 

the conservation measures proposed for each program area. It also emphasized the importance of 

standardizing monitoring across the WAFWA GRSG MZs. 
1. Introduction 1-8 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-9 

In 2012, the FWS, with the support of the Western Governors Association Sage-Grouse Task Force, 

convened the Conservation Objectives Team (COT), composed of State and Federal representatives. 

One of the team’s tasks was to produce a peer-reviewed report identifying the principal threats to 

GRSG survival. Another task was to determine the degree to which these threats need to be reduced 

or ameliorated. The goal was to conserve GRSG so that they would no longer be in danger of extinction 

or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. 

The COT Report, released in March 2013, also identified Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) and 

emphasized that “Maintenance of the integrity of PACs . . . is the essential foundation for sage-grouse 

conservation” (FWS 2013). Finally, the COT Report identified present and widespread, as well as 

localized threats by GRSG population across the West (Table 1-2). The BLM also identified and 

explained additional threats in the Final EISs that were published with proposed plans on May 29, 2015. 

Figure 1-4 identifies the PACs, GRSG populations (and their names), and WAFWA MZs across the 

West. 

A summary of the nature and extent of threats identified in the COT Report for each remaining 

identified population of GRSG in the Great Basin Region—as highlighted in the 2013 COT Report—is 

provided in Table 1-2. 

1.4 NATIONAL GREATER SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The BLM recognized the need to incorporate explicit objectives and concrete conservation measures 

into RMPs1 to conserve GRSG habitat and provide robust regulatory mechanisms. This was based on 

the identified threats to the GRSG, especially inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and the FWS’s timeline 

for making a decision on whether to propose this species for listing, In August 2011, the BLM came up 

with a plan to revise and amend existing RMPs throughout the range of the GRSG. These revised and 

amended RMPs would incorporate management actions intended to conserve, enhance, and restore 

GRSG habitat. Separate planning began that would address the conservation needs of the Bi-State GRSG 

populations in California and Nevada and the Washington State distinct population segment. 

The BLM found that additional management direction and specific conservation measures on Federal 

public lands would be necessary to address the present and anticipated threats to GRSG habitat and to 

restore habitat where possible. This finding was in light of the 2010 “warranted” determination by the 

FWS, the recommendations of the NTT, and specific threats summarized in the COT Report. The BLM 

proposed to incorporate the management direction and conservation measures into its RMPs. The goal 

was to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG and its habitat and to provide sufficient regulatory 

certainty such that the need for listing the species under the ESA could be avoided. 

In December 2011, the BLM published a Notice of Intent to prepare EISs and a Supplemental EIS to 

incorporate GRSG conservation measures into land use plans across the species’ range. 

 

1 BLM land use plans prepared under the present regulations (see 43 CFR 1601.0-5(n)) are generally known as resource 

management plans. Some BLM land use plans, including ones predating the present regulations, are referred to by different 

names, including management framework plans. For purposes of this ROD, the BLM land use plan and resource management 

plan interchangeably refer to all BLM-administered land use plans. 
1. Introduction 

1-10 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 1-2

Threats to GRSG in the Great Basin Region as identified by the COT

Population

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

EIS/Plan

Rich-MorganSummit (Utah)9b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Uintah (Utah) 9c Y Y Y L Y Y Y Y Utah

Strawberry Valley 

(Utah)

10a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Carbon (Utah) 10b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Sheeprock 

Mountains (Utah)

11 Y Y L L Y Y L Y L Utah

Emery (Utah) 12 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Greater Parker 

Mountain (Utah)

13a Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Panguitch (Utah) 13b Y Y Y Y Y L Y Y L Utah

Bald Hills (Utah) 13c Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Ibapah (Utah) 15a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Hamlin Valley 

(Utah)

15b Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Utah

Box Elder (Utah) 26b Y Y Y Y L Y Y Y Utah

N. Great Basin 

(Oregon, Idaho, 

Nevada)

26a L L Y Y Y L L Y Y L Y Y Idaho/SW 

Montana, 

Oregon, 

Nevada/

California

Baker (Oregon) 17 Y Y Y Y L Y L Y L U L L Oregon

Central Oregon 

(Oregon)

28 L L Y Y Y L Y L Y U L L Oregon

W. Great Basin 

(Oregon, 

California, 

Nevada)

31 L L Y Y Y L L L Y Y U Oregon, 

Nevada/

California

Klamath 

(California)

29 Y U U Y Y Y L U U U U U Nevada/

California

Northwest 

Interior (Nevada)

14 Y Y Y U Y Y Y Y Y Nevada/

California

Southern Great 

Basin (Nevada)

15c L L L Y Y Y L L Y Y Y Y Nevada/

California

Quinn Canyon 

Range (Nevada)

16 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nevada/

California
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-11 

Table 1-2

Threats to GRSG in the Great Basin Region as identified by the COT

Population

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

EIS/Plan

Warm Springs 

Valley (Nevada)

30 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Nevada/

California

East Central 

(Idaho)

18 Y L Y L Y L Y Y Y L Idaho/SW 

Montana

Snake-SalmonBeaverhead 

(Idaho)

23 L L Y L Y Y L Y Y L Idaho/SW 

Montana

Weiser (Idaho) 25 Y L L L L Y Y L Y L L Idaho/SW 

Montana

Sawtooth (Idaho) 27 Y L L U L Y Y L Idaho/SW 

Montana

Southwest 

Montana 

(Montana)

19-

22

L L L Y L L L Y L L Idaho/SW 

Montana

Source: FWS 2013

Threats are characterized as Y = threat is present and widespread, L = threat present but localized, and U = unknown.

The planning associated with the National GRSG Conservation Strategy has been coordinated under 

two administrative planning regions: the Rocky Mountain Region and the Great Basin Region. The 

regions were drawn roughly to correspond with the threats identified by the FWS in its 2010 listing 

decision, along with the WAFWA MZs framework (Stiver et al. 2006). Due to differences in the 

ecological characteristics of sagebrush across the range of the GRSG, WAFWA delineated MZs I 

through VII, based primarily on floristic provinces. Vegetation found in an MZ is similar, and GRSG and 

their habitats in these areas are likely to respond similarly to environmental factors and management 

actions. 

The Great Basin Region is composed of plan amendments in California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and 

portions of Utah and Montana. This region falls in WAFWA MZs III (Southern Great Basin), IV (Snake 

River Plain), and V (Northern Great Basin). The Rocky Mountain Region is composed of BLM planning in 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and portions of Utah. (This includes plan 

revisions and plan amendments.) That region falls within WAFWA MZs I (Great Plains), II (Wyoming 

Basin), and a portion of VII (Colorado Plateau). 

Both the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin regions are further divided into sub-regions. The BLM 

initiated 15 sub-regional planning efforts and associated EISs to analyze the alternatives developed for 
1. Introduction

1-12 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015

each of the Draft and Final RMPAs and ARMPs across the range of the species.2 These sub-regions are 

based on the identified threats to GRSG and the WAFWA MZs from the FWS 2010 listing decision, 

with additional detail on threats to individual populations and sub-regions from the COT Report. In the 

Rocky Mountain Region, some sub-regions correspond to BLM field and district office boundaries, 

specifically for planning that incorporates GRSG conservation measures through plan revisions that were 

that began before the start of the National GRSG Conservation Strategy in December 2011. Figure 1-5

illustrates the regional and sub-regional Planning Area boundaries across the western US. 

The BLM used the best available science, including additional review and analysis from the USGS on 

specific issues that arose in developing the ARMPAs. Additionally, the BLM considered State GRSG 

conservation strategies where they existed, as well as State recommendations for measures to conserve 

GRSG on BLM-administered lands, where relevant, in its planning. These are reflected in the approved 

plans to the extent compatible with GRSG objectives to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat 

to address the threats identified in the FWS 2010 listing determination and the 2013 COT Report. 

1.5 HOW THE ARMPAS ADDRESS THE IDENTIFIED THREATS TO THE CONSERVATION 

OF GRSG

The 2006 WAFWA Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy stated goal for GRSG 

management was to “maintain and enhance populations and distribution of GRSG by protecting and 

improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain these populations” (Stiver et al. 2006). The 

NTT Report also endorsed this goal “as a guiding philosophy against which management actions and 

policies of BLM should be weighed” (NTT 2011). 

In establishing the COT, with the backing of the Sage Grouse Task Force, the FWS Director affirmed 

the commitment to the goal for GRSG conservation originally articulated in the 2006 WAFWA 

report—reversing negative population trends and achieving a neutral or positive population trend—and 

emphasized the following:

The Service interprets this recommendation to mean that actions and measures should 

be put in place now that will eventually arrest what has been a continuing declining 

trend. Conservation success will be achieved by removing or reducing threats to the 

species now, such that population trends will eventually be stable or increasing, even if 

numbers are not restored to historic levels. (Stiver et al. 2006) 

The COT Report emphasized the need to avoid or minimize additional disturbance in GRSG habitat.

Specifically, it stated, “[m]aintenance of the integrity of PACs ... is the essential foundation for sagegrouse conservation” (FWS 2013). To achieve this, the COT Report recommended “targeted habitat 

management and restoration” to be achieved by “eliminating activities known to negatively impact sagegrouse and their habitats, or re-designing these activities to achieve the same goal” (FWS 2013). The 

 

2 The National GRSG Conservation Strategy consisted of 15 separate EISs. For ease of implementation, the Bighorn Basin RMP 

has been split between the two field offices that make up the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, the Cody Field Office ARMP and the 

Worland Field Office ARMP. The Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument RMP has also been split between the Billings 

Field Office ARMP and Pompeys Pillar National Monument ARMP. This results in a total of 17 ARMPs and ARMPAs. 
1. Introduction September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-13
1. Introduction 

1-14 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

COT Report emphasized an “avoidance first strategy” and stressed those threats in GRSG habitat “must 

be minimized to the extent that population trends meet the objectives of the 2006 WAFWA 

Conservation Strategy” (FWS 2013). 

The plans were developed to address specific, identified threats to the species in order to conserve 

GRSG, such that the need to list it under ESA may be avoided. Across ten western states, the Great 

Basin and Rocky Mountain sub-regional ARMPs/ARMPAs contain land use plan direction on 

approximately 67 million acres of the GRSG’s remaining habitat (see Figure 1-5). These plans are the 

product of extensive coordination between the BLM and the Forest Service and the active engagement 

of the FWS which informed the BLM and Forest Service land allocation and related management 

decisions. The plans also benefit from strong collaboration with the States and reflect the unique 

landscapes, habitats, priorities and approaches in each. 

In order to protect the most important GRSG habitat areas, planning began with mapping areas of 

important habitat across the range of the GRSG. In collaboration with State fish and wildlife agencies, 

the BLM identified areas as preliminary priority habitat (PPH) and preliminary general habitat (PGH). In 

Utah, all occupied GRSG habitat was identified as PPH. The Draft RMPAs/EISs used PPH and PGH to 

analyze the impacts of the decisions the BLM was proposing in the plans. PPH and PGH were identified 

as Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMAs) in 

the Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs to identify the management decisions that apply to those areas (except 

for Nevada and Utah). The designated GRSG habitat management areas on BLM-administered lands in 

the decision area are as follows: 

 PHMAs, which largely coincide with PACs identified in the COT Report3 

 GHMAs 

 Other Habitat Management Areas (OHMAs; applicable only to the Nevada and 

Northeastern California) 

 Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMAs, applicable only to Idaho) 

Table 1-3 identifies surface acres of PHMAs, GHMAs, OHMAs, and IHMAs in the decision area for the 

Great Basin Region. 

Habitat maps were based initially on State key habitat maps, which identified areas necessary for GRSG 

conservation. These areas were derived from breeding bird density maps and lek counts, nesting areas, 

sightings, and habitat distribution data. These data included occupied suitable seasonal habitats, nesting 

and brood-rearing areas, and connectivity areas or corridors. The BLM used this information to develop 

PPH and PGH maps and, subsequently, to identify PHMAs and GHMAs, respectively. 

The COT Report also used State key habitat maps as a basis for identifying PACs. The COT Report 

notes that there is substantial overlap between PACs and BLM PPH areas, with the exception of areas in 

Nevada and Utah (FWS 2013, p. 13). Figure 1-5 illustrates the regional and sub-regional Planning Area 

boundaries, along with BLM-administered PHMAs and GHMAs across the western US. 

 

3 Except for PACs in Nevada and Utah, as specified on page 13 of the COT Report; see Figure 1-4. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-15 

Table 1-3

Surface Acres of PHMAs, GHMAs, OHMAs, and IHMAs in the Decision Area for the 

Great Basin Region 

BLM-Administered Surface 

Acres PHMAs GHMAs OHMAs IHMAs

Idaho and Southwestern Montana 4,627,200 2,179,700 0 2,737,600

Utah* 2,023,400 502,500 0 0

Oregon 4,547,000 5,660,150 0 0

Nevada and Northeastern 

California

9,309,700 5,720,600 5,876,600 0

Total Acres 20,507,300 14,062,950 5,876,600 2,737,600

Source: BLM GIS 2015

*41,200 acres of National Forest System lands in the Anthro Mountain area of Utah would be managed as 

neither PHMAs nor GHMAs. These areas would be identified as “Anthro Mountain.” In the Utah ARMPA, these 

areas are considered split-estate, where the BLM administers the mineral estate.

The BLM-administered surface and Federal mineral estate of each designation (in acres) in the Decision 

Area for the Great Basin Region are shown in Table 1-3; PHMAs, GHMAs, OHMAs, and IHMAs are 

defined below. 

 PHMA—BLM-administered lands identified as having the highest habitat value for 

maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. The boundaries and management strategies for 

PHMAs are derived from and generally follow the PPH boundaries. PHMAs largely coincide 

with areas identified as PACs in the COT Report (except for PACs in Nevada and Utah, as 

specified on page 13 of the COT Report).

 GHMA—BLM-administered GRSG habitat that is occupied seasonally or year-round and is 

outside of PHMAs. It is where some special management would apply to sustain GRSG 

populations. The boundaries and management strategies for GHMAs are derived from and 

generally follow the PGH boundaries.

 OHMA—BLM-administered land in Nevada and Northeastern California, identified as 

unmapped habitat in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, that is within the Planning Area and 

contains seasonal or connectivity habitat areas. With the generation of updated modeling 

data (Spatially Explicit Modeling of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat in Nevada and 

Northeastern California; Coates et al. 2014) the areas containing characteristics of 

unmapped habitat were identified and are now referred to as OHMAs. 

 IHMA—BLM-administered land in Idaho that provides a management buffer for and that 

connect patches of PHMAs. IHMAs encompass areas of generally moderate to high habitat 

value habitat or populations but that are not as important as PHMAs. These lands serve a 

critical role in the adaptive management strategy developed by the State of Idaho and 

adopted in the ARMPA. 

The ARMPAs also identify Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) on a portion of the landscape. SFAs are a 

subset of PHMAs (see Figure 1-3). Across the Great Basin Region, there are 8,385,280 acres of BLMadministered SFAs. They correspond to the areas identified by the FWS as GRSG “strongholds” and 
1. Introduction 

1-16 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

represent “a subset of priority habitat most vital to the species persistence within which we recommend 

the strongest levels of protection” (FWS 2014a). 

SFAs are areas of highest habitat value for GRSG and are managed to avoid new surface disturbance for 

the following reasons: 

 They contain high-quality sagebrush habitat and the highest breeding bird densities 

 They have been identified as essential to conservation and persistence of the species 

 They represent a preponderance of current Federal ownership 

 In some cases, they are next to protected areas that serve to anchor the conservation 

importance of the landscape 

SFA management is consistent with the recommendations provided by the FWS that these are the areas 

“where it is most important that the BLM and Forest Service institutionalize the highest degree of 

protection to help promote persistence of the species” (FWS 2014a). 

Remaining habitats in GHMAs and IHMAs (applicable only to BLM-administered lands in Idaho) would be 

managed consistent with the COT Report recommendation to recognize “that important habitats 

outside of PACs be conserved to the extent possible” (FWS 2013). Thus, land allocations in GHMAs 

and IHMAs provide for more flexibility for land use activities, while minimizing impacts on existing 

GRSG leks. This tiered habitat management area framework, associated with the land use plan allocation 

decisions in the ARMPs and ARMPAs (explained more fully in Section 1.6 of this ROD) provides a high 

degree of certainty that the integrity of PHMAs can be maintained through management decisions. This 

would be done to avoid or minimize additional surface disturbance. At the same time, it would 

recognize the potential importance of areas outside of PHMAs for maintaining connectivity between 

highly important habitats and their potential for addressing seasonal habitat needs, such as winter habitat 

areas not fully incorporated in PHMAs.4 

Major components of the attached ARMPAs that address the specific threats to GRSG and its habitat, as 

identified in the FWS 2010 listing decision and 2013 COT Report (many of which were also identified by 

the BLM’s 2011 NTT Report), are listed and summarized in Table 1-4. 

 

4 Recently completed analysis by Crist et al. (2015) highlights the importance of certain key “priority areas” across the species 

range as well as the importance of connectivity between priority areas as a component of successful GRSG conservation. 

Generally, these priority areas coincide with PHMAs across the landscape. It is important to note that BLM-administered SFAs 

also coincide with a number of the areas identified by Crist et al. (2015) as important for maintaining connectivity between the 

network of conservation areas that are of greatest importance to the integrity of the conservation strategy. To maintain 

connectivity between PHMAs across the remaining range, requirements were incorporated into the majority of the ARMPAs 

for lek buffers, consistent with guidance provided by the USGS; mitigation to a net conservation gain; and required design 

features for projects in GHMAs, as described later in this document. These measures are specifically intended to benefit GRSG 

in GHMAs by maintaining connectivity and added habitat protection consistent with the Crist et al. (2015) findings. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-17 

Table 1-4

Key Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG ARMPAs that Address the COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG 

ARMPAs

All threats  Implement an Adaptive Management Strategy, which allows for more 

restrictive management to be implemented if habitat or population hard 

triggers are met. 

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats in a consistent manner. 

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMAs—Implement a human disturbance cap of 3 percent within the 

biologically significant unit (BSU) and proposed project analysis areas in 

PHMAs (slight variations to this management component in Nevada only).

 PHMAs and IHMAs—Apply a disturbance density cap of 1 energy and 

mining facility per 640 acres (except in Nevada).

 IHMAs—Implement the 3 percent disturbance cap. Apply Anthropogenic 

Disturbance Development Criteria (applicable to Idaho only).

 Apply buffers based on project type and location to address impacts on leks 

when authorizing actions in GRSG habitat. 

 Apply required design features (RDFs) when authorizing actions in GRSG 

habitat. 

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

best available science, updated as monitoring information on current 

infrastructure projects becomes available.

 Consider the potential for the development of valid existing rights when 

authorizing new projects in PHMAs.

 When authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation 

gain to the species.

Energy 

development—fluid 

minerals, including 

geothermal resources 

 PHMAs—Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to a no surface occupancy 

(NSO) stipulation without waiver or modification and with limited 

exceptions. In SFAs, an NSO stipulation would be applied without waiver, 

modification, or exception. In Nevada only, in the portions of the PHMAs

outside of SFAs, geothermal projects may be considered for authorization if 

certain criteria are met. 

 IHMAs—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to NSO stipulation without 

waiver or modification and with limited exception (applicable to Idaho 

only).

 GHMAs—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to controlled surface use 

and timing limitation lease stipulations (except in Utah, where some 

portions of GHMAs are open with standard lease stipulations).

 Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside 

GRSG habitat. 

Energy 

development—wind 

energy

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

any conditions, except in the southeastern counties of Oregon, where 

portions of PHMAs are avoidance areas).
1. Introduction 

1-18 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 1-4

Key Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG ARMPAs that Address the COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG 

ARMPAs

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

with special stipulations; applicable to Idaho only).

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

with special stipulations, except in Utah and Idaho, where these areas are 

open to wind energy development).

Energy 

development—solar 

energy

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

any conditions, except in southeastern counties in Oregon, where portions 

of PHMAs are avoidance areas).

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

with special stipulations; applicable to Idaho only).

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

any conditions, except in Oregon and Montana, where these areas are 

avoidance areas for solar energy development, and Idaho, where these 

areas are open to solar energy development).

Infrastructure—major 

rights-of-way 

(ROWs)

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

stipulations).

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

stipulations; applicable to Idaho only).

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

stipulations, except in Utah, where GHMAs are open).

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

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

stipulations).

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

stipulations; applicable to Idaho only).

Mining—locatable 

minerals

 SFAs—Recommend withdrawal from the Mining Law of 1872.

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

 PHMAs—Closed area (not available for nonenergy leasable minerals;

however, expansion of existing operations could be considered if the 

disturbance is within the cap and subject to compensatory mitigation).

Mining—salable 

minerals

 PHMAs—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).

Improper livestock 

grazing

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

followed by PHMAs. 

 Ensure that the NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of grazing 

permits and leases includes specific management thresholds, based on the 

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

potential, to allow adjustments to grazing that have already been subjected 

to NEPA analysis. 

 Prioritize field checks in SFAs, followed by PHMAs, to ensure compliance 

with the terms and conditions of grazing permits. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-19 

Table 1-4

Key Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG ARMPAs that Address the COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Great Basin Region GRSG 

ARMPAs

Free-roaming equid

(horses and burros)

management

 Prioritize gathers in SFAs, followed by other PHMAs.

 Manage herd management areas 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 adjust AMLs and 

preparation of herd management area 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.

 Remove livestock ponds built in perennial channels that are negatively 

impacting riparian habitats. Do not permit new ones to be built in these 

areas.

Recreation  PHMAs and IHMAs—Do not construct new recreation facilities unless 

required for health and safety purposes or if the construction will result in 

a net conservation gain to the species.

 Allow special recreation permits only if their effects on GRSG and its 

habitat are neutral or result in a net conservation gain.

 PHMAs and GHMAs—Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use limited to existing 

routes (routes to be designated through future travel management 

planning). The Utah ARMPA does retain two areas as open to OHV use in 

PHMAs.

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

actions important for GRSG protection. 

 Restrict the use of prescribed fire for fuel treatments.

 Prioritize post-fire treatments in SFAs, other PHMAs, IHMAs, and GHMAs. 

Nonnative, invasive 

plant species

 Improve GRSG habitat by treating annual grasses.

 Treat sites in PHMAs, IHMAs, and GHMAs that contain invasive species 

infestations through an integrated pest management approach.

Sagebrush removal  PHMAs—Maintain all lands capable of producing sagebrush (but no less 

than 70 percent), with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush canopy cover, 

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, prioritizing occupied 

GRSG habitat, in a manner that considers tribal cultural values. 

Agricultural 

conversion and 

exurban development

 Retain GRSG habitat in Federal management, unless disposal (including 

exchanges) of the lands would provide a net conservation gain to GRSG or 

disposal (including exchanges) of the lands would have no direct or indirect 

adverse impact on conservation of GRSG.
1. Introduction 

1-20 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

1.6 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE BLM GRSG CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The ARMPAs were developed to meet the purpose and need to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG 

habitat by eliminating or minimizing threats to their habitat identified in the 2010 listing decision and 

highlighted in the Background and Purpose Section of the COT Report (FWS 2013). Consequently, 

consistent with guidance contained in the COT and NTT Reports, four essential components of the 

GRSG conservation strategy were identified, as follows: 

 Avoiding or minimizing new and additional surface disturbances 

 Improving habitat conditions 

 Reducing threats of rangeland fire to GRSG and sagebrush habitat in the Great Basin 

 Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures and implementing 

adaptive management, as needed 

The land allocations and management actions included in the ARMPAs incorporate these components 

and are summarized below. 

1.6.1 Avoid and Minimize Surface Disturbance 

Land Use Allocations and Management Actions in SFAs, PHMAs, and GHMAs 

The four Great Basin ARMPAs build on the designated habitat management areas described in Section 

1.5 by applying management actions to these areas to avoid and minimize disturbance associated with 

proposed projects, as described below and shown in Table 1-4. Land use plan allocations specify 

locations within the Planning Area that are available or unavailable for certain uses and also prioritize 

conservation and restoration management actions applied to habitat management areas. 

The COT Report states that “maintenance of the integrity of PACs ... is the essential foundation for 

sage-grouse conservation” (FWS 2013, p. 36). Areas of PHMAs largely coincide with areas identified as 

PACs in the COT Report. While surface disturbance associated with development in the Great Basin is 

not as significant a threat to GRSG and its habitat as rangeland fire and invasive species, the BLM 

ARMPAs include land allocations and management actions that avoid and minimize surface disturbance in 

PHMAs for identified threats (e.g., energy, mining, infrastructure, improper grazing, free-roaming horses 

and burros, recreation and urbanization). These land allocations and management actions are necessary 

because the location and extent of habitat loss to fire is difficult to predict, and much of the habitat, due 

to low precipitation in the Great Basin, is difficult to restore once lost. Further, even a small amount of 

development in the wrong place could have an outsized impact in these landscapes. 

SFAs—The most restrictive allocations include requirements to avoid and minimize additional 

disturbance in SFAs, which are a subset of lands within PHMAs, with the highest habitat value for GRSG. 

Surface disturbance from fluid mineral development is avoided by imposing NSOs, without waiver, 

modification, or exception. In addition, these areas will be recommended for withdrawal from mineral 

entry under the Mining Law of 1872, subject to valid existing rights, to address the risk of disturbance 

due to mining. 

PHMAs—In PHMAs outside of SFAs new fluid mineral leasing would be subject to NSOs, with no 

waivers or modifications. Exceptions would be granted only under two circumstances: if the proposed 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-21 

action would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat or if the action is 

proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel, and it 

would provide a clear conservation gain to GRSG. This is fully consistent with guidance in the NTT 

Report, which states, “Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal lands within priority habitats”

(NTT 2011, p. 23). 

Similarly, PHMAs are closed to nonenergy and salable mineral development (this does not apply to 

locatable minerals governed under the 1872 Mining Law). An exception may be granted for free-use 

permits and the expansion of active pits for salable minerals and expansion of nonenergy leasable 

development under certain conditions. This exception is included because of the importance of these 

materials to local communities and their limited disturbance, which would be offset by the mitigation 

requirements. 

Because there is no potential for coal development in the Great Basin Region outside of Utah, only the 

Utah ARMPA addresses the potential disturbance threat from coal development. In Utah, at the time an 

application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM will determine 

whether the lease application area is deemed unsuitable for all or certain coal mining methods, pursuant 

to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for the purposes of suitability 

criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1).

All PHMAs will be managed as exclusion areas for commercial renewable energy development (solar and 

wind), with the exception of areas outside of SFAs in three counties in southeastern Oregon. The three 

counties in Oregon will be managed as avoidance areas, with priority placed on locating commercialscale wind and solar energy development in nonhabitat areas first, that is, outside of PHMAs and 

GHMAs, before development in PHMAs is approved. New ROWs and development for transmission 

lines, pipelines, and related infrastructure would be avoided by restricting land use authorizations. In 

avoidance areas, exceptions would be granted only if it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts would 

be avoided or that residual impacts would be mitigated. 

High voltage transmission lines will generally be avoided in PHMAs. A limited number of priority 

transmission lines, such as Transwest Express and portions that are collocated with Transwest Express, 

including Gateway South, Gateway West, and Boardman to Hemingway, have been proposed to expand 

access to renewable sources of energy and to improve the reliability of the western grid. These projects 

have been underway for several years and are currently being analyzed under NEPA. As part of the 

decision-making process for those projects, conservation measures for GRSG are being analyzed in the 

project-specific NEPA processes, which should achieve a net conservation benefit for GRSG. 

New recreation facilities would not be authorized in PHMAs, unless the development results in a net 

conservation gain to the GRSG or its habitat or unless required for health and safety purposes. 

In PHMAs, travel is limited to existing routes until new routes are designated through the 

implementation travel management planning process. Travel management plans, including route 

inventories, NEPA analysis, and route designation will be completed in a subsequent public planning 

process. 

A 3 percent human disturbance cap in PHMAs has been established in accordance with the 

recommendations contained in the NTT Report and peer-reviewed literature from the Great Basin 
1. Introduction 

1-22 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

(Knick et al. 2013). Disturbance will be calculated at two scales: first at the BSU scale determined in 

coordination with the state and second for the proposed project area. BSUs are geographic units of 

PHMAs that contain relevant and important GRSG habitat. In Oregon, for example, BSUs are 

synonymous with PACs. These BSUs are used solely for the calculation of human disturbance caps and 

in some ARMPAs, the adaptive management habitat triggers. 

If the 3 percent human disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of landownership) in PHMAs in 

any given BSU, no further discrete human disturbances (subject to valid existing rights) will be permitted 

on BLM-managed lands in that BSU until restoration of disturbed lands brings the BSU below the cap. If 

the 3 percent human disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of landownership) within a 

proposed project analysis area in a PHMAs, then the BLM would permit no further human disturbance 

until disturbance in the area has been reduced to below the cap. 

An exception to the 3 percent disturbance cap is provided in designated utility corridors for achieving a 

net conservation gain to the species. This exception is limited to projects that fulfill the use that the 

corridors were designated for (e.g., transmission lines and pipelines) and within the designated width of 

a corridor. This exception will concentrate future ROW surface disturbance in areas of existing 

disturbance and will avoid new development of infrastructure corridors in PHMAs, which is consistent 

with guidance in the COT Report. In addition, the Oregon and Nevada/Northeast California ARMPAs 

include variations to the disturbance cap. Oregon does not allow more than 1 percent new human 

disturbance per decade, not to exceed 3 percent disturbance at any time. In Nevada, the 3 percent 

disturbance cap can be exceeded at the BSU or project level provided that the outcome results in a net 

conservation benefit to the species with the concurrence of the BLM, the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife, and the FWS in each exception. 

In the Dillon Field Office in southwest Montana, the BLM will limit disturbance to 3 percent until the 

State institutes its Sage Grouse Plan’s disturbance calculation method, at which time disturbance will be 

permitted up to a 5 percent cap. As with the Wyoming Core Area Strategy, this is to recognize the 

importance of the all-lands/all-disturbances strategy that Montana will institute for GRSG conservation

(Montana Office of the Governor Executive Order No. 10-2014; State of Montana 2014). Appendix E of 

each of the attached ARMPAs includes additional information about the method for calculating human

disturbance at the BSU and project scales.

The ARMPAs also incorporate a cap on the density of energy and mining facilities to encourage 

collocating structures to reduce habitat fragmentation in PHMAs. The limit is an average of one facility 

per 640 acres in PHMAs in a project authorization area. This is consistent with guidance contained in 

the NTT Report. If the disturbance density in the PHMAs in a proposed project area is, on average, less 

than 1 facility per 640 acres, the project can proceed through the NEPA analysis, incorporating 

mitigation measures into an alternative. If the disturbance density in the proposed project area 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 redesigned so facilities are collocated into an 

existing disturbed area, subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 1872 Mining Law and valid 

existing rights. The 1 facility per 640 density decision does not apply to Nevada, as described in Section 

1.7. 

GHMAs—While restrictions on future development in PHMAs are intended to avoid or minimize 

additional surface disturbance, restrictions on development in GHMAs are intended to allow disturbance 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-23 

but minimize any adverse effects of disturbance with restrictions on development activities to ensure 

compatibility with GRSG habitat needs. In addition, mitigation to avoid, minimize, and compensate for 

unavoidable impacts will be required for proposed projects in GHMAs, as will the application of the 

RDFs discussed below. 

Disturbance associated with oil and gas development, for example, is subject to a controlled surface use 

and timing limitation stipulation rather than an NSO stipulation. (See Table 1-4 for more details on 

GHMAs management decisions.) Any disturbance is subject to mitigation, with the objective of first 

avoiding and minimizing potential impacts on GRSG or its habitat and then compensating for unavoidable 

impacts on GRSG or its habitat, to a net conservation gain standard for the species. This is consistent 

with guidance in the COT Report which states: “Conservation of habitats outside of PACs should 

include minimization of impacts to sage-grouse and healthy native plant communities. If minimization is 

not possible due to valid existing rights, mitigation for impacted habitats should occur... If development 

or vegetation manipulation activities outside of PACs are proposed, the project proponent should work 

with federal, state or local agencies and interested stakeholders to ensure consistency with sage-grouse 

habitat needs” (FWS 2013). 

These conservation measures are intended to ensure that areas of GHMAs are protected. GHMAs 

provide connectivity between PHMAs; may be important seasonal habitats not identified or 

incorporated into previously mapped areas of PHMAs; or can provide important habitat to replace areas 

of important habitat lost to fire or human disturbance. This strategy is particularly important given the 

recent USGS report by Crist et al. (2015), Range-Wide Network of Priority Aras for Grater Sage-Grouse—A 

Design for Conserving Connected Distributions or Isolating Individual Zoos? 

For management decisions and allocations associated with IHMAs in Idaho, see Table 1-4. 

Habitat Protection and Surface Disturbance Measures in PHMAs and GHMAs 

The measures below are related to habitat protection and surface disturbance. They will be applied in 

both PHMAs and GHMAs. 

Prioritization Objective—In addition to allocations that limit disturbance in PHMAs and GHMAs, the 

ARMPAs prioritize oil and gas leasing and development outside of identified PHMAs and GHMAs to 

further limit future surface disturbance and to encourage new development in areas that would not 

conflict with GRSG. This objective is intended to guide development to lower conflict areas and, as such, 

protect important habitat and reduce the time and cost associated with oil and gas leasing development. 

It would do this by avoiding sensitive areas, reducing the complexity of environmental review and 

analysis of potential impacts on sensitive species, and decreasing the need for compensatory mitigation. 

Grazing—While improper livestock grazing can be a threat to GRSG habitat, grazing is not considered a 

discrete surface-disturbing activity for the purposes of monitoring and calculating disturbance. The plans 

address grazing management to conserve GRSG and its habitat and are further described in Section 

1.6.2. 

Lek Buffers—In addition to any other relevant information determined to be appropriate, the BLM will 

further assess and address impacts from certain activities using the lek buffer distances, as identified in 

the USGS report, Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for GRSG – A Review (Manier et al. 2014). Lek 

buffer distances will be applied at the project-specific level as required conservation measures to address 
1. Introduction 

1-24 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

the impacts on leks identified in the NEPA analysis. The lek buffer distances vary by type of disturbance, 

such as road, energy development, and infrastructure; justifiable departures may be appropriate, as fully 

described in Appendix B of the ARMPAs. In both PHMAs and GHMAs, impacts should be avoided first 

by locating the action outside of the applicable lek buffer-distances, as defined in the ARMPAs. In 

PHMAs, the BLM will ensure that any impacts within the buffer distance from a lek are fully addressed. 

In GHMAs, the BLM will minimize and compensate for any unavoidable impacts to the extent possible. 

This approach to determining relevant lek buffer distances is consistent with the COT Report 

recommendation that “conservation plans should be based on the best available science and use local 

data on threats and ecological conditions” (FWS 2013). 

Required Design Features—RDFs are used for certain activities in all GRSG habitat, including oil and gas 

development, infrastructure, and other surface-disturbing activities and are fully described in Appendix C 

of the attached ARMPAs. RDFs establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help 

mitigate adverse impacts on GRSG and its habitat from threats, such as those posed by standing water 

that can facilitate West Nile virus or tall structures that can serve as perches for predators. The 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF, however, cannot be fully assessed until the BLM 

knows the project level, project location, and design. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs 

may not apply to some projects, such as when a resource is not present on a given site, or may require 

slight variations, such as a larger or smaller protective area. In Nevada and Northeastern California, 

RDFs are also applied to identified OHMAs. 

In summary, all forms of new development in PHMAs and GHMAs would either be closed, excluded, 

avoided, or developed only if the resultant effect were a net conservation gain to the GRSG or its 

habitat, ensuring that existing habitat would be protected or restored through compensatory mitigation. 

1.6.2 Improving Habitat Condition 

In addition to prescribing land use allocations and managing resource uses to minimize and avoid further 

surface disturbance, the ARMPAs identify management actions to restore and improve GRSG habitat. 

Habitat Management—The ARMPAs contain an overall habitat management objective that “[i]n 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 percent) with a minimum of 15 

percent sagebrush canopy cover, consistent with specific ecological site conditions.” To move toward 

this goal, the ARMPAs specify GRSG habitat objectives to be incorporated into land management 

programs, including wild horses and burros (WHBs), grazing, and habitat restoration. These habitat 

objectives were developed for each of the GRSG’s life history stages within each ARMPA’s sub-region. 

These objectives will be used to meet the applicable land health standard in GRSG habitats. 

The ARMPAs also include specific decisions to improve habitat conditions and meet the habitat 

objectives by treating invasive annual grasses and removing encroaching conifers in SFAs, PHMAs, and 

GHMAs and by restoring degraded landscapes, including those impacted by fires (see Section 1.6.3.) 

Livestock Grazing—The BLM recognizes that improper grazing can be a threat to GRSG and its habitat. 

Because grazing is the most widespread use of the sagebrush steppe ecosystem, the ARMPAs address 

improper grazing. The COT Report (FWS 2013) recommends conducting “grazing management for all 

ungulates in a manner consistent with local ecological conditions that maintains or restores healthy 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-25 

sagebrush shrub and native perennial grass and forb communities and conserves the essential habitat 

components for sage-grouse (e.g., shrub cover, nesting cover).” To ensure that grazing continues in a 

manner consistent with the objective of conserving the GRSG and its habitat, the Great Basin ARMPAs 

require incorporating terms and conditions informed by GRSG habitat objectives into grazing permits, 

consistent with the ecological site potential of the local areas, prioritizing reviewing and processing 

authorizations and field checks of grazing permits, and taking numerous actions to avoid and minimize 

the impacts of range management structures (see Table 1-4).

The BLM will prioritize reviewing and processing grazing authorizations, as well as field checking grazing 

permits in the habitat that is most important to GRSG populations: first in SFAs, then PHMAs, followed 

by GHMAs, focusing first on riparian and wet meadows. The decision to prioritize in this way does not 

indicate that grazing is more of a threat or is an incompatible use in any given area; rather it reflects a 

decision to prioritize resources to ensure that permittees and the BLM manage grazing properly in 

those areas most important to GRSG. If the BLM were to find that relevant habitat objectives are not 

being met due to improper grazing, it would work with the permittee to ensure progress toward habitat 

objectives. 

Wild Horses and Burros—To address the localized threat due to negative influences of grazing by freeroaming WHBs, the BLM will focus on maintaining WHB herd management areas in GRSG habitat in 

established AML ranges. This is to achieve and maintain GRSG habitat objectives. It includes completing 

rangeland health assessments, prioritizing gathers and population growth suppression techniques, and 

developing or amending herd management area plans to incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and 

management considerations. The BLM will prioritize WHB management first in SFAs, then the 

remainder of PHMAs, and then GHMAs. In SFAs and PHMAs, the BLM will assess and adjust AMLs 

through the NEPA process within herd management areas when WHBs are identified as a significant 

factor in not meeting land health standards, even if current AML is not being exceeded. 

Mitigation and Net Conservation Benefit—During the implementation of the ARMPAs, and subject to valid 

existing rights and consistent with applicable law, in authorizing third-party actions that result in GRSG 

habitat loss and degradation, the BLM will require mitigation that provides a net conservation gain (the 

actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions) to the species. This will include accounting for any 

uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This will be achieved by avoiding, 

minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable impacts by applying beneficial conservation actions to 

offset remaining impacts associated with the action. 

This standard is consistent with the recommendation in the Greater Sage-Grouse Range-wide Mitigation 

Framework: Version 1.0 (FWS 2014b), which states that mitigation “should be strategically designed to 

result in net overall positive outcomes for sage-grouse.” Mitigation will follow the regulations from the 

CEQ NEPA regulatory requirements (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate). It would 

be implemented on BLM-administered lands in a manner consistent with Department of the Interior 

guidance for landscape mitigation, pursuant to Secretarial Order 3330. If impacts from BLM management 

actions and authorized third-party actions result in habitat loss and degradation that remain after 

avoidance and minimization measures are applied, then compensatory mitigation projects would 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. 
1. Introduction 

1-26 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

To help achieve the mitigation goal of net conservation gain across the range, the BLM will establish 

GRSG Conservation Teams, based on WAFWA MZs and including representatives from the respective 

States, the Forest Service, FWS, and NRCS. These Conservation Teams will facilitate cross-state issues, 

such as regional mitigation and adaptive management monitoring and response. They will convene and 

respond to issues at the appropriate scale and will use existing coordination and management structures 

to the extent possible. 

Climate Change—With regard to the threat of climate change, the ARMPAs set goals and objectives and 

describe actions intended to build resilience in the sagebrush steppe landscape to the impacts of climate 

change through habitat conservation and restoration measures. The coordinated landscape approach to 

addressing rangeland fire and invasive species described in the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management 

Strategy: Final Report to the Secretary of the Interior (US Department of the Interior 2015) will further 

these goals and objectives. 

The Fire and Invasives Assessment Team (FIAT) assessments that informed the ARMPAs and supported 

the development of the Fire Strategy (US Department of the Interior 2015) were designed to identify 

landscapes of high resistance and resilience based on research by Chambers et al. (2014). Additionally, 

limiting or eliminating human surface disturbance, especially in the SFAs, would ensure the integrity of 

the PHMAs and would restore habitat through fuels management, post-fire restoration, and mitigation 

efforts. Connectivity and availability of sagebrush habitat would increase, thus contributing to increased 

climate resilience. The SFAs in particular were identified as key areas to conserve as the climate 

changes. The Oregon ARMPA commits to using climate change science concerning projected changes in 

species ranges and changes in site capability. This would be used to adjust expected and desired native 

species compositions as that information becomes available. 

As identified by the FWS 2010 listing decision and the COT Report, climate change can impact efforts to 

conserve the GRSG and its habitat in a number of ways. While several ARMPAs acknowledge the 

potential impact of climate change on GRSG habitat and conservation, specific strategies to address the 

impacts of climate change are limited. The BLM and Forest Service, in coordination with the FWS, will 

continue to assess the potential impacts of climate change on GRSG and its habitat and will develop 

strategies to mitigate the anticipated effects on GRSG conservation efforts, as necessary and 

appropriate. Changes to management decisions will require a plan revision or amendment, as 

appropriate, recognizing the need to ensure that future management direction improves the resilience of 

habitat areas essential to the conservation of the species. 

1.6.3 Reducing Threats of Rangeland Fire to GRSG and Sagebrush Habitat 

The COT Report emphasized that “rangeland fire (both lightning-caused and human-caused fire) in 

sagebrush ecosystems is one of the primary risks to the greater sage-grouse, especially as part of the 

positive feedback loop between exotic invasive annual grasses and fire frequency” (FWS 2013). Recent 

USGS studies by Brooks et al. (2015) and Coates et al. (2015) reinforce the importance of a 

comprehensive management strategy to prevent and suppress rangeland fires in the western part of 

GRSG range and to aggressively restore habitat areas impacted by fire. 

For this reason, the ARMPAs seek to improve efforts to strategically develop fuel breaks, in 

collaboration with GRSG biologists. This would be done to reduce potential habitat loss from rangeland 

fires, accelerate the restoration of fire-impacted landscapes to native grasses and sagebrush, and fight 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-27 

the spread of cheatgrass and other invasive species that increase the frequency and intensity of 

rangeland fires. However, prescribed fire will not be used in sagebrush steppe. The exception would be 

if the NEPA analysis for the burn plan were to provide a clear rationale for why alternative techniques 

were not selected as a viable option. The analysis also would need to explain how GRSG habitat 

management goals and objectives would be met by its use and how the COT Report objectives would 

be met. It would require a risk assessment to address how potential threats to GRSG habitat would be 

minimized. 

Recent scientific research on resistance and resilience of Great Basin ecosystems (Chambers et al. 2014) 

provides the basis for improved targeting of fire management activities on BLM-administered lands. The 

BLM, the Forest Service, FWS, and other cooperating agencies agreed to incorporate this approach into 

the ARMPAs. This information is being used to identify and design projects to change vegetation 

composition and structure to modify potential fire behavior to improve fire suppression effectiveness 

and limit fire spread and intensity due to invasive grasses and conifer encroachment. The BLM Greater 

Sage Grouse Invasive Wildfire, Annual Grasses and Conifer Expansion Assessment (FIAT 2014) modeled 

conifer expansion for PACs to provide an initial stratification. It was done to determine where conifer 

removal would benefit important sagebrush habitats. 

Consistent with this assessment, the BLM ARMPAs include management actions to remove invading 

conifers and other undesirable species and to prioritize vegetation treatments for the purpose closest to 

occupied GRSG habitats and near occupied leks. 

In addition to and complementing the fire management measures in the ARMPAs described in this ROD, 

Secretarial Order 3336 on Rangeland Fire made clear that “protecting, conserving, and restoring 

the health of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem and, in particular, priority GRSG habitat, 

while maintaining safe and efficient operations, is a critical fire management priority for 

the Department” (emphasis added; US Department of the Interior 2015). 

Secretarial Order 3336 directed the development of the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy

(Strategy) which places a Departmental priority on activities to prevent, suppress, and restore fireimpacted landscapes. It focused on priority GRSG habitat, including that identified by the FIAT for the 

Great Basin Region, using recent information derived from a report prepared by WAFWA to assist in 

addressing the threat of rangeland fire. The FIAT Assessments provide critical guidance to conserve, 

enhance, and restore GRSG habitat consistent with best available science and identify highly resistant 

and resilient landscapes to target fire management in these most important lands. 

A key element of the Strategy is a commitment to address the invasion and expansion of cheatgrass, 

medusahead rye, and other invasive grasses through expanded efforts to treat impacted acres. Efforts 

are underway to increase the acreages to be treated with chemical and biological agents to stem the 

spread of invasive species and to accelerate the registration of other biologicals useful in addressing the 

threat of cheatgrass invasion. In addition, recently adopted Department of the Interior guidance will 

allocate Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Rehabilitation (ES & BAR) funds on a risk-based 

approach using historic acres burned to accelerate and expand the restoration of burned lands with 

native grasses and sagebrush seedlings. The BLM recently announced a Native Seed Strategy to 

accelerate and expand the production, storage, and allocation of seed for native vegetation and 

sagebrush. The strategy is to restore and rehabilitate burned areas and accelerate the improvement of 

the sagebrush ecosystem and habitat for GRSG. 
1. Introduction 

1-28 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Finally, by issuing a leaders’ intent letter, signed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, 

rangeland fire was identified as an “additional priority” for the firefighting community in making strategic 

decisions about firefighting resource allocation in 2015. Additional resources have been allocated and 

will be targeted at the following: 

 Fuel treatments, including invasive species control 

 Suppression, by positioning firefighting resources and training additional Rangeland Fire 

Protection Associations, local volunteer firefighters, and veteran fire fighters 

 Restoring habitat in these areas 

Firefighting assets (aircraft, firefighters, and related equipment) were positioned in advance of the 2015 

fire season to improve capacity and reduce acres of rangelands lost to fire by improving the success of 

the initial attack. In future years, BLM firefighting assets will be located near PHMAs to limit habitat 

losses from rangeland fire. 

1.6.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 

The COT Report preparers noted that “a monitoring program is necessary to track the success of 

conservation plans and proactive conservation activities. Without this information, the actual benefit of 

conservation activities cannot be measured and there is no capacity to adapt if current management 

actions are determined to be ineffective” (FWS 2013). The NTT further notes that “Monitoring is 

necessary to provide an objective appraisal of the effects of potentially positive conservation actions, and 

to assess the relative negative effects of management actions to sage‐grouse populations and their 

habitats” (NTT 2011). 

A range-wide monitoring and evaluation framework will be established and implemented, as described in 

the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D of each attached ARMPA). This monitoring strategy has two 

parts, as follows: 

 Implementation monitoring (i.e., are decisions being implemented in a timely manner? are 

actions taken consistent with the plan decisions?) 

 Effectiveness monitoring (i.e., are the decisions and implementation actions achieving the 

desired conservation goals?) 

Through effectiveness monitoring, the BLM can determine how management decisions and actions 

implemented through the ARMPAs affect GRSG habitat. This would be to determine if the desired 

management objectives, such as avoiding and minimizing additional surface disturbance in PHMAs, have 

been achieved. Understanding the effectiveness and validating results of ARMPA management decisions 

is an essential part of the GRSG conservation strategy and provides the means for determining if desired 

outcomes are being achieved. 

Monitoring that is applicable for evaluating management effectiveness can also be used to address a 

number of other critical habitat variables (e.g., location, condition, habitat loss or gain, and size of 

patches). Ideally, monitoring attributes of GRSG habitat, in coordination with population monitoring by 

State wildlife agencies and other partners, will allow real or potential habitat changes from both natural 

events and management actions to be linked to vital rates of GRSG populations. This analysis will enable 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-29 

managers to identify indicators associated with population change across large landscapes and to lessen 

the negative effects with appropriate conservation actions. The WAFWA Zone GRSG Conservation 

Teams (as described in Section 1.6.2) will also be used to advise regional monitoring strategies and 

data analysis, as described in the plans. 

Each ARMPA includes an overarching adaptive management strategy that includes soft and hard triggers 

and responses. These triggers are habitat and population thresholds and are based on the two key 

metrics that are being monitored: habitat condition and population numbers. At a minimum, the BLM 

will assess annually whether hard and soft trigger thresholds have been met when the population or 

habitat information becomes available, beginning after this ROD executed. 

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 during the life of 

the ARMPAs, the BLM will implement more conservative or restrictive conservation measures on a 

project-by-project basis to mitigate for the specific cause in the decline of populations or habitats, taking 

into consideration local knowledge and conditions. In each ARMPA, a soft trigger begins a dialogue 

between the State, FWS, and the BLM to see if the cause can be determined and what implementationlevel activities can be used to reverse any trend. These adjustments will be made to prevent 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 BLM ARMPAs. In the event that a hard 

trigger were tripped, the BLM would implement plan-level decisions, such as allocation changes, to 

immediately institute greater protection for GRSG and its habitat. If a hard trigger were tripped in a 

PAC that crosses State boundaries, the WAFWA MZ GRSG Conservation Team would convene to 

discuss causes and identify potential responses. 

In the event that new scientific information becomes available, demonstrating that the hard trigger 

response is insufficient to stop a severe deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the 

BLM ARMPAs, the BLM would immediately assess what further actions may be needed to protect GRSG 

and its habitat and to ensure that conservation options are not foreclosed. This could include a formal 

directive, such as an instruction memorandum (IM) or a plan amendment. 

1.7 UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THE GREAT BASIN ARMPAS 

The ARMPAs and their associated EISs were developed through four planning efforts across the Great 

Basin Region (as described in Section 1.1). To develop these plans, the BLM employed a landscapescale approach to achieve a common set of management objectives across the range of GRSG 

recognizing. In particular, it implemented measures to limit anthropogenic disturbance in important 

habitats. Within this framework, management actions were developed and incorporated into the plans 

that are tailored to achieve these objectives and accommodate differences in resource conditions, 

severity of threats, and State-specific management approaches. 

This flexible landscape approach provided the opportunity to incorporate recommendations resulting 

from collaboration with the States and local cooperators and from public comments in each Planning 

Area. The plans and their future implementation are strengthened by the contributions of local partners 

and their knowledge, expertise, and experience. 
1. Introduction 

1-30 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Measures incorporated into the plans remain consistent with the range-wide objective of conserving, 

enhancing, and restoring GRSG habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to GRSG habitat, 

such that the need for additional protections under the ESA may be avoided. 

Below is a brief description of the unique aspects of each of the Great Basin Region’s ARMPAs. 

Idaho and Southwestern Montana 

The Idaho and Southwestern Montana ARMPA adopted specific aspects of the State of Idaho’s 

Conservation Plan for GRSG. The most significant aspect adopted from the State’s plan is a third 

category of habitat referred to as IHMAs. IHMAs are BLM-administered and National Forest System 

lands that provide a management buffer for PHMAs and connect patches of PHMAs. IHMAs encompass 

areas of generally moderate to high conservation value habitat and/or populations. 

In a landscape that is most threatened by fire and invasive species, this three-tiered approach allows land 

managers to focus suppression and restoration resources on those areas of highest importance. It also 

provides an acceptable additional level of flexibility in IHMAs and GHMAs because surface disturbance 

due to development is not as great a threat to habitat in the sub-region. The three tiers also are the 

foundation for an adaptive management approach that includes habitat and population hard and soft 

triggers. The adaptive management approach requires that when a hard trigger is reached, IHMAs will be 

managed as PHMAs to maintain sufficient PHMAs to support GRSG populations. 

The Idaho portion of the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG ARMPA also includes a unique 

approach to calculating disturbance to account for effective habitat. This is described in Appendix E of 

the attached Idaho and Southwestern Montana ARMPA, which the BLM developed in concert with the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Forest Service, and the FWS. The ARMPA also includes 

additional RDFs based on lek avoidance distances, which were developed in coordination with the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game and the local FWS office. Examples are avoiding building new wire fences 

within 2 kilometers of occupied leks and placing new taller structures out of sightlines or at least one 

kilometer from occupied leks. The BLM will also work with the State of Idaho in setting priorities for 

reviewing and processing grazing permits and leases in SFAs, consistent with the method recommended 

by the State of Idaho in its proposed plan for managing BLM-administered lands in the State. 

On August 7, 2015, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Act was signed 

into law (House Resolution 1138). In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 USC, Section 1131 et 

seq.), certain Federal lands in the Challis National Forest and Challis District of the BLM in Idaho were 

designated as Wilderness, as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, known as 

the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. Approximately 12,430 acres of this Wilderness area is within 

BLM-administered SFAs. This area will now also be managed as Wilderness consistent with the 

Wilderness Act. As specified in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Act, 

a wilderness management plan will be developed within five years of the signing of the act and it will 

outline specific management guidance for the new wilderness area. 

This statute also released the Jerry Peak West, Corral-Horse Basin, and Boulder Creek Wilderness 

Study Areas and they are no longer subject to management, pursuant to Section 603(c) of the FLPMA. 

The acres of wilderness study areas released include approximately 71,194 acres of PHMAs, 11,923 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-31 

acres of IHMAs, and 5,912 acres of GHMAs. The ARMPA decisions for these areas will not change as a 

result of the release. 

Finally the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Act also directed the BLM to 

convey certain public lands to Blaine County, Custer County, the City of Challis, the City of Clayton, 

and the City of Stanley. These conveyances include approximately 53 acres of PHMAs, 10 acres of 

IHMAs, and 828 acres of GHMAs that are reflected in the ARMPA as being administered by the BLM. 

Once conveyed, these lands will not be subject to the BLM management decisions outlined in the Idaho 

and Southwestern Montana GRSG ARMPA. 

The decisions affecting Southwestern Montana in the ARMPA are consistent with the objectives of the 

Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program (Montana Office of the Governor Executive 

Order No. 10-2014; State of Montana 2014) by establishing conservation measures and strategies to 

minimize disturbance and habitat loss, particularly as a result of surface disturbance from energy 

exploration and development. 

The BLM plan will permit the disturbance limit to go from a 3 percent to a 5 percent disturbance cap, 

consistent with the Montana Plan when the process for implementing that State’s disturbance calculation 

method is instituted and effective. Additionally, if the BLM finds that the State of Montana is 

implementing an effective GRSG habitat conservation program, the BLM would review their 

management actions to determine if additional GRSG-related management actions should be adjusted. 

This would be coordinated with the State of Montana and the FWS to achieve consistent and effective 

conservation across all lands, regardless of ownership. 

Nevada and Northeastern California 

The Nevada portion of the Nevada and Northeastern California ARMPA is unique from other Great 

Basin ARMPAs because of how the sub-regional habitat map was developed. The ARPMA uses the 2014 

Coates Maps, developed locally using the best available science. The ARMPA included OHMAs, where 

RDFs will be applied at the project level. Decisions for BLM-administered lands in California include 

allocations and management direction that is generally similar to other ARMPAs in the Great Basin, 

while carrying forward some decisions identified in the Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy 

Final EIS (BLM 2008). 

Decisions for BLM-administered lands in Nevada incorporate key elements of the State of Nevada 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (State of Nevada 2014), including consideration of the State of 

Nevada Conservation Credit System (Nevada Natural Heritage Program and Sagebrush Ecosystem 

Technical Team 2014) as the ARMPA is implemented and as projects are proposed within the Planning 

Area. This mitigation strategy focuses restoration on the key areas most valuable to the GRSG. The 

ARMPA adopts a disturbance management protocol to provide for a 3 percent limit on disturbance. The 

exception would be in situations where a biological analysis indicates a net conservation gain to the 

species, with concurrence from the BLM, the State of Nevada, and the FWS. The plan provides for this 

exception due to the development of mitigation tools in Nevada, including the Conservation Credit 

System (Nevada Natural Heritage Program and Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team 2014), in 

collaboration with the FWS. 
1. Introduction 

1-32 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Furthermore, given the concurrence of the Nevada Department of Wildlife and FWS in each exception, 

this approach is consistent with conservation objectives. The Nevada ARMPA does not use a 

disturbance density cap, required in the three other Great Basin Region ARMPAs, in light of the 

disturbance management protocol for BLM-administered lands in Nevada. 

In coordination with the FWS, the Nevada ARMPA also allows for an exception to the geothermal 

NSO, which is an energy development priority for the State and is projected to create very limited 

disturbance in predictable areas over the life of the plan. For those reasons, this exception is consistent 

with overall conservation objectives. 

Utah 

The Utah ARMPA incorporates a number of key strategies for GRSG conservation developed by the 

State of Utah (Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah; Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Working 

Group 2013) and the State of Wyoming (Executive Orders 2011-5, 2013-3, and 2015-4), which establish 

conservation measures for protecting GRSG and also focus conservation and restoration within key 

areas deemed most valuable to GRSG. The Utah ARMPA also integrates the State’s strategic focus on 

increasing areas available to GRSG through vegetation treatments and reducing threats from wildfire. 

The ARMPA provides additional flexibility for development in GHMAs because 96 percent of the 

breeding GRSG in Utah are within PHMAs. Here, conservation measures are applied in a more targeted 

manner at the project-implementation stage through the use of lek buffers and RDFs, as well as 

requiring that compensatory mitigation achieve a net conservation benefit outcome. As such, the Utah 

ARMPA designates GHMAs as open to wind energy and high voltage transmission ROW development 

(consistent with the net conservation gain mitigation framework for the ARMPA). The Utah ARMPA 

also designates GHMAs open to oil and gas development with standard constraints. 

Because there is no potential for coal development in the Great Basin Region outside of Utah, only the 

Utah ARMPA addresses this threat. 

Oregon 

The Oregon ARMPA incorporates key elements of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat (Hagen 2011). This establishes 

unique conservation measures for protecting GRSG and also focuses restoration within key areas most 

valuable to GRSG. The BLM plan adopts the unique disturbance cap approach developed with the State 

of Oregon in which disturbance is capped at 1 percent per decade, in addition to the 3 percent cap in 

BSUs and project analysis areas. The Governor of Oregon has issued an executive order (September 16, 

2015) that directs state agencies to implement the Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan in coordination 

with Federal and local partners. The Action Plan, supported by new rules passed by both the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Commission and the Land Conservation and Development Commission, contains 

strategic direction that aims to align with many elements of the Oregon ARMPA. 

The BLM Oregon plans provide additional flexibility for wind development in PHMAs in Harney, Lake, 

and Malheur Counties by allocating them as avoidance areas (rather than exclusion areas) within PHMAs 

that are outside of the SFAs. In these counties, priority would be placed on locating commercial-scale 

wind and solar energy development in nonhabitat areas (i.e., outside of PHMAs and GHMAs) before 

approving development in PHMAs. The BLM provided this flexibility after recognizing the following: 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-33 

 The extent of high and medium potential wind areas in PHMAs in these counties 

 The fact that wind energy is excluded in SFAs in these counties 

 After coordinating with the FWS, determining that the more rigorous disturbance cap of 1 

percent per decade and adaptive management triggers adopted by the Oregon plan would 

compensate for the likely limited wind development in these areas 

Due to these factors, the BLM finds these limited areas of flexibility for wind development are consistent 

with overall conservation objectives of the plan. In addition, the Oregon ARMPA identifies strategic 

areas where habitat enhancement and restoration are encouraged, as well as other strategic areas to 

address the impacts associated with climate change. 

For additional information on the unique aspects of each plan, refer to Table 1-6 of the attached Idaho 

and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, and Utah ARMPAs. The 

tables provide a crosswalk as to how the ARMPAs address specific threats to GRSG identified in the 

COT Report through these State-specific management prescriptions. 

1.8 DECISION RATIONALE 

The ARMPAs provide a comprehensive, coordinated, and effective conservation strategy for addressing 

the threats to the GRSG identified by the FWS such that the need for additional protections under the 

ESA may be avoided. The ARMPAs strive to conserve GRSG and their habitat on BLM-administered 

lands across the remaining range of the species. This is consistent with measures identified or 

recommended in the NTT Report, the COT Report, recent USGS studies, and other relevant research 

and analysis. 

The BLM and Forest Service land use plans are an essential component to conserve the GRSG and its 

habitat. This is in combination with the GRSG conservation actions taken by the individual States in the 

remaining range of the species and initiatives to address the threat of rangeland fire, to curb the spread 

of nonnative invasive grasses, and to promote conservation measures to benefit GRSG on private lands. 

Combined, all of the ARMPs and ARMPAs associated with the BLM’s National GRSG Conservation 

Strategy, as well as the Forest Service LRMPs, would affect approximately 67 million acres of the 

remaining habitat for the species. 

The BLM GRSG Conservation Strategy is built on the following key concepts: 

 Landscape-level—The planning effort encompasses the remaining habitat of the GRSG on 

BLM-administered lands, covering 10 western states in the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain 

Regions. As such, the strategy provides a coherent framework across the BLM land use 

plans to implement landscape-level conservation for GRSG, while allowing for flexibility 

essential to effectively address threats to the GRSG in the context of the agency’s multipleuse and sustained yield mandates under FLPMA. The conservation measures included as part 

of this landscape-level conservation effort address identified threats to the species, 

recognizing local ecological conditions and incorporating existing conservation efforts where 

they are consistent with the overall objective of conserving GRSG across its remaining 

range. 
1. Introduction 

1-34 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 Best available science—The ARMPAs are grounded in the best available science, drawn 

from published literature and input from recognized experts, State agencies, the USGS, the 

FWS, and other sources. The COT Report provided a blueprint for GRSG conservation by 

identifying specific threats to each remaining GRSG population and recommending measures 

to address each category of threat. The NTT Report provided additional guidance for 

addressing the most significant threats to the GRSG. The concepts set forth in a number of 

reports prepared by the USGS regarding specific threats to GRSG, habitat connectivity, and 

related issues are reflected in the land allocation and resource management decisions. Also 

informing GRSG conservation was a series of reports on how to better reduce the threats 

of rangeland fire and invasive species, prepared in collaboration with the WAFWA, and a 

report to the Secretary of the Interior entitled An Integrated Rangeland Fire Management 

Strategy: Final Report to the Secretary of the Interior (US Department of the Interior 2015).

 Targeted, multi-tiered approach—The ARMPAs were designed to incorporate a 

layered management approach to target habitat protection and restoration to the most 

important habitat management areas, as determined by State and Federal GRSG experts, 

largely consistent with the PACs identified in the COT Report, where land allocations and 

management direction avoid and minimize additional surface disturbance. These areas are 

designated as PHMAs. Within PHMAs, the ARMPAs provide an added level of protection to 

eliminate most surface disturbance by delineating SFAs, derived from areas identified by the 

FWS as strongholds essential for the species’ survival. GHMAs recognize the potential value 

of habitat areas outside of PACs—as recommended by the COT Report—where surface 

disturbance is minimized, while providing greater flexibility for other land resource uses. 

 Coordinated—The ARMPAs were developed through a joint planning process between 

the BLM and the Forest Service (as a cooperating agency). As a result, Federally

administered lands essential to the conservation of the GRSG are managed in a coordinated 

manner. The FWS provided guidance and input throughout the process to aid land managers 

in understanding the threats to the GRSG and its habitat. The USGS and NRCS also 

provided key technical and scientific support. 

 Collaborative—The ARMPAs reflected extensive input from the relevant States, 

collaborators, and stakeholders and the public from the outset. The ARMPAs were 

developed with the benefit of input from the individual States and cooperators who signed 

formal agreements with the BLM to provide input into the planning process. The Western 

Governors Association Sage Grouse Task Force was particularly useful in facilitating this 

kind of collaborative input. The ARMPAs incorporate State and local conservation measures 

where they are consistent with the overall objective of implementing land use plan 

conservation measures for the GRSG, consistent with the multiple-use and sustained yield 

mission of the BLM. 

The conservation measures in the ARMPAs reflect over a decade of research, analysis, and 

recommendations for GRSG conservation, including those produced by the WAFWA, the NTT, and the 

COT. Each of these entities produced a strategy or report that was developed through the 

collaboration of State and Federal biologists and scientists with extensive experience and expertise in 

GRSG management and research. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-35 

The COT Report, which identified threats to GRSG habitat and the most important habitat to protect, 

provided an important framework for developing the conservation strategy embodied in the subregional ARMPAs. The COT, consisting of State and Federal scientists, wildlife biologists, resource 

managers, and policy advisors, was tasked by the FWS Director “with development of range-wide 

conservation objectives for the sage-grouse to define the degree to which threats need to be reduced 

or ameliorated to conserve sage-grouse so that it is no longer in danger of extinction or likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future” (FWS 2013). 

In addition, the FIAT Report and the USGS compilation and summary of published scientific studies that 

evaluate the influence of human activities and infrastructure on GRSG populations (such as Conservation 

Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—A Review (Manier et al. 2014), and the Integrated 

Rangeland Fire Management Strategy: Final report to the Secretary [US Department of the Interior 2015]) 

provided important guidance in developing critical aspects of the ARMPAs and the overall GRSG 

landscape-level conservation strategy. Beyond these range-wide reports, each of the sub-regional plans 

used local science, where available, to tailor plan elements to reflect local ecological conditions, threats, 

and GRSG management experience where consistent with the overall GRSG conservation objectives. 

The ARMPAs are the product of extensive coordination, including the active engagement of the FWS in 

helping to inform land allocation and related management decisions by the land management agencies to 

ensure they limit or eliminate new surface disturbance as well as improve habitat condition in the most 

important habitat areas. The ARMPAs also benefit from strong collaboration with the States and reflect 

the unique landscapes, habitats, approaches, and priorities in each. While the effort to incorporate Statedeveloped conservation measures in each of the sub-regional plans has added complexity in developing 

the overall conservation strategy, the body of local knowledge and expertise regarding conservation 

measures for the GRSG is extensive and, ultimately, strengthened the plans. Incorporating these 

measures in the plans is also likely to increase the commitment of all partners to the task of 

implementing the plans on completion. 

In his transmittal letter accompanying the final COT Report, the FWS Director reaffirmed his charge. “I 

asked the team to produce a recommendation regarding the degree to which threats need to be 

reduced or ameliorated to conserve the greater sage-grouse so that it would no longer be in danger of 

extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. ... Conservation success 

will be achieved by removing or reducing threats to the species now, such that population trends will 

eventually be stable or increasing, even if numbers are not restored to historic levels” (FWS 2013). 

The ARMPAs are designed to directly address the specific threats to the species identified by the FWS 

in its 2010 listing determination as more fully explained in the COT Report and the NTT Report. As 

previously noted, the COT Report stated “Maintenance of the integrity of PACs ... is the essential 

foundation for sage-grouse conservation.” Specifically, the COT Report preparers recommended 

“targeted habitat management and restoration” to be achieved by “eliminating activities known to 

negatively impact sage-grouse and their habitats, or re-designing these activities to achieve the same 

goal.” The COT further recommended an “avoidance first strategy” and stressed that “threats in PACs 

must be minimized to the extent that population trends meet the objectives of the 2006 WAFWA 

Conservation Strategy” (FWS 2013).

In order to address the identified threats and meet the recommendations of the COT Report, the plans 

are based first on the identification of important habitat areas for GRSG in which the plans protect 
1. Introduction 

1-36 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

remaining habitat and target habitat restoration and improvement actions. Specifically, the plans identify 

PHMAs that align closely with PACs identified in the COT Report (except for PACs in Nevada and 

Utah, as specified on page 13 of the COT Report). 

Within PHMAs, the plans identify SFAs, based on the FWS analysis of strongholds for the species; this in 

turn is based on such factors as population density, habitat integrity, and resilience to climate change. 

The SFAs serve as a landscape-level anchor for the conservation strategy and are closed or excluded 

from discretionary surface disturbances. SFAs are also used to prioritize fire protection, habitat 

restoration, and other habitat management actions (e.g., prioritizing reductions in WHB populations to 

achieve AML). This approach will allow the BLM to target limited resources to those areas identified by 

the FWS and reinforced by recent USGS analysis. These resources are those most important to longterm sagebrush ecosystem health and species persistence. 

PHMAs and GHMAs boundaries are based on PPH and PGH (except in Utah, where PPH was derived 

from occupied habitat). Consistent with the BLM’s IM 2012-044, PPH and PGH are based on data and 

maps developed through a collaboration between the BLM and the respective State wildlife agency. PPH 

and PGH (PHMAs and GHMAs in the Final EISs and now the ARMPAs) were developed using the best 

available data. Criteria for delineating PPH included breeding bird density (Doherty et al. 2010), GRSG 

proportionality, lek density, and key seasonal habitats, such as known winter concentration areas. PGH 

(now GHMAs) are areas of occupied seasonal, connectivity, or year-round habitat outside of PPH. 

As discussed in Section 1.6, allocations and management actions are targeted to habitat management 

areas to limit or eliminate surface disturbance. All forms of new development in PHMAs—from energy, 

to transmission lines, to recreation facilities and grazing structures—are excluded, avoided, or allowed 

only if the resultant effect is neutral or beneficial to the GRSG. The ARMPAs will also prioritize future 

oil and gas leasing and development outside of identified GRSG habitat management areas (i.e., SFAs, 

PHMAs, and GHMAs) to reduce the potential for future conflict with GRSG. 

The ARMPAs include additional measures to limit surface disturbance in PHMAs by establishing lek 

buffers and disturbance limits or caps and density restrictions (except in Nevada) of, on average, one 

energy facility per 640 acres. These requirements reflect recommendations in the NTT Report and are 

consistent with certain State strategies that were already in place before the initiation of the BLM’s 

National GRSG Conservation Strategy. As described in Section 1.6.1, the BLM determined the 

appropriate lek buffers to analyze based on the USGS report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for 

GRSG—A Review (Manier et al. 2014) based on best available science. 

The plans also include actions meant to improve habitat condition to the most important areas for 

conservation through additional, targeted efforts to protect and restore habitat first in SFAs, then in 

PHMAs, and finally in areas designated as GHMAs. 

Mitigation for activities adversely impacting GRSG or GRSG habitat in PHMAs or GHMAs will be 

designed to a net conservation gain standard consistent with the recommendation included in the 

September 2014 FWS document, Greater Sage-Grouse Range-Wide Mitigation Framework Version 1.0 (FWS 

2014b). According to the authors, the Framework was prepared “...to communicate some of the 

factors the Service is likely to consider in evaluating the efficacy of mitigation practices and programs in 

reducing threats to GRSG. The recommendations provided here are consistent with the information 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-37 

and conservation objectives provided in the 2013 Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report for 

sage-grouse” (FWS 2014b). 

Grazing, which is the most widespread use of the sagebrush ecosystem, will continue in a manner 

consistent with the objective of conserving the GRSG. Land health standards will incorporate GRSG 

habitat objectives and vegetative management objectives consistent with the ecological potential of the 

landscape as recommended by the COT to “...conduct grazing management for all ungulates in a 

manner consistent with local ecological conditions that maintains or restores healthy sagebrush shrub 

and native perennial grass and forb communities and conserves the essential habitat components for 

GRSG (e.g., shrub cover, nesting cover)” (FWS 2013).

The ARMPAs also address the adverse impacts of free-roaming WHBs on GRSG habitat by prioritizing 

gathers and removing WHBs to achieve AMLs in SFAs, PHMAs, and GHMAs (in that order). The BLM 

has been working with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct new research of methods to 

reduce WHB reproduction rates. Through a combination of targeted gathers and the development of an 

effective agent for controlling future free-roaming WHB reproductive rates, over time, this threat to 

GRSG may be effectively managed. 

Since the interaction of fire and invasive species represents the primary threat to GRSG survival in the 

Great Basin region, the ARMPAs provide specific guidance for improving efforts to reduce the risk of 

GRSG habitat loss to wildfire, including fire prevention and the restoration of habitats impacted by fire. 

The Department of the Interior took a series of actions over 2014 and 2015 to develop a more 

complete and comprehensive strategy for dealing with this threat. This led to Secretarial Order 3336

and the subsequent report, An Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy: Final Report to the Secretary 

of the Interior (US Department of the Interior 2015). 

In accordance with Secretarial Order 3336 and subsequent rangeland fire management strategy, 

substantial changes in policy and management direction have been made and will continue to be made to 

enhance BLM’s ability to manage the threat of rangeland fire. These will affect all aspects of the 

rangeland fire management program; they will range from better coordination between resource 

managers and fire management officers to the identification and prioritization of prevention, 

suppression, and restoration in SFAs, PHMAs, and GHMAs; to the commitment of additional equipment 

and crews for rangeland firefighting; to additional funding and policy direction to improve post-fire 

restoration; to the completion of an initiative to collect, store, and better utilize native seed and 

sagebrush in post-fire restoration of sagebrush steppe ecosystems. This and the initiative to fight the 

spread of nonnative invasive species that contribute to higher rangeland fire risk (e.g., cheatgrass) 

discussed below have fundamentally changed how rangeland fire is managed to benefit sagebrush 

ecosystems and GRSG habitat. 

The COT Report and other more recent research and analysis amplify concern for the contribution of 

cheatgrass and other invasive annual species to the loss of GRSG habitat associated with increased fire 

frequency and intensity. Work initiated by the WAFWA and based on recent research by Chambers et 

al. (2014) led to the development of the FIAT and a subsequent assessment that identified areas of 

resistance and resilience to fire in SFAs, PHMAs, and GHMAs. Through use of the FIAT Assessment 

Tool, land managers can more efficiently allocate and use fire resources at initial attack, to stop fire early 

and prevent catastrophic habitat loss, and to target restoration at those areas important to the species 
1. Introduction 

1-38 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

where success is more likely. The BLM is also committed to accelerating the registration and use of 

chemical and biological agents to stem the spread of cheatgrass and other invasive annual species. 

Even prior to completion of the FIAT assessment, the BLM shifted funding for fuels management to 

protect landscapes of importance to the GRSG. Under the FY 2014 Omnibus Appropriation, the BLM 

prioritized the funding of treatments and activities within each State that benefit GRSG (see this ROD’s

Figure 1-6, FY 2015 FIAT Priority Project Planning Areas with Focus on Invasive Annual Grasses and 

Conifer Expansion Assessments). 

To further supplement these efforts, the Department of the Interior has recently committed $7.5 

million to projects in GRSG habitat to create more resilient landscapes. In addition, the BLM has 

allocated $12 million to increase firefighting resources aimed at stopping fires while they are small in the 

Great Basin. In addition, the Department of the Interior has approved policy changes to increase the 

commitment, flexibility, and time frame for using ES & BAR funding. By adopting a risk-based approach 

using a rolling average of the acres lost to fire during the previous five fire seasons, ES & BAR funding 

will be allocated to the BLM to permit an increased focus on restoring priority sagebrush-steppe habitats 

impacted by fire. 

In addition, the Sage Grouse Initiative launched by the NRCS in 2010 also contributes to the effort to 

protect and restore important GRSG habitat. In collaboration with the States and private landowners on 

private lands and with the BLM and the Forest Service on Federally administered public lands, the NRCS 

has worked to reduce the encroachment of pinyon-juniper trees and to restore rangeland habitat on 

private and BLM-administered lands. 

Consistent with recommendations contained in the 2006 WAFWA Greater Sage-Grouse Range-wide 

Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006), the BLM and Forest Service conservation strategy relies heavily 

on monitoring and evaluation to assess the success and effectiveness of implementing the management 

decisions in the ARMPAs. Monitoring plans will be developed in coordination with relevant State and 

Federal agencies and will incorporate evaluation of GRSG population trends by the States and changes in 

habitat condition by the Federal land management agencies. The WAFWA report states, “Monitoring 

provides the ‘currency’ necessary to evaluate management decisions and to assess progress or 

problems. Adequate monitoring should be considered an integral and inseparable component of all 

management actions, and therefore, not optional. Lack of proper monitoring will undoubtedly hinder 

this large-scale conservation effort” (Stiver et al. 2006). 

In addition, the ARMPAs incorporate an adaptive management framework that provides an early 

warning system of soft triggers to alert resource managers to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of 

their management strategies should changes occur in population levels or habitat conditions. If the 

project-level management responses to soft triggers do not adequately address the causes for 

population or habitat declines and if hard triggers are reached, the ARMPAs identify measures that will 

be put in place, including plan-level responses, in an effort to reverse the declines. 

In summary, the ARMPAs emphasize an “avoidance first” strategy, consistent with the recommendations 

in the COT Report, by limiting new disturbance and maintaining current intact GRSG habitat. This 

avoidance first strategy is accomplished by identifying important GRSG habitat areas, then applying 

allocations that exclude or avoid surface-disturbing activities, appropriately managing grazing, and 

aggressively suppressing fire that could degrade or fragment remaining GRSG habitat. 
1. Introduction September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-39
1. Introduction 

1-40 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

The plans also include decisions to restore degraded habitat, which, although more difficult and requiring 

a longer time frame, is important to the long-term conservation of GRSG. Restoration decisions include 

specific habitat objectives and a priority to treat GRSG habitat for invasive species, particularly 

cheatgrass, and encroaching pinyon and juniper. These decisions are reinforced by Secretarial Order 

3336 and the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (US Department of the Interior 2015) as 

well as the NRCS’s Sage Grouse Initiative investments in private landowners’ conservation efforts. 

The GRSG Conservation Strategy reflects a high level of commitment by Federal partners to conserve 

GRSG and its habitat. The actions on BLM and Forest Service lands, which constitute nearly half of the 

GRSG habitat in the planning area, will anchor and complement the significant actions being taken by 

State and local governments and private landowners to conserve the species and its habitat. 

The landscape-level strategy consisting of new conservation actions that will go into effect through the 

BLM ARMPAs, as well as actions being implemented currently to conserve the species, reflect a 

significant change in management direction and philosophy for the BLM since 2010 and a long-term 

commitment to assure the conservation of the species by protecting, restoring, and enhancing GRSG 

habitat consistent with the objectives set in the 2006 WAFWA conservation strategy and embraced by 

both the NTT and the COT. 

This change represents a new paradigm in managing the sagebrush landscape for the BLM and amplifies 

the need for collaboration among Federal, State, tribal, and private partners to conserve the GRSG, 

consistent with direction articulated in the NTT report, as follows: 

Land uses, habitat treatments, and anthropogenic disturbances will need to be managed 

below thresholds necessary to conserve not only local sage-grouse populations, but 

sagebrush communities and landscapes as well. Management priorities will need to be 

shifted and balanced to maximize benefits to GRSG habitats and populations in priority 

habitats. Adequacy of management adjustments will be measured by science-based 

effectiveness monitoring of the biological response of sagebrush landscapes and 

populations. Ultimately, success will be measured by the maintenance and enhancement 

of sage-grouse populations well into the future. (NTT 2011, p. 6-7)

The benefits of conserving the sagebrush ecosystem and GRSG habitats resulting from the BLM ARMPs 

and ARMPAs provide an essential foundation for conserving the GRSG. This, in conjunction with the 

amended Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), affects approximately 59 

percent of the most important GRSG habitat across the remaining range of the species. In conjunction 

with similar conservation efforts by other Federal and State agencies, private landowners, and local 

partners, the BLM National GRSG Conservation Strategy constitutes a historic conservation effort; it 

will benefit more than 350 species and the sagebrush ecosystem on which they depend. It is through 

these landscape-level, science-based, collaborative efforts to conserve the imperiled sagebrush 

ecosystem that conservation of the GRSG and other sagebrush obligate species can best be achieved 

and the listing of the GRSG under the ESA may be avoided. 

1.9 IMPLEMENTATION 

Future decisions made in conformance with the ARMPAs serve to continuously and actively implement 

its provisions. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 1-41 

Immediate Decisions—These decisions are the land use planning decisions that go into effect when the 

ROD is signed. These include goals, objectives, allowable uses, and management direction, such as the 

allocation of lands as open or closed for salable mineral sales, lands open with stipulations for oil and gas 

leasing, and OHV area designations. 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 RMP decisions to determine if the proposal is in conformance 

with the plan. 

One-Time Future Decisions—These are the types of decisions that are not implemented until additional 

decision-making 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 one-time 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: 

 Relative importance of the action to the efficacy of the GRSG conservation strategy 

 National BLM management direction regarding plan implementation 

 Available resources 

General Implementation Schedule of One-Time Decisions—Future Decisions discussed in the attached 

ARMPAs 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 these ARMPAs. These actions require additional site-specific 

decision-making and analysis. 

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 will provide information that can be used to develop 

annual budget requests to continue implementation. 

1.9.1 Additional Implementation Guidance and Considerations 

Instructional Memoranda—Additional instruction and management direction will be necessary to 

implement certain land allocation decisions and management direction included in the ARMPAs. For 

example, additional guidance will be provided to clarify how the BLM will implement the objective of 

prioritizing future oil and gas leasing and development outside of GRSG habitat. IMs and related guidance 

will be completed by the BLM Washington Office. The BLM shall complete IMs for the following 

management direction and intends to complete these IMs within 90 days of the RODs: oil and gas 

leasing and development prioritization and livestock grazing. Other IMs, including monitoring and 

mitigation, will be developed as necessary. Issuance of this national guidance will supersede any related 

national and field level guidance currently in effect. Additional national, state, and field level guidance will 

be developed subsequently as necessary to implement the decisions in the plans. 

Map Adjustments, GRSG Seasonal Habitats, and Connectivity—PHMAs were designed to include breeding 

bird density, GRSG proportionality, density of leks, and key seasonal habitats, such as known winter 
1. Introduction 

1-42 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

concentration areas. GHMAs were designed to include the areas of occupied seasonal, connectivity, or 

year-round habitat outside of PHMAs. As additional important habitats are identified (e.g., winter habitat 

and key connectivity areas), the BLM will map and incorporate these habitats for GRSG, consistent with 

best available science, through subsequent plan maintenance, revision, or amendment, as appropriate. 

Priority should be given to ensuring that wintering habitat is identified and captured in all changes in 

habitat maps subsequent to this decision. In the interim, the BLM will use the existing maps included in 

the ARMPAs for all decisions. 

Continued Commitment to Research and Use of Best Available Science—Through implementation of this 

strategy, new management issues and questions are likely to arise that may warrant additional guidance 

or study by technical experts, scientists, and researchers. The BLM is committed to continue working 

with individuals and institutions with expertise in relevant fields in order to ensure that land and 

resource management affecting conservation of the GRSG and the sagebrush ecosystem continues to be 

guided by sound peer-reviewed research and the best available science. 

Training—Given the nature and complexity of the management direction in these ARMPAs, the BLM, in 

collaboration with the Forest Service and the FWS, will develop and implement a schedule of training for 

key functions, actions, and decisions associated with these plans. In this manner, the BLM will seek to 

better inform its personnel, partners, cooperators, and stakeholders of the changes in management that 

will result from this new management paradigm. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-1 

CHAPTER 2 

DECISION

2.1 SUMMARY OF THE APPROVED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

The decision is hereby made to approve the Great Basin Region GRSG RMPAs for the Great Basin 

Region GRSG Sub-Regions of Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, 

Oregon, and Utah (attachments 1 through 4). This ROD serves as the final decision establishing the 

resource management plan amendment decisions outlined in the ARMPAs and is effective on the date it 

is signed. 

The decisions included in this ROD and attached ARMPAs amend the resource management plans 

described in Sections 1.1 of attachments 1 through 4. 

The RMP decisions include management direction to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG and their 

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to their habitat. RMP decisions are expressed as 

goals, objectives (desired outcomes), allowable uses, and management decisions anticipated to achieve 

desired outcomes. Although decisions identified in the ARMPAs are final and effective when this ROD is 

signed, implementing on-the-ground activities requires additional steps before any of them can begin. 

The BLM will conduct NEPA analyses, as necessary, for such implementation decisions. 

2.2 WHAT THE ROD AND ARMPAS PROVIDE

The ARMPAs include RMP-level management decisions in the form of the following: 

 Goals 

 Objectives (desired future conditions) 

 Land use allocations 

 Management decisions and actions 

Goals are the broad statements of desired outcomes and are usually not quantifiable. 

Objectives are specific desired conditions, usually quantifiable and measurable, and may have time frames 

for achievement. 
2. Decision 

2-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Land use allocations specify locations in the Planning Area that are available or unavailable for certain uses 

and are also used to prioritize conservation and restoration management actions. Examples are 

decisions on the following: 

 What lands are available for livestock grazing, mineral material use, oil and gas leasing, and 

locatable mineral development 

 What lands may be available for disposal via exchange or sale 

 What lands are open, closed, or limited to motorized travel 

Note that all acreages presented in the ARMPAs are estimations, even when they are presented to the 

nearest acre. 

Management decisions and actions are those provisions that help in meeting the established goals and 

objectives. They are the measures that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities on public lands, 

including but not limited to, stipulations, guidelines, BMPs, and RDFs. 

The management decisions and actions contained in the ARMPAs (attachments 1 through 4) were 

crafted to incorporate management decisions into RMPs to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG 

habitat by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing identified threats to GRSG and their habitats. 

The EISs conducted for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, and 

Utah ARMPAs sufficiently disclose and analyze all environmental issues associated with mineral leasing 

on National Forest System lands. The analyses would be relevant should the Forest Service consent to a 

lease or require consultation before it issues a lease. This would comply with applicable mineral leasing 

and NEPA regulations and would be subject to further site-specific environmental analysis where 

applicable. 

2.3 WHAT THE ROD AND ARMPAS DO NOT PROVIDE 

The attached ARMPAs do not contain decisions for public lands outside of GRSG habitat management 

areas, except for land use plan-level travel management decisions in the Idaho and Southwestern 

Montana ARMPA. 

The ARMPAs do not violate valid existing rights nor contain decisions for the mineral estates that are 

not administered by the BLM. ARMPA decisions for surface estate only apply to BLM-administered 

lands. In addition, many decisions are not appropriate at this level of planning and are not included in the 

ROD. Examples of these types of decisions are the following: 

 Statutory requirements—The decision will not change the BLM’s responsibility to comply with 

applicable laws, rules, and regulations. 

 National policy—The decision will not change the BLM’s obligation to conform to current or 

future national policy. 

 Funding levels and budget allocations—These are determined annually at the national level and 

are beyond the control of the State, District, or Field Offices. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-3 

Implementation decisions (or activity-level decisions) are management actions tied to a specific location. 

They generally constitute the BLM’s final approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed and 

require appropriate site-specific planning and NEPA analysis. Such decisions may be incorporated into 

implementation plans (activity or project plans) or may be stand-alone decisions. These ARMPAs do not 

contain implementation decisions. Implementation decisions and management actions that require 

additional site-specific project planning, as funding becomes available, will require further environmental 

analysis. 

2.4 MODIFICATIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

The ARMPAs in the Great Basin Region include minor modifications and clarifications from the 

Proposed RMPAs. These minor modifications and clarifications were made as a result of internal 

reviews, response to protests, and recommendations provided to the BLM during the Governors’

consistency reviews. These modifications and clarifications are hereby adopted by this ROD.

The following modifications and clarifications were made to all of the ARMPAs in the Great Basin 

Region: 

 ARMPA Formatting—The plans were reformatted between the proposed and approved 

RMPA planning stages for consistency across the Great Basin Region. The order of 

management actions and the prefixes for the goals, objectives, and management actions 

were changed in the ARMPAs to provide consistency among the amendments and revisions 

for GRSG goals and objectives. 

 Forest Service References (applicable only to the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and 

Northeastern California, and Utah ARMPAs)—All references to National Forest System lands in 

both text and on maps have been removed from the ARMPAs. The Forest Service has 

completed two separate RODs and land and resource management plan amendments under 

its planning authorities. 

 Fire—Management actions and decisions were modified to stress that protecting human life 

is the single overriding priority for fire and fuels management activities. 

 Livestock Grazing—The statement, “This does not apply to or impact grazing preference 

transfers, which are addressed in 43 CFR 4110.2-3,” was added to the management action 

and decision. It reads, “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 or fire breaks.”

 Glossary—Numerous glossary definitions were deleted because they were not used or 

referenced in the ARMPAs. If not already contained in the Proposed RMPA glossaries, the 

following terms and definitions were added for clarification: 

– 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. 
2. Decision 

2-4 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

– 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 purposes of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This priority is 

attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee. 

– Valid Existing Right. 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, but are not limited to, 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. 

– 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 1872 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. 

– Energy or Mining Facility. 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. 

 GRSG Habitat Mapping—Information was added to the ARMPAs to clarify that when new 

information becomes available about GRSG habitat, including seasonal habitats, in 

coordination with the State wildlife agency and FWS, and based on best available scientific 

information, the BLM may revise the GRSG habitat management area maps and associated 

management decisions through plan maintenance or plan amendment or revision, as 

appropriate. 

 Adaptive Management—The GRSG Adaptive Management Strategy was revised to include a 

commitment that the hard and soft trigger data will be evaluated as soon as it becomes 

available after the ROD is signed and then will be analyzed, at a minimum, annually 

thereafter. 

 Vegetation—The desired condition for maintaining a minimum of 70 percent of lands capable 

of producing sagebrush with 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy cover in SFAs and PHMAs 

was modified to read as follows: “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 percent) with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush 

canopy cover, consistent with specific ecological site conditions. The attributes necessary to 

sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (BLM 

Technical Reference 1734-6; Pellant 2005).

 GRSG Habitat Objectives—For clarification purposes, within each of the ARMPA GRSG 

habitat objectives tables, native bunchgrass was provided as an example of a perennial grass 

cover and residual grass was added to the perennial grass cover and height objective. 

 Sagebrush Focal Areas—Examples of the types of vegetation and conservation actions that 

will be prioritized within SFAs were provided for clarity in the management action and 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-5 

decision. These examples were land health assessments and WHB management and habitat 

restoration actions. 

 Required Design Features—One of the criteria for demonstrating that a variation to an RDF is 

warranted was modified to include the following statement: “An alternative RDF, a stateimplemented conservation measure, or a plan-level protection is determined to provide 

equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat.”

 Lands and Realty—The following management actions and decisions and objectives were 

clarified: 

– Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best 

available science, updated as monitoring information on current infrastructure 

projects becomes available. 

– Within existing designated utility corridors, the 3 percent disturbance cap may be 

exceeded at the project scale if the site-specific NEPA analysis indicates that a net 

conservation gain to the species would be achieved. This exception is limited to 

projects that fulfill the use for which the corridors were designated (e.g.,

transmission lines and pipelines) and the designated width of a corridor would not 

be exceeded as a result of any project collocation. 

 Land Tenure—Management action associated with land disposals was clarified to include land 

exchanges as a means of disposal. 

 WAFWA GRSG Conservation Team—Additional clarification was added to ARMPAs related to 

the WAFWA GRSG Conservation Teams that were identified in the Proposed RMPAs:

“WAFWA management zones will be used to facilitate cross-state issues, such as regional 

mitigation and adaptive management monitoring and response, through WAFWA GRSG 

Conservation Teams. These teams will convene and respond to issues at the appropriate 

scale and will use existing coordination and management structures to the extent possible.”

 Cheatgrass—The following management action was included consistent with the purpose and 

need and objectives of the ARMPAs: “Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive 

or noxious species to minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species.”

 Valid Existing Rights—The following management action was added to the ARMPAs: 

“Consider the likelihood of developing not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing activities, as 

defined in Table 2 of the Monitoring Framework, under valid existing rights before 

authorizing new projects in PHMAs.”

Additional modifications and clarifications specific to each sub-region ARMPA are summarized below. 

2.4.1 Idaho and Southwestern Montana 

General Changes 

 All exception language that was in the Final EIS in various places was grouped into a 

stipulation appendix and added to the ARMPA as Appendix G Stipulations. 

 Appendix G, Anthropogenic Disturbance and Adaptive Management from the Proposed 

RMPA, which is now Appendix E in the ARMPA, was modified to delete the reference to 
2. Decision 

2-6 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Tables 2 to 7. These tables were deleted from the Final EIS Appendix G before it was made 

available to the public for protest, but the reference was not deleted in the appendix text. 

This discrepancy was identified during protest resolution and the Governor’s consistency 

review. These values will be calculated after the ROD is signed (see Adaptive Management 

below). 

 Many editorial changes, including deleting repeated numbers and correcting spelling errors, 

were made when finalizing the ARMPA. 

 On August 7, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Sawtooth National Recreation 

Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Act (House Resolution 1138). In accordance with the 

Wilderness Act (16 USC, Section 1131 et seq.), certain Federal lands in the Challis National 

Forest and Challis District of the BLM in Idaho, comprising approximately 116,898 acres, 

were designated as Wilderness, as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, known as the Jim McClure-Jerry Peak Wilderness. 

This bill also released the Jerry Peak West, Corral-Horse Basin, and Boulder Creek 

Wilderness Study Areas, and they are no longer subject to Section 603(c) of the FLPMA. 

Finally the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Act also directed 

the BLM to convey certain public lands to Blaine and Custer Counties and the Cities of 

Challis, Clayton, and Stanley. These conveyances include approximately 53 acres of PHMAs, 

10 acres of IHMAs, and 828 acres of GHMAs that are reflected in the ARMPA as being 

administered by the BLM. Once conveyed, the BLM will adjust the maps and acres as they 

appear in the ARMPA through plan maintenance to depict that these lands are not subject 

to the BLM management decisions outlined in the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG 

ARMPA. 

Special Status Species 

 The Seasonal Timing Restrictions from Appendix C of the Final EIS were deleted to reduce 

redundancy because these restrictions were already in the RDFs appendix. 

Livestock Grazing 

 Livestock Grazing RM 16 and RM 18, which are now MD LG 15 and MD LG 17 in the 

ARMPA, had the following sentence added as an accepted recommendation made during the 

Governor’s consistency review to clarify management and conservation action prioritization 

in SFAs: “Management and conservation action prioritization will occur at the Conservation 

Area (California) scale and be based on GRSG population and habitat trends: Focusing 

management and conservation actions first in SFAs followed by areas of PHMAs outside 

SFAs.”

Lands and Realty 

 Lands and Realty LR-14 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MD LR 13 in the ARMPA, 

was modified to remove the statement that lands in PHMAs, IHMAs, and GHMAs would be 

available for disposal only through exchange. This was removed because it was not 

consistent with BLM policy, and the net conservation gain clause in MD LR-13 would ensure 

that disposals through any method would be beneficial to GRSG. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-7 

2.4.2 Nevada and Northeastern California 

General Changes 

 Editorial changes, such as changing should to shall and would to will, to reflect the final 

decision language. 

 Re-categorizing some of the management decisions into other common resource programs. 

For example, all of the fire and fuels management decisions are numbered under FIRE and 

are not split into different subcategory names. 

 Re-lettering the critical appendices and deleting those that are no longer applicable to the 

ARMPA. 

Special Status Species 

 Added clarity to MD SSS 2A 3 by describing the energy and mining facilities where this 

decision would be applicable; taken directly from the Disturbance Appendix E. 

 Added clarity to MD SSS 3A by including references to valid existing rights and applicable 

law for the requirement of a net conservation gain. 

 Specified in MD SSS 8 that this activity would be coordinated with the Nevada Department 

of Wildlife or California Department Fish and Wildlife and that breeding activity surveys 

would be done for actions involving mineral activities and ROWs. 

 Deleted Action PR 4 from the Proposed RMPA because the BLM does not manage landfills 

and transfer stations. 

 Under the Brood-Rearing/Summer category, clarified that the objective of the 7-inch-deep, 

rooted perennial bunchgrass in upland habitats was only for a 522-foot (200 meter) area 

around riparian areas and meadows. The additional reference was added for Casazza et al. 

2011. 

 Footnote #7 was deleted. The original footnote stated that the “specific height 

requirements needed to meet the objective will be set at the time of habitat assessment 

framework assessments.” This is incorrect because the height requirements will need to be 

set well in advance of the habitat assessment framework assessments. 

 A new footnote was added as footnote #1: “Any one single habitat indicator does not define 

whether the habitat objective is or is not met. Instead, the preponderance of evidence from 

all indicators within that seasonal habitat period must be considered when assessing sagegrouse habitat objectives.” This addition was for the purpose of clarification. 

Adaptive Management 

 Clarified under MD SSS 21 that the BLM will coordinate with the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife and that the decision was specific to mineral activities and ROW actions. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

 Deleted “Field Offices” and “Districts” from MD FIRE 3, as there will be a multilayered

approach to coordination, including BLM State Offices. 
2. Decision 

2-8 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 In Objective FIRE 3, added “in SFAs first” to provide more emphasis to the SFAs over the 

rest of the PHMAs for this action. 

 Modified MD FIRE 26 to delete “Districts,” as there will be a multilayered approach to 

identifying treatment needs for wildfire and invasive species management across the State. 

 Added “FWS” as a coordination entity to MD FIRE 31, when ensuring that proposed 

sagebrush treatments are coordinated with the BLM and State fish and wildlife agencies. 

Livestock Grazing 

 Management Decision LG 1 was modified for clarity and to include the fact that the BLM 

would conduct appropriate consultation, cooperation, and coordination. 

 Management Decision LG 5 was modified to add supplementary management actions and 

clarifies that the potential modifications include “but are not limited to” to actions on the 

list. 

 Management Decision LG 5 was modified to make it clear that the management strategies 

listed are not limited to just those listed under LG 5 by adding “but are not limited to.” This 

was added to clarify a misunderstanding in a protest letter. 

 Management Decision LG 7 was clarified to state that “AUMs cannot be applied to another 

pasture that is already being used by livestock or is being purposefully rested.”

 Management Decision LG 15 was modified to state that removing or modifying water 

developments must be done “In accordance with state water law and...”

Mineral Resources 

 Management Decision MR 18 was modified to provide the Barrick Enabling Agreement 

(March 2015) as an example of appropriate mitigation that can be considered in the future, 

and the last sentence was removed because it only repeated BLM regulations and is 

unnecessary. 

Lands and Realty 

 In order to resolve a protest, MD LR 3 was modified to state that corridors will be 3,500 

feet wide “or a different width is specified for congressional designated corridors.” This is in 

response to the Lincoln County Conservation Recreation Development Act of 2004, which 

included congressionally designated corridors that were not included in the plan amendment 

or the corridor map. The corridor map (Figure 2-10) was also modified to reflect the 

corridors tied to this statute. 

 Action LR-LUA 21 from the Proposed Plan was deleted because the Federal Highway 

Administration and the Nevada Department of Transportation already have valid existing 

rights associated with their easements and ROWs, and this planning effort would not change 

the terms and conditions of their existing easements or ROWs. Making this a management 

action is repetitive and unnecessary. 

Travel and Transportation 

 Due to confusion that was outlined in protest letters and in the Governor’s consistency 

review, MD TTM 2 was clarified to say that limiting off-highway travel to existing routes in 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-9 

PHMAs and GHMAs would be “subject to valid existing rights, such as for a mine under a 

plan of operations.”

 Additional language was added to MD TTM 3 to make it clear that the bulleted “guidelines 

will be considered when undertaking future implementation-level travel planning.” This was 

in response to protest misunderstandings. In addition, bullet three was amended by deleting 

“developed in this plan amendment,” as the criteria is not developed through the plan 

amendment. 

Mitigation 

 In order to provide consistency across the Great Basin Regional Planning Area, the two 

mitigation management decisions were removed from the Adaptive Management, 

Monitoring, and Mitigation section of Chapter 2 in the Proposed RMPA (these are now 

separate appendices) and inserted as management decisions independently under the 

Mitigation section. 

2.4.3 Oregon 

Lands and Realty 

 A typographical error in the socioeconomic analysis of the Proposed RMPA was identified 

during the protest period. Correction to this error in Section 4.20.3, page 4-345, is as 

follows: Paragraph beginning “Restrictions to ROW development under Alternatives B, C, 

D, E, F, and the Proposed Plan...” is replaced with the following: 

Proposed management under Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and the Proposed 

Plan could require investors to consider alternative power line ROW 

alignments or designs that could increase the costs of constructing new 

infrastructure. A 2012 WECC study, for example, provides information on 

transmission line construction costs per mile, which range from $927,000 to 

$2,967,000 depending on voltage and whether lines are single or double 

circuit lines. The same study provides cost multipliers for difficult terrains, 

reaching up to 2.25 in the case of forested lands (WECC 2012). Utilities and 

other infrastructure investors typically pass these costs on to consumers. 

Where the rate base is smaller, such as in rural areas, per-customer rate 

impacts associated with constructing a 10-mile, 230kV transmission line, for 

example, would be greater compared to the economic impacts on rate 

payers served by a larger metropolitan utility proposing the same line. 

Under Alternatives B, C, D, E, and the Proposed Plan, rate payers serviced 

by local utility providers with small rate bases would be impacted more by 

costs associated with added route lengths or infrastructure design 

requirements compared with rate payers serviced by larger, multi-State 

providers. Where technically and financially feasible, Alternatives B, D, and 

the Proposed Plan identify burial of power lines as a design option to 

mitigate impacts on GRSG. New construction costs of underground 

transmission lines can be between 4 and 14 times higher compared to new 

overhead construction (PSC 2011), depending on terrain. In rural areas, 

burial of new distribution lines would be more than double the cost of new 
2. Decision 

2-10 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

overhead construction. Burying existing distribution lines would likely cost 

between $400,000 and $500,000 per mile in rural areas (EIA 2012). Under 

all alternatives, where burying new lines would be technically unfeasible or 

result in costs that could not be absorbed by the rate payers, infrastructure 

investors would explore other route or design options that avoid impacts to 

GRSG habitat. 

Renewable Energy 

 Managed Decision RE-2 was modified to include the statement, “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 PHMAs and GHMAs) before 

approving development in PHMAs.”

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse) 

 Objective SSS 6 was modified to clarify that 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 

human disturbances. This modification was recommended during the Governor’s 

consistency review. 

Leasable Mineral Resources 

 Based on internal review, MLS 7 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MD MR 7 in the 

ARMPA, was modified to include all fluid mineral lease development, including geothermal 

permits to drill. 

2.4.4 Utah 

General Changes 

 Throughout the Proposed RMPA, the words “would,” “could,” “should,” and “may” were 

generally removed or revised to reflect the active management direction of an ARMPA 

rather than potential management presented when the Proposed RMPA was one of many 

alternatives that the agency could select. 

 Language was added to Objective SSS-3 (Objective GRSG-3 in the Proposed RMPA), MASSS-4 (MA-GRSG-4 in the Proposed RMP Amendment), MA-SSS-6 (MA-GRSG-6 in the 

Proposed RMPA), Objective VEG-1, MA-VEG-1, MA-FIRE-3 and MA-FIRE-4 to clarify that 

landscapes that include populations of both GRSG and Utah prairie dog, a Federally listed 

species, be managed for the benefit of both species. This addition is included to ensure that 

this objective is included in all applicable objectives and management actions, not just the 

five actions in the Proposed RMPA where this concept and language was already present. 

 Throughout the Proposed RMPA there were a number of references to coordinating with 

the State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources, or State biologists. These were all revised 

to note that such coordination would be with “the appropriate State of Utah agency.” This 

clarification was made at the request of the Governor during his consistency review. 

 The Proposed RMPA introduced the term biologically significant unit (BSU) for adaptive 

management and the disturbance cap to provide a consistent approach for managing and 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-11 

monitoring across the GRSG range. In the Utah Sub-Region, the boundaries of the BSUs 

follow the population area boundaries within PHMAs. As part of resolving protests, the 

ARMPA was revised to note that BSUs are PHMAs within population areas. Whenever the 

term BSU was used, it was replaced with the more descriptive text, with a parenthetical 

reference to BSUs for the purposes of coordinating across State lines. 

Special Status Species (formerly Greater Sage-Grouse) 

 Objective GRSG-1 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now Objective SSS-1 in the ARMPA, 

was changed to remove reference to WAFWA MZs when addressing designation of 

PHMAs. This change was made during the Governor’s consistency review to more closely 

reflect the management in the State of Utah’s Conservation Plan for GRSG in Utah (2013). 

 MA-GRSG-1 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA-SSS-1 in the ARMPA was revised 

to include the following text: “The BLM will apply these goals, objectives, and management 

actions where the agency has discretion to implement them; the actions do not apply in 

areas where the BLM does not administer the surface or mineral estate.” This is consistent 

with the planning criteria contained in the sixth bullet on page 1-20 of the Final EIS. This 

language was added based on an accepted recommendation made by the Governor during 

the Governor’s consistency review. 

 The language of MA-GRSG-1 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA-SSS-1 in the 

ARMPA, regarding nonhabitat areas within PHMAs and GHMAs was revised to clarify the 

intent of the action. This revision was made as a result of internal reviews to ensure the text 

more accurately reflected the intent behind the management action. 

 The introductory language of MA-GRSG-3 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA-SSS3 in the ARMPA, was revised to clarify the intent of the action. This revision was made as a 

result of internal reviews to ensure the text accurately reflects the intent behind the 

management action and to focus on land uses that have been identified as threats to GRSG. 

 The language of MA-GRSG-3e from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA-SSS-3e in the 

ARMPA, was revised to clarify the intent of the noise restrictions. This revision was made as 

a result of internal reviews to ensure the text accurately reflects the intent behind the 

management action to focus on land uses that have been identified as threats to GRSG. 

Further, language was added to identify when “ambient” noise levels would be assessed to 

avoid managing for continual incremental increases in noise levels. 

 The language of MA-GRSG-6 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA-SSS-6 in the 

ARMPA, was revised to clarify the intent of GRSG management outside PHMAs/GHMAs. 

This revision was made as a result of internal reviews to ensure the text accurately reflects 

the intent behind the management action. The purpose of this action is to provide direction 

for managing areas outside PHMAs and GHMAs that have been treated to improve GRSG 

habitat. The change was necessary to avoid the implication of changing allocations or altering 

PHMA and GHMA boundaries outside a planning process, while minimizing conflicting land 

uses in areas where an investment in increasing GRSG habitat have been made. 

Livestock Grazing 

 The language of MA-GRA-6 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA-LG-6 in the 

ARMPA, was revised. The concepts and intent did not change, but the text was revised to 
2. Decision 

2-12 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

align with similar concepts and intent in the livestock grazing sections in GRSG amendments 

throughout the Great Basin. 

2.5 PROTEST RESOLUTION

The BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2 allow any person who participated in the planning 

process and has an interest that may be adversely affected by the BLM’s planning decisions to protest 

proposed planning decisions within 30 days of when the notice of availability of the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS was published in the Federal Register (May 29, 2015). 

The BLM Director concluded that the BLM had followed all applicable laws, regulations, and policies and 

had considered all relevant resource information and public input in developing the Proposed 

RMPAs/Final EISs. Each protesting party has been notified in writing of the Director’s findings and the 

disposition of their protests. The Director resolved the protests without making significant changes to 

the Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs, though minor clarifications were made and are summarized in Section 

2.4. The Director’s decisions on the protests are summarized in each of the Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs 

Director’s Protest Resolution Reports, which are available on the following BLM website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/protest_resolution/protestreports.html. 

Below are descriptions of the protest resolution process for each of the four Great Basin Region 

Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs. 

2.5.1 Idaho and Southwestern Montana 

For the Idaho and Southwestern Montana GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 

20 timely protest submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, one submission was 

dismissed as it did not contain any valid protest points, pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Valid protest 

issues addressed in the Director’s Protest Resolution Report are as follows: 

 Compliance with FLPMA 

 Compliance with NEPA 

 Compliance with ESA 

 Density and disturbance 

 Adaptive management 

 GRSG habitat objectives 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Areas of critical environmental concern 

 Fire and fuels management 

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid minerals 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-13 

 Special status species 

 Lands and realty 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.2 Nevada and Northeastern California 

For the Nevada and Northeastern California GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director 

received 40 timely protest submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, two 

submissions were dismissed as they did not contain any valid protest points, pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.5-

2. Valid protest issues addressed in the Director’s Protest Resolution Report are as follows: 

 Compliance with FLPMA 

 Compliance with NEPA 

 Compliance with ESA 

 Density and disturbance 

 Adaptive management 

 GRSG habitat objectives 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 Areas of critical environmental concern 

 Solid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics 

 Lands and realty 

 Tribal issues 

 WHBs 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.3 Oregon 

For the Oregon GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 30 timely protest 

submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, three submissions were dismissed as 
2. Decision 

2-14 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

they did not contain any valid protest points, pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Valid protest issues 

addressed in the Director’s Protest Resolution Report are as follows: 

 Compliance with FLPMA 

 Compliance with NEPA 

 Compliance with ESA 

 Density and disturbance 

 Monitoring 

 Areas of critical environmental concern 

 Fire and fuels management 

 Solid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.4 Utah 

For the Utah GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 43 timely protest 

submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, three submissions were dismissed as 

they did not contain any valid protest points, pursuant to 43 CFR 1610.5-2. Valid protest issues 

addressed in the Director’s Protest Resolution Report are as follows: 

 Compliance with FLPMA 

 Compliance with NEPA 

 Compliance with ESA 

 Density and disturbance 

 Adaptive management 

 Land use allocations 

 GRSG habitat objectives 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 Areas of critical environmental concern 

 Fire and fuels management 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 2-15 

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Lands and realty 

 Travel and transportation management 

 Reasonable foreseeable development scenarios 

2.6 GOVERNOR’S CONSISTENCY REVIEW 

The BLM’s planning regulations require that RMPs be “consistent with officially approved or adopted 

resource-related plans, and the policies and procedures contained therein, of other Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and resource management plans 

also are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable 

to public lands” (43 CFR 1610.3-2(a)). 

The general requirement in FLPMA and planning regulations is to coordinate the resource management 

planning process with plans of other agencies, States, and local governments to the extent consistent 

with law (see FLPMA Section 202(c)(9) and 43 CFR 1610.3-1(a)) and the respective duties to be 

consistent with both officially approved or adopted plans (to the extent those plans are consistent with 

Federal law or to the maximum extent practical; see 43 CFR 1610.3-2(a)(b)). In accordance with 

FLPMA, the BLM was aware of and gave consideration to State, local, and tribal land use plans and 

provided meaningful public involvement throughout the development of the Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs. 

The BLM is aware that there are specific State laws and local plans relevant to aspects of public land 

management that are separate and independent of Federal law. However, the BLM is bound by Federal 

law; as a consequence, there may be inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled. The FLPMA and its 

implementing regulations require that the BLM’s RMPs be consistent with officially approved State and 

local plans only if those plans are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws 

and regulations applicable to public lands. 

Where officially approved State and local plans or policies and programs conflict with the purposes, 

policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, there will be an 

inconsistency that cannot be resolved. With respect to officially approved State and local policies and 

programs (as opposed to plans), this consistency provision applies only to the maximum extent practical. 

While county and Federal planning processes, under FLPMA, are required to be as integrated and 

consistent as practical, the Federal agency planning process is not bound by or subject to State or 

county plans, planning processes, policies, or planning stipulations. 

The 60-day Governor’s consistency review period ended on July 29, 2015. In the Great Basin Region, 

the Governors of Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah submitted letters to their respective BLM State 

Directors, asserting inconsistencies between the BLM’s Proposed RMPAs and their State’s or local 

governments’ resource-related plans, policies, and procedures, as well as other concerns that they had 

with the proposed planning documents. 
2. Decision 

2-16 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

On August 6, 2015, the BLM State Directors notified the Governors as to whether their 

recommendations were accepted or rejected. These Governors were then given 30 days to appeal the 

BLM State Director’s decisions to the BLM Director. On September 8, 2015, the BLM Director received 

appeals from the Governors of Idaho and Nevada; on September 11, 2015, the BLM Director received 

an appeal from the Governor of Utah. The BLM Director reviewed these appeals and rejected the 

recommendations of the Governors of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah by letters dated September 16, 2015, 

before this ROD was issued. The BLM Director’s response to these appeals will also be published in the 

Federal Register after this ROD is issued. 

In some instances, modifications to the ARMPAs were addressed based on recommendations submitted 

to the BLM by the applicable Governors. These modifications were made and are summarized in 

Section 2.4. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 3-1 

CHAPTER 3 

ALTERNATIVES

3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Each of the Great Basin sub-regional planning efforts analyzed in detail a set of alternatives in the draft 

and final sub-regional EISs. The alternatives were developed to provide direction for resource programs. 

Their intent was to meet purpose and need of this effort; namely, to identify and incorporate 

appropriate management direction in ARMPAs to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat. This 

would be accomplished by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats to GRSG habitat. 

Each alternative emphasized an altered combination of resource uses, allocations, and restoration 

measures to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses so that GRSG goals and objectives were 

met in varying degrees across the alternatives. The action alternatives offered a range of possible 

management approaches for responding to planning issues and concerns identified through public 

scoping and to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution in the Planning Area. While the 

resource management plan goal was the same across alternatives for each sub-region, each alternative 

contained a discrete set of objectives and management actions, constituting a separate RMPA. The goal 

was met to varying degrees, with the potential for different long-range outcomes and conditions. 

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses differed as well, including 

allowable uses, restoration measures, and specific direction pertaining to individual resource programs. 

When resources or resource uses are mandated by law, there are typically few or no distinctions 

between alternatives. 

3.1.1 Alternative A—No Action Alternative 

Alternative A meets the CEQ requirement that a no action alternative be considered. This alternative 

continues current management direction derived from the existing field and district office RMPs, as 

amended. Goals and objectives for resources and resource uses are based on the most recent RMP 

decisions, along with associated amendments and other management decision documents. Laws, 

regulations, and BLM policies that supersede RMP decisions would apply. 

Goals and objectives for BLM-administered lands and mineral estate would not change. Appropriate and 

allowable uses and restrictions pertaining to such activities as mineral leasing and development, 
3. Alternatives 

3-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

recreation, utility corridor construction, and livestock grazing would also remain the same. The BLM 

would not modify existing or establish additional criteria for identifying site-specific use levels for 

implementation activities. 

This alternative was not selected for the ARMPAs because it did not meet the purpose and need of this 

plan amendment. Moreover, it did not include necessary changes to existing decisions based on the FWS 

2010 listing decision, which identified the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as a significant threat to 

GRSG and its habitat. This alternative also did not incorporate the best available science pertaining to 

GRSG or its habitat. 

3.1.2 Alternative B—National Technical Team Report Alternative 

Alternative B was based on the conservation measures contained within the NTT Report. The GRSG 

NTT, comprised of BLM, Forest Service, FWS, USGS, NRCS, and State specialists, completed A Report 

on National Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Measures in December 2011. The charge of the NTT was to 

identify science-based management considerations for the GRSG (i.e., conservation measures) necessary 

to promote sustainable GRSG populations, and which focused on the threats (75 FR 13910) in each of 

the regional WAFWA MZs. The NTT Report preparers proposed conservation measures based on 

habitat requirements and other life history aspects of GRSG. It described the scientific basis for the 

conservation measures proposed within each program area. The report also provided a discussion and 

emphasized the importance of standardizing monitoring across the WAFWA MZs.

The BLM’s Washington Office IM 2012-044 directed the sub-regional planning to analyze the 

conservation measures developed by the NTT, as appropriate, through the resource management 

planning process and NEPA. 

Alternative B would exclude ROW development in PHMAs and would avoid development in GHMAs. It 

would close PHMAs to fluid mineral leasing, mineral material sales, and nonenergy leasable minerals and 

would recommend withdrawal from locatable mineral entry in all PHMAs. These management actions 

would reduce surface disturbance in PHMAs and would minimize disturbance in GHMAs, thereby 

maintaining GRSG habitat. 

Management actions for wildfire would focus on suppression in PHMAs and GHMAs, while limiting 

certain types of fuels treatments. Vegetation management would emphasize sagebrush restoration. 

Collectively, vegetation and wildfire management would conserve GRSG habitat. Grazing would 

continue, with similar impacts under Alternative B as under Alternative A. The BMPs proposed in the 

NTT Report would be included as RDFs as part of Alternative B and are listed in Appendix C, Required 

Design Features, of each of the attached ARMPAs. 

Alternative B was not selected in its entirety as the ARMPAs because most of the conservation 

measures in the NTT Report, as appropriate and applicable, were applied primarily to PHMAs, and few 

conservation measures in the report were provided for in GHMAs. As a result, this alternative did not 

provide adequate conservation in GHMAs. 

3.1.3 Alternative C—Citizen Groups’ Recommended Alternative One 

Alternative C was based on an alternative recommended by citizen groups. This alternative emphasizes 

improving and protecting GRSG habitat and was applied to all occupied GRSG habitat (PHMAs and 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 3-3 

GHMAs). Alternative C limited commodity development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat and closed 

or excluded large portions of the Planning Area to many land uses. This included all PHMAs and GHMAs 

as being closed to livestock grazing, recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry, closed 

to fluid mineral leasing, closed to salable mineral and nonenergy leasable mineral development, and 

exclusion areas for ROWs. The Utah Draft RMPA/EIS combined this alternative with Alternative F 

(discussed below) and included two sub-alternatives under Alternative C for a reduction in livestock 

grazing and WHB management. 

This alternative was not selected in its entirety as the ARMPAs because it limited the use of public land 

in PHMAs and GHMAs to such an extent that it did not adequately accommodate local needs, customs, 

and culture. Also, it included proposed actions that are not necessary for GRSG conservation. For 

example, this alternative closed all allotments to livestock grazing, which, based on best available science, 

is not required to conserve GRSG and its habitats. Alternative C was also not selected in its entirety 

because it does not best achieve the mix of multiple uses necessary to fully implement the mandate of 

FLPMA. 

3.1.4 Alternative D—Draft RMP Amendments’ Preferred Alternative 

Alternative D was identified as the preferred alternative in the Draft EISs. This alternative balanced 

opportunities to use and develop the Planning Area, as well as conserving, maintaining, and enhancing 

GRSG and its habitat. Protective measures were applied to GRSG habitat, while allowing for human 

disturbances with stringent mitigation measures. This alternative represents the mix and variety of 

management actions, based on the BLM’s analysis and judgment, which best resolve the resource issues 

and management concerns while meeting laws, regulations, and policies pertaining to BLM management. 

As a result of public scoping comments, internal review, and cooperating agency coordination on the 

Draft RMPAs/EISs, this alternative was modified to become the Proposed RMPAs and was analyzed in 

the Final EISs. The preferred alternatives, with slight variations, became the proposed plans in the Final 

EISs. 

In PHMAs under Alternative D, disturbance in GRSG habitat would be limited by excluding wind and 

solar energy development (except for certain counties in Southeastern Oregon, where avoidance is 

applied), avoiding most ROW development (subject to certain conditions), applying NSO stipulations to 

fluid mineral development, and closing PHMAs to nonenergy leasable mineral development and mineral 

material sales. These management actions would protect GRSG habitat, while allowing other activities, 

subject to conditions. In GHMAs under Alternative D, allocations are less stringent but still aim to 

protect GRSG habitat (for example, applying moderate constraints and stipulations to fluid minerals in 

GHMAs). 

Under Alternative D, the BLM management would support sagebrush/perennial grass ecosystem 

restoration, would increase fire suppression in PHMAs and GHMAs, and would manage livestock grazing 

to maintain or enhance sagebrush and perennial grass ecosystems. 

3.1.5 Alternative E: State/Governor’s Alternative 

Alternative E is the alternative based on information provided by the State or Governor’s offices for 

inclusion and analysis in the EISs. In many instances, the BLM had to adjust what was provided by the 

States and Governors to fit such requirements as BLM language and decision-making constructs. This 

alternative incorporates guidance from specific State conservation strategies, if developed, or 
3. Alternatives 

3-4 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

recommendations from the State for managing Federal lands. It emphasizes managing GRSG seasonal 

habitats and maintaining habitat connectivity to support population objectives. Alternative E was 

identified as a co-Preferred Alternative in the Idaho and Southwestern Montana Draft EIS. California did 

not provide the BLM with a State GRSG conservation plan and, under this alternative, reverted back to 

Alternative A, the No Action alternative. 

For Nevada, Alternative E would apply an “avoid, minimize, and mitigate” strategy to reduce direct and 

indirect impacts on GRSG from surface-disturbing activities on BLM-administered lands. The effects on 

GRSG habitat from certain resource programs, such as grazing, lands and realty, wildfire management, 

and minerals, would not be directly addressed. This is because the State’s plan does not contain land use 

plan-level allocation decisions, such as ROW exclusion and avoidance areas; it relies largely on the avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate strategy at the project level. 

The FWS March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing decision identified the inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms as a significant threat to GRSG. RMP conservation measures were identified as 

the BLM’s principal regulatory mechanism. The BLM believes Alternative E did not incorporate adequate 

regulatory mechanisms into the existing plan to meet its purpose and need to conserve, enhance, and 

restore GRSG and its habitat; therefore, the BLM did not select Alternative E as the ARMPA. 

For Oregon, Alternative E contains GRSG conservation guidelines from Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. This document 

describes the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s proposed management of GRSG on Federal 

lands. It also provides guidance for public land management agencies and land managers for GRSG 

conservation. GRSG conservation guidelines in the State plan are designed to maintain (at a minimum) 

or enhance the quality (the optimum) of current habitats. The guidelines would also assist resource 

managers in achieving the population and habitat objectives of the State plan. 

For Idaho, Alternative E incorporates proposed GRSG protection measures recommended by the State 

of Idaho. Management in Montana would remain unchanged from the current RMPs (Alternative A). 

Alternative E addresses the following primary threats: fire, invasive weeds, and infrastructure 

development. It also includes guidance for several secondary GRSG threats, such as recreation, 

improper livestock grazing, and West Nile virus, for BLM and Forest Service programs that affect GRSG 

or its habitat. 

For Utah, Alternative E1 is based on the State of Utah’s Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah

(Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Working Group 2013) and would apply to all BLM-administered lands in 

Utah. In Alternative E1 conservation measures would be applied to 11 State-identified areas, called SageGrouse Management Areas. Emphasis would be placed on expanding GRSG habitat by aggressively 

treating areas where there are encroaching conifers or invasive species. Alternative E1 includes a general 

limit on new permanent disturbance of 5 percent of habitat on State or Federally managed lands within 

any particular GRSG management area; occupied habitat outside of these areas would not receive new 

management protection and would continue to be managed according to the GRSG actions in existing 

RMPs and conservation measures associated with existing activity-level plans. 

This alternative was not selected in its entirety as the ARMPAs because some components of the State’s 

plans were not consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 3-5 

applicable to public lands. However, many goals, objectives, and management actions in the alternative 

were carried forward. 

3.1.6 Alternative F—Citizen Groups’ Recommended Alternative Two 

Alternative F is also based on a citizen group recommended alternative. This alternative emphasizes 

improvement and protection of habitat for GRSG and defines different restrictions for PHMAs and 

GHMAs. Alternative F would limit commodity development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat and 

would close or designate portions of the Planning Area to some land uses. This alternative does not 

apply to the Utah sub-regional planning effort, as it was combined with Alternative C. Under Alternative 

F, wildfire suppression would be prioritized in PHMAs. Concurrent vegetation management would 

emphasize sagebrush restoration and enhancement. Alternative F would reduce livestock and WHB 

management use by 25 percent within PHMAs and GHMAs. While the Utah Draft EIS did not include an 

Alternative F, it did create two sub-alternatives under Alternative C for livestock grazing and WHBs to 

consider and analyze a similar reduction. 

This alternative was not selected in its entirety as the ARMPAs because it limited the use of public land 

in PHMAs and GHMAs to such an extent that it did not give adequate accommodation to local needs, 

customs, and culture. 

3.1.7 Proposed Plan Amendment 

As a result of public comments, best science, cooperating agency coordination, and internal review of 

the Draft RMPAs/EISs, the BLM developed the Proposed Plan Amendments/Final EISs for managing BLMadministered lands. In these documents, the BLM focused on addressing public comments, while 

continuing to meet its legal and regulatory mandates. 

The Proposed Plan Amendments/Final EISs are a variation of the preferred alternatives (Alternative D) 

and are within the range of alternatives analyzed in the Draft EISs. The Proposed Plan Amendments, 

with slight variations (as outlined in Section 2.4 of this ROD), became ARMPAs. The BLM adopted the 

Proposed Plan Amendments as the ARMPAs because they also balance resource protections with 

resource uses to protect resources, while achieving sustainable resource development. 

3.1.8 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

CEQ regulations require that a ROD state which alternatives were considered to be “environmentally 

preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). Question 6A of CEQ’s 40 Most-Asked Questions regarding CEQ’s NEPA 

regulations (46 FR 18026) defines that term to ordinarily mean the alternative that best protects, 

preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Under that definition, Alternative C, as presented in each of the sub-regional Proposed RMPAs/Final 

EISs, is the most environmentally preferable. However, Section 101 of NEPA expresses a continuing 

policy of the Federal government to “use all practicable means and measures...to foster and promote 

the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in 

productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans.” FLPMA Section 302 requires the BLM to manage public lands for multipleuse and sustained yield, and Section 102(12) of FLPMA declares a policy of the United States that “the 

public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of 

minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and 
3. Alternatives 

3-6 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 USC, Section 21a) as it pertains to the public lands.” For 

these reasons, Alternative C was not selected (in its entirety) as the sub-regional ARMPAs. 

3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

The alternatives listed below by sub-region were considered but were not carried forward for detailed 

analysis because of one or more of the following reasons: 

 They would not meet the requirements of FLPMA or other existing laws and regulations 

 They did not meet the purpose and need 

 The alternative was already captured within the range of alternative analyzed in the EIS 

 They were already part of an existing plan, policy, or administrative function 

 They did not fall within the limits of the planning criteria 

For additional rationale as to why each of the alternatives listed below by sub-region were not carried 

forward for detailed analysis, refer to Section 2.11 of each of the sub-regional Proposed RMPAs/Final 

EISs. 

Idaho and Southwestern Montana 

 FWS-Listing Alternative 

 Elimination of Recreational Hunting Alternative 

 Predation Alternative 

 Close All or Portions of PHMAs or GHMAs to OHV Use Alternative 

 Consideration of Coal Mining Alternative 

Nevada and Northeastern California 

 Close All or Portions of PHMAs or GHMAs to OHV Use Alternative 

 Elko County Sage-Grouse Plan Alternative 

 Increase Grazing Alternative 

Oregon 

 FWS-Listing Alternative 

 Elimination of Livestock Grazing from all BLM Lands Alternative 

 Increase Livestock Grazing Alternative 

 Close All or Portions of PHMAs or GHMAs to OHV Use Alternative 

Utah 

 FWS-Listing Alternative 

 Increase Livestock Grazing Alternative 

 Make GRSG Habitat Available for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Alternative 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 3-7 

 Citizen Proposed Alternatives (in their entirety) 

 Adoption of the State of Utah’s Sage-Grouse Management Areas as PHMAs for All 

Alternatives 

 Use of Other Habitat Maps Alternatives 

 County Sage-Grouse Management Plans Alternative 

 COT Report Alternative 

 BLM Policies and Regulations Alternative 
3. Alternatives 

3-8 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 4-1 

CHAPTER 4 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND 

COORDINATION

BLM resource management planning is conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements, CEQ 

regulations, and US Department of the Interior policies and procedures for implementing NEPA, as well 

as specific BLM planning and NEPA policies. NEPA and associated laws, regulations, and policies require 

the BLM to seek public involvement early in and throughout the planning process, to develop a range of 

reasonable alternatives to proposed actions, and to prepare environmental documents that disclose the 

potential impacts of proposed management. 

Public involvement and agency consultation and coordination have been at the heart of the planning 

process leading to these Great Basin Region ARMPAs. These efforts were achieved through Federal 

Register notices, formal and informal public meetings, individual contacts, media releases, planning 

bulletins, and a series of GRSG planning-related websites. 

This section documents the outreach efforts that have occurred to date. For more plan-specific 

information related to the public involvement, consultation, and coordination processes that the BLM 

conducted, please refer to Chapter 3 of the attached ARMPAs. 

4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The scoping period for the National GRSG Planning Strategy began with the publication of the Notice of 

Intent in the Federal Register on December 9, 2011, and ended on March 23, 2012. Beginning in 

December and ending in February 2012, the BLM hosted a series of public open house scoping meetings 

across Northeastern California, Idaho, Southwestern Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. A final 

National GRSG Planning Strategy Scoping Report was released in May 2012 (BLM and Forest Service 

2012). 

Notices of Availability for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, 

and Utah Draft RMPAs/EISs were published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2013. The Oregon 

Draft RMPA/EIS was released to the public on November 26, 2013. 
4. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

4-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

For the Great Basin Region GRSG Draft RMPAs/EISs, Idaho and Southwestern Montana conducted 

seven public meetings, Nevada and Northeastern California conducted seven public meetings, Oregon 

conducted seven public meetings, and Utah conducted eight public meetings between November 2013 

and January 2014. 

Comments on the Draft RMPAs/EISs were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the 

Proposed Plan Amendments/Final EISs. The Great Basin Region received approximately 4,990 

substantive comments, contained in 74,240 submissions during the Draft RMPAs/EISs’ comment periods. 

Comments on the Draft RMPAs/EISs received from the public and internal BLM review were carefully 

considered and incorporated as appropriate into the proposed plan amendments. Public comments 

resulted in the addition of clarifying text but did not significantly change the Proposed RMPAs.

On May 29, 2015, the BLM released an NOA for all of the Great Basin Region GRSG Proposed 

RMPAs/Final EISs for the Idaho and Southwestern Montana, Nevada and Northeastern California, 

Oregon, and Utah Sub-regions. The release of the NOA initiated a 30-day public protest period and a 

60-day Governor’s consistency review. Refer to Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for a full description of the 

protest period and Governor’s consistency review outcomes. 

4.2 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

A cooperating agency is any Federal, State, or local government agency or Native American tribe that 

enters into a formal agreement with the lead Federal agency to help develop an environmental analysis. 

Cooperating agencies and tribes “work with the BLM, sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve 

desired outcomes for public lands and communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks” (BLM 

2005). The benefits of enhanced collaboration among agencies in preparing NEPA analyses are as 

follows: 

 Disclosing relevant information early in the analytical process 

 Applying available technical expertise and staff support 

 Avoiding duplication with other Federal, State, tribal, and local procedures 

 Establishing a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues 

The BLM entered into a formal MOU for the National GRSG Planning Strategy with the FWS and the 

Forest Service. In addition, the Great Basin sub-regions also invited local, State, other Federal, and tribal 

representatives to participate as cooperating agencies for these RMPAs/EISs. In total, there were 13 

MOUs signed with Federal agencies, 10 signed with State agencies, 55 signed with counties, and 5 signed 

with tribal entities. The MOUs outline the interests, expertise, and jurisdictional responsibilities of both 

the BLM and its cooperating agency partners and also outline their respective roles and responsibilities 

in the planning and NEPA processes. Additional information can be found in Chapter 6 of each of the 

Proposed Amendments/Final EISs. These cooperating agencies divided by sub-region are provided 

below. 

Great Basin Region-Wide 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service 
4. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 4-3 

Idaho and Southwestern Montana 

Beaverhead County Commissioners 

Bingham County Commissioners 

Blaine County Commissioners 

Cassia County Commissioners 

Clark County Commissioners 

Craters of the Moon National Monument 

Custer County Commissioners 

Fremont County Commissioners 

Idaho Association of Counties 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Idaho Governor’s Office of Species Conservation 

Idaho National Guard 

Jefferson County Commissioners 

Lemhi County Commissioners 

Madison County Commissioners 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Owyhee County Commissioners 

Power County Commissioners 

Twin Falls County Commissioners 

US Department of Defense 

US Department of Energy (INL) 

Nevada and Northeastern California 

Churchill County 

Elko County 

Eureka County 

Humboldt County 

Lander County 

Lassen County 

Lincoln County 

Mineral County 

Modoc County 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Nevada Department of Transportation 

Nevada Department of Wildlife 

Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Nye County 

Pershing County 

Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe 

Storey County 

Summit Lake Paiute Tribe 

Susanville Indian Rancheria 

US Department of Defense 

US Federal Highway Planning Administration 
4. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

4-4 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Washoe County 

Washoe Tribe 

White Pine County 

Oregon 

Crook County 

Deschutes County 

Harney County 

Harney Soil and Water Conservation District 

Lake County 

Malheur County 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon State University 

US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Utah 

Beaver County 

Box Elder County 

Carbon County 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Indian Reservation 

Duchesne County 

Emery County 

Garfield County 

Grand County 

Iron County 

Kane County 

Lincoln County (Wyoming) 

Millard County 

Rich County 

Sanpete County 

Sevier County 

State of Utah (PLPCO) 

State of Wyoming 

Sweetwater County (Wyoming) 

Sweetwater County Conservation District (Wyoming) 

Tooele County 

Uinta County (Wyoming) 

Uintah County (Utah) 

Utah County 

US Department of Defense 

Wayne County 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 
4. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 4-5 

4.3 FWS SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 

Under Section 7 of the ESA, Federal agencies must consult with the FWS when an action the agency 

carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect a listed endangered or threatened species or its designated 

critical habitat. The four Great Basin sub-regional Final EISs defined potential impacts on threatened and 

endangered species as a result of management actions proposed in the alternatives analyzed in the Final 

EISs. (The FWS is a cooperating agency in this planning process.) FWS staff participated in 

interdisciplinary team meetings and have been provided with drafts of alternative decisions and analyses 

for discussion and input. 

The BLM formally initiated Section 7 consultation with a letter to the FWS, before the release of the 

Draft RMPAs/EISs, and requested concurrence on which species would require consideration during 

consultation. Over the ensuing months, regular meetings were held to identify the species that would be 

analyzed in the biological assessment, to address which actions could affect those species, and to 

determine whether the implementation of the Proposed Plan amendments “may affect” the species for 

which this consultation occurred. 

Before the release of the Proposed Amendments/Final EISs, the BLM formally submitted the biological 

assessments to the FWS for review on whether the plans would affect a Federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species. The FWS evaluated the biological assessments and concurred with either a “no 

effect” or “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” determination via memorandum for Oregon, 

Nevada and Northeastern California, and Idaho and Southwestern Montana; these memoranda are 

appendices to each of the ARMPAs. For Utah, formal consultation was required with the FWS due to a 

“likely to adversely affect” determination associated with the Utah prairie dog, a threatened species 

under the ESA. The biological opinion from the FWS is attached to the Utah ARMPA (Appendix J).

4.4 NATIVE AMERICAN AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONSULTATION

In recognition of the government-to-government relationship between individual tribes and the Federal 

government, the BLM initiated Native American consultation in preparation of the four Great Basin subregional RMPAs/EISs. The BLM coordinated with Native American tribes throughout the planning 

process. In December 2011, the BLM sent letters to 65 tribal governments. The letters provided initial 

notification of the RMPAs/EISs and background information on the project, an invitation to be a 

cooperating agency, and notification of subsequent consultation related to the planning process. Tribes 

have been participating in the RMPAs/EISs processes through numerous meetings and through personal 

BLM contacts, and in some cases, as cooperating agencies. 

As part of the NEPA scoping and consultation process, the BLM notified the Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

California, and Oregon State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) of the opportunities to comment 

on the planning and NEPA documents prepared for these efforts, as they relate to historic properties in 

the Planning Areas and the land use plan decisions included in the ARMPAs. The BLM sought 

information about historic properties in consideration of land use planning decisions in accordance with 

the National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

National Conference of SHPOs, and the Idaho, Montana, and Oregon State Protocol Agreement 

between the BLM and these SHPOs. If the BLM received comments and information from SHPOs and 

tribes, then it considered and incorporated that information into the Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs and the 

ARMPAs. 
4. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

4-6 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

The BLM has met its obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 USC, 

Section 306108, as outlined in the National Programmatic Agreement and the State protocols. The BLM 

will satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for future 

implementation-level decisions, such as project proposals, including adequate consultation with SHPOs, 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Native American tribes, and other interested parties. This is 

consistent with the alternative procedures set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement and 

relevant State protocols or, where applicable, the Section 106 regulations. 

For the Utah ARMPA, the BLM completed consultation with the Utah SHPO, in accordance with 36 

CFR Part 800. In July 2015, the BLM submitted a formal letter, concluding that the land use plan 

amendments would not adversely affect cultural properties and seeking input and concurrence on those 

findings. The BLM received a concurrence letter from the Utah SHPO on July 30, 2015. It will satisfy the 

requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for future implementation-level 

decisions, such as project proposals, including adequate consultation with SHPOs, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers, Native American tribes, and other interested parties. This is consistent with the 

alternative procedures set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement and relevant State protocols 

and programmatic agreements, or where applicable, the Section 106 regulations.
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 5-1 

CHAPTER 5 

REFERENCES

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2005. Handbook H-1601-

1—Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, DC. March 2005. 

_____. 2008. Sage Steppe Ecosystem Restoration Strategy Final EIS. Alturas Field Office, California. 

December 15, 2008. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/alturas/ 

Sage_Steppe_Ecosystem_Resortation_Strategy.Par.1525.File.dat/SageSteppeStratey%20FEIS.pdf. 

_____. 2015. BLM GIS Data. 

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management) and Forest Service 

(United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2012. National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Planning Strategy: Land Use Plan Amendments and Environmental Impact Statements, Scoping 

Summary Report. May 2012. 

Brooks, M. L., J. R. Matchett, D. J. Shinneman, and P. S. Coates. 2015. Fire patterns in the range of 

greater sage-grouse, 1984–2013—Implications for conservation and management: US Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2015-1167. Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151167. 

Casazza, M. L., P. S. Coates, and C. T. Overton. 2011. “Linking habitat selection to brood success in 

greater sage-grouse.” In: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Grouse (M. K. Sandercock, K. 

Martin, and G Segelbacher, editors). University of California Press, Berkeley. Pp. 151-167.

Internet website: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/fileHandler.ashx?File=/Lists/Products/Attachments/ 

4750/Casazza%20et%20al.%202011_GrSGbrood.pdf. 

Chambers, Jeanne C.; David A. Pyke, Jeremy D. Maestas, Mike Pellant, Chad S. Boyd, Steven B. 

Campbell, Shawn Espinosa, et al. 2014. Using resistance and resilience concepts to reduce 

impacts of invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and 

greater sage-grouse: A strategic multi-scale approach. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-326. Fort 

Collins, Colorado: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 
5. References 

5-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Coates, P. S., M. L. Casazza, B. E. Brussee, M. A. Ricca, K. B. Gustafson, C. T. Sanchez-Chopitea 

Overton, E. Kroger, et al. 2014. Spatially explicit modeling of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) habitat in Nevada and northeastern California—A decision-support tool for 

management: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1163. Internet 

website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1163/pdf/ofr2014-1163.pdf. 

Coates, P. S., M. A. Ricca, B. G. Prochazka, K. E. Doherty, M. L. Brooks, and M. L. Casazza. 2015. Longterm effects of wildfire on greater sage-grouse—Integrating population and ecosystem concepts 

for management in the Great Basin: US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015–1165. 

Internet website: http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151165. 

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. Internet website: 

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/Greater_Sage-grouse_Conservation_Assessment_060404.pdf. 

Crist, Michele R., Steven T. Knick, and Steven Hanser. 2015. Range-wide network of priority areas for 

greater sage-grouse—A design for conserving connected distributions or isolating individual 

zoos? US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2015-1158. Internet website: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1158/ofr20151158.pdf. 

Doherty K. E., J. D. Tack, J. S. Evans, and D. E. Naugle. 2010. “Breeding densities of greater sage-grouse: 

A tool for range-wide conservation planning.” BLM Completion Report: Interagency Agreement 

#L10PG00911. September 24, 2010. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/ 

medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs.Par.46599.File.tmp/GRSG%20Rang

ewide%20Breeding%20Density.pdf. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2012. Power Outages Often Spur Questions Around Burying 

Power Lines. July. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7250. 

FIAT (Fire and Invasive Assessment Team). 2014. Greater Sage-Grouse Wildfire, Invasive Annual 

Grasses and Conifer Expansion Assessment (Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool). June 2014. 

Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/ 

public_affairs/sage-grouse_planning/documents.Par.15341.File.dat/GRSG%20Wildfire,% 

20Invasives,%20and%20Conifer%20Assessment_June2014_final%20copy.pdf. 

FWS (United States 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. 75 Federal Register 13910. March 23, 

2010. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr5934.pdf. 

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Conservation Objectives Team, Denver, Colorado. February 2013. 

Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/documents/COT-Report-with-DearInterested-Reader-Letter.pdf. 
5. References 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 5-3 

_____. 2014a. Memorandum: Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. October 27, 2014. Internet website: 

http://www.fws.gov/greaterSageGrouse/documents/ESA%20Process/GRSG%20Strongholds%20m

emo%20to%20BLM%20and%20USFS%20102714.pdf. 

_____. 2014b. Greater Sage-Grouse Range-Wide Mitigation Framework. Version 1.0. September 3, 

2014. Internet website: http://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/documents/Landowners/ 

USFWS_GRSG%20RangeWide_Mitigation_Framework20140903.pdf. 

Hagen, C. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to 

Maintain and Enhance Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bend, 

Oregon. April 22, 2011. Internet website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/sagegrouse/ 

docs/20110422_GRSG_April_Final%2052511.pdf. 

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, USA. Ecology and Evolution, 3(6):1539-1551. Internet website: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3686190/pdf/ece30003-1539.pdf. 

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. 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program and the Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team. 2014. Nevada 

Conservation Credit System Manual v0.98. Prepared by Environmental Incentives, LLC. South Lake 

Tahoe, California. Internet website: http://sagebrusheco.nv.gov/CCS/ConservationCreditSystem/. 

NTT (National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures. Produced by the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team. Washington DC. December 

2011. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/co/programs/ 

wildlife.Par.73607.File.dat/GrSG%20Tech%20Team%20Report.pdf. 

Pellant, M. 2005. Interpreting indicators of rangeland health, version 4. Technical Reference 1734-6. US 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology 

Center, Denver, Colorado. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05. 

PSC (Public Service Commission of Wisconsin). 2011. Underground Electric Transmission Lines. 

Internet website: https://psc.wi.gov/thelibrary/publications/electric/electric11.pdf. 

State of Montana. 2014. Executive Order (No. 10-2014) Creating the Montana Sage Grouse Oversight 

Team and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program. Office of the Governor. 

September 9, 2014. Internet website: governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/docs/2014EOs/ 

EO_10_2014_SageGrouse.pdf. 
5. References 

5-4 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

State of Nevada. 2014. Nevada Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan. Sagebrush Ecosystem Program. 

Carson City, Nevada. October 1, 2014. Internet website: 

http://sagebrusheco.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/sagebrusheconvgov/content/home/features/2014_Cons

olidatedStatePlan.pdf. 

Stiver, S. J., A. D. Apa, J. R. Bohne, S. D. Bunnell, P. A. Deibert, S. C. Gardner, M. A. Hilliard, et al. 2006. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy. Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished report. Cheyenne, Wyoming. Internet website: : 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01317/wdfw01317.pdf. 

US Department of the Interior. 2015. Secretarial Order 3336—An Integrated Rangeland Fire 

Management Strategy: Final Report to the Secretary of the Interior. May 2015. Internet website: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/rangeland/documents/IntegratedRangelandFireManagement

Strategy_FinalReportMay2015.pdf. 

Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2013. 2013 Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in 

Utah. February 14, 2013. Internet website: http://wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/sagegrouse/pdf/greater_sage_grouse_plan.pdf. 

WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council). 2012. Capital Costs for Transmission and 

Substations. Recommendations for WECC Transmission Expansion Planning. Internet website: 

http://www.wecc.biz/committees/BOD/TEPPC/External/BV_WECC_TransCostReport_Final.pdf. 
CHAPTER6 


APPROVAL 


Land Use Plan Decisions 

It is the decision of the Bureau of Land Management to approve the Great Basin Region Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for the Nevada and Northeastern California, Oregon, Utah, and Idaho 

and Southwestern Montana Sub-regions, as described in this Record of Decision. The Proposed Plan 

Amendments and related Final Environmental Impact Statements were published on May 29, 20 IS, in the 

Federal Register (80 FR 30711 ). I have resolved all protests and, in accordance with BLM regulations 43 

CFR 1610.5-2, my decision on the protests is the final decision of the Department of the Interior. The 

approval is effective on the date this Record of Decision is signed. 

Approved by: 

Date 

Director 

Bureau of Land Managem 

Approval 

I hereby approve the land use plan decisions. My approval of the land use plan decisions constitutes the 

final decision of the Department of the Interior and, in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 161 0.5­

2(b) and 43 CFR 4.410(a)(3), it is not subject to appeal under Departmental regulations at 43 CFR Part 

4. Any challenge to these land use plan decisions must be brought in Federal district court. 

Approved by: 

\ 

Date 


Assistant Secretary 


Land and Minerals Management 


September 20 IS ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions 6-1 
6. Approval 

6-2 ROD and ARMPAs for the Great Basin GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
ATTACHMENTS

The following approved resource management plan amendments are included in this Record of Decision 

and are bound as separate documents. 

Attachment 1: Idaho and Southwestern Montana Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendment 

Attachment 2: Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource 

Management Plan Amendment 

Attachment 3: Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Attachment 4: Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment