Record of Decision and 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region, 

Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions 

of

Lewistown 

North Dakota 

Northwest Colorado 

Wyoming 

and the Approved Resource Management Plans 

for 

Billings 

Buffalo 

Cody 

HiLine 

Miles City 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

South Dakota 

Worland 

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.blm.gov 

SEP 1 8 2015 

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed are the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) Record of Decision (ROD) and associated 

land use plans for the Rocky Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy. The 

associated land use plans include the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments 

(RMP As) for the Rocky Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Lewistown, 

North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, and Wyoming, and the Approved Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument, South Dakota, and Worland. 

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 Great Basin, serve as the cornerstone ofthe 

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 ofresearch, 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 ofthese 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 RMPs, RMP As and EISs. 

The BLM received 45,200 unique letters with more than 10,300 substantive comments on all the 

Rocky Mountain Region Draft documents. The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service reviewed, 

summarized, and took into consideration these comments when preparing the Proposed 

RMPAs/Final EISs and Proposed RMPs/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 ElSs - that associated with the Lander RMP Revision- in 201 I. 
The BLM received consistency review letters from the Governors of Colorado, Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming and has worked closely with these States to address their 

concerns. Across all ofthe Proposed RMP As, Proposed RMPs, and their associated EISs in the 

Rocky Mountain Region, government entities, private citizens, non-governmental organizations, 

and other stakeholders submitted 149 protest letters. Ofthose, 120 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_ resolution/ 

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 and RMPs. These plans will 

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

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 Rocky Mountain 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 of this ROD, the BLM ROD for the Great Basin 

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

these regions. Together these five RODs and the underlying plans implement the Strategy across 

the remaining range ofthe species. 

Copies ofthe ROD, RMPAs, and RMPs can be obtained from the BLM's National Greater SageGrouse 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. 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

Enclosure: 

1. 	 Record ofDecision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments and 

Approved Resource Management Plans 

2 The BLM signed the ROD approving the Lander RMP in June 20 14. 

2 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain 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 Rocky 

Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, 

and Wyoming; and Approved Resource Management Plans (ARMPs) for the Billings Field Office, Buffalo 

Field Office, Cody Field Office, HiLine District, Miles City Field Office, Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument, South Dakota Field Office, and Worland Field Office. The ARMPAs and ARMPs 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 ARMPs and 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 
Summary 

S-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

In addition to protective land use allocations in habitat management areas, the ARMPs and ARMPAs 

include a suite of management actions, such as establishing disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives, 

mitigation 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 Rocky Mountain Region and to provide greater certainty that BLM 

resource management plan decisions in GRSG habitat in the Rocky Mountain Region can lead to 

conservation of the GRSG and other sagebrush-steppe-associated species in the region. The targeted 

resource management plan protections in this ROD and the ARMPs 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 rural 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 ARMPs 

and ARMPAs apply, including those ARMPAs for the four sub-regions in the BLM’s Great Basin Region 

ROD. In combination with additional State and Federal actions underway and in development, this 

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/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

DEAR READER LETTER

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

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

1.1 Rocky Mountain Region Planning Area .................................................................................... 1-2

1.2 Early GRSG Conservation Efforts ............................................................................................. 1-6

1.3 Threats to GRSG in the Rocky Mountain Region ................................................................. 1-8

1.4 National GRSG Conservation Strategy ................................................................................... 1-9

1.5 How the ARMPs and ARMPAs Address the Identified Threats to GRSG 

Conservation ............................................................................................................................... 1-14

1.6 Key Components of the BLM GRSG Conservation Strategy .......................................... 1-21

1.6.1 Avoid and Minimize Surface Disturbance .............................................................. 1-22

1.6.2 Improving Habitat Condition .................................................................................... 1-26

1.6.3 Reducing Threats of Rangeland Fire to GRSG and Sagebrush Habitat ........... 1-28

1.6.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management ............................................. 1-29

1.7 Unique Aspects of the Rocky Mountain Region’s ARMPs and ARMPAs ...................... 1-30

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

1.9 Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 1-39

1.9.1 Additional Implementation Guidance and Considerations ................................ 1-40

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

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

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

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

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

2.4.1 Lewistown ....................................................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 North Dakota ................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.4.3 Northwest Colorado .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.4.4 Wyoming ......................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.5 Billings ............................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.6 Buffalo ............................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4.7 Cody ............................................................................................................................... 2-11

2.4.8 HiLine ............................................................................................................................. 2-14

2.4.9 Miles City....................................................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.10 Pompeys Pillar National Monument ........................................................................ 2-16

2.4.11 South Dakota ................................................................................................................ 2-16

2.4.12 Worland ......................................................................................................................... 2-17

2.5 Protest Resolution ...................................................................................................................... 2-19

2.5.1 Lewistown ..................................................................................................................... 2-20

2.5.2 North Dakota ............................................................................................................... 2-20

2.5.3 Northwest Colorado .................................................................................................. 2-21

2.5.4 Wyoming ....................................................................................................................... 2-21

2.5.5 Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument .................................................. 2-22

2.5.6 Bighorn Basin (Cody and Worland Field Offices) ................................................ 2-23

2.5.7 Buffalo ............................................................................................................................. 2-23

2.5.8 HiLine ............................................................................................................................. 2-24
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page 

ii ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

2.5.9 Miles City ....................................................................................................................... 2-25

2.5.10 South Dakota ................................................................................................................ 2-25

2.6 Governor’s Consistency Review............................................................................................. 2-26

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

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

3.1.1 Alternatives Considered for the GRSG RMP Amendments ............................... 3-2

3.1.2 Alternatives Considered for the RMP Revisions .................................................... 3-5

3.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail ........................................................ 3-20

4. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS—RATIONALE FOR ARMPS (PLAN REVISIONS) ..... 4-1

5. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ARMPS (PLAN REVISIONS) ............................................ 5-1

6. PLAN MONITORING FOR ARMPS (PLAN REVISIONS) .................................................. 6-1

7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION ................................ 7-1

7.1 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................................................. 7-2

7.3 FWS Section 7 Consultation ...................................................................................................... 7-7

7.4 Native American and State Historic Preservation Officers Consultation ...................... 7-7

8. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 8-1

9. APPROVAL..................................................................................................................... 9-1

TABLES Page 

1-1a Land Management in the Rocky Mountain ARMPA Planning Areas (in Acres) ............................ 1-5

1-1b Land Management in the Rocky Mountain ARMP Planning Areas (Surface Acres) ..................... 1-5

1-2 Threats to GRSG in the Rocky Mountain Region as identified by the Conservation 

Objectives Team ........................................................................................................................................ 1-11

1-3a Surface Acres of PHMAs, GHMAs, RHMAs, and LCHMAs in the Decision Area for 

the Rocky Mountain Region .................................................................................................................... 1-16

1-3b BLM-Administered Federal Mineral Estate of PHMAs, GHMAs, RHMAs, and LCHMAs 

in the Decision Area for the Rocky Mountain Region ...................................................................... 1-16

1-4 Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG ARMPs and 

ARMPAs that Address the COT Report Threats.............................................................................. 1-18

4-1 Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained 

in the ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions..................................................... 4-1
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions iii

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Rocky Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions ............................................................ 1-3

1-2 Rocky Mountain Region Planning Area ................................................................................................... 1-4

1-3 Rocky Mountain Region Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management 

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

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

Management Zones ................................................................................................................................... 1-10

1-5 Regional and Sub-Regional Boundaries with Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat 

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

ATTACHMENTS

1 Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

2 North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

3 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

4 Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

5 Billings Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

6 Buffalo Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

7 Cody Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

8 HiLine District Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

9 Miles City Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

10 Pompeys Pillar National Monument Approved Resource Management Plan 

11 South Dakota Approved Resource Management Plan 

12 Worland Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 
iv ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

AML appropriate management level 

ARMP Approved Resource Management Plan 

ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

BSU biologically significant unit

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

CSU controlled surface use 

DDCT Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

Forest Service US Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

FR Federal Register 

FWS US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 

GHMAs general habitat management areas 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

IM instruction memorandum 

LCHMAs Linkage and Connectivity Habitat Management Area(s) 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

MZ management zone 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOA notice of availability 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NTT National Technical Team 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PACs priority areas for conservation 

PGH preliminary general habitat 

PHMAs priority habitat management areas 

PPH preliminary priority habitat 

RDF required design feature 

RHMAs restoration habitat management area(s) 

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 

TL timing limitation 

USC United States Code 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions v 

USGS US Geological Survey 

VRM visual resource management 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

WHB wild horse(s) and burro(s) 

WSA wilderness study area 
Table of Contents 

vi ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-1

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM’s) attached Resource Management Plan Amendments (RMPAs) for the Rocky 

Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) Sub-Regions of Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest 

Colorado, and Wyoming and the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) for the Billings, Buffalo, Cody, 

HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument (PPNM), South Dakota, and Worland. The ROD 

and the attached Approved RMPAs (ARMPAs) and GRSG habitat management decisions in the attached 

Approved RMPs (ARMPs) provide a set of management decisions focused on specific GRSG 

conservation measures across the Rocky Mountain Region on BLM-administered lands. The ARMPs also 

provide overall resource management plan direction for managing all resources on BLM-administered 

land in their respective Planning Areas. 

The BLM prepared the ARMPAs and ARMPs 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, as amended (NEPA; 42 USC, Sections 4321-4347), and the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) 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 US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest 

Service) has been a cooperating agency on the Wyoming and Northwest Colorado ARPMAs. The Draft 

RMPs/EISs and Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs for the Rocky Mountain sub-regions included proposed 

GRSG management direction for National Forest System lands. The Forest Service has completed two 

separate RODs with associated Land and Resource Management Plan Amendments under its planning 

authority; these are available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/r4/. 

This ROD, in conjunction with the ARMPAs approved through the Great Basin ROD, constitutes 

resource management planning decisions of the BLM to conserve the GRSG and its habitats throughout 

that portion of its remaining range administered by the BLM under the authority of FLPMA. The BLM, in 

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

1-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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

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

implemented by Federal agencies through An Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy: Final Report 

to the Secretary of the Interior (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. 

This ROD also approves the decisions in the non-GRSG habitat management decisions in the ARMPs for 

Billings, Buffalo, Cody (portion of the Bighorn Basin Planning Area), HiLine, Miles City, PPNM, South 

Dakota, and Worland (portion of the Bighorn Basin Planning Area); these are full-scale resource 

management plan revisions for managing all BLM-administered lands for all BLM program areas (not 

limited to GRSG habitat management) in BLM-administered Planning Areas.

1.1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION PLANNING AREA

The Rocky Mountain Planning Area is composed of the following eleven sub-regional Planning Areas (see 

Figure 1-1, Rocky Mountain Region Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions): 

 Bighorn Basin (which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

 Billings and the Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

 Buffalo 

 HiLine 

 Lewistown 

 Miles City 

 North Dakota 

 Northwest Colorado 

 South Dakota 

 Wyoming 

Each sub-region prepared its own separate EIS and conducted its own planning, 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 shared common threats to 

GRSG and their 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 Rocky Mountain Region Planning Area boundaries are all lands regardless of jurisdiction (see 

Figure 1-2, Rocky Mountain Region Planning Area). Tables 1-1a and 1-1b outline the number of 

surface acres that are administered by specific Federal agencies, States, local governments, and privately 

owned lands in the 11 sub-regional Planning Areas that make up the Rocky Mountain Region; 10 of these 

Planning Areas are addressed in this ROD. The ROD approving the Lander RMP was signed in June 

2014. 
1. Introduction

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-3
1. Introduction

1-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-5

Table 1-1a

Land Management in the Rocky Mountain ARMPA Planning Areas (in Acres)

Surface Land 

Management Lewistown North Dakota Northwest Colorado Wyoming

BLM 594,510 33,030 4,900,000 11,133,600

Forest Service 896,302 140,432 4,606,000 5,223,200*

Private 5,168,725 741,607 4,836,000 19,286,800

Indian reservation 0 0 0 0

FWS 114,194 638 38,000 46,200

Other 12,178 6,416 360 168,500

State 526,605 40,894 352,000 2,522,200

National Park Service 0 0 272,000 10,800

Other Federal 1 0 0 11,800

Bureau of Reclamation 0 0 6300 244,800

Local government 0 0 193,000 9,200

Department of Defense 8 0 200 57,800

Total acres 7,312,522 963,017 15,203,860 38,564,400

Source: BLM GIS 2015

*This figure includes National Grasslands and Bankhead Jones lands that are administered by the Forest Service. 

Table 1-1b

Land Management in the Rocky Mountain ARMP Planning Areas (Surface Acres)

Surface Land 

Management

Billings 

and 

PPNM1

Buffalo Cody HiLine Miles City South 

Dakota Worland

BLM 434,1542782,102 1,086,935 2,437,570 2,751,530 274, 329 2,100,879

Forest Service 884,459 862,087 0 28,954 524,909 2,017,435 0

Private 7,007,233 5,167,265 875,400 9,128,526 17,740,896 40,759,436 1,023,600

Indian 

reservation 

1,915,781 0 0 2,125,972 2,569,756 5,351,497 0

FWS 15,674 0 0 489,008 426,963 205,128 0

Other 52,840 2,148 20,800 0 12,012 0 4,600

State 459,683 538,606 182,800 1,151,465 1,720,994 760,442 250,900

National Park 

Service 

29,670 0 20,800 363,124 43 128,045 0

Other Federal 0 0 0 5,212 56,752 571,527 0

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

837 0 79,900 131,373 1,400 43,607 1,500

Local 

government 

4,217 0 0 10,186 11,392 1,196 0

Department of 

Defense 

0 4,166 3,500 179 69 371,067 0

Total acres 10,370,394 7,356,374 2,270,135 15,871,569 25,816,716 50,483,709 3,381,479

Source: BLM GIS 2015

1Pompeys Pillar National Monument

2This acre figure includes 4,298 acres in Wyoming managed by the Billing Field Office as part of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse

Range (PMWHR) and 51 acres for the Pompeys Pillar National Monument (PPNM).
1. Introduction 

1-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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

management areas for GRSG. The ARMPAs for these lands (Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest 

Colorado, and Wyoming) generally do not establish any additional management outside of GRSG habitat 

management areas, and they will continue to be managed according to the existing BLM resource 

management plans for these Planning Areas. However, the ARMPs for Billings, Buffalo, Cody (portion of 

the Bighorn Basin Planning Area), HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument, South Dakota, 

and Worland (portion of the Bighorn Basin Planning Area) are full-scale resource management plan 

revisions for all BLM-administered lands and all BLM program areas within their Planning Areas; that is, 

they are not limited to GRSG habitat management. 

The decision area for GRSG habitat management in the Rocky Mountain Region ARMPs and ARMPAs is 

BLM-administered lands, including split-estate, where the BLM has subsurface mineral rights in GRSG 

habitat management areas (see Figure 1-3, Rocky Mountain Region Decision Area, Greater SageGrouse Habitat Management Areas). For a description of habitat management areas, refer to Section 

1.5. 

The decision areas for the ARMPAs and ARMPs are the surface acres identified in Tables 1-1a and 

1-1b that the BLM manages. The decision areas also include subsurface mineral estate that the BLM 

administers within the ARMPAs and ARMPs Planning Area boundaries. 

1.2 EARLY GRSG CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Currently, GRSG occupy an estimated 56 percent of its 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 is 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 
1. Introduction

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-7
1. Introduction 

1-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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 

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, the 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 the habitat. The FWS identified the BLM’s RMPs as the primary 

regulatory mechanisms. The BLM manages approximately 67 million acres of the remaining GRSG 

habitat (see Figure 1-3). 

1.3 THREATS TO GRSG IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 

In its 2010 finding, the FWS identified a number of specific threats to GRSG in the Rocky Mountain 

Region. The primary threats are the widespread human disturbances from energy development, mining, 

and infrastructure. Other threats, some of which are more localized, are habitat fragmentation due to 

recreation, urbanization, and sagebrush elimination, and impacts on habitat associated with free-roaming 

equids (horses and burros) and improper livestock grazing. 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-9

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 FR 13910) in each of the regional WAFWA GRSG 

management zones (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. 

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 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, which 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. 

Table 1-2 is a summary of the nature and extent of threats identified in the COT Report for each 

remaining identified population of GRSG in the Rocky Mountain Region, as highlighted in the 2013 COT 

Report. 

1.4 NATIONAL GRSG 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 to address the conservation needs of the Bi-State GRSG 

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

 

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

1-10 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-11

Table 1-2

Threats to GRSG in the Rocky Mountain Region as identified by the

Conservation Objectives Team

Population

Population NumberIsolated Small SizeSagebrush EliminationAgriculture ConversionFireConifersWeeds/Annual GrassesEnergyMiningInfrastructur

e

Improper GrazingFree-Roaming EquidsRecreationUrbanization

EIS/Plan(s)

Northern 

Montana

2 L L L L Y Y Y L HiLine

North Dakota, 

South Dakota, 

and Montana

1 Y L L Y U L Y Y Y L North Dakota, 

South Dakota, 

and Miles City

Yellowstone 

Watershed 

(Montana)

4 L Y L L Y Y Y Y L Lewistown, Miles 

City, and Billings

Powder River 

Basin (Montana 

and Wyoming)

3 L L L Y Y Y Y Y Y L Miles City, 

Buffalo, 

Worland, and 

Wyoming 

Amendments

Wyoming Basin 

(Montana and 

Wyoming)

9a L L L L Y L Y Y L Y L Billings, 

Worland, Cody, 

Lander, and 

Wyoming 

Amendments

Jackson Hole 

(Wyoming)

8 Y L L L Y Y L Wyoming 

Laramie 

(Wyoming, and 

Colorado)

7 Y Y Y Y Y U Y Y Y Y Wyoming and 

Northwest 

Colorado

Eagle-South 

Routt 

(Colorado)

5 Y L Y L L Y Y Y Y L Y Northwest 

Colorado

Middle Park 

(Colorado)

6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Northwest 

Colorado

North Park 

(Colorado)

9d Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Northwest 

Colorado

Northwest 

Colorado

9e L Y Y L Y Y Y Y Y L Y L Northwest 

Colorado

ParachutePiceance-Roan 

Basin (Colorado)

34 Y L Y Y L Y Y Y Y Y Northwest 

Colorado

Meeker-White 

River (Colorado)

35 Y Y Y Y L Y Y Y Y Y Northwest 

Colorado

Source: FWS 2013 

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

1-12 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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. 

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 that the FWS identified 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, the 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 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.) This 

region falls within WAFWA MZs I (Great Plains), II (Wyoming Basin), and a portion of VII (Colorado 

Plateau). The Great Basin Region is composed of plan amendments in California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, 

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

(Snake River Plain), and V (Northern Great Basin). 

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 

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 the 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 or district office boundaries, 

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

began before the start of the National GRSG Conservation Strategy (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 ARMPs and 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 

 

 

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/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-13
1. Introduction 

1-14 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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 ARMPS AND ARMPAS ADDRESS THE IDENTIFIED THREATS TO GRSG

CONSERVATION

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 sage-grouse 

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 

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 the ESA may be avoided. Across ten western states, the Great 

Basin and Rocky Mountain Region ARMPs and ARMPAs contain land use plan direction on 

approximately 67 million acres of the GRSG’s remaining habitat on BLM-administered lands (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, the 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). The 

Draft RMPs and 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) 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-15

and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMAs) in the Proposed RMPs/Final EISs and Proposed 

RMPAs/Final EISs to identify the management decisions that apply to those areas. The designated GRSG 

habitat management areas on BLM-administered lands in the decision area as follows: 

 PHMAs, which largely coincide with PACs in the COT Report (see Figure 1-4) 

 GHMAs 

 Restoration Habitat Management Areas (RHMAs, applicable only to Billings and Miles City) 

 Linkage and Connectivity Habitat Management Areas (LCHMAs), applicable only to 

Northwest Colorado 

Table 1-3a identifies surface acres of PHMAs, GHMAs, RHMAs, and LCHMAs in the decision area for 

the Rocky Mountain 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 (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. 

PHMAs, GHMAs, RHMAs, and LCHMAs are defined below; the BLM-administered surface and Federal 

mineral estate of each designation (in acres) in the decision area for the Rocky Mountain Region are 

shown in Tables 1-3a and 1-3b. 

 PHMAs—BLM-administered lands identified as having 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.

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

outside of PHMAs, 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.

 RHMAs (Billings and Miles City only)—BLM-administered lands where maintaining 

populations is a priority, a balance between ongoing and future resource use so that enough 

quality habitat is maintained to allow some residual population in impacted areas to persist 

and that emphasizes the restoration of habitat to reestablish or restore sustainable 

populations. 

 LCHMAs (Northwest Colorado only)—BLM-administered lands that have been 

identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of GRSG 

and maintain ecological processes.
1. Introduction 

1-16 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 1-3a

Surface Acres of PHMAs, GHMAs, RHMAs, and LCHMAs in the Decision Area for the 

Rocky Mountain Region

BLM-Administered 

Surface Acres

PHMAs GHMAs RHMAs LCHMAs

Lewistown 233,219 112,341 - -

North Dakota 32,900 80 - -

Northwest Colorado 921,500 728,000 - 81,900

Wyoming 4,895,100 6,032,500 - -

Billings 158,926 176,734 78,927 -

Buffalo 137,451 627,824 - -

Cody 317,307 740,797 - -

HiLine 1,432,689 289,756 - -

Miles City 817,000 1,395,000 87,000 -

Pompeys Pillar NM - - - -

South Dakota 127,735 23,684 - -

Worland 799,391 1,290,562 - -

Total Acres 9,873,218 11,417,278 165,927 81,900

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Table 1-3b

BLM-Administered Federal Mineral Estate of PHMAs, GHMAs, RHMAs, and LCHMAs 

in the Decision Area for the Rocky Mountain Region

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

PHMAs GHMAs RHMAs LCHMAs

Lewistown 294,935 195,168 - -

North Dakota 167,291 109,905 - -

Northwest Colorado 1,241,700 896,000 - 81,900

Wyoming 6,929,000 13,416,700 - -

Billings 205,254 299,166 88,642 -

Buffalo 674,923 2,613,535 - -

Cody 437,045 1,012,335 - -

HiLine 1,615,876 537,304 - -

Miles City 1,395,000 4,647,000 216,389 -

Pompeys Pillar NM - - - -

South Dakota 412,822 247,771 - -

Worland 1,021,583 1,632,171 - -

Total Acres 14,395,429 25,607,055 305,031 81,900

Source: BLM GIS 2015

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

are a subset of PHMAs (see Figure 1-3) and are found only in the Lewistown, HiLine, and Wyoming 

ARMPA sub-regional Planning Areas. Across the Rocky Mountain Region, there are 2,911,000 acres of 

BLM-administered SFAs. They correspond to the areas identified by the FWS as GRSG “strongholds”
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-17

and 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 

SFAs 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 habitat in GHMAs, RHMAs (applicable only to Billings and Miles City), and LCHMAs 

(applicable only in Northwest Colorado) 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, RHMAs, and LCHMAs provide for more 

flexibility for land use activities, while minimizing impacts on GRSG leks. 

This tiered habitat management area framework is associated with the land use plan allocation decisions 

(explained more fully in Section 1.6) in the ARMPs and ARMPAs. It provides a high degree of certainty 

that the integrity of PHMAs can be maintained through management decisions to avoid or minimize 

additional surface disturbance. At the same time, it recognizes the potential importance of areas outside 

of PHMAs for maintaining connectivity between highly important habitats and their potential for 

addressing seasonal habitat needs (e.g., winter habitat areas not fully incorporated in PHMAs).3 

In November 2010, the FWS notified the State of Wyoming that the GRSG Core Area Strategy 

(Executive Order 2010-4) “if implemented by all landowners via regulatory mechanism, would provide 

adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the state.” As a result, the BLM’s Wyoming 

ARMPA and Cody, Worland, and Buffalo ARMPs are largely consistent with the measures outlined in 

the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy. 

 

3 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 ARMPs and 

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

1-18 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 1-4 summarizes the major components of the attached ARMPs and 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). 

Table 1-4

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG ARMPs and ARMPAs 

that Address the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG 

ARMPs and ARMPAs

All threats  Implement adaptive management strategies to address declines in GRSG 

populations and habitat. 

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats in a consistent manner. 

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Implement a human disturbance cap of 3

percent within the biologically significant unit (BSU) and proposed project 

analysis areas in PHMAs.

 PHMAs (only in Wyoming)—Implement a human disturbance cap of 5

percent at the project-area scale.

 PHMAs (only in Wyoming)—Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing 

activities would be prohibited on or within 0.6 mile of the perimeter of an 

occupied lek. 

 GHMAs (only in Wyoming)—Surface occupancy and surface-disturbing 

activities would be prohibited on or within 0.25 mile of the perimeter of an 

occupied lek. 

 PHMAs—Apply a disturbance density cap of 1 energy or mining facility per 

640 acres.

 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 developing valid existing rights when authorizing 

new projects in PHMAs.

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

species, when authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation.

Energy 

development—fluid 

minerals, including 

geothermal resources 

 PHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Open to fluid mineral leasing subject to a 

no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation, without waiver or modification 

and with limited exceptions. 

 SFAs (in Lewistown and HiLine only)—Apply NSOs without waiver, 

modification, or exception.

 PHMAs (only in Wyoming)—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to NSO 

stipulation within 0.6 mile of an occupied lek and a timing limitation (TL) 

stipulation from March 15 to June 30.
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-19

Table 1-4

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG ARMPs and ARMPAs 

that Address the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG 

ARMPs and ARMPAs

 PHMAs and GHMAs (in Colorado only)—Closed to fluid mineral leasing 

within 1 mile of active leks.

 PHMAs (Colorado)—Open to fluid mineral leasing beyond one mile of 

active lek subject to NSO.

 GHMAs (only in Colorado)—Open to fluid minerals, subject to NSO, 

within 2 miles of an active lek.

 GHMAs (only in Montana)—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to NSO 

within 0.6 mile of a lek and controlled surface use (CSU) within 2 miles of 

an active lek.

 RHMAs (Billings)—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to NSO within 0.6 

mile of an active lek and CSU and TL.

 RHMAs (Miles City)—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to an NSO 

stipulation, without waiver or modification and with limited exceptions 

(West Decker and South Carter); open to fluid mineral leasing subject to 

CSU (Cedar Creek).

 GHMAs (only in Wyoming)—Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to NSO 

within 0.25 mile of an occupied lek and TL stipulations.

 Prioritize the leasing and development of fluid mineral resources outside 

GRSG habitat. 

Energy 

development—wind 

energy

 PHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Exclusion area (not available for wind 

energy development under any conditions).

 PHMAs (only in Wyoming)—Avoidance area (may be available for wind 

energy development with special stipulations).

 GHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Avoidance area (may be available for wind 

energy development with special stipulations).

 RHMAs—Exclusion or avoidance areas.

Energy 

development—solar 

energy

 PHMAs and RHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Exclusion area (not available 

for solar energy development under any conditions).

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

with special stipulations).

 RHMAs—Exclusion or avoidance areas.

Infrastructure—major 

rights-of-ways 

(ROWs)

 PHMAs and RHMAs—Avoidance area (may be available for major ROWs 

with special stipulations).

 GHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Avoidance area (may be available for major 

ROWs with special stipulations).

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

 PHMAs and RHMAs— Avoidance area (may be available for minor ROWs 

with special stipulations).

 GHMAs (only in Colorado)—Avoidance area (may be available for minor 

ROWs with special stipulations).

Mining—locatable 

minerals

 SFAs (in Lewistown, HiLine, and Wyoming ARMPA)—Recommend 

withdrawal from the Mining Law of 1872.
1. Introduction 

1-20 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 1-4

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG ARMPs and ARMPAs 

that Address the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG 

ARMPs and ARMPAs

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

 PHMAs (except in Wyoming)—Closed area (not available for nonenergy 

leasable minerals, but expansion of existing operations could be considered 

if the disturbance were within the cap and subject to compensatory 

mitigation).

Mining—salable 

minerals

 PHMAs (except in Wyoming)—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

(only in Lewistown, HiLine, and Wyoming ARMPAs), followed by PHMAs.

 The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of grazing permits and 

leases will include 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 undergone NEPA analysis. 

 Prioritize field checks in SFAs (only present in Lewistown, HiLine, and 

Wyoming) followed by PHMAs to ensure compliance with the terms and 

conditions of grazing permits. 

Free-roaming equid 

(wild horses and 

burros) management

 In the Wyoming ARMPA, prioritize gathers in SFAs, followed by other 

PHMAs.

 Except in Wyoming, manage herd management areas in GRSG habitat 

within established appropriate management level (AML) ranges to achieve 

and maintain GRSG habitat objectives.

 Except in Wyoming, prioritize rangeland health assessment, gathers, and 

population growth suppression techniques, monitoring, and review and 

adjustment of AMLs and preparation of HMA plans in GRSG habitat.

 Only in Wyoming, review and consider amending BLM HMA plans to 

incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations for 

all BLM HMAs.

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—Do not construct new recreation facilities unless required for 

health and safety purposes or if the construction would result in a net 

conservation gain to the species.

 In Colorado, Lewistown, North Dakota, and South Dakota only, allow

special recreation permits only if their effects on GRSG and their habitat 

are neutral or result in a net conservation gain.

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

to be designated through future travel management planning).
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-21

Table 1-4

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG ARMPs and ARMPAs 

that Address the COT Report Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and Its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Management Responses from the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG 

ARMPs and ARMPAs

 GHMAs (except in Colorado)—OHV use limited to existing routes (routes 

to be designated through future travel management planning).

Fire  Restrict the use of prescribed fire for fuel treatments. 

 Prioritize post-fire treatments in SFAs (only found in Lewistown, HiLine, 

and Wyoming ARMPA), other PHMAs, and GHMAs. 

Nonnative, invasive 

plant species

 Improve GRSG habitat by treating annual grasses.

 Treat sites in PHMAs, RHMAs, 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 most GRSG habitat Federal management unless disposal (including 

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

(including exchanges) would have no direct or indirect adverse impact on 

GRSG conservation.

1.6 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE BLM GRSG CONSERVATION STRATEGY

The ARMPs and 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 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs incorporate these 

components and are summarized below. 
1. Introduction 

1-22 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

1.6.1 Avoid and Minimize Surface Disturbance 

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

The Rocky Mountain ARMPs and 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. Surface disturbance associated with energy development and infrastructure 

was identified as the primary threat to GRSG and GRSG habitat in the Rocky Mountain Region. To 

address this threat, allocations include requirements to avoid and minimize disturbance in PHMAs. The 

ARMPs and ARMPAs provide a layered management approach that offers the highest level of protection 

for GRSG in the most valuable habitat. Accordingly, the ARMPs and ARMPAs apply allocations that are 

most restrictive in SFAs, that limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMAs, and that minimize 

disturbance in GHMAs. 

SFAs—The most restrictive allocations are applied to SFAs, which are a subset of lands within PHMAs, 

with the highest habitat value for GRSG. Surface disturbance from fluid mineral development is avoided 

in SFAs in Montana by NSO without waiver, modification, or exception, and in Wyoming, consistent 

with the core area strategy. In addition, SFAs include additional protection from new surface disturbance 

by recommending those areas for withdrawal from mineral entry under the Mining Law of 1872, subject 

to valid existing rights. SFAs will also be prioritized for vegetation management and conservation actions 

in these areas, including land health assessments, wild horse and burro (WHB) management actions, 

livestock grazing permit and lease review, and habitat restoration. In Wyoming, a portion of SFAs are 

recommended for withdrawal, while in other areas SFAs are not recommended for withdrawal but are 

still subject to other protective measures. The State of Wyoming has permitting authority for locatable 

mining operations and has committed to use its authority to ensure that operations proceed in 

accordance with the core area strategy and a successful record of using this authority in the past. The 

area recommended for withdrawal in Wyoming SFAs covers an area where the potential for 

development has been identified and provides connectivity between the recommended withdrawal in 

the Lander Planning Area and existing withdrawals. There are no SFAs in Colorado. 

PHMAs—In the rest of PHMAs, new fluid mineral leasing would be subject to NSO with no waivers or 

modifications. Exceptions would be granted only if the proposed action would not have direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat or if the action were proposed to be undertaken as an 

alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby parcel and would provide a clear conservation gain 

to GRSG. 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). In Wyoming, new fluid 

mineral leasing on all lands would be subject to NSO within a 0.6-mile radius around occupied leks. 

Additionally, PHMAs (except in Wyoming) would be closed to nonenergy leasable and salable mineral 

development, with limited exceptions. New wind and solar projects would be excluded from PHMAs, 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-23

except for Wyoming, where wind and solar projects are to be avoided but may be permitted with 

special stipulations. 

In addition to the energy and mining land use allocations and management actions described above, the 

ARMPs and ARMPAs include restrictions on ROWs which are designed to avoid disturbance in PHMAs. 

These restrictions (Table 1-4) ensure that activities in PHMAs are permitted only if the resultant effect 

is a net conservation gain to the GRSG or its habitat. 

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

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

Transwest Express, 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. 

Additionally, new recreation facilities would not be authorized in PHMAs, unless the development would 

result in a net conservation gain to the GRSG or its habitat or unless required for health and safety 

purposes. For the Wyoming ARMPA and ARMPs, construction of recreation facilities within PHMAs

must conform with the avoidance and minimization measures of the plan. If the BLM were to determine 

that these management measures are inadequate for the conservation of GRSG, it would require and 

ensure compensatory mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species. OHV use is limited 

to existing routes in PHMAs (routes to be designated through future travel management planning). 

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

recommendations contained in the NTT Report (except in Wyoming, where, consistent with the Core 

Area Strategy, the Wyoming BLM plans implement a 5 percent all lands/all disturbance approach). 

Outside of Wyoming, disturbance will be calculated at two scales: first at a 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 the Rocky Mountain Region, BSUs are 

synonymous with PACs. If a 3 percent human disturbance is exceeded on lands (regardless of 

landownership) within PHMAs in any given BSU, no further discrete human disturbances (subject to 

valid existing rights) would be permitted on BLM-administered lands within PHMAs in that BSU until 

restoration of disturbed lands brings the BSU below the cap. If the 3 percent human disturbance cap 

were 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 proposed 

project analysis area had been reduced to maintain the area under the cap. 

The Lewistown ARMPA and Billings, HiLine, and Miles City ARMPs will limit disturbance in PHMAs to 3 

percent until the State of Montana’s Sage Grouse Plan’s disturbance calculation method is in effect, at 

which time disturbance would be permitted up to a 5 percent cap. This is to recognize, as with the 

Wyoming Core Area Strategy, the importance of the all lands/all disturbances strategy that Montana will 

institute for GRSG conservation under Montana Executive Order No. 12-2015. 

The Cody, Worland, and Buffalo ARMPs and the Wyoming ARMPA include a 5 percent disturbance cap 

in PHMAs, consistent with the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy, which applies to both public and 

private lands at the project scale and considers all disturbance (including fire) using the Density and 
1. Introduction 

1-24 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT). As noted above, outside of Wyoming, disturbance will be 

calculated at both the BSU and at the project scale. 

Additional information about the method for calculating human disturbance can be found in Appendix E 

of each of the attached Montana and Colorado ARMPs and ARMPAs. For the Cody, Worland, and 

Buffalo ARMPs and the Wyoming ARMPA, refer to Appendix D for information on how the DDCT is 

applied. 

For those ARMPs and ARMPAs, except Wyoming, that have existing utility corridors within their 

Planning Areas, an exception to the disturbance cap is provided in designated utility corridors to achieve 

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

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

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

disturbance and will avoid new development of utility infrastructure in PHMAs, consistent with guidance 

in the COT Report. 

The ARMPs and ARMPAs also incorporate a limit 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, as recommended 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; if the disturbance density in the proposed project area is 

greater than an average of 1 facility per 640 acres, the proposed project would either be deferred until 

the density of energy and mining facilities is less than the cap or would be 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. 

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 

but minimize any its adverse effects. There would be restrictions on development to ensure 

compatibility with GRSG habitat needs; in addition, mitigation to avoid, minimize, and compensate for 

unavoidable impacts would be required for proposed projects in GHMAs and RDFs would be applied, as 

discussed below. 

Disturbance associated with oil and gas development, for example, is subject to CSU and TL stipulations 

and NSO around leks. GHMAs are also an avoidance area for major ROWs (except in Wyoming). 

Avoidance areas are available only for ROW locations subject to special stipulations. Any disturbance is 

subject to mitigation, with the objective of first avoiding and minimizing potential impacts then 

compensating for unavoidable impacts on GRSG or its habitat, to a net conservation gain standard for 

the species, subject to valid existing rights. This is consistent with the COT Report, which states 

“[c]onservation of habitats outside of PACs should include minimization of impacts on 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 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-25

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? In Wyoming, new fluid mineral 

leasing on all lands would be subject to NSO within a 0.25-mile radius around occupied leks. See Table 

1-4 for more details on GHMAs management decisions. 

RHMAs and LCHMAs are designations unique to Montana and Colorado, respectively. Fluid mineral 

development in RHMAs are NSO within 0.6 mile of an active lek in the Billings Field Office and is either 

NSO (West Decker and South Carter areas) or CSU (Cedar Creek area) in the Miles City Field Office. 

RHMAs are also a ROW exclusion or avoidance area for solar and wind ROWs, depending on location, 

and a ROW avoidance area for all other types of ROWs. The Northwest Colorado ARMPA establishes 

management that would be applied to all designated habitat in Colorado, which includes LCHMAs. 

Habitat Protection and Surface Disturbance Measures in PHMAs and GHMAs 

The following measures related to habitat protect and surface disturbance will be applied in both 

PHMAs and GHMAs. 

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

ARMPs and ARMPAs prioritize oil and gas leasing and development outside of identified PHMAs and 

GHMAs. This is to further limit future surface disturbance and 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 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 

ARMPs and ARMPAs address grazing management for the conservation of GRSG and its habitat and is 

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 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 the 

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

(such as road, energy development, and infrastructure), and 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 ARMPs and 

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). 
1. Introduction 

1-26 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

The FWS has found that “the [State of Wyoming’s] core area strategy, if implemented by all landowners 

via regulatory mechanism, would provide adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the 

state” (personal correspondence from Scott Hicks to Ryan Lance on November 10, 2010); therefore, 

the Cody, Worland, and Buffalo ARMPs and the Wyoming ARMPA do not apply the lek buffers outlined 

in the USGS Report but instead are consistent with those buffers specified in the State of Wyoming’s 

Core Area Strategy. 

Required Design Features—Additionally, RDFs are required for certain activities in GRSG habitat, 

including oil and gas development, infrastructure, and other surface-disturbing activities and are fully 

described in Appendix C of the attached ARMPs and 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 project level, project location, and design are known. 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 (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). 

In summary, all forms of new development in PHMAs and GHMAs would 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 in order to minimize and 

avoid surface disturbance, the ARMPs and ARMPAs identify management actions to restore and improve 

GRSG habitat. 

Habitat Management—The ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs specify GRSG habitat objectives to be incorporated 

into land management programs, including WHBs, livestock grazing, and habitat restoration. These 

habitat objectives were developed for each of the GRSG’s life history stages within each ARMP and 

ARMPA’s Planning Area. These objectives will be used to meet the applicable land health standard in 

GRSG habitats. 

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 recommendation for grazing says to “[c]onduct 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 sage- grouse (e.g., shrub cover, nesting cover)” (FWS 2013). To ensure that 

grazing continues in a manner consistent with the objective of conserving the GRSG and its habitat, the 

Rocky Mountain ARMPs and ARMPAs include requirements for incorporating terms and conditions 

informed by GRSG habitat objectives into grazing permits, consistent with the ecological site potential of 

the local areas, prioritize the review and processing of authorizations and field checks of grazing permits, 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-27

and take numerous actions to avoid and minimize the impacts of range management structures (see 

Table 1-4). 

The BLM will prioritize its review and processing of grazing authorizations, as well as field checks of 

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

followed by GHMAs, focusing first on riparian areas 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 permittees and the BLM manage grazing properly 

in those areas most important to GRSG. If the BLM were to find that relevant habitat objectives were 

not being met due to improper grazing, it would work with the permittee to ensure progress toward 

meeting habitat objectives. 

Wild Horses and Burros—To address the localized threat due to negative influences of grazing by freeroaming WHB in Wyoming and Colorado, the BLM will focus on maintaining WHB HMAs in GRSG 

habitat within established AML ranges. This will be to achieve and maintain GRSG habitat objectives, 

including completing rangeland health assessments, prioritizing gathers and population growth 

suppression techniques, and developing or amending herd management area plans to consider 

incorporating 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 Gain—During the implementation of the ARMPs and ARMPAs, and, 

subject to valid existing rights and consistent with applicable law, when authorizing third-party actions 

that result in GRSG habitat loss and degradation, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that 

provides a net conservation gain (the actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions) to the species. 

This would include accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation in 

PHMAs and GHMAs (except for the Wyoming ARMPs and ARMPAs, where this requirement only 

applies in PHMAs). It would do this by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable impacts 

and by applying beneficial conservation actions to offset remaining impacts associated with the action. 

This standard is consistent with the recommendation included in the Greater Sage-Grouse Range-Wide 

Mitigation Framework: Version 1.0, published by the FWS in September 2014. This document states that 

mitigation “should be strategically designed to result in net overall positive outcomes for sage-grouse”

(FWS 2014b). Mitigation would follow the NEPA regulatory requirements (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., it 

would avoid, minimize, and compensate) and would be implemented on BLM-managed lands in a manner 

consistent with guidance for landscape mitigation, in accordance with Secretarial Order 3330. If impacts 

from BLM management actions and authorized third-party actions were to result in habitat loss and 

degradation that remain after applying avoidance and minimization measures (i.e., residual impacts), then 

compensatory mitigation projects would be used to provide a net conservation gain to the species. Any 

compensatory mitigation would be durable and timely and would be in addition to what would have 

resulted without the compensatory mitigation. 

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

GRSG Conservation Teams, based on WAFWA MZs, including members from the respective states, 

Forest Service, FWS, and NRCS. These Conservation Teams will facilitate cross-state issues, such as 
1. Introduction 

1-28 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

regional mitigation and adaptive management monitoring and response. The teams 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs set goals and 

objectives and describe actions intended to build resilience in the sagebrush steppe landscape to reduce 

the impacts of climate change through habitat conservation and restoration measures. Limiting or 

eliminating human surface disturbance, especially in SFAs, ensuring the integrity of PHMAs, and restoring 

habitat through fuels management, post-fire restoration, and mitigation, sagebrush habitat connectivity 

and availability would increase. This would help to increased sagebrush resilience. 

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

conserve 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, as necessary and appropriate. Changes to 

management decisions will require a plan revision or amendment, recognizing the need to ensure that 

future management direction improves the resilience of habitat areas essential to species conservation.

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

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

and GHMAs, and restoring degraded landscapes, including those impacted by fire (See Section 1.6.3.). 

1.6.3 Reducing Threats of Rangeland Fire to GRSG and Sagebrush Habitat 

Although rangeland fire and invasive annual grasses are found in the Rocky Mountain Region, they are 

not considered a primary threat. This is due to the higher elevations and generally more mesic 

conditions of GRSG habitat. This finding was recently confirmed by an analysis by Brooks, et al. (2015) 

which evaluated fire patterns in the range of the GRSG over the past 30 years. However, goals and 

objectives are included in the ARMPs and ARMPAs to prevent and limit the spread of invasive annual 

grasses and fire in PHMAs and GHMAs. 

The COT Report emphasized the need to address the “feedback loop between exotic invasive annual 

grasses and fire frequency” (FWS 2013); for this reason, the ARMPs and ARMPAs seek to fight the 

spread of cheatgrass and other invasive species, to position wildland fire management resources for 

more effective rangeland fire response, and to accelerate the restoration of fire-impacted landscapes to 

native grasses and sagebrush. 

Prescribed fire will not be used except under the following conditions: the NEPA analysis for the burn 

plan provides a clear rationale for why alternative techniques were not selected as a viable option, how 

GRSG habitat management goals and objectives would be met by its use, and how the COT Report 

objectives would be met. A risk assessment would be prepared to address how potential threats to 

GRSG habitat would be minimized. 

In addition to and complementing the ARMPs and ARMPAs described in this ROD, Secretarial Order 

3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration, made clear that “protecting, conserving, 

and restoring the health of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem and, in particular, priority GRSG habitat, 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-29

while maintaining safe and efficient operations, is a critical fire management priority for the 

Department.” 

1.6.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Adaptive Management 

The COT Report 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 ARMP and ARMPA). This monitoring strategy 

has two parts: implementation monitoring (i.e., are decisions being implemented in a timely manner? are 

actions taken consistent with the plan decisions?) and 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 

ARMPs and ARMPAs affect GRSG habitat. The goal would be to determine if the desired management 

objectives (e.g., avoiding and minimizing additional surface disturbance in PHMAs) have been achieved. 

Understanding the effectiveness and validating results of ARMP and 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 the attributes of GRSG habitat, in coordination with state wildlife agencies 

and other partners monitoring populations, will allow linking real or potential habitat changes (from 

both natural events and management actions) to vital rates of GRSG populations. This analysis will 

enable managers to identify indicators associated with population change across large landscapes and to 

ameliorate negative effects with appropriate conservation actions. The WAFWA Zone GRSG 

Conservation Teams (as described in Section 1.6.2) will also advise regional monitoring strategies and 

data analysis, as described in the plans. 

Each ARMP and ARMPA, except North Dakota, includes an overarching adaptive management strategy 

that includes soft and hard triggers and responses. These triggers are habitat and population thresholds 

that are based on 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 is 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 were tripped during the life 

of the ARMP or ARMPAs, the BLM would implement more conservative or restrictive conservation 

measures on a project-by-project basis to mitigate for the specific factor in the decline of populations 

and habitats, with consideration of local knowledge and conditions. In each ARMP and ARMPA, a soft 

trigger begins a dialogue between the State, FWS, and the BLM to see if the factor can be determined 
1. Introduction 

1-30 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

and what implementation-level activities can be used to reverse any trend. These adjustments will be 

made to preclude tripping a hard trigger, which signals more severe habitat loss or population declines. 

Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe 

deviation from GRSG conservation objectives set forth in the BLM ARMPs and ARMPAs. In the event 

that a hard trigger is 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 

ARMPs and ARMPAs, the BLM would immediately assess what further actions may be needed to protect 

GRSG and its habitat and 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 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION’S ARMPS AND ARMPAS 

The ARMPs and ARMPAs and their associated EISs were developed through separate planning efforts 

across the Rocky Mountain Region (as described in Section 1.1). To develop these plans, the BLM used 

a landscape-scale approach to achieve a common set of management objectives across the range of 

GRSG, recognizing, in particular, measures to limit human 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 as well as 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. 

Measures incorporated into the plans remain consistent with the range-wide objective of conserving, 

enhancing, and restoring GRSG habitat. This would be done 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 Rocky Mountain Region’s ARMPs and 

ARMPAs. 

Wyoming

This ROD approves three RMPs—Buffalo, Cody and Worland—and an amendment to six RMPs 

(Wyoming RMPA). All of the Wyoming plans are built on the foundation for GRSG management 

established by and complementary to the Governor’s Executive Order 2011-05, Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Area Protection (Core Area Strategy; Wyoming Office of the Governor 2011) and updated 

Executive Order (2015-4), by establishing similar conservation measures and focusing restoration in the 

same key areas most valuable to GRSG. 

Recognizing that the FWS has found “the core area strategy...if implemented by all landowners via 

regulatory mechanisms, would provide adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-31

state, (personal correspondence from Scott Hicks to Ryan Lance on November 10, 2010)” the BLM 

plans commit to achieving a net conservation gain for GRSG in PHMAs only, consistent with the Core 

Area Strategy. This ensures that any impacts not addressed through avoidance and minimization would 

be addressed through compensation. Fluid minerals in PHMAs are limited to NSO within a 0.6-mile 

radius around occupied leks in PHMAs and 0.25-mile radius around occupied leks in GHMAs. There are 

TLs in core areas, as well as density and disturbance caps, consistent with the Wyoming Core Area 

Strategy approach. Additionally, consistent with the Core Area Strategy, the Wyoming BLM plans 

implement a 5 percent all-lands/all-disturbances cap and more inclusive formula for calculating 

disturbance (this DDCT calculation is further explained in Appendix D of the attached Wyoming 

ARMPA and Buffalo, Cody, and Worland ARMPs). 

The BLM’s Wyoming plans also allow for high-voltage transmission lines and major ROWs and wind 

energy, and leasable mineral and mineral material development in GHMAs with RDFs and best 

management practices (BMPs). The Wyoming ARMPs and ARMPA also establish screening criteria and 

conditions for new anthropogenic activities in PHMAs to ensure a net conservation gain for GRSG 

populations and habitat, consistent with the State of Wyoming Core Area Protection strategy. 

SFAs were identified only in the Wyoming ARMPA and not in the other Wyoming Planning Areas.

Additional conservation measures for these areas include recommending withdrawing a portion of the 

area from the General Mining Act of 1872 and prioritizing habitat management actions. The State of 

Wyoming has permitting authority for locatable mining operations and has committed to use its 

authority to ensure operations proceed in accordance with the Core Area Strategy. The State has a 

successful record of using this authority in the past. In addition, nearly 50 percent of the SFAs in the 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Amendment Planning Areas had already been withdrawn from locatable mineral 

entry. For these reasons, after coordinating with the FWS, the BLM found that a recommendation for 

withdrawing all SFAs was not necessary to address the threat of locatable mineral development. Instead 

the area recommended for withdrawal has identified potential for development and provides 

connectivity between the recommended withdrawal in the Lander Planning Area and existing 

withdrawals. 

The BLM Wyoming ARMPs and ARMPAs include changes between proposed and final in this ROD to be 

consistent with the updated Wyoming Executive Order (July 2015). 

Northwest Colorado 

This ROD approves one RMPA in Northwest Colorado. The ARMPA adopts key elements of the State 

of Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Steering 

Committee 2008). It is complementary to the Governor’s Executive Order (Colorado Office of the 

Governor 2015) by establishing conservation measures and focusing restoration in the same key areas 

identified by the BLM as most valuable to the GRSG. The ARMPA includes additional stipulations for 

fluid mineral development resulting from public comments and discussions with cooperating agencies 

and state partners. Notably, in both PHMAs and GHMAs, there would be no new fluid mineral leasing 

for 1 mile around active leks and NSO stipulations for 2 miles around active leks in GHMAs. The 

remainder of PHMAs would also have an NSO stipulation. No SFAs were identified in Colorado, so 

there are no management actions for SFAs in the Northwest Colorado ARMPA. 
1. Introduction 

1-32 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

In addition to PHMAs and GHMAs, the Northwest Colorado ARMPA includes a third habitat 

management area, LCHMAs. Colorado Parks and Wildlife delineates LCHMAs as areas between GRSG 

populations across the GRSG range in Colorado. The assumption is that habitat linkages will allow for 

movement between populations and will decrease the probability of species extinction by stabilizing 

population dynamics. These linkages should be considered only as potential areas for movements 

between populations. 

Montana 

This ROD approves four RMPs—HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument, and Billings—

and one RMPA (Lewistown), all of which are in Montana. The Dillon RMP is amended through the Idaho 

and Southwestern Montana ARMPA, which is approved through the ROD for the Great Basin Region. 

The Montana BLM plans are largely consistent with the objectives of the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Program (Montana Office of the Governor Executive Order No. 10-2014) 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 cap, consistent with the Montana Plan, when 

their disturbance calculation method is implemented and effective. Additionally, if 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 

with coordination from the State of Montana and the FWS, to achieve consistent and effective 

conservation across all lands, regardless of ownership. 

Within Montana, SFAs occur only in the HiLine ARMP and Lewistown ARMPA, and thus the 

management actions for SFAs appear in these plans only. In addition to PHMAs and GHMAs, the Billings 

and Miles City ARMPs include a third habitat management area category, RHMAs. It is designated to 

maintain GRSG populations, while providing for future resource uses, so that enough quality habitat is 

maintained to allow some residual population in impacted areas to persist. It emphasizes the restoration 

of habitat for reestablishing or restoring sustainable populations. 

Also, oil and gas leasing is currently deferred in the Lewistown Field Office, so there are no oil and gas 

management actions in the Lewistown ARMPA for new leasing. Future fluid mineral management actions 

are being addressed in an ongoing Lewistown RMP revision, which will incorporate GRSG conservation 

measures. 

North Dakota 

This ROD includes an amendment to the RMP for North Dakota. With little undeveloped habitat and a 

small population of GRSG in the Planning Area, the North Dakota amendment does not include an 

adaptive management strategy. Instead, the BLM commits to regular reviews of the populations and 

habitats and appropriate responses to be developed with the FWS and North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department. There are no SFAs in North Dakota. 

South Dakota 

This ROD includes GRSG decisions in the South Dakota RMP revision. Similar to North Dakota, there 

is little BLM-managed GRSG habitat and a small population of GRSG in the Planning Area. However, the 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-33

GRSG-conservation decisions in South Dakota are the same as the other states. There are no SFAs in 

South Dakota. 

1.8 DECISION RATIONALE

The ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs strive to conserve the GRSG and its habitat 

on BLM-administered lands across the remaining range of the species. This is consistent with measures 

identified or recommended in the NTT and COT Reports, recent USGS studies, and other relevant 

research and analysis. 

The BLM and Forest Service land use plans are an essential component of the effort to conserve 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 and Forest Service land use plans 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; at the same time, it allows for 

flexibility essential to effectively address threats to the GRSG in the context of the agency’s 

multiple-use and sustained yield mandates under FLPMA. The conservation measures 

included as part of landscape-level conservation address identified threats to the species. 

They also recognize local ecological conditions and incorporate existing conservation efforts 

where they are consistent with the overall objective of conserving GRSG across its 

remaining range. 

 Best available science—The ARMPs and 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).
1. Introduction 

1-34 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 Targeted, multi-tiered approach—The ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and 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 flexibility for other 

land resource uses. 

 Coordinated—The ARMPs and ARMPAs were developed through a joint planning process 

between the BLM and the Forest Service (as a cooperating agency); as a result, BLM- and 

Forest Service-administered land essential to the conservation of GRSG is 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs reflect extensive input from the public, the 

States, collaborators, and stakeholders. The ARMPs and ARMPAs were developed with the 

benefit of input from the 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 

ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and 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. 

The COT Report—which identified threats to GRSG habitat as well as the most important habitat to 

protect—provided an important framework for developing the conservation strategy embodied in the 

sub-regional ARMPs and ARMPAs. The COT consists of State and Federal scientists, wildlife biologists, 

resource managers, and policy advisers. The Director of the FWS tasked them “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 USGS compiled and summarized 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). These sources provided 

important guidance in developing critical aspects of the ARMPs and ARMPAs and the overall GRSG 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-35

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 ARMPs and 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. This is to ensure that they limit or eliminate new surface disturbance and improve habitat 

condition in the most important habitat areas. The ARMPs and ARMPAs also benefit from strong 

collaboration with the States and reflect the unique landscapes, habitats, approaches, and priorities in 

each. While incorporating State-developed conservation measures in each of the ARMPs and ARMPAs 

has added complexity to the overall conservation strategy, the body of local knowledge of and expertise 

in conservation measures for the GRSG is extensive, and, ultimately, it 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 ARMPs and 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” (FWS 2013). Specifically, the COT Report 

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” (FWS 2013). 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 identifying important habitat areas for GRSG in which the plans protect remaining 

habitat and target habitat restoration and improvement actions. Specifically, the plans identify PHMAs, 

which align closely with PACs identified in 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. 
1. Introduction 

1-36 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

PHMAs and GHMAs boundaries are based on PPH and PGH. 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 agencies. PPH and PGH (PHMAs and GHMAs in the Final EISs and now the 

ARMPs and ARMPAs) were developed using the best available data. Criteria for delineating PPH 

included breeding GRSG density (Doherty 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, such as energy 

development, transmission lines, and recreation facilities, are either excluded or avoided or they are 

allowed only if the resultant effect is neutral or beneficial to the GRSG. The ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs include additional measures to limit surface disturbance in PHMAs by 

establishing disturbance caps and density restrictions of, on average, one energy facility per 640 acres, as 

well as lek buffers. These requirements reflect recommendations contained in the NTT Report and are 

consistent with certain state strategies that were already in place the BLM began its 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 Wyoming ARMPA and Buffalo, Cody, and Worland ARMPs do not contain 

these buffer requirements, consistent with the State’s Core Area Strategy.

The plans also include actions to improve habitat conditions in the most important areas for 

conservation through additional targeted efforts to protect and restore habitat, first in SFAs, then in 

PHMAs, and finally in GHMAs. 

Mitigation for activities adversely impacting GRSG or GRSG habitat in PHMAs 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 [FWS] 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 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). 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-37

The ARMPs and 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. 

With regard to the threat of rangeland 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 affect all aspects of the rangeland fire 

management program have been and will be made to enhance the BLM’s ability to manage the threat 

from rangeland fire, such as the following: 

 Better coordination between resource managers and fire management officers 

 Identification and prioritization of prevention, suppression, and restoration in SFAs, PHMAs, 

and GHMAs 

 Commitment of additional equipment and crews for rangeland firefighting 

 Additional funding and policy direction to improve post-fire restoration 

 Completion of an initiative to collect, store, and better use 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 contributes 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. 

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 Department of 

the Interior has approved policy changes to increase the commitment, flexibility, and time frame for use 

of Emergency Stabilization and Burned Area Restoration (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 protecting and 

restoring important GRSG habitat. In collaboration with the states and private landowners on private 

lands, as well as with the BLM and the Forest Service on the lands they administer, the NRCS has 

worked to reduce the encroachment of pinyon-juniper trees and 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 
1. Introduction 

1-38 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

on monitoring and evaluation to assess the success and effectiveness of implementing the management 

decisions in the ARMPs and 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. As 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs (except that for North Dakota) incorporate an adaptive 

management framework that provides an early warning system of soft triggers. This is to alert resource 

managers to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of their management strategies should changes in 

population levels or habitat conditions occur. 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs identify measures that will be put in place, including plan-level responses, so as 

to reverse the declines. 

In summary, the ARMPs and 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 and 

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. 

The plans also include decisions to restore degraded habitat, which although more difficult and requiring 

a longer time frame, are important to the long-term conservation of GRSG. Restoration decisions 

include specific habitat objectives and a priority on treating 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 National Forest System 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 consists of new conservation actions that will go into effect through the 

BLM’s ARMPs and ARMPAs and actions being implemented to conserve the species. They 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: 
1. Introduction 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 1-39

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 sage grouse habitats and populations in 

priority habitats. Adequacy of management adjustments will be measured by sciencebased 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 conservation benefits to the sagebrush ecosystem and GRSG habitats resulting from the 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 that 

will benefit more than 350 species and the sagebrush ecosystem upon 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs serve to continuously and actively 

implement its provisions. 

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 

ARMPs and ARMPAs will be implemented over a period of years, depending on budget and staff 
1. Introduction 

1-40 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

availability. After issuing the ROD, the BLM will prepare implementation plans that establish tentative 

time frames for completing one-time decisions identified in these ARMPs and 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 and 

ARMPs. 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 

concentration areas. GHMAs was 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 ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and 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/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-1

CHAPTER 2 

DECISION

2.1 SUMMARY OF THE APPROVED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

The decision is hereby made to approve the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG RMPAs for the Rocky 

Mountain Region GRSG Sub-Regions of Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, and Wyoming 

(attachments 1 through 4) and the RMPs for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument, South Dakota, and Worland (attachments 5 through 12). This ROD serves as the 

final decision establishing the resource management plan decisions outlined in the ARMPAs and ARMPs 

and is effective on the date it is signed. 

The decisions included in this ROD and attached ARMPAs and ARMPs amend and revise the resource 

management plans described in Sections 1.1 of attachments 1 through 4 and Chapter 1 of attachments 5 

through 12. 

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 and ARMPs 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, ARMPAS, AND ARMPS PROVIDE

The ARMPAs and ARMPs 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. 
2. Decision 

2-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Objectives are specific desired conditions, usually quantifiable and measurable, and may have time frames 

for achievement. 

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 and ARMPs 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) and within 

Chapter 2 of the ARMPs (attachments 5 through 12) 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 management decisions and actions contained in 

Chapter 3 of the ARMPs provide a single comprehensive RMP to guide management of public lands and 

minerals administered by the BLM for all resources and resource uses under the BLM’s jurisdiction.

The EISs conducted for the Northwest Colorado and Wyoming 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, ARMPAS, AND ARMPS DO NOT PROVIDE

The attached ARMPAs (attachments 1 through 4) do not contain decisions for public lands outside of 

GRSG habitat management areas. 

The ARMPAs and ARMPs do not violate valid existing rights nor contain decisions for the mineral 

estates that are not administered by the BLM. ARMPA and ARMP decisions for surface estate apply only 

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. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-3

 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. 

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 and 

ARMPs 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs in the Rocky Mountain Region include minor modifications and clarifications 

from the Proposed RMPs and 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs in the Rocky 

Mountain Region, excluding the Pompeys Pillar National Monument ARMP, as there is no GRSG habitat 

there: 

 ARMP/ARMPA Formatting—The plans were reformatted between the proposed and approved 

RMP planning stages for consistency across the Rocky Mountain Region. The order of 

management actions and the prefixes for the goals, objectives, and management actions 

were changed in the ARMPs and ARMPAs to provide consistency among the amendments 

and revisions for GRSG goals and objectives. 

 Forest Service References (applicable only to the Northwest Colorado and Wyoming 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 own 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs. If not already contained in the Proposed RMP and 

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 
2. Decision 

2-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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. 

– 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 ARMPs and ARMPAs to clarify that 

when new information becomes available about GRSG habitat, including seasonal habitats, in 

coordination with the State wildlife agency and the 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 (excluding North Dakota)—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).
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-5

 GRSG Habitat Objectives—For clarification purposes, in each of the ARMP and ARMPA GRSG 

habitat objectives tables, native grasses were provided as an example of a perennial grass 

cover, and residual grasses were added to the perennial grass cover and height objective. 

 Sagebrush Focal Areas (applicable only to the Wyoming and Lewistown ARMPAs and the HiLine 

ARMP)—Examples of the types of vegetation and conservation actions that will be 

prioritized within SFAs were provided for clarity in the management action and 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. 

– Applicable only to the Northwest Colorado ARMPA and the South Dakota ARMP—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 the ARMPs and 

ARMPAs related to the WAFWA GRSG Conservation Teams that were identified in the 

Proposed RMPs and RMPAs: “WAFWA management zones will be used to facilitate crossstate 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 ARMPs and 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 ARMPs and 

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.”
2. Decision 

2-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Additional modifications and clarifications specific to each ARMPA or ARMP are summarized below. 

2.4.1 Lewistown 

General Changes 

 The third bullet point under Section 4.2, Maintaining the Plan, was deleted as the Lewistown 

Field Office sub-regional ARMPA does not include any decisions on new fluid mineral leases; 

thus, the statement does not apply. 

 Clarification was added on how the ARMPA may be revised (through plan maintenance 

decisions), based on the effective implementation of the Montana GRSG Habitat 

Conservation Program. 

 The term “Travel and Transportation Management (TTM)” was added and defined in the 

glossary. 

Special Status Species (SSS) 

 The addition of Management Actions SSS-1.6 Implement Adaptive Management Plan 

(Appendix I) 

 The addition of Management Actions SSS-1.7 Implement Regional Mitigation Strategy 

(Appendix F) 

Livestock Grazing 

 The last sentence of Management Action LG-1.5 and LG-1.9 referencing Section 3.14.2 of 

the final EIS was removed in order to clarify how the processing of grazing permit and lease 

renewals will be prioritized. 

2.4.2 North Dakota 

General Changes 

 The term “Travel and Transportation Management (TTM)” was added and defined in the 

glossary. 

Appendix G—Oil and Gas Stipulations 

 GHMAs CSU waiver criteria from Appendix C of the Proposed Plan/Final EIS was modified 

to read “The authorized office may waive this stipulation if no portion of the leasehold is 

within 2 miles of the perimeter of an active lek.”

 PHMAs NSO stipulation exception criteria from Appendix C of the Proposed Plan/Final EIS 

was update to reflect the language in Chapter 2. The NSO was changed in the Final EIS to 

only allow for an exception to the NSO in Chapter 2 but was not updated in Appendix C 

(this is now Appendix G in the Approved Plan). The correct language from Chapter 2 is as 

follows: 

– Exception: The BLM Authorized Officer may grant an exception to a fluid mineral 

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

 Will not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on GRSG or its habitat; 

or, 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-7

 Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar action occurring 

on a nearby parcel, and will provide a clear conservation gain to GRSG. 

 Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in (a) 

PHMAs of mixed ownership where Federal minerals underlie less than fifty 

percent of the total surface, or (b) areas of the public lands where the 

proposed exception is an alternative to an action occurring on a nearby 

parcel subject to a valid Federal fluid mineral lease existing as of the date of 

this RMPA. Exceptions based on conservation gain must also include 

measures, such as enforceable institutional controls and buffers, sufficient to 

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

the proposed action’s impacts.

Any exceptions to this lease stipulation may be approved by the BLM 

Authorized Officer only with the concurrence of the State Director. The 

BLM Authorized Officer may not grant an exception unless the applicable 

state wildlife agency, the FWS, and the BLM unanimously find that the 

proposed action satisfies (i) or (ii). Such finding shall initially be made by a 

team of one field biologist or other GRSG expert from each respective 

agency. In the event the initial finding is not unanimous, the finding may be 

elevated to the appropriate BLM State Director, FWS State Ecological 

Services Director, and state wildlife agency head for final resolution. In the 

event their finding is not unanimous, the exception will not be granted. 

Approved exceptions will be made publically available at least quarterly. 

2.4.3 Northwest Colorado 

Special Status Species (SSS) 

 Addition of Management Action SSS-1 Implement Adaptive Management Plan (Appendix H)

 Addition of Management Action SSS-2 Implement Analysis of Lek Buffers (Appendix B)

 Addition of Management Action SSS-3 Ensure Mitigation that Provides a Net Conservation 

Gain

Vegetation 

 The habitat objectives table (Table 2-2 in the ARMPA) has been corrected, based on the 

Governor’s consistency review, to be consistent with the GRSG habitat objectives in the 

Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan (2008). The objectives that were 

included in the proposed plan were not correct and have been amended in response to the 

Governor’s consistency review. In his Governor’s consistency review letter, the Governor 

of Colorado requested that the objectives be consistent with those in the 2008 Colorado 

grouse plan. 

Lands and Realty 

 The following statement was added to management decision LR-4: “Conservation measures 

for GRSG are being analyzed through the projects’ NEPA review process, which should 

achieve a net conservation benefit for the GRSG.”
2. Decision 

2-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

2.4.4 Wyoming 

Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions (Tables 2-2 and 2-3)

 The introduction to the table was revised to clarify that all BLM use authorizations will 

contain terms and conditions to meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. 

 Footnote 1 was revised to allow for date shifts where supported by credible data, as 

recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Corrections were made to metric conversions reported incorrectly in the Proposed RMP. 

 In order to respond to protests to be more consistent with the Forest Service, the BLM 

changed the desired condition for the cover attribute perennial grass and forb height 

indicator to >7". 

Recreation 

 Management action 82a was revised to clarify that constructing recreation facilities within 

GRGS PHMAs must conform to the avoidance and minimization measures or provide a net 

conservation gain to the species. The revision was recommended by the Governor during 

the Governor’s consistency review. 

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse) 

 Text revisions were made to management actions and fluid mineral lease stipulations to 

ensure consistency across the Wyoming RMPs and consistency with the most recent 

Governor’s Executive Order (2015-4), as recommended by the Governor during the 

Governor’s consistency review. 

Mineral Resources 

 Management Action 79 from the Proposed RMPA, which is now MA MR 12 in the Wyoming 

ARMPA, was modified to remove 894,060 acres from consideration for recommendation 

for withdrawal, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency 

review. 

2.4.5 Billings 

General Changes 

 Goals, objectives, and management actions specific to the Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument have been removed. The Pompeys Pillar National Monument will have its own 

ARMP for ease of implementation. 

 Clarification on new information changing existing resource inventories and implementation 

of the Montana GRSG Habitat Conservation Program has been added to Section 5.3, 

Changing the Plan. 

 Section 2.1 includes a statement linking the GRSG Protection Priority Areas (PPAs) of the 

Draft RMP to the PHMAs boundaries in the Proposed RMP and ARMP. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-9

 The GRSG Restoration Areas has been changed to RHMAs to follow the naming 

conventions of the PHMAs and GHMAs, as seen in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

 The term “Travel and Transportation Management (TTM)” was added and defined in the 

glossary. 

 The Federal mineral estate acreages for the GRSG PHMAs, RHMAs, and GHMAs have 

changed, as the data used in the ARMP depended on broad lines and polygons, instead of 

aliquot parts. This modification did not change the impact analysis provided in the Final EIS. 

Approved Resource Management Plan for GRSG 

 Table 2-3 (Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area) was added to show the 

number of acres in PHMAs, RHMAs, and GHMAs GRSG habitat in the Planning Area. Table 

2-3 (Threats to GRSG in the Billings Field Office Sub-Region as Identified by the COT) was 

added to identify the GRSG populations and the threats identified in the COT Report 

contained within the Billings Field Office Planning Area. Table 2-4 (Key Components of the 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Proposed Plan Addressing COT Report 

Threats) was added to provide a crosswalk as to how the ARMP for the Billings Field Office 

Planning Area addresses the threats from the COT Report. Table 2-5 was added to 

consolidate goals, objectives, and management actions to manage GRSG habitat. 

Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species 

 Management Decision (WLH & SSS-71) has been modified to further address GRSG habitat 

loss and threats, which contribute to GRSG habitat loss. 

 Management Decision (WLH & SSS-73) has been modified to further address sagebrush 

habitat objectives. 

 The following new Management Decisions have been added for clarification purposes to the 

Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species – Greater Sage-Grouse section: WLH and SSS74, WLH and SSS -75, WLH and SSS -76, and WLH and SSS -83.

Appendices 

 Appendix K (Biological Opinion) was added to the ARMP. 

 The following statement has been deleted from the Coal Appendix: In 2010, Great 

Northern Properties (GNP) assumed control of the mine permitting effort. 

2.4.6 Buffalo 

Fluid Minerals 

 Based on internal review, the minimum lease size requirement was removed from SS WL4023 for consistency among Wyoming RMPs and because it would be extremely difficult to 

implement within the Buffalo Planning Area, given the complex mineral ownership pattern. 

 An exception was added to O&G-2006 to allow for geophysical exploration within PHMAs 

when designed to minimize habitat fragmentation and in conformance with timing and 
2. Decision 

2-10 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

distance decisions, except where prohibited or restricted by existing RMP decisions as 

recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Based on internal review, the noise stipulation for SS WL-4024 was removed for 

consistency with the other Wyoming RMPs and it was determined to be adequately covered 

by other lease stipulations such as the 0.6 mile lek NSO stipulation. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions 

 Table 2.4 in the Proposed RMP and Table 2.6, Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for 

Greater Sage-Grouse (p. 26), in the ARMP was modified as follows, based on the 

Governor’s consistency review: 

– The introduction to the table was revised to clarify that all BLM use authorizations 

will contain terms and conditions to meet or make progress toward meeting the 

habitat objectives. 

– Footnote 1 was revised to allow for date shifts where supported by credible data, as 

recommended. 

 Corrections were made to metric conversions reported incorrectly in the Proposed RMP. 

 In order to respond to protests to be more consistent with the Forest Service, the BLM 

changed the desired condition for the cover attribute perennial grass and forb height 

indicator to >7". 

Livestock Grazing 

 Compliance with Wyoming Executive Order 2013-3 was moved from management action 

SSWL-4010 to Grazing-6017 to consolidate the livestock grazing management actions and 

for consistency with the other Wyoming RMPs. 

Lands and Realty 

 Management action L&R-6012 was revised to clarify when public lands could be disposed of 

within GRSG habitat, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency 

review. 

Other Leasable Minerals 

 Management action OL-2001 was revised to allow nonenergy leasable mineral activities in 

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

timing, density, and disturbance restrictions, as recommended by the Governor during the 

Governor’s consistency review. 

Recreation 

 Management action Rec-6015 was revised to clarify that construction of recreation facilities 

within GRSG PHMAs must conform with the avoidance and minimization measures or 

provide a net conservation gain to the species. The revision was recommended by the 

Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-11

Riparian and wetland communities 

 Management action Riparian-4008 was revised to clarify that a site-specific plan would be 

required prior to authorization of activities within 500 feet of riparian and wetland 

communities, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse) 

 Management actions were revised to consolidate the activity being managed. Power linerelated actions were consolidated in SS WL-4022, and vegetation management actions were 

consolidated in SS WL-4013. 

 Text revisions were made to management actions and fluid mineral lease stipulations to 

ensure consistency across the Wyoming RMPs and consistency with the most recent 

Governor’s Executive Order 2015-4, as recommended by the Governor during the 

Governor’s consistency review. 

 Management action SS WL-4022 was revised to replace the requirement for raptor perch 

deterrents on overhead power lines to constructing power lines in accordance with Avian 

Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidance, as perch deterrents have been proven 

to be ineffective, as recommended during protests and by the Governor during the 

Governor’s consistency review. 

Water 

 The following water management actions were revised, as recommended by the Governor 

during the Governor’s consistency review: 

– Water-1005, a statement on management of Source Water Protection Areas, was 

added. 

– Water-1010 and Water-1011, identification of the requirement to coordinate with 

the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, was added. 

– Water-1013 was revised to clarify that a site-specific plan would be required prior 

to authorization of activities within 500 feet of water resources. 

Wildlife 

 Management action WL-4014 was revised to clarify that power lines will be constructed in 

accordance with APLIC guidance, as recommended in the protests and by the Governor 

during the Governor’s consistency review. 

2.4.7 Cody 

General Changes 

 Goals, objectives, and management actions have been modified to be specific to the Cody 

Field Office. The Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP Planning Area has been divided into two 

separate ARMPs at this stage of planning process (one for the Cody Field Office and another 

for the Worland Field Office) for ease of implementation. 
2. Decision 

2-12 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 All referenced record numbers within this section reflect the record number found in the 

ARMP; see Appendix P, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Crosswalk Tables, for reference to their location in the Final EIS. 

 Table 2-6 has been updated to match the management actions in Table 2-3.1 in the ARMP. 

 GRSG Habitat Objectives table in the Proposed RMP was Table 2-5 but is Table 2-6 in the 

ARMP. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives (Table 2.6) 

 The introduction to the table was revised to clarify that all BLM use authorizations will 

contain terms and conditions to meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. 

 Footnote 1 was revised to allow for date shifts where supported by credible data, as 

recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Corrections were made to metric conversions reported incorrectly in the Proposed RMP. 

 Footnote 7 was included, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s

consistency review. 

 In order to respond to protests to be more consistent with the Forest Service, the BLM 

changed the desired condition for the cover attribute perennial grass and forb height 

indicator to >7". 

Mineral Resources 

 Record 2006 has been modified to recognize that the FWS has found “the core area 

strategy...if implemented by all landowners via regulatory mechanisms, would provide 

adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the state” when considering 

leasing coal in PHMAs under the criteria at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). 

 Record 2013 was clarified to ensure that leasing activities in PHMAs comply with GRSG 

RMP decisions and remain in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy. 

 An exception was added to Record 2014 to allow for geophysical exploration within 

PHMAs when designed to minimize habitat fragmentation and in conformance with timing 

and distance decisions, except where prohibited or restricted by existing RMP decisions, as 

recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Record 2023 was modified to exclude the Oregon Basin Oil and Gas Management Area 

from expansion of a 2-mile buffer, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s

consistency review. 

 Record 2026 was modified to say that nonenergy leasable minerals would be considered in 

PHMAs, provided they could be completed in compliance with all occupancy, timing, density, 

and disturbance restrictions. 

 Record 2033 allows for CO2 sequestration projects in consideration of other resource 

objectives when sequestration is not associated with enhanced oil recovery projects. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-13

Fire and Fuels Management 

 Record 3008 was modified to stress that multiple tools for fuels would be considered and 

analyzed in site-specific NEPA documentation before selecting prescribed fire in PHMAs. 

Vegetation—Grassland and Shrubland Communities 

 Record 4029 has been modified to resolve an editing error. 

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse) 

 Record 4094 was modified to provide adequate rehabilitation of GRSG habitat. 

 Text revisions were made to surface-disturbing and disruptive management actions and fluid 

mineral lease stipulations to ensure consistency across the Wyoming RMPs and consistency 

with the most recent Governor’s Executive Order 2015-4, as recommended by the 

Governor during the Governor’s consistency review (Records 4107-4112). 

 The noise stipulation for Record 4111 was revised for consistency with the other Wyoming 

RMPs, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 The minimum lease size requirement was removed from Record 4107 for consistency 

among Wyoming RMPs. 

Lands and Realty 

 Record 6016 was revised to clarify when public lands could be disposed of within GRSG 

habitat, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Management actions were revised to consolidate the activity being managed; ROW-related 

actions were consolidated in Record 6032. 

 Record 6033 was modified to address new ROW actions within PHMAs. 

Recreation 

 Record 6059 was revised to clarify that construction of recreation facilities within GRSG 

PHMAs must conform with the avoidance and minimization measures or provide a net 

conservation gain to the species. The revision was recommended by the Governor during 

the Governor’s consistency review. 

Livestock Grazing 

 Compliance with Wyoming Executive Order 2013-3 was moved to Record 6126 to 

consolidate the livestock grazing management actions and for consistency with the other 

Wyoming RMPs. 

Special Designations—National Historic Trails and Other Historic Trails 

 Records 7096/7097/7098—Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect the foreground of 

Historic Trails (defined in the glossary) up to 2 miles or the visual horizon within 

contributing portions of the trail, whichever is closer (the SCZ), where setting is an 

important aspect of the integrity for the trail. The buffer would also apply to areas 

unevaluated until it is determined if setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the 
2. Decision 

2-14 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

trail. Use BMPs (Appendix L) to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse effects, except 

within designated utility corridors. 

Glossary 

 The Core Habitat definition was updated, as recommended by the Governor during the 

Governor’s consistency review. 

 The winter concentration area definition was updated, as recommended by the Governor 

during the Governor’s consistency review. 

Maps 

 Mineral Resources Map—Master Leasing Plans, Absaroka Front Zones, have been included 

in the map. 

Appendix B 

 Updates to sage-grouse timing stipulations have been made to resolve the inaccurate dates. 

 Records 1041 and 1042 have been added to the appendix, as requested by the EPA. 

 Data from the Wyoming Game and Fish have been clarified in all wildlife stipulations. 

2.4.8 HiLine 

General Changes 

 Clarification was added on how the ARMP may be revised (through plan maintenance 

decisions), based on the effective implementation of the Montana GRSG Habitat 

Conservation Program. 

 The Approved Plan Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Maps have been added to 

the ARMP and are presented in Appendix A1. 

 The remaining Approved Plan Maps have been revised and are presented in Appendix A2. 

 Appendix K (FWS Concurrence) was a new appendix added to the ARMP. 

Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 

 Table 2.1-2 (Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area) was added to show 

the number of acres in PHMAs, RHMAs, and GHMAs in the Planning Area. Table 2.2-1 

(Threats to GRSG in the HiLine Planning Area as Identified by the COT) was added to 

identify the GRSG populations and the threats identified in the COT Report contained 

within the HiLine Planning Area. Table 2.2-2 (Key Components of the HiLine ARMP 

Addressing COT Report Threats) was added to provide a crosswalk as to how the ARMP 

for the HiLine Planning Area addresses the threats from the COT Report. Table 2.3-1 was 

added to consolidate goals, objectives, and management actions to manage GRSG habitat. 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-15

2.4.9 Miles City 

General Changes 

 Clarification was added on how the ARMP may be revised (through plan maintenance 

decisions), based on the effective implementation of the Montana GRSG Habitat 

Conservation Program. 

 The term “Travel and Transportation Management (TTM)” was added and defined in the 

glossary. 

Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 

 Table 2-2 (Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area) was added to show the 

number of acres in PHMAs, RHMAs, and GHMAs in the Planning Area. Table 2-3 (Threats 

to GRSG in the Miles City Planning Area as Identified by the COT) was added to identify the 

GRSG populations and the threats identified in the COT in the Miles City Planning Area. 

Table 2-4 (Key Components of the Miles City ARMP Addressing COT Report Threats) was 

added to provide a crosswalk as to how the ARMP for the Miles City Planning Area 

addresses the threats from the COT Report. Table 2-5 was added to consolidate goals, 

objectives, and management actions to manage GRSG habitat. 

Appendix G Oil and Gas Stipulations 

 Waiver language for the GHMAs NSO stipulation was modified to read “The authorized 

officer may waive this stipulation if no portion of the leasehold is within 6/10 mile of the 

perimeter of an active lek.” 

 Waiver language for the GHMAs CSU stipulation was also modified to read “The authorized 

officer may waive this stipulation if no portion of the leasehold is within 2 miles of the 

perimeter of an active lek.”

Appendices 

 The following appendices are not provided in the ARMP but can still be found in the 

published Proposed RMP/Final EIS: 

– Economics 

– Lands and Realty/Renewable Energy 

– Minerals 

– Public Comment 

– Vegetation 

– Water 

 Appendix Q (Biological Opinion) was added to the ARMP. 
2. Decision 

2-16 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

2.4.10 Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

General Changes 

 Goals, objectives, and management actions specific to the Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument are now contained in one ARMP, separate from those applicable to the Billings 

Field Office. 

Appendices 

 Appendix H (Biological Opinion) was added to the ARMP. 

2.4.11 South Dakota 

Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) 

 Table 2-2 (Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area) was added to show the 

number of acres in PHMAs, RHMAs, and GHMAs in the Planning Area. Table 2-3 (Threats 

to GRSG in the South Dakota Planning Area as Identified by the COT) was added to identify 

the GRSG populations and the threats identified in the COT Report in the South Dakota 

Planning Area. Table 2-4 (Key Components of the South Dakota ARMP Addressing COT 

Report Threats) was added to provide a crosswalk as to how the ARMP for the South 

Dakota Planning Area addresses the threats from the COT Report. Table 2-5 was added to 

consolidate goals, objectives, and management actions to manage GRSG habitat. 

Paleontology and ROWs Summary in Lands and Realty 

 MD-5 in Special Designations, Fossil Cycad Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

section. The ACEC was listed as a ROWs exclusion area for general ROWs in the 

Proposed Plan/Final EIS. In the ARMP, the exclusion restriction for ROWs in Fossil Cycad 

ACEC was changed to an avoidance area for ROWs associated with construction or 

maintenance of US Highway 18. This change was made based on concerns expressed during 

a BLM briefing to the State by the South Dakota State Highway Department. The briefing 

was part of the Governor’s consistency review. During the briefing, the BLM learned of the 

Highway Department’s plans to rebuild the highway bridge that is located in the ACEC. The 

bridge construction may require use of areas outside of the existing ROW that is held by 

the Highway Department. Furthermore, future highway maintenance may result in a 

modification or a new ROW to accommodate repairing the highway or its associated 

structures. An exclusion area restriction for the highway would not allow any exceptions; 

this was considered impractical because US Highway 18 is an important transportation 

route for this area, and an exclusion area restriction may infringe on maintenance of the 

existing ROW use and potential safety concerns. To protect the ACEC values, other types 

of ROWs are not allowed. The impacts of an avoidance area ROW restriction was 

previously evaluated in a separate alternative in the Draft and Proposed RMP. 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Oil and Gas Stipulations 

 GHMAs CSU waiver criteria for MA-11 and MA-16 of the Proposed Plan/ Final EIS (which 

are now MD-11 and MD-16 of the ARMP) was modified to read “The authorized office may 

waive this stipulation if no portion of the leasehold is within 2 miles of the perimeter of an 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-17

active lek.” This change was made to the GRSG Section and Appendix E of the ARMP to 

provide consistency with other plans. 

Appendices 

 The Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management Appendix was 

merged with the BMP Appendix (Appendix J). 

 Appendix H (Biological Opinion) is a new appendix added to the ARMP. 

 Some appendices were not included in the South Dakota ARMP but can still be found in the 

published South Dakota Proposed RMP and Final EIS. These appendices are still relevant to 

the management of public lands in South Dakota but were not included because they 

provided only background material or because important sections of these appendices are 

included in the management decision section of the ARMP. 

2.4.12 Worland 

General Changes 

 Goals, objectives, and management actions have been modified to be specific to the 

Worland Field Office. The Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP Planning Area has been divided into 

two separate ARMPs at this stage of the planning process (one for the Cody Field Office and 

another for the Worland Field Office) for ease of implementation. 

 All referenced record numbers within this section reflect the record number found in the 

ARMP; see Appendix P, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Crosswalk Tables, for reference to their location in the Final EIS. 

 Table 2-6 has been updated to match the management actions in Table 2-3.1 in the ARMP. 

 The GRSG habitat objectives table in the Proposed RMP was Table 2-5 but is Table 2-6 in 

the ARMP. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Seasonal Habitat Objectives (Table 2.6) 

 The introduction to the table was revised to clarify that all BLM use authorizations will 

contain terms and conditions to meet or progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. 

 Footnote 1 was revised to allow for date shifts where supported by credible data, as 

recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Corrections were made to metric conversions reported incorrectly in the Proposed RMP. 

 Footnote 7 was included as a recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s

consistency review. 

 In order to respond to protests to be more consistent with the Forest Service, the BLM 

changed the desired condition for the cover attribute perennial grass and forb height 

indicator to”>7". 

Mineral Resources 

 Record 2005 has been modified to recognize that the FWS has found “the core area 

strategy...if implemented by all landowners via regulatory mechanisms, would provide 
2. Decision 

2-18 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

adequate protection for sage-grouse and their habitats in the state” when considering 

leasing coal in PHMAs under the criteria set for at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). 

 Record 2013 was clarified to ensure that leasing activities in PHMAs comply with GRSG 

RMP decisions and remain in compliance with laws, regulations, and policy. 

 An exception was added to Record 2014 to allow for geophysical exploration in PHMAs, 

when designed to minimize habitat fragmentation and in conformance with timing and 

distance decisions, except where prohibited or restricted by existing RMP decisions, as 

recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Record 2023 was modified to exclude the Oregon Basin Oil and Gas Management Area 

from expansion of a 2-mile buffer, to respond to protests and as recommended by the 

Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 Record 2025 was modified to say that nonenergy leasable minerals would be considered in 

PHMAs, provided they could be completed in compliance with all occupancy, timing, density, 

and disturbance restrictions. 

 Record 2032 allows for CO2 sequestration projects in consideration of other resource 

objectives when sequestration is not associated with enhanced oil recovery projects. 

Fire and Fuels Management 

 Record 3008 was modified to stress that multiple tools for fuels would be considered and 

analyzed in site-specific NEPA documentation before selecting prescribed fire in PHMAs. 

Vegetation—Grassland and Shrubland Communities 

 Record 4029 has been modified to resolve an editing error. 

Special Status Species (Greater Sage-Grouse) 

 Record 4093 was modified to provide adequate rehabilitation of GRSG habitat (Records 

4106-4111). 

 The noise stipulation for Record 4110 was revised for consistency with the other Wyoming 

RMPs, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review. 

 The minimum lease size requirement was removed from Record 4106 for consistency 

among Wyoming RMPs. 

Lands and Realty 

 Record 6014 was revised to clarify when public lands could be disposed of within GRSG 

habitat, as recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s consistency review.

 Management actions were revised to consolidate the activity being managed; ROW-related 

actions were consolidated in Record 6028. 

 Record 6029 was modified to address new ROW actions in PHMAs. 

Recreation 

 Record 6054 was revised to clarify that construction of recreation facilities in GRSG PHMAs 

must conform with the avoidance and minimization measures or provide a net conservation 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-19

gain to the species. The revision was recommended by the Governor during the Governor’s

consistency review. 

Livestock Grazing 

 Compliance with Wyoming Executive Order 2013-3 was moved to Record 6198 to 

consolidate the livestock grazing management actions and for consistency with the other 

Wyoming RMPs. 

Special Designations—Regionally Important Prehistoric and Historic Trails 

 Records 7042/7043/7044—Avoid surface-disturbing activities and protect the foreground of 

Historic Trails (defined in the glossary) up to 2 miles or the visual horizon within 

contributing portions of the trail, whichever is closer (the Setting Consideration Zone), 

where setting is an important aspect of the integrity for the trail. The buffer would also 

apply to areas unevaluated until it is determined if setting is an important aspect of the 

integrity for the trail. Use BMPs (Appendix L) to avoid, minimize, or compensate for adverse 

effects, except within designated utility corridors. 

Glossary 

 The Core Habitat definition was updated, as recommended by the Governor during the 

Governor’s consistency review. 

 The winter concentration area definition was updated, as recommended by the Governor 

during the Governor’s consistency review. 

Maps 

 Mineral Resources Map—Master Leasing Plans, Absaroka Front Zones, have been included 

in the map. 

Appendix B 

 Updates to sage-grouse timing stipulations have been made to resolve the inaccurate dates. 

 Records 1041 and 1042 have been added to the appendix, as requested by the EPA. 

 Data from the Wyoming Game and Fish has been clarified in all wildlife stipulations. 

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 (NOA) 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 

considered all relevant resource information and public input in developing the Proposed RMPs/Final 

EISs and 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 RMPs/Final EISs and Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs, though minor 

clarifications were made and are summarized in Section 2.4. The Director’s decisions on the protests 
2. Decision 

2-20 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

are summarized in each of the Proposed RMPs/Final EISs and 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 Rocky Mountain Region’s 

Proposed RMPs/Final EISs and Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs. 

2.5.1 Lewistown 

For the Lewistown Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received seven timely protest 

submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, one submission was dismissed because 

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 

 Density and disturbance 

 Data and inventory 

 Adaptive management 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 ACECs 

 Fluid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Clarifications and clerical errors 

2.5.2 North Dakota 

For the North Dakota Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received seven timely protest 

submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, one submission was dismissed because 

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 

 Density and disturbance 

 Livestock grazing 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-21

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 ACECs 

 Fluid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.3 Northwest Colorado 

For the Northwest Colorado GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 25 timely 

protest submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, five submissions were 

dismissed because 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 

 Density and disturbance 

 Adaptive management 

 Data and inventories 

 GRSG habitat objectives 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 ACECs 

 Fluid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.4 Wyoming 

For the Wyoming GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 29 timely protest 

submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, seven submissions were dismissed 

because 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 
2. Decision 

2-22 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 Density and disturbance 

 RDFs 

 Data and inventories 

 GRSG habitat objectives 

 Livestock grazing 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 ACECs 

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid and nonenergy leasable minerals 

 Special status species 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics 

 Travel and transportation management 

 Clarifications and clerical errors 

2.5.5 Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

For the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM Director 

received 10 timely protest submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, two 

submissions were dismissed because 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 

 Density and disturbance 

 Adaptive management 

 Monitoring 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-23

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid and nonenergy leasable minerals 

 Special status species 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.6 Bighorn Basin (Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

For the Bighorn Basin Proposed RMP/Final EIS (which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices), the 

BLM Director received 23 timely protest submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; 

however, five submissions were dismissed because 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 

 Density and disturbance 

 RDFs 

 Mitigation 

 Livestock grazing 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 ACECs 

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid and nonenergy leasable minerals 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics 

 Wild and scenic rivers 

 Recreation and visitor services 

 Clarifications and clerical errors 

2.5.7 Buffalo 

For the Buffalo Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 18 timely protest submissions. All of 

the protesting parties had standing; however, five submissions were dismissed because 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 

 Density and disturbance 
2. Decision 

2-24 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 RDFs 

 GRSG habitat objectives 

 Livestock grazing 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 ACECs 

 Fluid minerals 

 Special status species 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics 

 Clarifications and clerical errors 

2.5.8 HiLine 

For the HiLine Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 12 timely protest submissions. All of 

the protesting parties had standing; however, one submission was dismissed because 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 

 Adaptive management 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Data and inventories 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid and nonenergy leasable minerals 

 Special status species 

 Cultural resources 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-25

 Travel and transportation management 

 Environmental justice 

2.5.9 Miles City 

For the Miles City Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM Director received 13 timely protest submissions. 

All of the protesting parties had standing; however, one submission was dismissed because 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 

 Density and disturbance 

 Adaptive management 

 Monitoring 

 Livestock grazing 

 Mitigation 

 Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act 

 Compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 Fluid minerals 

 Solid and nonenergy leasable minerals 

 Special status species 

 Cultural resources 

 Lands with wilderness characteristics 

 Travel and transportation management 

2.5.10 South Dakota 

For the South Dakota Proposed RMP/Final EIS, the BLM Director received five timely protest 

submissions. All of the protesting parties had standing; however, one submission was dismissed because 

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 

 Density and disturbance 
2. Decision 

2-26 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 Data and inventories 

 Livestock grazing 

 Air quality 

 Climate change 

 Noise 

 Special status species 

 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 RMPs/Final EISs 

and 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 Rocky Mountain 

Region, the Governors of Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming submitted 

letters to their respective BLM State Directors, asserting inconsistencies between the BLM’s Proposed 
2. Decision 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-27

RMPs/Final EISs and Proposed RMPAs/Final EISs and their States’ or local governments’ resource-related 

plans, policies, and procedures, as well as other concerns that they had with the proposed planning 

documents. 

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. By September 8, 2015, the BLM Director received 

appeals from the Governors of North Dakota and South Dakota. The BLM Director reviewed these 

appeals and responded to them before this ROD was issued. The reasons for the Director’s

determinations on those appeals will be published in the Federal Register after this ROD is issued. 

In some instances, modifications to the ARMPs and 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. 
2. Decision 

2-28 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-1

CHAPTER 3 

ALTERNATIVES

3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Each of the Rocky Mountain 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 the purpose and need of this effort; namely, to identify and 

incorporate appropriate management direction in ARMPs and ARMPAs to conserve, enhance, and 

restore GRSG habitat 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. 

In addition to developing alternatives that conserve and enhance GRSG and its habitat, the Draft and 

Proposed RMPs/Draft and Final EISs for the following BLM offices include alternatives to provide RMP 

management direction for all BLM program areas: the Bighorn Basin (the RMP revision for the Cody and 

Worland Field Offices), Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument, Buffalo, HiLine, Miles City, and 

South Dakota. 

These documents analyzed the following resources or resource uses: 

 Air quality 

 Fish and wildlife 

 Cultural 

 Lands and realty 

 Livestock grazing 
3. Alternatives 

3-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 Minerals and energy 

 Recreation and visitor services 

 Soil and water 

 Special management area designations (including ACECs) 

 Travel and transportation 

 Vegetation 

 Visual resources 

 WHBs 

 Land with wilderness characteristics 

 Wildland fire management 

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 Alternatives Considered for the GRSG RMP Amendments 

3.1.1.1 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 office 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, 

recreation, utility corridor constructions, 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. 

3.1.1.2 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 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-3

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 Number 2012-044 directed 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 for 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. 

3.1.1.3 Alternative C—Citizen Groups’ Recommended Alternative One 

Alternative C was based on an alternative recommended by citizen groups. This alternative emphasizes 

improving and protecting habitat for GRSG and was applied to all occupied GRSG habitat (PHMAs and 

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 (North Dakota analyzed reduced 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. 

This alternative was not selected in its entirety for the ARMPAs because it limited the use of public land 

in PHMAs and GHMAs to such as extent that it did not give adequate accommodation to local needs, 

customs, and culture. Also, it included proposed actions that are not necessary for GRSG conservation. 

For example, it 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. Alternatives 

3-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

3.1.1.4 Alternative D—Lewistown, North Dakota, and Northwest Colorado’s Preferred 

Alternative 

Alternative D was identified as the preferred alternative in the Lewiston, North Dakota, and Northwest 

Colorado 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, 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. 

Wyoming’s Alternative D

Wyoming’s GRSG Proposed RMPA/Final EIS provides opportunities to use and develop the Planning 

Area while protecting GRSG habitat, based on scoping comments and input from the cooperating 

agencies involved in the alternatives development process. This alternative would increase the potential 

for development and resource use, with reduced GRSG habitat protections. Protective measures would 

be applied to GRSG habitat. 

Under this alternative, a surface disturbance cap of 9 percent per 640 acres was considered within 

GRSG Core Habitat. This alternative was not selected in its entirety as the ARMPAs because the 

proposed lek buffers were insufficient to provide GRSG undisturbed habitat and prevent habitat 

fragmentation, although restrictions on density of disturbance could have allowed for some protection 

of contiguous habitat. Other management could provide protection of GRSG Core Habitat from wind 

development by reducing habitat loss, fragmentation, and direct impacts from wind turbines and 

overhead structures. 

3.1.1.5 Alternative E 

Wyoming 

The BLM modified the preferred alternative, identified as Alternative E in the Draft RMPA/EIS, and 

presented as the Proposed RMPAs for managing BLM-administered lands in the Wyoming GRSG 

Planning Area in the Proposed RMPA/Final EIS. The modifications were based on public comments 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-5

received on the Draft RMPA/Draft EIS, internal BLM and Forest Service review, new information and 

best available science, the need for clarification in the plans, and ongoing coordination with stakeholders 

across the range of the GRSG. As a result, the Proposed RMPAs provide consistent GRSG habitat 

management across the range, prioritize development outside of GRSG habitat, and focus on a 

landscape-scale approach to conserving GRSG habitat. 

The Proposed RMPAs provide a layered management approach that offers the highest level of 

protection for GRSG in the most valuable habitat. Land use allocations in the Proposed RMPAs would 

limit or eliminate new surface disturbance in PHMAs, while minimizing disturbance in GHMAs. In 

addition to establishing protective land use allocations, the Proposed RMPAs would implement a suite of 

management tools, such as disturbance limits, GRSG habitat objectives and monitoring, GRSG habitat 

desired conditions, mitigation approaches, adaptive management triggers and responses, and lek bufferdistances throughout the range. These overlapping and reinforcing conservation measures will improve 

GRSG habitat condition and provide clarity and consistency on how the BLM and Forest Service will 

manage activities in GSGS habitat. 

3.1.1.6 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 historical, 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 

Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 USC 21a) as it pertains to the public lands.” For these 

reasons, Alternative C was not selected (in its entirety) as the sub-regional ARMPAs. 

3.1.2 Alternatives Considered for the RMP Revisions 

3.1.2.1 Alternative A—No Action Alternative 

All RMP Revisions 

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 

3-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

recreation, construction of utility corridors, and livestock grazing would also remain the same. The BLM 

would not modify existing or establish additional criteria to guide the identification of site-specific use 

levels for implementation. 

This alternative was not selected for the ARMPs because it did not meet the purpose and need of the 

RMPs. It was not selected in its entirety because the Planning Areas would continue to be managed 

under outdated RMPs and would not apply the resource protections for all resources deemed necessary 

to meet the long-term goals and objectives of the RMP; specifically it would not meet those needed to 

be made to the existing decisions based on the FWS 2010 listing petition decision, which identified the 

inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms as a significant threat to GRSG and its habitat. 

3.1.2.2 Alternative B 

Bighorn Basin (which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

Alternative B emphasizes conserving physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources and lands with 

wilderness characteristics with constraints on resource uses. This alternative emphasizes improving and 

protecting habitat for GRSG and defines different restrictions for PHMAs and GHMAs. Alternative B 

would limit commodity development in areas of occupied GRSG habitat and would close or designate 

portions of the Planning Area to some land uses. Alternative B conserves large areas of land for physical, 

biological, and heritage resources, designates 17 ACECs, and places a number of restrictions on 

motorized vehicle use and mineral development. 

Under Alternative B, 3,888,990 acres are available and 314,223 acres are withdrawn or would be 

recommended for withdrawal or extension of an existing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. In 

addition, approximately 2,464,745 acres of Federal mineral estate are closed to oil and gas leasing; the 

remaining Federal mineral estate is open to oil and gas leasing subject to the following constraints: 

405,620 acres are subject to the standard lease form, 335,109 acres are subject to moderate constraints, 

and 932,551 acres are subject to major constraints. Alternative B does not delineate oil and gas 

management areas. It makes 1,612,993 acres available for mineral materials disposal, while 2,590,220 

acres are closed to mineral materials disposal. 

Under Alternative B, a large portion of the Planning Area is closed to livestock grazing (1,984,211 acres), 

as a result of such factors as crucial winter range for elk and bighorn sheep and GRSG key habitat areas. 

The remainder of the Planning Area is open to grazing where it does not conflict with other resource 

uses. 

Alternative B was not selected as the ARMP for the Cody and Worland Field Offices because it did not 

achieve a balance between managing resources and resource uses. It also was not selected as the ARMP 

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. 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

Alternative B, the conservation alternative, emphasizes the conservation of physical, biological, and 

cultural resources over commodity production, mineral extraction, and motorized recreation. Relative 

to all alternatives, Alternative B conserves the most land area for physical, biological, and cultural 

resources. It is the most restrictive to mineral leasing and the most restrictive to renewable energy 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-7

development. Alternative B would establish GRSG PHMAs, GHMAs, and RHMAs. Under this alternative 

only, GRSG PHMAs (BLM-administered surface; 154,500 acres) would be administered as an ACEC. 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on conserving 

physical, biological (including GRSG habitat), heritage, and visual resources (56,700 acres of Visual 

Resource Management [VRM] Class I and 14,377 acres of VRM Class II). Thirteen tracts would be 

managed for lands with wilderness characteristics (27,507 acres), while placing the most constraints on 

resource uses. Alternative B would conserve larger areas of land for physical, biological, and heritage 

resources, would emphasize natural processes for wild horse management, would retain nine ACECs, 

and would designate three new ACECs (181,175 acres), including one for GRSG habitat. 

It also would place additional restrictions on resource uses, such as ROWs (exclusion areas 211,384 

acres) and mineral development (39 percent of the Federal mineral estate closed to mineral materials 

sales and development, 33 percent would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry, 33 

percent would be closed to coal leasing, and 34 percent would not be available for fluid mineral leasing). 

Only 50 acres would be identified for disposal under Alternative B, and one ROW utility corridor would 

be identified. Renewable energy development would be closed on 80 percent of BLM-administered 

surface. Livestock grazing would be permitted on 386,092 acres (38,373 acres closed to livestock 

grazing). 

Six special recreation management areas (SRMAs) and five extensive recreation management areas 

(ERMAs) would be designated, and 34,109 acres would be closed to target shooting for safety and 

resource concerns. Eleven travel management areas (TMAs) would be established under this alternative; 

OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails, except in the 11 TMAs where OHV use is limited 

to designated routes. The Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Herd Management Area would be the 

smallest under Alternative B 931,153 acres; all surface ownerships). All 14.08 miles of the seven eligible 

river segments would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 

System. This would be to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and 

tentative classification. 

While Alternative B represented an approach to land management that addressed most issues, 

management concerns, and the purpose and need, it was not selected because it did not sufficiently 

address GRSG habitat concerns and did not quite achieve a balance between managing resources and 

resource uses. Alternative B also was not selected because it does not best achieve the mix of multiple 

uses. 

Buffalo 

Alternative B emphasizes the conservation of physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources and 

areas with wilderness characteristics with constraints on resource uses. Relative to all alternatives, 

Alternative B conserves the most land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources; it designates 

the highest number of ACECs and is the most restrictive to motorized vehicle use and mineral 

development. Resource uses were restricted or prohibited within 4.0 mile of GRSG leks and winter 

concentration areas (NSO for fluid minerals). 
3. Alternatives 

3-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Mineral resource uses are subject to more extensive constraints under Alternative B than under the 

other alternatives. The BLM would recommend withdrawals to locatable mineral entry on 618,256 acres 

(2,686,776 acres open to locatable mineral entry, should these withdrawals occur). 

Approximately 2,612,920 acres of Federal fluid mineral estate are closed to fluid mineral leasing. The 

remaining Federal mineral estate is open for leasing, subject to the following constraints: 

 1,225 acres are subject to standard stipulations only 

 5,685 acres are subject to minor constraints, 

 124,467 acres are subject to moderate constraints 

 642,232 acres are subject to major constraints (Map 14) 

Approximately 1,239,723 acres are open to leasing of other minerals, such as phosphates and sodium. 

Alternative B would open 129,431 acres to salable mineral exploration and development and would 

close or restrict 3,218,690 acres from salable mineral exploration and development. 

Transportation management designations under Alternative B include 625,854 acres closed to 

motorized vehicle use and 137,126 acres limited to designated roads and trails for motorized vehicle 

use. In addition, Alternative B seasonally closes 18,259 acres to motorized vehicle use within big game 

crucial winter range. 

Alternative B limits or prohibits livestock grazing where it has been determined to be incompatible with 

other uses, including areas within 4 miles of the perimeter of occupied or undetermined GRSG leks and 

winter concentration areas (467,897 acres), as proposed under this alternative. 

This alternative was not selected in the ARMP because it does not best achieve the mix of multiple uses. 

Alternative B did not adequately balance resource protections with resource uses; resource protections 

were emphasized over sustainable uses. 

HiLine 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on conserving 

physical, biological (including GRSG habitat), heritage, and visual resources and lands with wilderness 

characteristics, while placing the most constraints on resource uses. Compared to the other 

alternatives, Alternative B would conserve larger areas of land for physical, biological, and heritage 

resources; it would designate two ACECs for GRSG conservation and would place some additional 

restrictions on resource uses, such as ROW and mineral development. 

Alternative B would exclude wind energy ROWs on 90 percent of the Planning Area, would encourage 

the use of designated corridors for new ROWs, would close more than 90 percent of Federal minerals 

to leasing, and would recommend nine new mineral withdrawals. The BLM would not designate any 

ERMAs or SRMAs under Alternative B and would manage 2,390,000 as open to livestock grazing. This 

alternative would maintain contiguous blocks of vegetation and habitat on BLM-administered lands. 

Alternative B was not selected because it does not best achieve the mix of multiple uses. Its emphasis 

was too focused on protecting resources over the multiple use/sustainability approach provided by the 

other alternatives. 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-9

Miles City 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B would focus on allowing resource uses (e.g., energy 

and mineral development and other commodity uses), while providing moderate protection to sensitive 

resources, including GRSG habitat and lands with wilderness characteristics. Alternative B would 

exclude wind and solar energy from 36 percent of the lands, would close 2 percent of the mineral estate 

to fluid mineral leasing, and would prescribe an NSO stipulation to 5 percent of the mineral estate that 

is available for leasing. This alternative would not recommend any areas for locatable mineral estate for 

withdrawal; it make less than 1 percent unavailable for livestock grazing and would exclude ROWs from 

24 percent of the lands. 

While offering some protection of sensitive resources, Alternative B was not selected because it did not 

provide for management of multiple uses in a manner to ensure the sustainability of the natural 

resources (including GRSG habitat) into the future. 

South Dakota 

Alternative B emphasizes commercial resource development and use while providing adequate levels of 

resource protection. Alternative B would propose a land transfer for the Fort Meade ACEC, which 

would reduce its size. This alternative would maintain contiguous blocks of vegetation and habitat on 

BLM-administered lands. Restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in sensitive wildlife 

habitats would generally be more prohibitive under Alternative B than Alternative A, and the size of 

protective buffers (e.g., for ROWs) would increase around areas of specific management concern, such 

as occupied GRSG leks, big game/GRSG wintering areas, and sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

Stipulations would be at the minimal level to protect resources. Under Alternative B, 267,445 surface 

acres (approximately 98 percent) would be available for locatable mineral entry, and only 6,900 surface 

acres would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Approximately 1,708,777 

acres (99 percent) of BLM-administered mineral estate (subsurface estate) would be available for 

locatable mineral entry. 

The Fort Meade Recreation Area ACEC (6,574 acres) and Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 acres) and 

subsurface estate (minerals) under Bear Butte (410 acres) would be recommended for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry. Under Alternative B, approximately 30,246 surface acres (11 percent) and 

282,296 mineral acres (16 percent) would be open without BLM restrictions, other than standard terms 

and conditions. The Fort Meade Recreation Area ACEC (6,574 acres) would be closed to exploration 

and development of leasable minerals. The Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 acres) would be closed to oil and 

gas leasing. 

Alternative B was not selected because it did not provide adequate protections for GRSG. South Dakota 

Game, Fish, and Parks did not develop Core Areas for GRSG until December 2014. The BLM reviewed 

these Core Areas and determined that the PHMAs in Alternative B were not adequate. In addition, 

Alternative B provided limited protection of other resources by leaving more acres open to renewable 

energy development and general ROWs. Alternative B provides less protection of special status species 

and less intensive management of recreation than Alternative D. For these reasons Alternative B was 

not selected. 
3. Alternatives 

3-10 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

3.1.2.3 Alternative C 

Bighorn Basin (which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

Alternative C emphasizes resource development and use and development and resource extraction, 

while placing fewer restrictions on protecting habitat for GRSG; it defines different restrictions for 

PHMAs and GHMAs. Alternative C emphasizes resource uses and reduces constraints on resource uses 

to protect physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources. Compared to the other alternatives, 

Alternative C conserves the least land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources, designates 

the fewest ACECs and SRMAs, and is the least restrictive to motorized vehicle use and energy and 

mineral development. It was not selected for the ARMP because it does not adequately protect 

resource values. 

Under Alternative C, 4,155,119 acres are available for locatable mineral entry and 48,095 acres are 

withdrawn or would be recommended for withdrawal or extension of an existing withdrawal. Existing 

withdrawals and segregations not carried forward are allowed to expire. In addition, approximately 

145,836 acres of Federal mineral estate are closed to oil and gas leasing in the Planning Area. The 

remaining Federal mineral estate in the Planning Area is open to oil and gas leasing, subject to the 

following constraints: 2,565,742 acres are subject to the standard lease form, 1,334,491 acres are subject 

to moderate constraints, and 91,956 acres are subject to major constraints. Alternative C delineates oil 

and gas management areas around intensively developed existing fields; the BLM manages these areas 

primarily for oil and gas exploration and development, with all other surface uses considered secondary. 

Alternative C makes 3,859,251 acres available for mineral materials disposal, while 343,962 acres are 

closed to mineral materials disposal. 

Under this alternative, the BLM manages none of the 20 eligible wild and scenic river waterways as 

suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System and releases these areas for other 

uses. Alternative C limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the 10 wilderness study 

areas (WSAs). 

Under Alternative C, the BLM generally manages physical resources similar to Alternative A but with 

fewer management requirements and more allowance for the case-by-case application of management 

actions. 

Alternative C did not adequately balance resource protections with resource uses; resource protections 

were determined to be inadequate for most resources, including GRSG. 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

Alternative C emphasizes commodity production, such as forage and minerals, as well as motorized 

recreation access and services. Under this alternative, constraints on commodity production for 

protecting sensitive resources would be the least restrictive possible within the limits defined by law, 

regulation, and BLM policy; this includes the ESA, cultural resource protection laws, and wetland 

preservation. Under this alternative, constraints to protect sensitive resources would tend to be 

implemented in specified geographic areas rather than across the entire Planning Area. Generally, the 

impacts on GRSG would be greater than those described under Alternatives B and D, with less 

protection to wildlife resources due to smaller buffers and fewer avoidance areas for ROWs and other 

potential development. 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-11

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C would have the fewest restraints on commodity 

production and recreation access. Only 29,714 acres would be managed for VRM Class I and 26,569 

acres for VRM Class II. Four tracts (3,379 acres) surrounded by WSA would be managed for lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Alternative C would conserve the smallest amount of land for physical, 

biological, and heritage resources; nine ACECs would be retained and two new ACECs would be 

designated, (67,079 acres); there would be some restrictions on resource uses such as ROWs 

(exclusion areas 39,491 acres) and mineral development (29 percent of the Federal mineral estate would 

be closed to mineral materials sales and development, 5 percent would be recommended for withdrawal 

from mineral entry, 30 percent would be closed to coal leasing, and 7 percent would not be available for 

fluid mineral leasing). 

Under Alternative C, 4,223 acres would be identified for disposal, and two ROW utility corridors would 

be identified. Renewable energy development would be closed on 19 percent of the BLM-administered 

surface. Livestock grazing would be permitted on 386,822 acres (28,622 acres closed to livestock 

grazing). Eleven SRMAs would be designated and 24,049 acres would be closed to target shooting for 

safety and resource concerns. 

Eleven TMAs would be established under Alternative C, and OHV use would be limited to existing 

roads and trails, except in the 11 TMAs where OHV use would be limited to designated routes. The 

Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Herd Management Area would be the largest under this 

alternative—44,855 acres, or all surface ownerships. None of the 14.08 miles of eligible river segments 

would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, and 

none would be managed to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, free-flowing nature, and 

tentative classification. 

While Alternative C represented an approach to land management that addressed many of issues, 

management concerns, and purpose and need, it was not selected because it did not sufficiently address 

GRSG habitat concerns and did not quite achieve a balance between managing resources and resource 

uses. Alternative C was also not selected as the ARMP because it does not best achieve the mix of 

multiple uses. 

Buffalo 

Similar to the Bighorn Basin, Alternative C for Buffalo also emphasizes resource uses by limiting 

conservation measures afforded to physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources. Relative to all 

other alternatives, Alternative C conserves the least land area for physical, biological, and heritage 

resources and is the least restrictive to motorized vehicle use and mineral development. It is not based 

on PHMAs and GHMAs; it represents historic GRSG management with a 0.25-mile permanent 

protective zone around leks (NSO for fluid minerals) and a 2-mile seasonally restricted zone around leks 

during the breeding and nesting seasons. 

Alternative C allows additional recreation facilities in areas where they are supported by recreational 

use and are consistent with other resource values. Generally, Alternative C does not apply specific 

limitations on surface disturbance or mineral development and manages recreational areas consistent 

with other resource values. 
3. Alternatives 

3-12 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Under Alternative C, mineral resource uses are subject to fewer constraints than under the other 

alternatives. No withdrawals from locatable mineral entry are recommended under Alternative C; all 

3,319,535 acres currently open would remain open to locatable mineral entry within the Planning Area. 

Under Alternative C, the BLM would open all coal lands to exploration and leasing, resulting in zero 

acres closed to coal exploration and leasing and 4,775,136 acres open to coal exploration and leasing. 

The entire Federal fluid mineral estate is open for leasing, subject to the following constraints: 

539,499 acres are subject to standard stipulations only, 40,437 acres are subject to minor constraints, 

2,472,472 acres are subject to moderate constraints, and 303,601 acres are subject to major constraints. 

Approximately 4,707,436 acres are open to leasing of other minerals, such as phosphates and sodium. 

Alternative C would also open 3,290,908 acres to salable mineral exploration and development and 

would close or restrict 57,213 acres to salable mineral exploration and development. 

Livestock grazing under Alternative C is limited or prohibited only in those areas where it is currently 

prohibited under Alternative A. Livestock grazing is generally managed with less emphasis on providing 

for other resource values than the other alternatives. For example, Alternative C authorizes permanent 

increases in forage allocations to livestock grazing as the first priority and wildlife habitat and watershed 

protection as the second priority. 

Alternative C does not designate any ACECs. Lands with wilderness characteristics are managed to 

follow the management within the surrounding areas and not to emphasize primitive recreational 

opportunities and natural values. 

This alternative was not selected in the ARMP because it does not best achieve the mix of multiple uses. 

Alternative C did not adequately balance resource protections with resource uses; resource protections 

were determined to be inadequate for most resources, including GRSG. 

HiLine 

Alternative C would place fewer constraints on resource uses than Alternative B but more than 

Alternative A. Alternative C places moderate protections on land area for physical, biological, and 

heritage resources, while placing moderate restrictions on ROW and mineral development. Under this 

alternative, 37 percent of the Planning Area would be open to fluid mineral leasing with NSO 

stipulations, and 48 percent would be open with conditions on surface use and TLs. The total acres 

managed as RMAs would decrease, compared to Alternative A. Grazing use allocations would be the 

same as Alternative A. Alternative C would designate three new ACECs. 

Alternative C would not designate SFAs and does not include the additional protections for GRSG 

habitat that are in Alternative E. This alternative offers a somewhat balanced approach to resource 

development and the protection of sensitive resources in the Planning Area. However, it does not 

include the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM specialists who provided knowledgeable 

information to enhance the proposed management actions; therefore, Alternative C was not selected 

for the ARMP. 

Miles City 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C would focus on allowing resource uses (e.g., energy 

and mineral development and other commodity uses), while providing moderate protection to sensitive 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-13

resources (including GRSG habitat and lands with wilderness characteristics). Alternative C would 

exclude wind and solar energy from 36 percent of the lands. It would close 2 percent of the mineral 

estate to fluid mineral leasing and would prescribe an NSO stipulation to 5 percent of the mineral estate 

that is available for leasing. Alternative C would not recommend any areas for locatable mineral estate 

for withdrawal, would make less than 1 percent unavailable for livestock grazing, and would exclude 

ROWs from 24 percent of the lands. 

While offering some protection of sensitive resources, Alternative C was not selected because it did not 

provide for management of multiple uses to ensure the sustainability of the natural resources (including 

GRSG habitat) into the future. 

South Dakota 

Alternative C would provide the highest level of resource protection and would place the most 

constraints on resource uses. While Alternative C would provide the greatest degree of protection of 

GRSG by closing leasable minerals and recommending a withdrawal of locatable minerals, it protects 

fewer acres of GRSG habitat because the PHMAs are smaller than Alternative D’s PHMAs. 

Under Alternative C, 173,663 surface acres (approximately 63 percent) would be available for locatable 

mineral entry; 100,576 acres (37 percent) would be recommended for withdrawal or extension of an 

existing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Areas recommended for withdrawal would include 

GRSG PHMAs, Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs, and Federal minerals under Bear Butte. In contrast 

to the other alternatives, Alternative C would manage all GRSG PHMAs as an ACEC and would close 

PHMAs to oil and gas development and exploration. Approximately 100,576 mineral acres (6 percent) 

would be recommended to be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, and 1,615,101 acres of mineral 

estate would be available for locatable mineral entry (94 percent). Under Alternative C, only 26,674 

surface acres (10 percent) and 258,650 mineral acres (15 percent) would be open to mineral leasing 

without BLM restrictions, other than standard terms and conditions. 

Alternative C would provide for larger GRSG PHMAs than Alternative B but would provide smaller 

PHMAs than Alternative D (Alternative A would create no PHMAs). Total PHMAs acres would include 

93,266 BLM-administered surface acres (34 percent) and 289,563 acres of Federal minerals subsurface 

estate (17 percent). 

Alternative C was not selected as the ARMP because information from South Dakota Game, Fish, and 

Parks revealed that larger PHMAs were needed to effectively manage GRSG habitat in a manner 

consistent with the GRSG Core Areas that were developed by South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. In 

addition, various restrictions under Alternative C were beyond the minimum needed to adequately 

protect resources. These restrictions would have been difficult to implement on landscape with a highly 

intermingled landownership pattern. Alternative C would have created the highest adverse economic 

impacts of the alternatives. 

3.1.2.4 Alternative D 

Bighorn Basin (includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

Alternative D (the preferred alternative, proposed plan, and now the ARMP) generally increases 

conservation of physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources compared to current management. 

Alternative D also emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses, while applying specific 
3. Alternatives 

3-14 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

reclamation and mitigation requirements to reduce impacts on resource values. For example, 

Alternative D delineates oil and gas management areas to be managed primarily for oil and gas 

exploration and development, while vegetation resources are managed to maintain contiguous blocks of 

native plant communities. 

Under Alternative D, approximately 292,353 acres of Federal mineral estate are closed to oil and gas 

leasing in the Planning Area; the rest is open to oil and gas leasing subject to the following constraints: 

911,814 acres are subject to the standard lease form, 1,714,685 acres are subject to moderate 

constraints, and 1,221,142 acres are subject to major constraints. Alternative D delineates oil and gas 

management areas to be managed primarily for oil and gas exploration and development. Alternative D 

refines stipulations for protecting big game, geologic features, recreation, and limited reclamation 

potential soils for oil and gas‐related surface disturbances within the Absaroka Front (130,872 acres), 

Fifteenmile (180,186 acres), and Big Horn Front (379,308 acres) master leasing plan analysis areas. 

Alternative D designates more recreation management areas than Alternative A, including SRMAs, 

recreation management zones, and ERMAs. Other resource uses, such as minerals development, are 

typically allowed in these areas if the adverse impacts can be mitigated. Under Alternative D, the BLM 

closes the same acreage in the Planning Area to livestock grazing as Alternative A (5,009 acres). 

However, unlike Alternative A, grazing is allowed in closed areas as a tool to maintain or improve 

resource conditions. Alternative D includes 12 ACECs: the nine existing areas and three new ACECs. 

Compared to current management (Alternative A), Alternative D generally applies greater restrictions 

on surface disturbance and disruptive activities to protect sensitive wildlife habitats, including occupied 

GRSG leks. Alternative D implements the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy. For GRSG, 

constraints on resource uses are greater in PHMAs than outside it. For example, the BLM would apply 

an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of GRSG leks in PHMAs and within 0.25 mile of occupied GRSG leks 

outside of PHMAs. 

Alternative D was selected as the ARMP for the Cody and Worland Field Offices because it best 

achieves the mix of multiple uses. It balances resource protections, including GRSG, with resource uses 

to protect resources while achieving sustainable resource development. 

Alternative D balances the use and conservation of Planning Area resources. This alternative allows 

resource use if the activity can be conducted in a manner that protects physical, biological, heritage, and 

visual resources. Alternative D emphasizes moderate constraints on resource uses (for example, mineral 

development) and reclamation and mitigation requirements to protect resource values. 

In reviewing the alternatives, incorporating current knowledge on existing and reasonably foreseeable 

development opportunities, and comparing them to the existing decisions (Alternative A), the BLM 

determined that Alternative D, the Proposed Plan, provided the most balanced management direction. 

Issues brought forth during scoping coupled with the analysis conducted in the Draft EIS and Final EIS 

ultimately formed the basis of the ARMP. It achieves a balanced approach of key issues raised during the 

RMP process so that some areas are emphasized for resource development and others for resource 

protections. 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-15

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

Alternative D incorporates elements from each of the alternatives to strike a balance between longterm conservation of public land and resources in the Planning Area with commodity production, 

recreational access, and services. Alternative D also identifies resource management actions in 

accordance with the multiple-use and sustained yield mandates of FLPMA. The total acreage for the 

ACECs strikes a balance between the acreages of Alternative B and Alternative C; in some cases the 

management activities allowed in the ACECs is as restrictive as Alternative B. Alternative D provides a 

consistent framework for managing GRSG and its habitat on BLM-administered lands. It also provides a 

layered management approach that offers the highest level of protection for GRSG in the most valuable 

habitat. 

Alternative D would strike a balance between long-term conservation of public land and resources with 

commodity production, recreation access, and services. Under Alternative D, 29,714 acres would be 

managed as VRM Class I and 55,883 acres as VRM Class II. Nine tracts in and next to WSAs would be 

managed for lands with wilderness characteristics (13,653 acres). 

Alternative D strikes a balance in conservation of land for physical, biological, and heritage resources; 

nine ACECs would be retained and two new ACECs would be designated (38,786 acres). Some 

additional restrictions would be placed on resource uses, such as ROWs (exclusion areas 48,258 acres) 

and mineral development; 32 percent of the Federal mineral estate would be closed to mineral materials 

sales and development, 7 percent \would be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry, 25 

percent would be closed to coal leasing, and 7 percent would not be available for fluid mineral leasing. 

Alternative D would identify 264 acres for disposal and two ROW utility corridors would be identified. 

Renewable energy development would be closed on 53 percent of the BLM-administered surface. 

Livestock grazing would be permitted on 386,057 acres (28,387 acres closed to livestock grazing). Nine 

SRMAs and two ERMAs would be designated, and 31,586 acres would be closed to target shooting for 

safety and resource concerns. Eleven TMAs would be established under this alternative, and OHV use is 

limited to existing roads and trails except in the 11 TMAs where OHV use is limited to designated 

routes. The Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Herd Management Area would be 39,944 acres (all 

surface ownerships). 

Two river segments would be managed for and recommended as eligible river segments (3.15 miles) for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, 

free-flowing nature, and tentative classification. 

Alternative D was selected as the ARMP because it represents an approach to land management that 

addresses the issues, management concerns, and purpose and need, while balancing resources and 

resource uses. The multitude of resources within the Planning Area, coupled with the requirement to 

manage for multiple uses and sustained yield, requires developing alternatives across a continuous 

spectrum from resource conservation to resource development. 

Buffalo 

Alternative D (the preferred alternative, proposed plan, and now the ARMP) generally allows for 

resource use if the activity could be conducted to conserve physical, biological, heritage, and visual 

resources. Under Alternative D, mineral resource uses are subject to less extensive constraints than 
3. Alternatives 

3-16 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

under Alternative B but more than either Alternatives A or C. Alternative D would designate the 

second most lands as SRMAs and ACECs, while emphasizing moderate constraints on resource uses to 

reduce impacts on resource values. Alternative D places few universal constraints on resource uses and 

instead allows activities if they meet certain requirements designed to mitigate impacts on resource 

values. Alternative D would emphasize the use of designated corridors and would manage fewer acres 

as ROW exclusion for renewable energy development, compared with Alternative B. Lands with 

wilderness characteristics would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics and emphasize 

ecosystem health, natural values, and primitive recreation opportunities. 

Compared to current management (Alternative A), Alternative D generally applies greater restrictions 

on surface disturbance and disruptive activities to protect sensitive wildlife habitats, including occupied 

GRSG leks. Alternative D implements the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Strategy. For GRSG, 

constraints on resource uses are greater in PHMAs than outside it. For example, the BLM would apply 

an NSO stipulation within 0.6 mile of GRSG leks in PHMAs and within 0.25 mile of occupied GRSG leks 

outside of PHMAs. 

In reviewing the alternatives, incorporating current knowledge on existing and reasonably foreseeable 

development opportunities, and comparing it to Alternative A, the BLM determined that Alternative D, 

the Proposed Plan, provided the most balanced management direction. Issues brought forth during 

scoping, coupled with the analysis conducted in the Draft EIS and Final EIS, ultimately formed the basis of 

the ARMP. It achieves a balanced approach of key issues raised during the RMP process so that some 

areas are emphasized for resource development and others for resource protections. 

This alternative was selected as the ARMP because it best achieves the mix of multiple uses. Alternative 

D balances resource protections, including GRSG, with resource uses to protect resources while 

achieving sustainable resource development. 

HiLine 

Compared to Alternatives B, C, and E, Alternative D emphasizes resource uses and reduces constraints 

on resource uses to protect physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources. Compared to other 

alternatives, Alternative D conserves the least land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources 

and is the least restrictive to ROW and mineral development. The BLM would manage slightly fewer 

acres as open to salable and leasable minerals compared to Alternative A. Alternative D would result in 

no designated utility corridors, 2 exclusion areas, and 13 avoidance areas. It would have fewer acres 

managed as open for wind energy ROWs but would also have the least amount of wind energy ROW 

exclusion area of any alternative (except Alternative A). Alternative D limits motorized vehicle use to 

designated roads and trails; it would designate 12 areas (97,100 acres) as SRMAs and 2 areas (200 acres) 

as ERMAs. Grazing use allocations would be the same as Alternative A. The BLM would manage ACECs 

and lands with wilderness characteristics consistent with other resource objectives. Three new ACECs 

would be established under this alternative. 

This alternative was not selected as the ARMP because it provided too few protections for sensitive 

resources and sustainability of BLM lands in the Planning Area; therefore, it does not provide an 

appropriate balance of multiple uses. 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-17

Miles City 

Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative D provides for the widest range of uses and emphasizes 

these commodity uses over the protection of sensitive resources (include GRSG habitat and lands with 

wilderness characteristics). Alternative D would result in the following: 

 Exclude wind and solar energy from 4 percent of the lands 

 Close 2 percent of the mineral estate to fluid mineral leasing 

 Prescribe an NSO stipulation to 2 percent of the mineral estate that is available for leasing 

 Not recommend any areas for locatable mineral estate for withdrawal 

 Make less than 1 percent unavailable for livestock grazing 

 Exclude ROWs from 4 percent of the lands 

This alternative was also not selected as the ARMP for the Miles City Field Office because it provided 

too few protections for sensitive resources and sustainability of BLM-managed lands in the Planning 

Area; therefore, it does not provide an appropriate balance of multiple uses. 

South Dakota 

Alternative D (the preferred alternative, proposed plan, and now the ARMP), would provide an 

intermediate degree of restriction compared to Alternatives B and C, while providing more specific 

direction to protect resources and manage resource uses. It would emphasize moderate constraints on 

resource uses, including NSO stipulations on fluid minerals and ROW avoidance areas (e.g., in PHMAs 

and GHMAs) for major ROWs, with more restrictive exclusion areas in ACECs. Renewable energy 

ROW exclusion areas would apply in PHMAs and other sensitive habitat areas. 

In general, the stipulations under Alternative D would provide an intermediate degree of restriction, 

compared to Alternatives B and C. Alternative D would provide more specific direction to protect 

resources and manage resource uses than Alternative A. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, stipulations 

would not be limited to oil and gas production; they may be applied to other resource uses when 

needed to protect or manage resources and resource uses. 

Under Alternative D, 267,035 surface acres (97 percent) would be available for locatable mineral entry 

and 7,310 acres (3 percent) would be recommended for withdrawal. Areas recommended for 

withdrawal include the Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs and Federal minerals under Bear Butte. 

Approximately 1,708,367 acres of mineral estate would be available for locatable mineral entry. Under 

Alternative D, 62,236 surface acres (22 percent) and 500,399 mineral acres (29 percent) would be open 

to fluid mineral leasing without BLM restrictions other than standard terms and conditions. 

Alternative D was selected as the ARMP because the PHMAs in Alternative D would include the same 

areas as South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks GRSG Core Areas. South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

did not develop GRSG Core Areas until late in the RMP planning process, and after reviewing its data, 

the BLM changed the areas that were included in PHMAs under Alternative D. This would allow more 

consistent management of GRSG and would protect more habitat. This alternative would apply specific 

management for all resources and resource uses, while balancing the long-term demand for resource 

uses throughout the Planning Area. It provides additional protection of special status species throughout 
3. Alternatives 

3-18 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

the Planning Area. Overall, this alternative provides the best balance of management actions to meet the 

long-term demand for resource use while conserving resources. 

3.1.2.5 Alternative E 

Bighorn Basin (which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

Management under Alternative E is the same as under Alternative B, except that it designates GRSG Key 

Habitat Areas (PHMAs) as an ACEC (1,232,583 acres) for the conservation of GRSG priority habitat. 

Alternative E manages disturbances (e.g., roads, oil and gas wells, and pipelines) in the GRSG Key 

Habitat Areas ACEC to not exceed 1 disturbance per 640 acres and to cover less than 3 percent of the 

total GRSG habitat. It also requires beneficial reclamation and rehabilitation activities that prioritize 

reestablishment of native vegetation communities in sagebrush steppe communities. 

Due to additional management actions associated with the GRSG Key Habitat Areas ACEC, Alternative 

E exceeds the other alternatives in the amount of land conserved for physical, biological, heritage, and 

visual resources, the number of designated ACECs (18), and restrictions on minerals, ROWs, and 

renewable energy development. 

Under Alternative E, 2,433,901 acres are available and 1,759,312 acres are recommended for withdrawal 

or extension of an existing withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. Alternative E does not delineate oil 

and gas management areas and manages leasable minerals the same as Alternative B. Alternative E makes 

1,059,062 acres available for mineral materials disposal, while 3,144,151 acres are closed to mineral 

materials disposal. Under Alternative E, travel management designations, including areas open to 

motorized vehicle use and over snow travel, are the same as Alternative B; however, Alternative E 

prohibits new road construction within 4 miles of active GRSG leks and requires the development of 

travel management plans that minimize impacts on their habitat. In addition, routes within GRSG Key 

Habitat Areas would be managed under a seasonal closure restricting motorized use from March 15 

through June 30. The scale of this additional ACEC and the limitations on surface disturbances and road 

development, as well as withdrawal of locatable minerals, closure to mineral materials disposal, ROW 

development, and renewable energy development it includes result in greater overall resource 

protection under Alternative E than under the other alternatives. 

Alternative E was not selected as the ARMP for the Cody and Worland Field Offices because it did not 

achieve a balance between managing resources and resource uses. Moreover, 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. 

HiLine 

Alternative E is similar to Alternative C but also considers the recommendations of cooperating 

agencies and BLM specialists. Under this alternative, six existing ACECs would be continued and four 

new ACECs would be designated. About 63 percent of the Planning Area would be exclusion areas for 

wind energy ROWs. Four existing mineral withdrawals would also be continued (20,058 acres). 

Alternative E also includes specific protections for GRSG habitat and designates PHMAs, GHMAs, and 

SFAs. Alternative E would provide a balanced approach to the amount of land conserved for physical, 

biological, heritage, and visual resources, while placing major constraints on minerals, ROWs, and wind 

energy development. 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-19

This alternative was selected as the ARMP because it provided the most balanced approach to multipleuse and sustainability of BLM-administered lands, while offering a high degree of resource protection in 

specific areas. 

Miles City 

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative E would allow resource uses (e.g., energy and mineral 

development and other commodity uses) while providing protection to sensitive resources, including 

GRSG habitat. It contains management actions that provide for the protection of an area for lands with 

wilderness characteristics. Additional management actions for four areas of lands with wilderness 

characteristics are designed to benefit and limit impacts by limiting surface disturbance and the intrusion 

of human presence. 

Key components of Alternative E would exclude wind and solar energy from 33 percent of the lands; it 

would close 2 percent of the mineral estate to fluid mineral leasing and would prescribe an NSO 

stipulation to 39 percent of the mineral estate that is available for leasing. It would not recommend any 

areas for locatable mineral estate for withdrawal and would make less than 1 percent unavailable for 

livestock grazing. It would exclude ROWs from 3 percent of the lands. 

Alternative E was selected as the ARMP because it provided the most balanced approach to multiple-use 

and sustainability of BLM-administered lands while offering a high degree of resource protection in 

sensitive areas. 

3.1.2.6 Alternative F 

Bighorn Basin (which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

Management under Alternative F is the same as under Alternative D, except that Alternative F 

designates GRSG Core Areas (PHMAs) as an ACEC for the conservation of GRSG priority habitat. 

Additionally, Alternative F manages nine areas to maintain their wilderness characteristics; the remaining 

lands with wilderness characteristics under Alternative F would not be specifically managed to maintain 

their wilderness characteristics. Management for livestock grazing under Alternative F would be the 

same as Alternative D, except within the GRSG PHMAs ACEC, where additional restrictions on 

livestock grazing would incorporate GRSG habitat management objectives. Here, the BLM manages the 

density of disturbance to not exceed an average of 1 disruptive activity location per 640 acres and cover 

less than 3 percent of the total GRSG PHMAs. Alternative F delineates the same oil and gas management 

areas as Alternative D but applies additional restrictions for protecting GRSG where these areas overlap 

the GRSG PHMAs ACEC. 

This alternative was not selected as the ARMP because it limited the use of public land in PHMAs and 

GHMAs to such as extent that it did not give adequate accommodation to local needs, customs, and 

culture and therefore did not provide an appropriate balance of multiple uses. 

3.1.2.7 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 NEPA 

regulations defines that term to mean the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances 
3. Alternatives 

3-20 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. Under that definition, the following alternatives, as presented in 

Proposed RMPs/Final EISs, are the most environmentally preferable: 

 Bighorn Basin—Alternative B 

 Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument—Alternative B 

 Buffalo—Alternative B 

 HiLine—Alternative B 

 Miles City—Alternative B 

 South Dakota—Alternative C 

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” (Section 101 of NEPA). FLPMA Section 302 requires 

the BLM to manage the public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield. 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 Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 USC, Section 

21a) as it pertains to the public lands.” For these reasons, the alternatives described as being 

environmentally preferable were not selected in their entirety as the ARMPs. 

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 Chapter 2 of each of the sub-regional Proposed RMPs and 

RMPAs/Final EISs. 

Lewistown 

 NTT conservation measures not applicable to the Lewistown Field Office 

 Elimination of livestock grazing from all BLM-administered lands 

North Dakota 

 NTT conservation measures not applicable to North Dakota 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-21

 Elimination of livestock grazing from BLM-administered lands 

Northwest Colorado 

 ACEC proposal applied to all GRSG designated habitat 

 Garfield County Alternative 

Wyoming 

 Alternatives that include stipulations for protection of GRSG habitat from oil shale 

resources 

 Closure of GRSG habitat to OHV use 

 FWS listing with associated conservation measures 

 Designation of all GRSG general habitat as ACECs or Forest Service special interest areas 

Bighorn Basin 

 Recommend mineral withdrawals across the Planning Area 

 Suspend or eliminate all existing Federal minerals leasing 

 Require directional drilling 

 Remove all stipulations and restrictions from oil and gas leases 

 Phased oil and gas development 

 Phased oil and gas leasing 

 No new oil and gas leasing 

 Require reinjection of all produced water 

 Emphasize the protection of resources by removing human uses 

 Manage herd areas for wild horses within the original herd area boundaries 

 Designate a wild horse or burro range 

 Prohibit or exclude wind energy development, oil and gas leasing, OHV use, and livestock 

grazing 

 Provide no net gain in BLM-administered public lands 

 Limit travel to only existing roads and trails 

 Permit no livestock grazing 

 Allow no net loss of grazing animal unit months 

 Close all big game crucial winter range to livestock grazing 

 Open OHV “play” areas

 Remove existing ACECs

 Recommend withdrawals for WSAs 
3. Alternatives 

3-22 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

 Eliminating livestock grazing from BLM-administered lands 

 OHV rock crawl area proposed in Petroglyph Canyon ACEC 

 Steamboat Butte and Sykes Ridge ACEC proposals 

 Conservation groups alternative 

Buffalo 

 Preserve minimum instream flows

 Recommend mineral withdrawal across the Planning Area 

 Suspend or eliminate all existing Federal fluid mineral leasing 

 Close to fluid mineral leasing 

 Phase fluid mineral development 

 Prohibit surface water disposal of produced water

 Require produced water to be returned to aquifers 

 Require produced water to be put to beneficial use 

 Emphasize the protection of resources by removing human uses 

 Apply the NTT conservation measures to priority habitat

 Permit no development within occupied GRSG habitat 

 Clearly mark the boundaries of public lands 

 Close all public lands to motorized vehicles or limit travel to existing roads and trails only 

 Permit no livestock grazing 

 Permit no net loss of grazing animal unit months

 Allow new WSAs 

HiLine 

 Conservation groups alternative

 Master leasing plan 

 No bison grazing 

 No livestock grazing/reduced grazing 

 Use a backcountry conservation area designation 

Miles City 

 Reevaluate WSA recommendations 

 Consider alternative management for nonenergy leasable minerals 

 Consider alternative management for geothermal resources 
3. Alternatives 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-23

 Designate major transportation and energy corridors

 Theodore Roosevelt Partnership Sportsmen Area Alternative 

 No livestock grazing alternative 

 Conservation groups alternative 

South Dakota 

 Conservation groups alternative 

 Develop a CSU for GRSG PHMAs 

 Western Heritage alternative 

 Eliminate or reduce livestock grazing 
3. Alternatives 

3-24 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-1

CHAPTER 4 

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS—RATIONALE 

FOR ARMPS (PLAN REVISIONS) 

Section 1.8 of this ROD has a discussion of management considerations (rationale for approving the 

RMP decisions) for the ARMPAs and the GRSG habitat management decisions in the ARMPs (plan 

revisions). 

As mentioned previously, this ROD is also approving RMP decisions for several other BLM resources 

and resource uses, aside from GRSG habitat management for the RMP revisions (the Billings, Buffalo, 

Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National Monument, South Dakota, and Worland ARMPs). 

Table 4-1 is a summary of the major resources and resource uses management decisions contained in 

the ARMPs as compared to prior RMP management decisions. 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Bighorn Basin (Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

Air Analyze activities with expected impacts 

on air resources. Modeling may be 

performed on a case-by-case basis.

The ARMP would provide additional air 

emission control measures and 

strategies within the BLM’s regulatory 

authority and in consultation with 

stakeholders if proposed or committed 

measures are insufficient to achieve air 

quality goals and objectives. Quantitative 

air quality analyses (i.e., modeling) for 

project-specific developments may be 

required on a case-by-case basis in 

consultation with state, Federal, and 

tribal entities to determine the potential 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

impacts of proposed air emissions. 

Modeling may be performed to 

determine the effectiveness of mitigation 

strategies.

Cultural 

Resources 

Surface disturbance is restricted on or 

near cultural sites on a case-by-case basis.

CSU up to 3 miles where setting is an 

important aspect of the integrity for the 

cultural site.

Fire Ecology 

and 

Management

Use wildland fires (wildfires managed for 

resource benefit and prescribed fires) to 

restore fire-adapted ecosystems and

reduce hazardous fuels. Use mechanical, 

chemical, and biological treatments across 

the landscape as needed to restore 

vegetative diversity and reduce the risk of 

unnatural fire within those ecosystems.

Use wildland fires (wildfires managed for 

resource benefit and prescribed fires) 

and other vegetation treatments to 

restore fire‐adapted ecosystems, reduce 

hazardous fuels, and accomplish 

resource management objectives. Using

wildland fire for these purposes will 

comply with the restrictions associated 

with GRSG habitat management.

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Apply restrictions to sensitive, special 

status, and threatened and endangered

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas.

The ARMP would provide more specific 

direction to protect resources and 

manage resource uses than prior 

management. Under the ARMP, 

stipulations would not be limited to oil 

and gas production; they may be applied 

to other resource uses as applicable and 

when needed to protect or manage 

resources and resource uses. Some 

discretionary seasonal restrictions would 

be relaxed for big game species in Oil 

and Gas Management Areas.

Management in master leasing plan

analysis areas would protect wildlife 

habitat.

Fluid Minerals 1,354,593 acres open with standard lease 

terms; 889,435 acres open with major 

constraints 1,633,204 acres open with 

moderate constraints. Fluid minerals are 

closed for leasing on 260,792 acres

911,814 acres open with standard lease 

terms; 1,221,142 acres open with major 

constraints; 1,714,685 acres open with 

moderate constraints. Fluid minerals 

closed for leasing on 292,353 acres;

348,617 acres open where some 

discretionary seasonal restrictions would 

be relaxed for big game species

Forest and 

Woodland 

Products

Allow pre-commercial thinning in 

overstocked areas and regenerated timber 

sale areas when trees in those areas reach 

the 20- to 30-year age class.

Allow pre-commercial thinning when 

trees reach the 10- to 20-year age class 

or when the regenerated trees are 5- to 

15-feet tall.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-3

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

In important seasonal wildlife habitat areas,

generally restrict clear cuts to no more 

than 300 yards in any direction, unless a 

long-term benefit to wildlife habitat would 

result.

In important seasonal wildlife habitat 

areas, generally restrict clear cuts to no 

more than 300 yards in any direction, 

unless a long-term benefit to wildlife 

habitat would result. In addition, 

generally restrict clear cuts to no more 

than 100 acres unless salvaging dead or 

dying timber.

Lands and 

Realty 

115,905 acres are available for disposal;

3,071,909 will be retained under Federal

ownership; 940,943 acres would be 

managed as ROW avoidance areas;

61,147 acres would be managed as ROW 

exclusion areas. Existing ROW corridors 

are identified

66,363 acres are available for disposal;

3,071,909 will be retained under Federal

ownership; 2,408,662 acres would be 

managed as ROW avoidance areas;

40,802 acres would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas. No new ROW 

corridors are designated. New 

authorizations in existing corridors 

would be subject to management 

consistent with other resource 

objectives

Livestock 

Grazing 

The BLM allows livestock grazing on all but 

5,009 acres of the Planning Area.

Same as prior management direction.

Mineral 

Materials

228,649 acres are closed to mineral 

material sales. 

374,894 acres are closed to mineral 

material sales.

Recreation Seven areas managed as SRMAs and two 

areas managed as ERMAs.

Thirteen areas managed as SRMAs and 

five areas managed as ERMAs.

Renewable 

Energy 

Renewable energy ROWs would be 

authorized on a case-by-case basis.

Renewable energy ROWs would be 

avoided on 1,500,395 acres and excluded 

on 372,110 acres.

Soils and 

Water 

Soils—Apply guidelines and appropriate 

measures to all management actions 

(including reclamation) affecting soil health 

to decrease erosion and sedimentation, to 

achieve and maintain stability, and to 

support the hydrologic cycle by providing 

for water capture, storage, and release.

Water—Prohibit surface-disturbing 

activities within 500 feet of surface water 

and riparian/wetland areas, except

when such activities are necessary and 

when their impacts can be mitigated.

Soils—Same as prior management 

direction except require reclamation 

plans for all authorized surfacedisturbing activities.

Water—In addition to prohibiting

surface-disturbing activities within 500 

feet of surface water and 

riparian/wetland areas, the ARMP would 

also avoid surface-disturbing activities 

within 1⁄4 mile of any waters rated by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department as 

Blue Ribbon or Red Ribbon (trout 

streams of national or statewide 

importance), and would avoid activities 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

that could negatively affect water 

resources within a 1⁄4 mile around public 

water supply wells, and 1⁄4 mile on both 

sides of a river or stream, for 10 miles 

upstream of the public water supply 

intake.

Solid Minerals 72,861 acres recommended for locatable 

mineral withdrawal. 

Coal—Consider interest in exploration 

for, or leasing of, any Federal coal on a 

case-by-case basis. If an application for a 

Federal coal lease is received, conduct an 

appropriate land use and environmental 

analysis, including the coal screening 

process, to determine whether the area

proposed for leasing is acceptable for coal 

development and leasing (43 CFR 3425). If 

public lands are determined to be 

acceptable for further consideration for 

coal leasing, amend the RMP as necessary.

83,321 acres recommended for locatable 

mineral withdrawal.

Coal— At the time an application for a 

new coal lease or lease modification is 

submitted to the BLM, the BLM would 

determine whether the lease application 

area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal 

mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR 

3461.5. PHMAs are essential habitat for 

maintaining GRSG for purposes of the 

suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR

3461.5(o)(1).

Special 

Designations 

Manage 1,638 acres as the Nez Perce 

National Historic Trail Management 

Corridor and 27,317 acres eligible for 

Wild and Scenic River under National Wild 

and Scenic River System. Retain nine 

ACECs.

Manage 15,816 acres as the Nez Perce 

National Historic Trail Management 

Corridor and no acres eligible for Wild 

and Scenic River under the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Retain 

nine ACECs and designate three 

additional ACECs, for a total of twelve 

in the Planning Area.

Travel and 

Transportation 

Management 

1,311 acres managed as open to OHV use;

3,112,973 acres managed as limited to 

OHV use (limited to existing and 

designated roads and trails); 68,115 acres 

managed as closed to OHV use. 

5,885 acres managed as open to OHV 

use; 3,115,500 acres managed as limited 

to OHV use (limited to existing and 

designated roads and trails); 61,010 

acres managed as closed to OHV use.

Vegetation Manage 23,957 acres of riparian/wetlands 

towards proper functioning conditions.

Same as prior management direction.

Visual 

Resources 

Management 

7141,127 acres managed as VRM Class I;

340,784 acres managed as VRM Class II;

890,482 acres managed as VRM Class III;

1,815,043 acres managed as VRM Class IV.

141,127 acres managed as VRM Class I;

731,812 acres managed as VRM Class II;

738,531 acres managed as VRM Class III;

1,580,470 acres managed as VRM Class 

IV.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-5

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Wild Horse 

and Burro 

Management

Manage the Fifteenmile Herd Management 

Area for an initial AML of 70 to 160 wild 

horses, not counting foals, in an attempt to 

maintain a population of 100 adult wild 

horses adjusted as necessary based upon 

monitoring. Manage the McCullough Peaks 

Herd Management Area for an initial AML

of 70 to 140 wild horses, not counting 

foals, in an attempt to maintain a 

population of 100 adult wild horses 

adjusted as necessary based upon 

monitoring.

Same as prior management direction.

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

0 acres managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

Same as prior management direction.

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument

Air The BLM-authorized activities would 

stipulate requirements to reduce fugitive 

dust emissions from construction and sites 

with surface disturbance and from travel 

on high-traffic unpaved roads. Engine and 

stationary source emission control 

requirements would need to ensure 

compliance with NAAQS, MAAQS, 

WAAQS, and the Montana SIP.

Same as prior management decisions.

Cultural 

Resources 

Surface disturbance is restricted on 4,847 

acres on or near cultural sites. 

Surface disturbance is restricted on 

14,988 acres on or near cultural sites.

Fire Ecology 

and 

Management

Prescribed and non-prescribed fire fuels 

treatments would treat 6,280 acres over a 

10-year period. Over the 20-year life of 

this plan, approximately 20,806 acres of 

forest and woodlands would be available 

for potential treatment, with an estimated 

840 acres available for the sale of wood 

products, 160 acres of crested wheatgrass 

in rangelands would be treated, and 366 to 

5,548 acres of invasive species and noxious 

weeds would be treated per year.

Prescribed and non-prescribed fire fuels 

treatments would treat 21,700 acres 

over a 10-year period. Over the 20-year 

life of this plan, approximately 18,375 

acres of forest and woodlands would be 

available for potential treatment, with an 

estimated 1,780 acres available for the 

sale of wood products, and 12,000 acres 

of crested wheatgrass would be treated;

400 to 2,000 acres of invasive species 

and noxious weeds would be treated per 

year.

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Apply restrictions to sensitive, special 

status, and threatened and endangered

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

The ARMP would provide more specific 

direction to protect resources and 

manage resource uses than prior 

management. Under the ARMP, 

additional protections would not be 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

limited to oil and gas production; they 

may be applied to other resource uses 

when needed to protect or manage 

resources and resource uses. Also, the 

ARMP provides more NSO/CSU 

restrictions for the protection of fish and 

wildlife habitats.

Fluid Minerals 237,336 acres open with standard lease 

terms; 369,048 acres open with major and 

moderate constraints. Fluid minerals are 

not available for leasing on 61,100 acres. 

44,142 acres open with standard lease 

terms; 835,720 acres open with major 

and moderate constraints. Fluid minerals 

are not available for leasing on 60,359 

acres.

Lands and 

Realty 

7,463 acres available for disposal, with an 

additional 2,088 acres identified for further 

study. ROW exclusion and avoidance areas 

encompass 68,217 acres of the BLMadministered surface (ROW exclusion 

44,014 acres; ROW avoidance 24,203 

acres). One designated ROW corridor.

264 acres available for disposal; ROW 

exclusion and avoidance areas 

encompass 397,616 acres of the BLMadministered surface (ROW exclusion 

48,258 acres, ROW avoidance 378,958 

acres). There are two designated ROW 

corridors.

Livestock 

Grazing 

Livestock grazing would be permitted on 

387,057 acres, and 37,408 acres would be 

closed to livestock grazing. 

Livestock grazing would be permitted on 

387,057 acres, and 28,387 acres would 

be closed to livestock grazing.

Locatable 

Minerals

1,855 acres are withdrawn from mineral 

entry, and an additional 39,709 acres are 

recommended for closure to the mining 

laws. 

1,855 acres are withdrawn from mineral 

entry, and an additional 52,906 acres are 

recommended for closure to the mining 

laws.

Mineral 

Materials 

44,583 acres are closed to mineral material 

sales. 

281,597 acres are closed to mineral 

material sales.

Recreation Two areas managed as SRMAs and seven 

areas managed as ERMAs.

Nine areas managed as SRMAs and two 

areas managed as ERMAs.

Renewable 

Energy 

The BLM responds to proposals for 

renewable wind energy ROWs within the 

decision area on a case-by-case basis. The 

area of the BLM-administered surface 

closed to renewable wind energy ROWs is 

47,496 acres. 

BLM-administered surface open to 

renewable wind energy ROWs, but still 

subject to terms and conditions 

identified during the ROW application 

process, is 1,512 acres. The area of 

BLM-administered surface closed to 

renewable wind energy ROWs is 

231,775 acres.

Soil and Water Surface disturbance is restricted on 33,908 

acres of highly erosive soils and surface 

disturbance is restricted on 10,114 acres in 

riparian areas and floodplains.

Surface disturbance is restricted on 

169,719 acres of sensitive soils and rock 

outcrops, 7,563 acres in riparian areas 

and floodplains, and 2,068 acres in 

fishery habitats.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-7

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Solid Minerals Coal is closed to leasing on 26,131 acres. At the time an application for a new coal 

lease or lease modification is submitted, 

the BLM would determine whether the 

lease application area is “unsuitable” for 

all or certain coal mining methods,

pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are

essential habitat for maintaining GRSG 

for purposes of the suitability criteria set 

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

Coal is closed to leasing on 225,655 

acres.

Special 

Designations

Nine ACECs would be retained, totaling 

37,896 acres. Special designations also 

include the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse 

Range (37,494 acres) and the Lewis and 

Clark and Nez Perce National Historic 

Trails. Under Alternative A, the seven 

eligible river segments (14.08 miles) would 

be managed to protect their outstandingly 

remarkable values and free-flowing nature.

Nine ACECs would be retained and two 

new ACECs would be designated,

totaling 38,786 acres. Special 

designations also include the Pryor 

Mountain Wild Horse Range (39,944 

acres), four WSAs (28,703 acres), and 

the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce 

National Historic Trails. Two river 

segments (3.15 miles) are recommended 

as suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic River System.

Travel 

Management

TMAs are not delineated in the decision 

area. OHV use would be limited to existing 

roads and trails in the Planning Area;

however, motorized travel in Pryors, 

Acton, Shepherd Ah-Nei, and Horsethief 

would be restricted to designated routes. 

South Hills would be designated open for 

motorcycle use only. 

TMAs are delineated in the decision 

area. OHV use is limited to existing 

roads and trails, except in the 11 TMAs 

where OHV use is limited to designated 

routes. South Hills would be designated 

open for motorcycle use only.

Vegetation Some restrictions for certain activities in 

sensitive vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands).

The ARMP would increase the amount 

of restrictions on uses within sensitive 

vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands). Priority areas for vegetation 

treatments (e.g., weeds and conifer 

removal) are identified.

Visual 

Resources 

Management 

56,700 acres of VRM Class I; 13,507 acres 

of VRM Class II; 391,113 acres of VRM 

Class III; and 816 acres of VRM Class IV. 

29,714 acres of VRM Class I; 55,883 

acres of VRM Class II; 349,441 acres of 

VRM Class III; and 0 acres of VRM Class 

IV. 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Wild Horse 

and Burro 

Management

Herd Management Areas consists of 

24,595 acres of the BLM-administered 

surface. 

Herd Management Areas consists of 

27,094 acres of the BLM-administered 

surface. 

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

0 acres would be managed for wilderness 

characteristics.

13,653 acres would be managed for 

wilderness characteristics.

Buffalo

Air Analyze activities with expected impacts 

on air resources. Modeling may be 

performed on a case-by-case basis.

Requires quantitative modeling of 

industrial activities expected to result in 

emissions that may approach or exceed 

ambient air quality standards, in 

consultation with the Wyoming DEQ, to 

determine the potential impacts of 

proposed emission sources and potential 

mitigation strategies.

Cultural 

Resources 

NSO on 19,971 acres on or near cultural 

sites to protect their setting and integrity.

CSU on 179,189 acres and NSO on 

7,289 acres on or near cultural sites to 

protect their setting and integrity. 

Fire Ecology 

and 

Management

14,000 acres available for planned ignitions. Same as prior management decisions.

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Provides sufficient habitat for fish and 

wildlife.

Alternative D emphasizes protection of 

fish and wildlife resources by applying

moderate resource constraints and 

defining resource objectives.

Fluid Minerals 146,126 acres open with standard lease 

terms; 782,501 acres open with moderate 

constraints; 85,548 acres open with major 

constraints. Fluid minerals are closed for 

leasing on 2,346,307acres. 

135,909 acres open with standard lease 

terms; 2,516,826 acres open with 

moderate constraints; 556,592 acres 

open with major constraints. Fluid 

minerals are closed for leasing on 72,276 

acres. 

Forest and 

Woodland 

Products

Balances forest and woodland health with 

other resource uses, such as commercial 

timber production. Offers 9 million board 

feet of saw timber and 1 million board feet 

of minor green forest products from BLMadministered forestlands over a 10-year 

period and limits individual clear-cuts to 

less than 20 acres.

Offers commodity production while 

managing for long-term ecological health 

of forestland. Managed to remain within 

ecologically sustainable limits while 

maximizing economic return. The

designing/shaping of forest management 

areas is conducted in accordance with 

other resource values and within the 

limits of the Wyoming Forestry BMPs.

Lands and 

Realty 

Acres avoided and excluded from 

ROWs—Not applicable under prior 

management direction; 351,133 acres 

would be designated as utility corridors; 

321,149 acres would be managed as 

ROW avoidance areas; 79,777 acres 

would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas; 29,126 acres would be designated 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-9

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

108,243 acres available for disposal and 

673,859 acres identified for retention.

as major utility corridors; 120,722 acres 

available for disposal and 661,380 acres 

identified for retention.

Livestock 

Grazing 

772,102 acres are available for livestock 

grazing; 10,000 acres are incompatible for 

livestock grazing.

772,102 acres are available for livestock 

grazing; 9,992 acres are incompatible for 

livestock grazing.

Mineral 

Materials

3,319,248 acres open to mineral material 

development. Mineral material sales 

prohibited within the three WSAs’ 28,931 

acres.

2,725,060 acres open to mineral material 

development; 623,061 acres closed to 

mineral material development.

Recreation No areas designated as SRMAs or ERMAs. 

Planning area generally managed as one 

ERMA, with specific areas of recreation 

emphasis.

Seven areas managed as SRMAs, totaling 

54,160 acres. Eight areas managed as 

ERMAs, totaling 446,301 acres.

Renewable 

Energy 

Acres avoided and excluded from 

renewable energy ROWs—Not applicable 

under prior management direction.

Renewable energy ROWs would be 

avoided on 374,518 acres and excluded 

on 352,068 acres.

Soils and 

Water 

Limits surface-disturbing activities for the 

conservation of soil and water resources.

Land use activities to be considered 

where soil and water resource 

objectives can be met.

Solid Minerals No areas recommended for locatable 

mineral withdrawal; 1,685,947 acres 

acceptable for further consideration of 

coal leasing.

82,691 acres recommended for locatable 

mineral withdrawal; 1,685,947 acres 

acceptable for further consideration of 

coal leasing. For any new coal lease 

application, the BLM will determine 

whether the lease application area is 

“unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining 

methods, pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. 

Priority habitat (core population areas 

and core population connectivity 

corridors) is essential habitat for 

maintaining GRSG for purposes of the 

suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 

3461.5(o)(1).

Special 

Designations 

No ACECs, byways, or wild and scenic 

rivers; three WSAs, totaling 28,931 acres; 

one eligible wild and scenic river, totaling 

262,664 acres.

Two ACECs, totaling 2,847 acres; no

byways or wild and scenic rivers; three

WSAs, totaling 28,931 acres; one eligible

wild and scenic river, totaling 262,664 

acres.

Travel and 

Transportation 

Management 

3,650 acres closed to OHV use; 37,646 

acres seasonally closed to OHV use;

737,166 acres limited to designated roads 

and trails.

37,389 acres closed to OHV use; 81,948 

acres seasonally closed to OHV use;

661,726 acres limited to designated 

roads and trails.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-10 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Vegetation Vegetation treatments are designed to 

meet overall resource management 

objectives, consistent with the policy to 

protect or improve biodiversity and water 

quality.

Allows for resource uses where 

activities can be conducted that 

conserve vegetation and other resource 

values to meet Healthy Rangeland 

Standards and resource objectives.

Visual 

Resources 

Management 

0 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

127,594 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

65,583 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

559,674 acres managed as VRM Class IV.

0 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

112,329 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

379,429 acres managed as VRM Class III;

260,238 acres managed as VRM Class IV.

Wild Horse 

and Burro 

Management

Resource not present. Resource not present.

Wilderness 

Characteristics 

0 acres managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

One area of 6,864 acres would be 

managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

HiLine

Air Actions authorized on BLM-administered

land would comply with the Clean Air Act 

requirements, including the State of 

Montana Air Quality Implementation Plan, 

through the use of BMPs and the Air 

Resource Management Plan. Prescribed 

burns would be managed to comply with 

Montana DEQ smoke management rules 

and regulations.

Same as prior management decisions.

Cultural 

Resources 

The Little Rocky Mountain Traditional 

Cultural Property (30,648 acres) is open to 

most resource uses. The Sweet Grass Hills 

Traditional Cultural Property (7,718 acres) 

is open to most resources uses but is 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry 

and is open to oil and gas leasing, subject 

to NSO.

The Little Rocky Mountain Traditional 

Cultural Property (30,648 acres) is open 

to oil and gas leasing, subject to NSO 

(5,936 acres), and closed (32,166 acres) 

avoidance to ROWs, exclusion to wind 

energy ROWs, and closed (32,058 acre) 

to leasable and salable minerals. The 

Sweet Grass Hills Traditional Cultural 

Property (7,718 acres) is closed to oil 

and gas leasing, avoidance to ROWs, 

exclusion to wind energy ROWs, closed 

to leasable and salable mineral 

development, and recommended for 

withdrawal. 

Fish and 

Wildlife

Apply restrictions to sensitive, special 

status, and threatened and endangered

species habitat. See resource uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

Species-specific direction to protect 

resources and manage resource uses is

provided. Additional protections would 

not be limited to oil and gas production; 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-11

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

these areas. they may be applied to other resource 

uses when needed to protect or manage 

resources. Additional NSO/CSU 

restrictions to protect fish and wildlife 

habitats are applied across ACECs and 

will provide additional protections for 

fish and wildlife habitat.

Fire Ecology 

and 

Management

2,244,429 acres managed to meet 

Category B objectives; 193,046 acres 

managed to meet Category C objectives.

1,390,208 acres managed to meet 

Category B objectives; 1,047,266 acres 

managed to meet Category C objectives.

Fluid Minerals 282,062 acres of Federal minerals would 

be open to leasing subject to major 

constraints (NSO); 2,649,241 acres would 

be open to leasing, subject to minor 

constraints (TLS) and CSU, and 457,849 

acres would be open to leasing, subject to 

standard lease terms only. Approximately 

102,298 acres of Federal minerals would 

be closed to leasing.

1,711,378 acres of Federal minerals 

would be open to leasing, subject to 

major constraints (NSO); 1,460,096 

acres would be open to leasing subject 

to minor constraints (TLS and CSU); and 

167,273 acres would be open to leasing,

subject to standard lease terms only. 

Approximately 152,702 acres of Federal

minerals would be closed to leasing.

Forest and 

Woodland 

Products

The ASQ would not exceed 350 million 

board feet per year.

The Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) of 

timber is 664 million board feet per year,

along with 4,000 tons of biomass per 

year. 

Lands and 

Realty 

90,114 acres would be managed as 

Category 2 and 3 for disposal. One 4.5-

mile-wide designated utility corridor, two 

ROW exclusion areas, and two ROW 

avoidance areas.

297,559 acres would be managed as 

Category 1 retention; 2,126,465 acres 

would be managed as Category 2 

retention/disposal; 13,541 acres would 

be managed as category 3 disposal. 

Five designated utility corridors (each 

one mile wide), two ROW exclusion 

areas, and nineteen ROW avoidance 

areas.

Livestock 

Grazing 

Livestock would continue to be allocated 

approximately 386,600 AUMs of forage 

each year. Approximately 2,390,000 acres 

would be open to livestock grazing, and 

47,000 acres would be closed to livestock 

grazing, except as needed for resource 

management. 

Same as prior management decisions.

Mineral 

Materials

74,506 acres would be closed to mineral 

material development.

1,666,720 acres would be closed to 

mineral material development.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-12 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Paleontological 

Resources

Potential impacts on paleontological 

resources will be considered on an 

individual basis.

Paleontological assessments will be 

completed for all projects proposed on 

Federal lands.

Recreation Five areas managed as SRMAs and three 

areas managed as ERMAs. Manage 70 

existing recreation sites and facilities.

Two areas managed as SRMAs and ten 

areas managed as ERMAs. Manage 49 

recreation sites and facilities.

Renewable 

Energy 

2,248,366 acres would be open to wind 

energy ROWs, with minor constraints 

(standard terms and conditions and BMPs);

189,138 acres of the Planning Area would 

be exclusion areas for wind energy ROWs.

33,119 acres would be open to wind 

energy ROWs, with minor constraints. 

Approximately 1,600 acres of open areas 

near Shelby, Montana, would be 

designated potential wind development 

areas; 885,661 acres would be avoidance 

areas; 1,518,695 acres of the Planning 

Area would be exclusion areas for wind 

energy ROWs. 

Solid Minerals 76,477 acres would be closed to mineral 

leasing (including coal). 

Four mineral withdrawals would be 

continued (19,914 acres), including the 

Sweet Grass Hills TCP withdrawal, which 

would not be recommended for an 

extension. Two new withdrawals (1,991 

acres) would be recommended. Areas 

closed to salable minerals would total 

74,506 acres.

1,828,239 acres would be closed to 

mineral leasing (including coal). 

At the time an application for a new coal 

lease or lease modification is submitted, 

the BLM would determine whether the 

lease application area is “unsuitable” for 

all or certain coal mining methods,

pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are

essential habitat for maintaining GRSG 

for purposes of the suitability criteria set 

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

Four existing mineral withdrawals would 

be continued (20,058 acres). The BLM 

would recommend a 20-year extension 

for the Sweet Grass Hills TCP 

withdrawal and modifications to the 

Camp Creek and Montana Gulch 

campgrounds withdrawals. Three 

withdrawals would be recommended for 

revocation. The BLM would consider the 

need for a new withdrawal or ROW for 

the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation 

area. Three new withdrawals would be 

recommended (951,766 acres). Areas 

closed to salable minerals would total 

1,666,720 acres.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-13

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Special 

Designations 

Seven ACECs are retained. Several routes 

would be considered for backcountry 

byway status. No segments would be 

recommended for inclusion in the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Six ACECs are retained. Four new 

ACECs would be designated. The halfmile segment of the Marias River at the 

confluence of the Missouri River would 

be recommended as unsuitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System.

Travel and 

Transportation 

Management 

124 acres managed as open to OHV use;

2,429,930 acres managed as limited to 

OHV use; 7,419 acres managed as closed 

to OHV use; 27,529 would be managed as 

high priority for TMAs; 694,735 acres 

managed as moderate priority for TMAs;

1,715,311 acres managed as low priority 

for TMAs.

165 acres managed as open to OHV use;

2,429,889 acres managed as limited to 

OHV use; 7,419 acres managed as closed 

to OHV use; 1,440,901 would be 

managed as high priority for TMAs;

121,440 acres managed as moderate 

priority for TMAs; 875,133 acres 

managed as low priority for TMAs.

Vegetation Some restrictions for certain activities in 

sensitive vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands).

The ARMP would increase the amount 

of restrictions on uses within sensitive 

vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands). Priority areas for vegetation 

treatments (e.g., weeds and conifer 

removal) are identified. Additional 

management actions were added to 

protect special status plant species and 

their habitat.

Visual 

Resources 

Management 

74,506 acres managed as VRM Class I;

342,828 acres managed as VRM Class II;

58,213 acres managed as VRM Class III;

1,961,928 acres managed as VRM Class IV.

74,506 acres managed as VRM Class I;

841,087 acres managed as VRM Class II;

521,868 acres managed as VRM Class III;

1,000,013 acres managed as VRM Class 

IV.

Wilderness 

Characteristics

0 acres managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

The BLM would manage three areas 

(16,393 acres) for lands with wilderness 

characteristics and would apply 

management restrictions to reduce 

impacts on wilderness characteristics on 

290,865 acres.

Miles City

Air Emission reduction mitigation measures 

and conservation actions would be 

considered during project-level planning. 

The BLM would adjust the timing of 

authorized activities as needed to 

accommodate long-term changes in 

seasonal weather patterns, while 

Same as prior management decisions, 

except a decision that oil and gas leasing 

would be offered with a CSU for each 

diesel-fueled non-road engine with 

greater than 200-horsepower design 

rating.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-14 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

considering the impacts on other 

resources and resource uses.

Cultural 

Resources 

Surface-disturbing activities would be 

allowed within the Planning Area.

The BLM would manage oil and gas 

leasing with an NSO stipulation in 

significant cultural sites, in National 

Historic Landmarks, and in historic 

battlefields. All other surface-disturbing 

activities would be allowed in significant 

cultural sites, as long as the activities 

would not have an adverse effect.

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Apply restrictions to sensitive, special 

status, and threatened and endangered

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

The ARMP would provide more specific 

direction to protect resources and 

manage resource uses than prior 

management. Under ARMP, additional 

protections would not be limited to oil 

and gas production; they may be applied 

to other resource uses as applicable and 

when needed to protect or manage 

resources and resource uses. Also, the 

ARMP provides more NSO/CSU 

restrictions for the protection of fish and 

wildlife habitats.

Fire Ecology 

and 

Management

Mechanical thinning of vegetation, biomass 

removal, and chemical and biological 

treatments would be allowed to reduce 

hazardous fuels or improve land health. 

Fuel treatment projects would be allowed 

in areas with high social or natural 

resource values as well as areas next to 

wildland urban interface areas considered a 

priority area for treatment. Prescribed fire 

would be allowed in Category B and C Fire 

Management Categories.

Same as prior management decisions, 

except prescribed fire would be allowed 

in the Planning Area with RDFs to meet 

resource goals and objectives.

Fluid Minerals 566,000 acres would be open to oil and 

gas leasing, subject to major constraints 

(NSO); 555,000 acres would be open to 

oil and gas leasing, subject to moderate 

constraints (CSU); 3,466,000 acres would 

be open to oil and gas leasing, subject to 

moderate constraints (TL); 1,316,000 acres 

would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard constraints.

1,850,000 acres would be open to oil 

and gas leasing, subject to major 

constraints (NSO); 3,645,000 acres 

would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to moderate constraints (CSU);

179,000 acres would be open to oil and 

gas leasing, subject to moderate 

constraints (TL); 987,000 acres would be 

open to oil and gas leasing, subject to 

standard constraints.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-15

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Forest and 

Woodland 

Products

Forestlands in the Planning Area with 10

percent or more canopy cover per acre 

would be managed for the enhancement of 

other resources, not for the production of 

forest products or saw timber.

Forestlands would be managed to 

enhance the health and resiliency of 

forest and woodland resources and for a 

diversity of forest products. PSQ for 

commercial saw timber would be 

allowed up to 1,100 million board feet

per year.

Lands and 

Realty 

35,830 acres would be ROW avoidance 

areas; 128,960 acres would be ROW 

exclusion areas; 83,160 acres would be 

managed as category 1 retention lands;

2,585,535 acres would be managed as 

category 2 retention lands and disposal;

82,835 acres would be managed as 

category 3 disposal lands; nine 

communication sites would be designated.

83,659 acres would be minor and major 

ROW exclusion areas. Major ROWs 

would be avoided on 2,222,701 surface 

acres, and minor ROWs would be 

avoided on 858,073 surface acres;

83,160 acres would be managed as 

category 1 retention lands; 2,585,535 

acres would be managed as category 2 

retention lands and disposal; 82,835 

acres would be managed as category 3 

disposal lands; nine communication sites 

would be designated.

Livestock 

Grazing 

2,700,000 acres and an estimated 546,508

AUMs would be available for livestock 

grazing. Livestock grazing would be

unavailable on approximately 240 acres (62 

AUMs).

2,700,000 acres and an estimated 

546,496 AUMS would be available for 

livestock grazing. Livestock grazing 

would be unavailable on approximately 

140 (12 AUMs).

Mineral 

Materials

2,500,000 acres would be available to 

mineral material sales and permits; 236,000 

acres would not be allowed or closed to 

mineral material sales and permits.

1,521,869 acres would be available to 

mineral material sales and permits;

978,131 acres would be closed to all 

mineral material sales, except free-use 

permits and expansion of existing active 

pits if certain conditions are met;

169,000 acres would not be allowed or 

closed to mineral material sales and 

permits.

Recreation 16,583 acres would be managed as SRMAs 

and 28,884 would be managed as ERMAs.

21,948 acres would be managed as 

SRMAs and 2,200 would be managed as 

ERMAs.

Renewable 

Energy 

60,000 acres would be avoided to 

renewable energy ROWs; 125,700 acres 

would be excluded to renewable energy 

ROWs. 

1,400,514 acres would be avoided to 

renewable energy ROWs; 1,002,687 

acres would be excluded to renewable 

energy ROWs.

Soils and 

Water 

Surface-disturbing activities on slopes 30

percent or greater would be avoided 

unless the activity can be mitigated (43,780

Surface-disturbing activities on sensitive 

soils would be allowed, with specialized 

design features to maintain or improve 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-16 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

acres). Surface water impoundments would 

be allowed. Surface-disturbing activities 

would be allowed within State-designated 

source water protection areas.

the stability of the site. Surfacedisturbing activities on badlands and rock 

outcrop would be allowed, with 

specialized design features to maintain or 

improve the stability of the site. Surface 

water impoundments would be allowed,

with measures designed to maintain 

water quality and riparian and watershed 

functionality and resiliency. Surfacedisturbing activities would be allowed 

within State-designated source water 

protection areas, with specialized design 

features to minimize impacts on surface 

or groundwater quality.

Solid Minerals Areas identified in the Big Dry and Powder 

River RMPs as acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing would be 

carried forward; 2.18 million acres would 

remain open to mineral location 

(locatables).

Same as prior management decisions. At 

the time an application for a new coal 

lease or lease modification is submitted, 

the BLM would determine whether the 

lease application area is “unsuitable” for 

all or certain coal mining methods,

pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are

essential habitat for maintaining GRSG 

for purposes of the suitability criteria set 

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

Special 

Designations 

Fifteen ACECs are retained. Sustain and 

enhance the Lewis and Clark Trail to 

complement its status as a National 

Historic Trail.

Thirteen ACECs are retained and five 

new ACECs would be designated. 

Sustain and enhance the Lewis and Clark 

Trail to complement its status as a 

National Historic Trail.

Travel and 

Transportation 

Management 

2,372 acres are open to OHV use; 

2,749,078 acres are limited to OHV use; 

80 acres are closed to OHV use.

0 acres are open to OHV use; 2,748,730 

acres are limited to OHV use; 2,800 

acres are closed to OHV use.

Vegetation Some restrictions for certain activities in 

sensitive vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands).

Compared to prior management, the 

ARMP would better maintain riparian 

and wetland areas. Vegetation 

treatments (e.g., weeds and conifer 

removal) are identified and prioritized.

Visual 

Resources 

Management 

97,000 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

400,000 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

375,000 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

1,890,000 acres managed as VRM Class IV.

83,000 acres managed as VRM Class I;

414,000 acres managed as VRM Class II;

695,000 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

1,570,000 acres managed as VRM Class 

IV.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-17

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Wilderness 

Characteristics

0 acres managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

5,236 acres would be managed for lands 

with wilderness characteristics.

South Dakota

Air Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines or engines

emitting NOx at rates less than or equal to 

EPA emission standards for Tier 4 nonroad 

diesel engines would be required.

Tier 4 engines would be required for oil 

and gas drilling and completion activities 

as follows: Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines 

or engines emitting NOx at rates less 

than or equal to EPA emission standards 

for Tier 4 nonroad diesel engines.

Cultural 

Resources 

Apply restrictions to cultural properties 

determined to be of importance to Native 

American tribal groups, sites determined 

to be TCPS or designated for traditional 

use. See resource uses for applicable 

allocation decisions that protect these 

areas. 

Same as prior management decisions, 

except acres of restrictive resource use 

allocations may vary. See resource uses 

for applicable allocation decisions that 

protect these areas.

Fire Ecology 

and 

Management

All 274,000 acres of BLM-administered 

lands, including the Exemption Area, Fort 

Meade ACEC, and remainder of South 

Dakota Fire Management Units,

would be designated as Category B

Same as prior management direction.

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Apply restrictions to sensitive, special 

status, and threatened and endangered

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

The ARMP would provide more specific 

direction to protect resources and 

manage resource uses than prior 

management. Under the ARMP, additional 

protections would not be limited to oil 

and gas production; they may be applied 

to other resource uses when needed to 

protect or manage resources and 

resource uses. Also, the ARMP provides 

more NSO/CSU restrictions to protect

fish and wildlife habitats.

Fluid Minerals 15,489 acres would be open to oil and gas 

leasing, subject to major constraints 

(NSO); 2,954 acres would be open to oil 

and gas leasing, subject to moderate 

constraints (CSU); 115,204 acres would be 

open to oil and gas leasing, subject to 

moderate constraints (TL); 103,033 acres 

would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard constraints; 6,894 

acres would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing.

152,100 acres would be open to oil and 

gas leasing, subject to major constraints 

(NSO); 21,175 acres would be open to 

oil and gas leasing, subject to moderate 

constraints (CSU); 1,169 acres would be 

open to oil and gas leasing, subject to 

moderate constraints (TL); 62,236 acres 

would be open to oil and gas leasing, 

subject to standard constraints; 6,894 

acres would be closed to oil and gas 

leasing.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-18 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Forest and 

Woodland 

Products

All lands would be available for the sale, 

use, and treatment of forest and woodland 

products, except sale would not be 

allowed on the Fossil Cycad ACEC. Forest 

and woodland products, such as firewood, 

posts, poles, biomass, and timber, would 

be managed to benefit other resources and 

offered for sale when they have an 

economic value. PSQ would be 7,000 

tons/year for all forest and woodland 

products.

All lands would be available for the sale, 

use, and treatment of forest and 

woodland products, except sale would 

not be allowed on the Fossil Cycad 

ACEC. Forest and woodland products, 

such as firewood, posts, poles, biomass, 

timber, and other special forest 

products, would be managed to benefit 

other resources and offered for sale 

when they have an economic value and 

used or treated if there is no economic 

value. PSQ would be 7,000 tons/year for 

all forest and woodland products.

Lands and 

Realty 

Consider landownership adjustments on a 

case-by-case basis, based on the criteria 

for retention, acquisition and disposal; 0 

acres would be avoidance areas for 

ROWs; 5,522 acres would be exclusion 

areas for ROWs. No new ROW 

corridors.

Category 1—Retention area with no 

disposal (6,894 acres). Category 2—

Retention with Limited disposal 

potential, based on specialist review 

(202,395 acres). Category 3—Disposal 

contingent on specialist review (64,030 

acres); 247,551 acres would be 

avoidance areas for ROWs; 5,836 acres 

would be exclusion areas for ROWs. No 

new ROW corridors.

Livestock 

Grazing 

Livestock grazing would be allowed on 

about 271,000 acres. The amount of forage

available for permitted use on these lands 

would be about 73,400 AUMs.

Livestock grazing would be allowed on 

about 272,000 acres. The amount of 

forage that could be available for 

permitted use on these lands would be 

about 77,300 AUMs.

Mineral 

Materials

6,894 acres would be closed to mineral 

material development. 

420,126 acres would be closed to 

mineral material development.

Recreation Not applicable 11,652 acres would be managed as 

SRMAs.

Renewable 

Energy 

0 acres would be renewable energy ROWs 

avoidance areas; 5,522 acres would be 

renewable energy ROWs exclusion areas.

107,147 acres would be renewable 

energy ROWs avoidance areas; 

146,240 acres would be renewable 

energy ROW exclusion areas.

Soils and 

Water 

Apply restrictions to perennial or 

intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, 

and riparian areas. See resource uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

Same as prior management decisions, 

except acres of restrictive resource use 

allocations may vary. See resources uses 

for applicable allocation decisions that 

protect these areas.
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-19

Table 4-1

Summary of Major Resources and Resource Uses Management Decisions Contained in the 

ARMPs Compared to Prior RMP Management Decisions

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Management Decisions

Prior to the ARMP

Management Decisions

Contained in the ARMP

Solid Minerals 6,894 acres would be recommended for 

locatable mineral withdrawal. No specific 

management decisions associated with 

coal.

7,304 acres would be recommended for 

locatable mineral withdrawal; 7,304 

acres would be closed to solid leasable 

mineral development. At the time an 

application for a new coal lease or lease 

modification is submitted, the BLM 

would determine whether the lease

application area is “unsuitable” for all or 

certain coal mining methods, pursuant to 

43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are essential 

habitat for maintaining GRSG for 

purposes of the suitability criteria set 

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

Special 

Designations 

Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs 

would be retained.

Fort Meade and Fossil Cycad ACECs 

would be retained.

Travel and 

Transportation 

Management 

OHV use would be limited to existing 

roads and trails for the entire Planning 

Area.

Three TMAs would be developed. OHV

use would be limited to existing roads 

and trails for the entire Planning Area

until the implementation level route 

designation process is completed for 

each TMA.

Vegetation Some restrictions for certain activities in 

sensitive vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands).

The ARMP would increase the amount 

of restrictions on uses within sensitive 

vegetation areas (e.g., riparian and 

wetlands). Priority areas for vegetation 

treatments (e.g., weeds and conifer 

removal) are identified.

Visual 

Resources

Management 

0 acres managed as VRM Class I ;

1,231 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

4,993 acres managed as VRM Class III; 531 

acres managed as VRM Class IV.

0 acres managed as VRM Class I;

1,544 acres managed as VRM Class II;

10,367 acres managed as VRM Class III;

259,841 acres managed as VRM Class IV.

Wilderness 

Characteristics

0 acres managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics.

Same as prior management decisions.

Note: Acres depicted in this table represent BLM-administered surface estate. For more details regarding the 

management decisions for each of these resources and resource uses, please refer to the attached ARMPs.

The BLM is tasked to provide multiple use management for public lands under FLPMA and numerous 

other laws and regulations that govern the management of public lands. The BLM’s objective in choosing 

the Proposed RMPs as the ARMPs was to address diverse needs and concerns in a fair manner and to 

provide a practical and workable framework for managing public lands. The BLM is ultimately 

responsible for preparing these ARMPs, consistent with its legal mandates that reflect collective 

professional judgment using the best available science. 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-20 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Specific to the ARMPs, these documents provide for the conservation of physical, biological, heritage, 

and visual resources, while allowing for resource use if the activities can be conducted in a manner that 

preserves these resource values. In reviewing the alternatives analyzed in the EISs for these plan 

revisions, incorporating current knowledge on existing and reasonably foreseeable development 

opportunities, and comparing to the existing RMP and Management Framework Plan (MFP) decisions, 

the BLM determined that the Proposed RMPs provided the most balanced management direction. 

Additional specific management considerations for each of the ARMPs (plan revisions) are listed below. 

Bighorn Basin (Planning Area for the Cody and Worland Field Offices) 

 Monitoring, the availability of new information, and advances in science and technology since 

the release of the Washakie RMP (1988), Grass Creek RMP (1998), and Cody RMP (1990, 

which the Cody and Worland ARMPs replace) provided new data to consider (for example, 

new data from the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands, Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics Inventory – 2011 Update, Visual Resource Inventory for the Cody Field 

Office, Washington Office IM-2012-044, Wyoming State Office IM-2012-019, and Wyoming 

Governor Executive Order 2011-05). 

 In the Bighorn Basin Planning Area, approximately 476,000 acres of public lands were found 

to contain wilderness characteristics. These lands were also found to contain other 

resource values that provided protection to the important values. Therefore, the BLM 

determined that additional management, above the management assigned through wildlife 

timing and distance restrictions, travel and transportation management, and visual resource 

management was not warranted. 

 The Cody and Worland Field Offices will consider interest in exploration for, or leasing of, 

federal coal, if any, by applying the coal screening process at the application stage. The coal 

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

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

required prior to leasing. To emphasize the need for GRSG habitat protection, the following 

decision specific for GRSG PHMAs was added: At the time an application for a new coal 

lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM will determine whether the 

lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 

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

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

 Although there is record of historic mining in the area, coal production in the Planning Area 

is generally not considered economically feasible due to the relative thinness of the 

coalbeds, thickness of the overburden, and low quality of the coal. 

Buffalo 

 Need to address the Pennaco v. U.S., 377 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2004) decision, which 

required analysis of coal bed natural gas development for fluid mineral leasing decisions in 

the Powder River Basin. 

 Peer-reviewed research concluded GRSG population viability within the Planning Area was 

8questionable under the current management (1985 RMP). The RMP revision analyzed new 

data and information to update GRSG management and comply with Washington Office IM-
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-21

2012-044 and Wyoming State Office IM-2012-019 and to ensure consistency with Wyoming 

Governor Executive Order 2011-05.

 In the Buffalo Planning Area, approximately 12,237 acres of public lands were found to 

contain wilderness characteristics; 6,864 acres will be managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics in the ARMP. The lands not being managed for lands with wilderness 

characteristics were also found to contain other resource values that provided protection 

to the important values. Therefore, the BLM determined that additional management, above 

the management assigned through wildlife timing and distance restrictions, travel and 

transportation management, and visual resource management was not warranted. 

 The ARMP brought forward the suitability determinations made through a past planning 

effort (1985 Buffalo RMP, as updated in 2001). This RMP found areas suitable and acceptable 

for further consideration for coal leasing. To emphasize the need for GRSG habitat 

protection, the following decision specific for GRSG PHMAs was added: At the time an 

application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted, the BLM would 

determine whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining 

methods, pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for 

purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5 (o)(1). 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

 Monitoring, and the availability of new information and advances in science and technology 

since the release of the Billings RMP (1984), as amended, provided new data to consider. 

 Need to incorporate special management considerations related to the Pryor Mountain 

Wild Horse Range to address resource conflicts. 

 This comprehensive plan is needed to address competing resource uses and values in the 

same area. In addition, conditions have changed since the original RMP was approved, as 

follows 

– Changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions 

– Changing user demands and activities 

– Heightened public awareness and increased public demand for use of the lands 

– New laws, regulations, and policies that supersede previous decisions 

– Changing tolerance or acceptance of impacts 

– Increased conflict between competing resource values and land uses 

 The RMP is also being prepared to incorporate consistent objectives and conservation 

measures for managing GRSG habitat. These conditions also drive the need for an inclusive 

comprehensive plan that provides updated and clear direction to both the BLM and the 

public. 

 Fluid and solid minerals—Management considerations included split-estate (private 

surface/Federal minerals), activities, and human presence in fish and wildlife habitats and the 

potential effects of mineral development on fish and wildlife habitat, recreation values, forage 

use, air resources, scenic quality, cultural and heritage resources, and water quality. 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-22 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 Motorized and nonmotorized travel management considerations provide for suitable and 

sufficient recreation uses and facilities, cultural, wildlife, and visual resource management 

direction and resource protection. 

 Thirteen units contained wilderness characteristics (27,507 acres), and nine of these areas 

are being managed for lands with wilderness characteristics (approximately 50 percent of 

the acres). The lands not being managed for lands with wilderness characteristics (13,854 

acres) were also found to contain other resource values that provided protection to the 

important values (for example, ACECs and small river islands). 

 The Billings ARMP will consider interest in exploration for, or leasing of, federal coal, if any, 

by applying the coal screening process at the application stage. The coal screening process 

results would determine which lands may be available for further consideration for coal 

leasing and development. To emphasize the need for GRSG habitat protection, the following 

decision specific for GRSG PHMAs was added: At the time an application for a new coal 

lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM would determine whether the 

lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 

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

suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5(o)(1). Appropriate NEPA analysis would be 

required prior to leasing. The prior RMP (BLM 1984) coal screening management decisions 

are current and relevant to the application area. Areas closed to coal leasing (225,655 acres) 

in the ARMP are WSAs, ACECs, lands with wilderness characteristics, and National Historic 

Trails.

The Pompeys Pillar National Monument ARMP complies with Presidential Proclamation 7396, and 

through implementation of this ARMP will conserve, enhance, and restore the nationally significant 

landscape, objects, and values for which Pompeys Pillar National Monument (51 acres) was designated 

for the benefit of present and future generations. 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument would be managed to protect the historical and cultural objects for 

which is was nominated; the ARMP contains several management actions to protect these objects, such 

as: 

 All Federal lands and interest in lands within the boundaries of PPNM are appropriated and 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or other disposition 

under the public land laws, including, but not limited to withdrawal from location, entry, and 

patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and 

geothermal leasing, subject to valid existing rights. Consider acquiring minerals from willing 

sellers. 

 The National Historic Landmark (6 acres within the National Monument) which includes the 

rock feature itself (Clark's signature), would be managed as a VRM Class II designation to 

protect the values associated with the landform. 

 Opportunities for interpretation, education and enjoyment of the area would be 

emphasized. 

 ROWs would be exclusion area, except for those necessary to serve the site facilities. 

 Land disposal would not be allowed. 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-23

HiLine 

 Monitoring, the availability of new information, and advances in science and technology since 

the release of the West HiLine RMP (1988) and the Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP (1994, which 

the HiLine ARMP replaces) provided new data to consider, for example, new data from an 

updated Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Inventory—2011 Update and the finding of 

13 nominated ACECs that met the relevance and importance criteria. 

 Fluid and solid minerals—Management considerations included split-estate (private 

surface/Federal minerals), activities and human presence in fish and wildlife habitats, and the 

potential effects of mineral development on recreation values, forage use, air resources, 

scenic quality, sensitive vegetation types, and water quality. 

 Motorized travel—Management considerations included providing for suitable and sufficient 

recreation uses and facilities (both dispersed and commercial), visual resource management 

direction, and OHV use designations. 

 Wildlife habitat and special status species, including GRSG management considerations 

included habitat identification, use, and quality and the interrelationships between these 

species and other resource uses and human activities. Specific management considerations in 

GRSG habitat were incorporated into the RMP for their conservation. 

 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs—BLM plans relating to or otherwise 

governing management in the Planning Area provided perspective in developing the HiLine 

Approved Plan. 

 Twenty-eight areas contained wilderness characteristics (399,000 acres), three of which 

(16,393 acres) will be managed for lands with wilderness characteristics. The 291,000 acres 

not being managed for wilderness characteristics are due to other management/resource 

priorities, such as ACECs and PHMAs (291,000 acres), which provide complementary 

management (e.g., NSO for leasing and ROW avoidance areas). The remaining 92,000 acres 

are being managed to emphasize other uses over wilderness characteristics (most of these 

acres are already held by oil and gas leases). 

 Coal is a leasable solid mineral with low occurrence potential in the Planning Area. No 

leases have been issued in the Planning Area and no production is occurring because the 

potential for development is considered to be low enough that no interest has been shown 

in obtaining leases. At the time an application for a new coal lease or lease modification is 

submitted, the BLM would determine whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for 

all or certain coal mining methods, pursuant to 43 CFR, CFR Part 3461.5. PHMAPHMAs is 

are essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 

43 CFR, CFR Part 3461.5(o)(1). 

Miles City 

 Most BLM-administered public lands in the Miles City Field Office are split-estate (10.6 

million acres); BLM surface is 2.75 million acres (11 percent of the Planning Area).

 This comprehensive plan is needed to address competing resource uses and values in the 

same area. In addition, conditions have changed since the original RMPs were approved, as 

follows: 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

4-24 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

– Changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions 

– New laws, regulations, and policies that supersede previous decisions 

– Changing user demands and activities 

– Changing tolerance or acceptance of impacts 

 The ARMP was prepared to incorporate consistent objectives and conservation measures 

for the management of GRSG habitat. These conditions also drive the need for an inclusive 

comprehensive plan that provides updated and clear direction to both the BLM and the 

public. 

 Five areas contained wilderness characteristics, one of which (5,200 acres) will be managed 

for lands with wilderness characteristics. The 23,600 acres not being managed for wilderness 

characteristics are due to other management and resource priorities, such as PHMAs and 

crucial big game winter range, which provide complementary management (such as NSO for 

leasing and ROW avoidance areas). 

 The ARMP brought forward the suitability determinations made through past planning 

efforts, (Big Dry and Powder River RMPs). These RMPs found areas suitable and acceptable 

for further consideration for coal leasing. To emphasize the need for GRSG habitat 

protection, the following decision specific for GRSG PHMAs was added: At the time an 

application for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted, the BLM would 

determine whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining 

methods, pursuant to 43 CFR 3461.5. PHMAs are essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for 

purposes of the suitability criteria set forth at 43 CFR 3461.5 (o)(1). 

South Dakota 

 BLM-administered public lands in South Dakota are highly intermingled with many small 

tracts of public land surrounded by state or private land. Over 98 percent of public land in 

South Dakota is in the western half of the state. 

 Monitoring, and the availability of new information, and advances in science and technology 

since the release of the South Dakota RMP (1986), as amended, provided new data to 

consider. 

 Increased recreational use at Fort Meade ACEC and the Exemption Area has created a need 

to look at management opportunities for recreation. 

 Increased interest in wind energy development in South Dakota has created a need to 

evaluate potential impacts and provide improved management direction. 

 The BLM South Dakota Field Office contains no lands with wilderness characteristics. 

 BLM-administered public lands in the Planning Area have low coal development potential, 

relative to adjacent states. The RMP planning team discussed coal development and 

dismissed it because 1) the South Dakota Field Office received no comments or expressions 

of interest in coal development during scoping and has not received applications or 

expressions of interest in the last ten years, and 2) coal beds in the Planning Area have a less 

profitable stripping ratio than adjacent states, making development unlikely. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 5-1

CHAPTER 5 

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ARMPS (PLAN 

REVISIONS) 

Mitigation measures required for actions in GRSG habitat for the ARMPAs and the GRSG habitat 

management decisions in the ARMPs (plan revisions) are discussed in Section 1.6.2 of this ROD. 

For lands within the Planning Areas described in the ARMPs that are outside of GRSG habitat, all 

practical means will be taken to avoid or minimize environmental harm. In developing the alternatives, 

the BLM used a variety of management methods and tools, including identifying allowable uses, temporal, 

spatial, and method restrictions on uses, where specific uses would be prohibited, and specific actions 

that are needed to achieve the goals and objectives. Restrictions on land uses are seasonal closures, 

stipulations on surface disturbances, and the application of BMPs. 

The ARMPs provide a list of BMPs that are applicable to land use activities authorized by the BLM (these 

BMPs are listed in various appendices in each of the attached ARMPs). BMPs are state-of-the-art 

mitigation measures that may be applied on a site-specific basis to avoid, minimize, reduce, rectify, or 

compensate for adverse environmental or social impacts of land use activities. The BMPs included in 

each of the ARMPs are not intended to be a complete list; instead, they are displayed to show land use 

project proponents examples of commonly used practices the BLM may require to reduce impacts of 

surface-disturbing activities, use, or occupancy. More explicit BMPs based on local conditions and 

resource-specific concerns could be developed once a specific proposal is being evaluated through the 

environmental analysis process. Additional BMPs can be proposed by project applicants for activities on 

BLM-administered lands. 
5. Mitigation Measures for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

5-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 6-1

CHAPTER 6 

PLAN MONITORING FOR ARMPS (PLAN 

REVISIONS) 

The method for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the ARMP GRSG management 

actions is discussed in detail in Section 1.6.4 of this ROD. 

For lands in the Planning Areas described in the ARMPs that are outside of GRSG habitat, land use plan 

decision monitoring will apply. Monitoring is a continuous process occurring over the life of the RMP. 

Monitoring data are collected, examined, and used to draw conclusions on the following: 

 Whether planned actions have been implemented in the manner prescribed by the RMP 

(implementation monitoring) 

 Whether RMP allowable use and management action decisions and the resultant 

implementation actions are effective in achieving program-specific objectives or desired 

outcomes (effectiveness monitoring) 

 Calculating the cost of delivering a service or product (efficiency monitoring by program 

elements) 

Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management or 

determine what changes need to be made to implementation practices to better achieve RMP decisions. 

Indicators, methods, locations, units of measures, frequency, and action triggers can be established by 

national policy guidance, in RMPs, or by technical specialists in order to address specific issues. 

Based on staffing and funding levels, monitoring is annually prioritized, consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the RMP. The BLM may work with local, State, and other Federal agencies, or it may use 

data collected by other agencies and sources when appropriate and available. 

In accordance with the BLM’s Resource Management Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), the approved RMP 

will be evaluated periodically to determine whether the RMP decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid 

and whether the plan is being implemented effectively. More specifically, the RMP will be evaluated to 

determine the following: 
6. Plan Monitoring for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

6-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

 If the decisions remain relevant to current issues 

 If decisions are effective in achieving or making progress toward achieving the desired 

outcomes specified in the plan 

 If any decisions are in need of revision 

 If any decisions need to be dropped from further considerations 

 If any areas require new decisions 

In making these determinations, the BLM will consider whether mitigation measures—such as those 

presented in the ARMP—are satisfactory, whether there are significant changes in the related plans of 

other entities, and whether there is significant new information. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 7-1

CHAPTER 7 

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 Rocky Mountain Region ARMPs and 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 and Chapter 4 of the attached ARMPs. 

7.1 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 the Rocky Mountain Region. A final National GRSG Planning Strategy Scoping Report was 

released in May 2012 (BLM and Forest Service 2012). 

The plan revisions (Bighorn Basin, which includes the Cody and Worland Field Offices; Billings and 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument, Buffalo, HiLine, Miles City, and South Dakota) also held separate 

scoping periods throughout their individual Planning Areas, before the National GRSG Planning Strategy 

began. Individual scoping reports for each plan revision were completed between September 2005 and 

March 2009. 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

7-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

A NOA for the Bighorn Basin Draft RMP/EIS was published in April 2011. Throughout 2013, the NOAs 

announcing the release of the Draft RMPs and RMPAs/Draft EISs for the remaining planning efforts in 

the Rocky Mountain Region were published, including an NOA announcing the release of a supplement 

to Bighorn Basin Draft RMP/EIS. 

Comments on the Draft RMPs and RMPAs/Draft EISs were considered and incorporated, as 

appropriate, into the Proposed Plans and Plan Amendments/Final EISs. The Rocky Mountain Region 

received approximately 10,300 substantive comments, contained in 45,200 submissions during the Draft 

RMPs and RMPAs/Draft EISs comment periods. Comments on the Draft RMPs and RMPAs/Draft EISs 

received from the public and internal BLM review were carefully considered and incorporated as 

appropriate into the Proposed RMPs and RMPAs/Final EISs. Public comments resulted in the addition of 

clarifying text but did not significantly change the Proposed RMPs and Plan RMPAs. 

On May 29, 2015, the BLM released an NOA for all of the Rocky Mountain Region GRSG Proposed Plan 

Amendments/Final EISs and for each of the Proposed Plans/Final EISs. 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 the Governor’s consistency review outcomes. 

7.2 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 Rocky Mountain sub-regions also invited local, State, other Federal, and 

tribal representatives to participate as cooperating agencies for these RMPs and RMPAs/EISs. In total, 

there were 172 MOUs signed with Federal, State, county, local, and tribal entities. The MOUs outline 

the interests, expertise, and jurisdictional responsibilities of both the BLM and its cooperating agency 

partners and their respective roles and responsibilities in the planning and NEPA processes. Additional 

information can be found in the Consultation and Coordination Chapter of each of the Proposed RMPs 

and RMPAs/Final EISs. These cooperating agencies divided by sub-region are provided below. 

Rocky Mountain Region-Wide 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

US Forest Service 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 7-3

Lewistown 

Chain Buttes Cooperative State Grazing District 

Fergus County 

Judith Basin County 

Indian Butte Cooperative State Grazing District 

Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Petroleum County 

Petroleum County Conservation District 

Winnett Cooperative State Grazing District 

North Dakota 

North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

Bowman County Commissioners 

Bowman-Slope Conservation District 

Northwest Colorado 

Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife 

Denver Water Board 

Garfield County 

Grand County 

Jackson County 

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest 

Mesa County 

Moffat County 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Rio Blanco County 

Routt County 

White River and Douglas Creek Conservation Districts 

Wyoming 

City of Laramie 

Converse County 

Crook County 

Lincoln County 

Lincoln County Conservation District 

Lingle–Fort Laramie Conservation District 

Little Snake River Conservation District 

Medicine Bow Conservation District 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

7-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Natrona County 

Saratoga Encampment Rawlins Conservation District 

South Goshen Conservation District 

Sublette County 

Sublette County Conservation District 

Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County Conservation District 

Uinta County 

Uinta County Conservation District 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

US Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Weston County 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Wyoming Office of the Governor 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

Wyoming State Planning Office 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument 

Big Horn County (Wyoming) 

Carbon County 

Golden Valley County 

Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council 

Montana State Historic Preservation Office 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation – Northeastern and Southern Land 

Offices 

Montana Association of Conservation Districts 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Musselshell County 

Musselshell Planning Project 

US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky Mountain Region 

US Bureau of Reclamation, Montana Area Office 

Wheatland County 

Yellowstone County 

Buffalo 

Campbell County Commission 

Campbell County Conservation District 

Crook County Commission 

Johnson County Commission 

Lake DeSmet Conservation District 

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

Powder River Conservation District 

Sheridan County Commission 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 7-5

Thunder Basin National Grasslands 

Wyoming Office of the Governor 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Wyoming Department of Revenue

Wyoming State Geological Survey 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

Wyoming State Forestry Division 

Wyoming State Parks and Cultural Resources 

Wyoming State Trails Program 

Wyoming Travel and Tourism 

Wyoming Water Development Commission 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Wyoming Department of Transportation 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

US Office of Surface Mining 

Bighorn Basin (Cody and Worland) 

Big Horn County Commission 

Bighorn National Forest Ranger District 

Cody Conservation District 

Crow Tribe 

Hot Springs Conservation District 

Hot Springs County Commission 

Meeteetse Conservation District 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Park County Commission 

Powell-Clarks Fork Conservation District 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

Shoshone Conservation District 

Shoshone National Forest/Wapati Ranger District 

South Big Horn Conservation District 

Washakie County Commission 

Washakie County Conservation District 

Wyoming Office of the Governor 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Wyoming Office of Lands and Investments 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

Wyoming State Geological Survey 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

7-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

HiLine 

Badlands Cooperative State Grazing District 

Blaine County 

Buggy Creek Cooperative State Grazing District 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

North Blaine Cooperative State Grazing District 

North Valley Cooperative State Grazing District 

North Phillips Cooperative State Grazing District 

Phillips County 

South Phillips Cooperative State Grazing District 

Wayne Creek Cooperative State Grazing District 

Willow Creek Cooperative State Grazing District 

US Bureau of Indian Affairs 

US Bureau of Reclamation 

Valley County 

Miles City 

Big Horn County 

Carter County 

Carter County Conservation District 

Custer County 

Daniels County 

Fallon County 

Fork Peck Tribe 

Garfield County 

Garfield County Conservation District 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

McCone County 

McCone County Conservation District 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

Powder River County 

Prairie County Conservation District 

Prairie County Cooperative State Grazing District 

Richland County 

Richland County Conservation District 

Rosebud County 

Sheridan County 

Treasure County 

US Bureau of Indian Affairs 

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Wibaux County Conservation District 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 7-7

South Dakota Field Office 

Butte County Commission 

Custer County Commission 

Harding County Commission 

Lawrence County Commission 

Meade County Commission 

Pennington County Commission 

State of South Dakota 

7.3 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. For all ARMPs and ARMPAs in the Rocky Mountain Region where the BLM determined 

that it may affect a listed endangered or threatened species, the BLM initiated consultation by requesting 

a species list from the appropriate FWS office for Federally listed, Federally proposed, or current 

Federal candidate species that may be present in the Planning Area. The BLM subsequently prepared 

biological assessments based on the species lists in which a determination is made, pursuant to Section 7 

of the ESA, as to whether the plans would affect a Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species. For 

all of the ARMPs and ARMPAs in the Rocky Mountain Region where consultation was required, the 

determinations from the BLM and the FWS concurrence letters or biological opinions from the FWS are 

an appendix to each of the attached ARMPs and ARMPAs. 

7.4 NATIVE AMERICAN AND STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS 

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 Rocky Mountain subregional RMPs and RMPAs/EISs. Coordination with Native American tribes occurred throughout the 

planning process. The BLM sent 102 individual letters to tribal governments, providing initial notification 

of the RMP and 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 RMP and RMPAs/EISs processes through numerous meetings and through 

personal BLM contacts, and in some cases, as cooperating agencies.

Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, and Wyoming ARMPAs, and HiLine ARMP 

As part of the NEPA scoping and consultation process for the Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest 

Colorado, and Wyoming ARMPAs and the HiLine ARMP, the BLM notified the Colorado, Montana, 

North Dakota, and Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) of the opportunities to 

comment on the planning and NEPA documents prepared for these efforts, as they relate to the RMP 

decisions included in the ARMPAs. 

The BLM sought information about historic properties in consideration of resource management 

planning decisions, in accordance with the National Programmatic Agreement between the BLM, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, National Conference of SHPOs, and the state protocol 

agreements between the BLM and Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota SHPOs. If the 

BLM received comments and information from the SHPOs and tribes, it considered that information and 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

7-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

incorporated it into the Proposed RMP and RMPAs/Final EISs and the ARMP and ARMPAs. The BLM 

also considered such information in making the RMPA and revision decisions. 

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, consistent 

with the alternative procedures set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement and relevant state 

protocols or, where applicable, the Section 106 regulations. 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument, Bighorn Basin, Buffalo, Miles City, and South 

Dakota ARMPs 

As part of the NEPA scoping and consultation process, BLM Montana/Dakotas and Wyoming invited the 

Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming SHPOs to participate in preparing the ARMPs regarding the 

resource management planning decisions included in the Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument, 

Bighorn Basin (Cody and Worland Field Offices), Buffalo, Miles City, and South Dakota Planning Areas.

The BLM sought information about the identification of historic properties in consideration of resource 

management planning decisions included in these ARMPs, in accordance with the National Programmatic 

Agreement between the BLM, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and National Conference of 

SHPOs and the Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota State Protocol Agreement between the BLM and 

Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota SHPOs, or, where applicable, the Section 106 regulations. 

The BLM incorporated the information it received from the SHPOs into the Proposed RMPs and 

considered such information in making the RMP decisions. 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 or, where applicable, the Section 106 

regulations. 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, 

consistent with the alternative procedures set forth in the National Programmatic Agreement and 

relevant state protocol or, where applicable, the Section 106 regulations. 

As identified in Section 7.2, the Wyoming SHPO was a cooperating agency for all the Wyoming 

planning efforts identified in this ROD, and the Montana SHPO was a formal cooperating agency for the 

Billings and Pompeys Pillar National Monument planning efforts. 
September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 8-1

CHAPTER 8 

REFERENCES

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1984. Record of Decision 

for the Billings Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Miles City District 

Office. September 1984. 

_____. 1985. Resource Management Plan for the Buffalo Field Office. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 

_____. 1988a. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Washakie 

Resource Area. Worland District. September 1988. 

_____. 1988b. West HiLine Final Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. 

Lewistown District. 

_____. 1990. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Cody Resource 

Area. Worland District Office. November 1990. 

_____. 1994. Approved Judith Resource Area Resource Management Plan. Lewistown District. 

September 1994. 

_____. 1998. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan for the Grass Creek 

Planning Area. Worland District Office. September 1998. 

_____. 2004. National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. November 2004. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/fish__wildlife_a

nd.Par.9151.File.dat/Sage-Grouse_Strategy.pdf. 

_____. 2005. Handbook H-1601-1—Resource management planning Handbook. Washington, DC. 

March 2005. 

_____. GIS. 2015. BLM GIS data. 
8. References 

8-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

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. 

Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 

Colorado Office of the Governor. 2015. Executive Order D 2014-004; Conserving Greater SageGrouse Habitat. May 15, 2015. 

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. 

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. Bureau of Land Management. Report Number: 

L10PG00911. 

FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

Conservation Objectives: Final Report. FWS, Denver, Colorado. February 2013. 

_____. 2014a. Memorandum: Greater Sage-Grouse: Additional Recommendations to Refine Land Use 

Allocations in Highly Important Landscapes. October 27, 2014. 

_____. 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. 

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. 

NTT (Sage-Grouse National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December 2011. 

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. 
8. References 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 8-3

US Department of the Interior. 2015. An Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy: Final report 

to the Secretary of the Interior. May 19, 2015. Internet website: 

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/rangeland/documents/IntegratedRangelandFireManagement

Strategy_FinalReportMay2015.pdf. 

Wyoming Executive Order No. 2011-5. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection: Casper, 

Wyoming, Governor’s Office, State of Wyoming. June 2, 2011.
8. References 

8-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 9 

APPROVAL 

Land Use Plan Decisions 

It is the decision of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to approve the Rocky Mountain Region 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendments for the Lewistown, North Dakota, Northwest 

Colorado, and Wyoming Sub-regions; and the RMPs for Billings, Buffalo, Cody, Hiline, Miles City, 

Pompeys Pillar National Monument, South Dakota, and Worland, as described in this Record of 

Decision. The Proposed RMPs and Proposed RMP Amendments and related Final Environmental Impact 

Statements were published on May 29, 20 IS, in the Federal Register (80 FR 3071 I). 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: 

21 201~ Date I 

Director 


Bureau of Land Manage 


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), 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: 

9-2-1-1 { 


Date 

Assistant Secretary 

Land and Minerals Management 

September 20 15 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 9-1 
9. Approval 

9-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 

This page intentionally left blank. 
ATTACHMENTS

The following approved resource management plan amendments and approved resource management 

plans are included in this Record of Decision and are bound as separate documents. 

Attachment 1: Lewistown Field Office Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendment 

Attachment 2: North Dakota Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

Attachment 3: Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendment 

Attachment 4: Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 

Attachment 5: Billings Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 6: Buffalo Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 7: Cody Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 8: HiLine District Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 9: Miles City Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 10: Pompeys Pillar National Monument Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 11: South Dakota Approved Resource Management Plan 

Attachment 12: Worland Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan

Northwest Colorado 

Greater Sage-Grouse Approved 

Resource Management Plan Amendment 

Attachment 3 

From the Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments for 

the Rocky Mountain Region including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions of: Lewistown, 

North Dakota, Northwest Colorado, and Wyoming and the Approved Resource 

Management Plans for: Billings, Buffalo, Cody, HiLine, Miles City, Pompeys Pillar National 

Monument, South Dakota, and Worland 

Prepared by 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Northwest Colorado District Office 

Colorado State Office 

September 2015 
MISSION STATEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained 

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

from public lands. 

BLM/CO/PL-15/018 
State Director Recommendation for Approval 

I hereby recommend for approval this resource management plan amendment. 

SEP 1 5 2015 

Date 
[left intentionally blank] 
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page 

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

1.1 Description of the Northwest Colorado Sub-Regional Planning Area ............................ 1-1

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

1.3 Northwest Colorado Sub-regional GRSG Conservation Summary ................................. 1-7

1.4 Planning Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 1-11

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Vegetation (VEG) ........................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE) ............................................................................ 2-7

2.2.4 Range Management (RM) ............................................................................................. 2-9

2.2.5 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB) ............................................................................. 2-13

2.2.6 Minerals (MR) ............................................................................................................... 2-14

2.2.7 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE) ............................................................. 2-20

2.2.8 Lands and Realty (LR) ................................................................................................. 2-21

2.2.9 Recreation (REC) ......................................................................................................... 2-23

2.2.10 Travel and Transportation (TTM) ........................................................................... 2-23

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

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

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

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

3.2 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 3-2

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

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

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

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

4.4 Plan Evaluation and Monitoring ................................................................................................. 4-2

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

6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 6-1
ii Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015 

TABLES Page 

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

1-2 Acres of PHMA and GHMA in the Decision Area for the ARMPA ................................................ 1-6

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

1-4 Acres of GRSG Habitat by BLM District/Field Office in the Decision Area 

(BLM-Administered Surface Lands Only) ............................................................................................... 1-6

1-5 Threats to GRSG in the Northwest Colorado Sub-region, as Identified by the COT .............. 1-8

1-6 Key Components of the Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT 

Report Threats ............................................................................................................................................. 1-9

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

2-2 Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for GRSG ................................................................................. 2-4

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Northwest Colorado Planning Area ....................................................................................................... 1-2

1-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas across All 

Jurisdictions ................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1-3 Northwest Colorado Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas 

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

Appendix A (Figures 2-1 through 2-11):

2-1 Habitat Management Areas 

2-2 Biologically Significant Units and Priority Habitat Management Areas 

2-3 Livestock Grazing 

2-4 Fluid Minerals 

2-5 Locatable Minerals 

2-6 Salable Minerals 

2-7 Nonenergy Leasable Minerals 

2-8 Designated Utility Corridors 

2-9a Major Rights-of-Way 

2-9b Minor Rights-of-Way 

2-10 Land Tenure 

2-11 Trails and Travel Management 

APPENDICES

A Approved RMP Amendment Maps 

B Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts on Leks 

C Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features 

D Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework 

E Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps 

F Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation Strategy 

G Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations 

H Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management 
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ADH all designated habitat (includes PHMA, GHMA, and LCHMA) 

ARMPA approved resource management plan amendment 

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

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COA condition of approval 

COT Conservation Objectives Team 

CSU controlled surface use 

EIS environmental impact statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National Forest 

GHMA general habitat management area(s) 

GIS geographical information system 

GRSG Greater Sage-Grouse 

HMA herd management area 

LCHMA linkage/connectivity habitat management area(s) 

LN lease notice 

MZ management zone 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NSO no surface occupancy 

NTT Sage-Grouse National Technical Team 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PDF preferred design feature 

PHMA priority habitat management area(s) 

RDF required design feature 

RMP resource management plan 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SDF suggested design feature 

TL timing limitation 

USFWS United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Table of Contents

iv Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

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

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provided in Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It determined that Factor A, “the 

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

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

GRSG now and in the foreseeable future” (USFWS 2010). The USFWS identified the principal regulatory 

mechanisms for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE NORTHWEST COLORADO SUB-REGIONAL PLANNING AREA

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

Northwest Colorado Planning Area, and Figure 1-2, Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Management Areas across All Jurisdictions). Table 1-1, Land Management in the Planning Area, 

lists the number of surface acres that are administered by specific federal agencies, states, and local 

governments and lands that are privately owned in the planning area. The planning area includes other 

BLM-administered lands that are not allocated as habitat management areas for GRSG. The ARMPA 

does not establish any additional management for these lands; they will continue to be managed 

according to the existing, underlying land use plan (LUP) for the areas.

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

Figure 1-3, Northwest Colorado Decision Area, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Areas for 

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

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-5

Table 1-1

Land Management in the Planning Area

Surface Land Management 

Total Surface Land 

Management Acres within 

GRSG Habitat

BLM 1,731,400

United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Routt National Forest

(Forest Service)

20,100

Private 2,051,500

USFWS 34,700

Other 300

State 263,400

National Park Service 9,900

Local government 41,700

Total 4,153,000

Source: BLM geographic information system (GIS) 2012

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

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

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

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

habitat management areas (PHMA), general habitat management areas (GHMA), and linkage/connectivity 

habitat management areas (LCHMA) (see Table 1-2). PHMA, GHMA, and LCHMA are defined as 

follows: 

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

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

priority areas for conservation in the USFWS’s 2013 Conservation Objectives Team (COT) 

report (USFWS 2013). These are areas that have been identified as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations; they include breeding, late 

brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas. 

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

GRSG populations. These are areas of seasonal or year-round habitat outside of priority 

habitat. 

 LCHMA—Areas that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to 

facilitate the movement of GRSG and maintain ecological processes. 

Collectively, PHMA, GHMA, and LCHMA are considered all designated habitat (ADH). PHMA, GHMA, 

and LCHMA on BLM-administered lands in the decision area fall within 10 counties in northwest 

Colorado: Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit (see 

Table 1-3). The habitat management areas also span five BLM field offices: Colorado River Valley, 

Grand Junction, Kremmling, Little Snake, and White River (see Table 1-4).
1. Introduction

1-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 1-2

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

Surface Land Management PHMA GHMA

BLM 921,500 728,000

Subsurface Management PHMA GHMA

BLM 1,241,700 896,000

Source: BLM GIS 2012

Table 1-3

Acres of GRSG Habitat by County in the Decision Area (BLMAdministered Lands Only1)

County ARMPA

PHMA GHMA Total

Eagle 20,900 16,100 37,000

Garfield 24,800 35,900 60,700

Grand 60,700 11,300 72,000

Jackson 137,600 1,100 138,700

Larimer 0 6,700 6,700

Mesa 0 4,500 4,500

Moffat 623,300 542,000 1,165,300

Rio Blanco 36,400 108,800 145,200

Routt 17,100 1,600 18,700

Summit 700 0 700

Total 921,500 728,000 1,649,500

Source: BLM GIS 2012

1Does not include subsurface mineral estate

Table 1-4

Acres of GRSG Habitat by BLM District/Field Office in the Decision 

Area (BLM-Administered Surface Lands Only)

BLM Field Office ARMPA

PHMA GHMA Total

Colorado River Valley Field Office 24,700 40,200 64,900

Grand Junction Field Office 5,600 8,900 14,500

Kremmling Field Office 198,900 18,900 217,800

Little Snake Field Office 570,400 479,700 1,050,100

White River Field Office 122,000 180,200 302,200

Source: BLM GIS 2012
1. Introduction

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-7

The following BLM RMPs are hereby amended to incorporate appropriate GRSG conservation 

measures: 

 Colorado River Valley RMP (BLM 2015a) 

 Grand Junction RMP (BLM 2015b)

 Kremmling RMP (BLM 2015c)

 Little Snake RMP (BLM 2011)

 White River RMP (BLM 1997) and associated amendments, including the White River Oil 

and Gas Amendment (BLM 2015d)

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The BLM has prepared this ARMPA with an associated environmental impact statement (EIS) to amend 

RMPs for its field offices and district offices containing GRSG habitat. This planning process is needed to 

respond to the USFWS’s March 2010 “warranted, but precluded” ESA listing decision for GRSG. The 

USFWS identified the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 

range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as significant threats. It also identified the 

principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM as conservation measures incorporated into LUPs. 

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

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

impacts on GRSG habitat in the context of the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mission under 

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

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

identified by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision and in the USFWS 2013 COT report. 

The major threats to GRSG and GRSG habitat on BLM-administered lands in the northwest Colorado 

sub-region are the following:

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

development 

 Infrastructure—fragmentation of GRSG habitat due to development, such as rights-of-way

(ROWs) and renewable energy development 

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

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

 Invasive species—conversion of GRSG habitat to cheatgrass-dominated plant communities 

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

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

GRSG populations.

1.3 NORTHWEST COLORADO SUB-REGIONAL GRSG CONSERVATION SUMMARY

The ARMPA identifies and incorporates measures to conserve, enhance, and restore GRSG habitat by 

avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for unavoidable impacts of threats to GRSG habitat. The ARMPA 
1. Introduction

1-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

addresses threats to GRSG and its habitat identified by the GRSG National Technical Team (NTT)

(2011), by the USFWS in the March 2010 listing decision. It also addresses threats described in the 

USFWS’s 2013 COT report, in which the USFWS identified threats to GRSG by population across the 

range and stated whether that threat is present and widespread, present but localized, or unknown for 

that specific population. 

Table 1-5 identifies the GRSG populations and the threats identified in the COT contained within the 

Northwest Colorado Sub-region.

Table 1-5

Threats to GRSG in the Northwest Colorado Sub-region, as Identified by the COT

GRSG Identified 

Populations in Colorado 

from the COT Report 

Applicable to the 

Northwest Colorado 

Sub-region

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

Eagle-South Routt) 5 Y L Y L L Y Y Y Y L Y

Middle Park 6 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

North Park 9d Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Northwest Colorado 9e L Y Y L Y Y Y Y Y L Y L

Parachute-Piceance-Roan 

Basin

34 Y L Y Y L Y Y Y Y Y

Meeker-White River 35 Y Y Y Y L Y Y Y Y Y

Source: USFWS 2013

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

U = unknown.

Table 1-6 provides a crosswalk as to how the ARMPA for the Northwest Colorado Sub-region 

addresses the threats from the COT report.

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

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

summarized management decisions, subject to valid existing rights:

 Requiring specific design features for certain land and realty uses

 Implementing the disturbance cap to limit disturbance in PHMA

 Including GRSG habitat objectives in land health standards.

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

standards, and ecological site potential
1. Introduction

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-9

Table 1-6

Key Components of the Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Northwest Colorado ARMPA

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

restrictive land use allocations and management actions to be implemented 

if habitat or population hard triggers are met

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

GRSG for actions that result in habitat loss and degradation

 Monitor implementation and effectiveness of conservation measures in 

GRSG habitats according to the habitat assessment framework

All development 

threats, including 

mining, infrastructure, 

and energy 

development

 PHMA—Implement the disturbance cap, which provides a human 

disturbance cap of 3 percent within the biologically significant unit (BSU)

 PHMA—Implement a density cap of an average of 1 energy and mining 

facility per 640 acres

 Apply buffers necessary 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 effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, using the best 

available science, updated as monitoring information on current 

infrastructure projects becomes available

Energy 

development—fluid 

minerals, including 

geothermal resources 

 PHMA—Closed to fluid mineral leasing within 1 mile of active leks; open to 

fluid mineral leasing subject to no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation 

without waiver or modification and with limited exception

 GHMA—Closed to fluid mineral leasing within 1 mile of active leks; open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to NSO with waiver, modification, or 

exception within 2 miles of active leks; open to fluid mineral leasing subject 

to timing limitation (TL) stipulations

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

GRSG habitat

Energy 

development—wind 

energy

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

any conditions) 

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

with special stipulations) 

Energy 

development—solar 

energy

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

any conditions) 

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

any conditions) 

Infrastructure—major 

ROWs

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

stipulations) 

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

stipulations) 
1. Introduction

1-10 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table 1-6

Key Components of the Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Northwest Colorado ARMPA

Infrastructure—minor 

ROWs

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

stipulations) 

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

stipulations) 

Mining—locatable

minerals

 PHMA—Apply RDFs to locatable minerals consistent with applicable law. 

Mining—nonenergy 

leasable minerals

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

Mining—salable 

minerals

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

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

active pits if criteria are met) 

Mining—coal  PHMA is essential habitat for GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria 

set forth at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 3461.5(o)(1).

Improper Livestock 

grazing

 Prioritize the review and processing of grazing permits and leases in PHMA

 Include in National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis for 

renewals and modifications of grazing permits and leases specific 

management thresholds, based on the GRSG habitat objectives table land 

health standards and ecological site potential, to allow adjustments to 

grazing that have already been subjected to NEPA analysis

Free-roaming equid 

(wild horses and 

burros) management

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

appropriate management level ranges to achieve and maintain GRSG habitat 

objectives

 Prioritize rangeland health assessment, gathers and population growth 

suppression techniques, monitoring, and review and adjustment of 

appropriate management levels and preparation of HMA plans in GRSG 

habitat

Range management 

structures

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

conservation benefit to GRSG, such as fences for protecting important 

seasonal habitats

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

habitat are neutral or result in a net conservation gain

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

actions important for GRSG protection

 Prioritize post-fire treatments in PHMA and GHMA

Nonnative, invasive 

plant species

 Improve GRSG habitat by treating annual grasses

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

through integrated pest management 
1. Introduction

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-11

Table 1-6

Key Components of the Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA Addressing COT Report 

Threats

Threats to GRSG 

and its Habitat 

(from COT 

Report)

Key Component of the Northwest Colorado ARMPA

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

no less than 70 percent) with a minimum of 15 percent sagebrush cover or 

as consistent with specific ecological site conditions

 Ensure that all BLM use authorizations contain terms and conditions 

regarding the actions needed to meet or progress toward meeting the 

habitat objectives for GRSG

Pinyon and juniper 

expansion

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

considers tribal cultural values, prioritizing occupied GRSG habitat

Agricultural 

conversion and 

exurban development

 PHMA—Retain under federal management

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

GHMA to ensure a net conservation gain to GRSG. The ARMPA would reduce habitat disturbance and 

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

use through monitoring and adaptive management.

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

1.4 PLANNING CRITERIA

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

policy directives. It is also based on public participation and coordination with cooperating agencies, 

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

the standards, rules, and factors used as a framework to resolve issues and develop alternatives. Planning 

criteria are prepared to ensure decision-making is tailored to the issues and to ensure that the BLM 

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

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

Planning criteria carried forward for this ARMPA are as follows: 

 The BLM used the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)

Conservation Assessment of GRSG and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004; Coates 

and Delehanty 2004, 2008, 2010) and any other appropriate resources to identify GRSG 

habitat requirements and RDFs. 

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

 The ARMPA complies with BLM direction, such as FLPMA, NEPA, and Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508; US Department of the 

Interior regulations at 43 CFR, Parts 4 and 1600; the BLM H-1601-1 Land Use Planning 

Handbook, “Appendix C: Program-Specific and Resource-Specific Decision Guidance 
1. Introduction

1-12 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Requirements,” for affected resource programs (BLM 2005); the 2008 BLM NEPA 

Handbook (H-1790-1; BLM 2008); and all other applicable BLM policies and guidance. 

 The ARMPA is limited to providing direction specific to conserving GRSG species and 

habitats. 

 The BLM considered land allocations and prescriptive standards to conserve GRSG and its 

habitat, as well as objectives and management actions to restore, enhance, and improve 

GRSG habitat. 

 The ARMPA recognizes valid existing rights. 

 The ARMPA addresses BLM-administered land in GRSG habitats, including surface and splitestate lands with BLM subsurface mineral rights. Any decisions in the ARMPA apply only to 

BLM-administered lands. 

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

determine the desired future condition of BLM-administered lands for conserving GRSG and 

their habitats. 

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

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

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

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

conservation of the GRSG and GRSG habitat. 

 The BLM addressed socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives. It used such tools as the 

input-output quantitative models Impact Analysis for Planning and the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory’s Jobs and Economic Development Impact model for renewable energy 

analysis, where quantitative data was available. 

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

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

management strategies that will enhance or restore GRSG habitats. 

 The BLM is consistent with the objectives in BLM Manual 6840 which are to preserve the 

ecosystem that species depend on and to initiate proactive conservation measures that 

minimize listing the species under the ESA.

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

Areas. Land use allocations made for GRSG are consistent with BLM Manual 6340 and other 

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

 Management of GRSG habitat that intersects with National Conservation Areas on BLMadministered lands is guided by BLM Manual 6220, Management of National Conservation 

Areas. Land use allocations made for GRSG are consistent with BLM Manual 6220; other 

laws, regulations, and policies related to areas on BLM-administered lands are guided by 

BLM Manual 6220, Management of National Conservation Area management.

 Management of GRSG habitat that intersects with eligible, suitable, or designated wild and 

scenic rivers are guided by BLM Manual 6400, Wild and Scenic Rivers—Policy and Program 
1. Introduction

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 1-13

Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Land use allocations 

made for GRSG are consistent with BLM Manual 6400 and other laws, regulations, and 

policies related to wild and scenic rivers management.

 Management of GRSG habitat that intersects with National Historic Trails or trails under 

study for possible designation (study trails) are guided by BLM Manual 6280, Management of 

National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for 

Congressional Designation. Land use allocations made for GRSG are consistent with BLM 

Manual 6280 and other laws, regulations, and policies related to National Historic Trail

management.

 Management of GRSG habitat that intersects with lands with wilderness characteristics on 

BLM-administered lands is guided by BLM Manuals 6310 and 6320, Conducting Wilderness 

Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands and Considering Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics in the BLM Land Use Planning Process. Land use allocations made for GRSG 

are consistent with BLM Manuals 6310 and 6320 and other laws, regulations, and policies 

related to lands with wilderness characteristics management. 

 Management of GRSG habitat that intersects with wilderness study areas on BLMadministered lands are guided by the Manual 6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas. 

Land use allocations made for wilderness study areas are consistent with Manual 6330 and 

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

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

land health standards. Standards and guidelines for livestock grazing and other programs that 

have developed standards and guidelines are applicable to all alternatives for BLMadministered lands. For National Forest System lands, all activities in GRSG habitat will 

achieve the GRSG habitat objectives.

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

important to their cultural and religious heritage in GRSG habitats. 

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

ensure that the BLM considered providing pertinent plans, sought to resolve inconsistencies 

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

tribal governments to comment on the development of amendments. 

 The ARMPA has incorporated the principles of adaptive management. 

 Reasonably foreseeable development scenarios (RDFs) and planning for fluid minerals follow 

the BLM Handbook H-1624-1 and current fluid minerals manual guidance (oil and gas, coal

bed methane, and oil shale) and geothermal resources (BLM 1990). 

 Data used in developing the ARMPA are consistent with the principles of the Information 

Quality Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-554, Section 515); state data was used as the basis for 

PHMA and GHMA identification.

 State fish and wildlife agencies’ GRSG data and expertise have been considered in making 

management determinations on BLM-administered lands. 
1. Introduction

1-14 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

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

more restrictive land use allocations or decisions will remain in effect and will not be 

amended by this ARMPA.
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-1

CHAPTER 2

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AMENDMENT

2.1 APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT INSTRUCTIONS

This ARMPA is now the baseline plan for managing GRSG in northwest Colorado in the following Field 

Offices: Colorado River Valley, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Little Snake, and White River. The ARMPA 

adopts the management described in the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Proposed 

Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final EIS (BLM and Forest Service 2015), with modifications

and clarifications as described in the Modifications and Clarifications section of the record of decision 

(ROD).

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

ARMPA, the decisions contained in this ARMPA will be followed, unless there are more restrictive 

decisions in the existing plans. The BLM will continue to tier to statewide, national, and programmatic 

EISs and other NEPA and planning documents. It will consider and apply RDFs or other management 

protocols contained in other planning documents after appropriate site-specific analysis.

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

decisions contained in this ARMPA. All existing operations and activities authorized under permits, 

contracts, cooperative agreements, or other authorizations will be modified, as necessary and 

appropriate, to conform to this plan amendment within a reasonable time frame. However, this ARMPA

does not repeal valid existing rights on public lands. These are claims or authorizations that take 

precedence over the decisions developed in this plan. If such authorizations come up for review and can 

be modified, they will also be brought into conformance with this plan amendment, as appropriate.

While the Final EIS for the Northwest Colorado Proposed GRSG RMP Amendment constitutes 

compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions made in this ARMPA, the BLM will continue to 

prepare environmental assessments and EISs where appropriate as part of implementation-level planning 

and decision-making.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

2.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

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

established for protecting and preserving GRSG and its habitat on BLM-administered lands in Northwest 

Colorado. These management decisions are presented by program area. Not all types of decisions were 

identified for each program. A Monitoring Framework is also included (in Appendix D) to describe how 

the implemented program decisions will be monitored.

This section is organized by program area beginning with the special status species program, which 

identifies specific goals, objectives, and management actions for GRSG and its habitat. For ease of 

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

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

 Special Status Species (SSS)

 Vegetation (VEG)

– Sagebrush Steppe

– Conifer Encroachment

– Invasive Species

– Riparian and Wetlands

 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE)

– Pre-Suppression 

– Suppression 

– Fuels Management 

– Post-Fire Management 

 Range Management (RM)

 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB)

 Minerals (MR)

– Leasable Minerals 

– Locatable Minerals 

– Salable Minerals 

– Nonenergy Leasable Minerals 

– Coal 

 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE)

 Lands and Realty (LR)

– Utility Corridors and Communication Sites

– Land Use Authorizations

– Land Tenure
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-3

– Recommended Withdrawals

 Recreation (REC)

 Travel and Transportation (TTM)

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

Table 2-1

Summary of Allocation Decisions by GRSG Habitat Management Areas

Resource PHMA GHMA LCHMA

Land Tenure Retain

Solar Exclusion Avoidance Open

Wind Exclusion Avoidance Open

Major ROWs Avoidance Avoidance Open

Minor ROWs Avoidance Avoidance Open

Oil and Gas Closed within 1 mile of 

active leks

Remainder of PHMA 

Open with Major 

Stipulations

Closed within 1 mile of 

active leks

Open with Major 

Stipulations within 2 miles 

of active leks

Remainder of GHMA Open 

with Standard Stipulations

Open with 

Standard 

Stipulations

Nonenergy Leasables Closed Open Open

Salable Minerals Closed Open Open

Locatable Minerals Open Open Open

Travel Management Limited Limited Limited

Livestock Grazing Open Open Open

2.2.1 Special Status Species (SSS)

Objective SSS-1: Maintain and enhance populations and distribution of GRSG by protecting and 

improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain GRSG populations.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD SSS-1: Adaptive Management: Implement Adaptive Management Plan including soft and hard 

triggers as described in Appendix H (Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management). The 

hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the signing of the ROD 

and then at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

MD SSS-2: In undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid and existing rights and 

applicable law in authorizing third-party actions, the BLM will apply the lek buffer-distances identified in 

the US Geological Survey Report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse – A 

Review (Open File Report 2014-1239) in accordance with Appendix B.

MD SSS-3: In all sage-grouse habitat, in undertaking BLM management actions, and, consistent with 

valid existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

degradation, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the 

species including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation. This 

will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation 

actions.

2.2.2 Vegetation (VEG)

Sagebrush Steppe (Habitat Restoration)

Objective VEG-1: (1) Use habitat restoration as a tool to create and/or maintain landscapes that

benefit GRSG; (2) Use Integrated Vegetation Management to control, suppress, and eradicate, where 

possible, noxious and invasive species per BLM Handbook H-1740-2; and (3) In PHMA, 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 cover or as consistent with specific ecological site 

conditions. The attributes necessary to sustain these habitats are described in Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health (BLM Technical Reference 1734-6).

Management Decisions (MD)

MD VEG-1: (ADH) When planning restoration treatments in GRSG habitat, identify seasonal habitat 

availability, and prioritize treatments in areas that are thought to be limiting GRSG distribution and/or 

abundance.

The habitat objectives for GRSG (Table 2-2) are a list of indicators and values that describe GRSG 

seasonal habitat conditions. The values for the indicators were derived using a synthesis of current local 

and regional GRSG habitat research and data and reflect variability of ecological sites. The habitat cover 

indicators are consistent with existing indicators used by the BLM.

Table 2-2

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

BREEDING AND NESTING 1,2,3 (Seasonal Use Period March 1-June 15) 

Apply 4 miles from active leks. 15

Lek Security Proximity of trees 4 Trees or other tall structures are none to

uncommon within 1.86 miles of leks 5,6

Proximity of sagebrush to leks 5 Adjacent protective sagebrush cover within 328 

feet of lek5

Cover Seasonal habitat extent 6 >80% of the breeding and nesting habitat

Sagebrush canopy cover 5,6,7,17

Arid sites

Mesic sites

15 to 30%

20 to 30%17

Sagebrush height 6, 17

Arid sites 5,6,9

Mesic sites 5,6,10

11.8 to 31.5 inches (30-80 cm)

15.7 to 31.5 inches (40-80 cm)

Predominant sagebrush shape 5 >50% in spreading 11

Perennial grass canopy cover (such as 

native bunchgrasses)

5,6, 17

Arid sites 6,9

Mesic sites 6,10,17

>10%

>20%17

Perennial grass and forb height

(includes residual grasses) 5,6,7

>6 inches6, 16, 17
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-5

Table 2-2

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for GRSG

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

Perennial forb canopy cover 5,6,7

Arid sites 9

Mesic sites 10

>5%5,6,17

>15%5,6,17

BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1(Seasonal Use Period June 16-October 31)

Cover Seasonal habitat extent 6 >40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat

Sagebrush canopy cover 5, 6,7, 17

Arid sites

Mesic sites 10 to 25%

10 to 25%

Sagebrush height 6,7, 17

Arid sites

Mesic sites 11.8 to 31.5 inches (30 to 80 cm)

13.8 to 31.5 inches (35 to 80 cm)

Perennial grass canopy cover and 

forbs 6,7,17

Arid sites

Mesic sites

>15%17

>25%17

Riparian areas (both lentic and lotic 

systems)

Proper Functioning Condition 13

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability 5,6

Preferred forbs are common with several 

preferred species present 12

WINTER1(Seasonal Use Period November 1-February 28)

Cover and Food Seasonal habitat extent 5,6,7 >80% of the winter habitat

Sagebrush canopy cover above 

snow 5,6,7,17

>20% Arid, 25% Mesic17

Sagebrush height above snow 5,6,7 >10 inches 14

1 Seasonal dates can be adjusted; that is, start and end dates may be shifted either earlier or later, but the amount of days 

cannot be shortened or lengthened by the local unit.

2 Doherty 2008

3 Holloran and Anderson 2005.

4 Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013

5 Stiver et. al. 2014

6 Connelly et al. 2000

7 Connelly et al. 2003

9 10–12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver 

et. al. 2014).

10 >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et.

al. 2014).

11 Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more tree or 

columnar shaped (Stiver et. al. 2014).

12 Preferred forbs are listed in Habitat Assessment Framework Table III-2 (Stiver et. al. 2014). Overall, total forb cover may be 

greater than that of preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred in Table III-2.

13 Existing land management plan desired conditions for riparian areas/wet meadows (spring seeps) may be used in place of 

properly functioning conditions, if appropriate for meeting GRSG habitat requirements.

14 The height of sagebrush remaining above the snow depends upon snow depth in a particular year. Intent is to manage for tall, 

healthy, sagebrush stands.

15 Buffer distance may be changed only if 3 out of 5 years of telemetry studies indicate the 4 miles is not appropriate.

16Measured as “droop height”; the highest naturally growing portion of the plant.

17 Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee 2008
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

When determining if a site is meeting habitat objectives, the measurements from that particular site 

would be assessed based on the range of values for the indicators in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 is one 

component of GRSG multi-scale habitat assessment (see Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse 

Monitoring Framework). The results of the habitat assessment would be used during the land health 

evaluation to ascertain if the land health standard applicable to GRSG habitat (e.g., special status species 

habitat standard) is being met.

When authorizing activities in GRSG habitat, the BLM would consider if habitat objectives are being 

achieved. If the habitat objectives are not being achieved, and the site has the potential for achieving 

these objectives, the BLM would determine the causal factor(s) and make the necessary management 

adjustments to address the causal factor(s), following current BLM regulations and policy.

MD VEG-2: (PHMA) Include GRSG habitat parameters as defined by Connelly et al. (2000), Hagen et 

al. (2007), or, if available, state GRSG conservation plans and appropriate local information in habitat 

restoration objectives. Make meeting these objectives within GRSG PHMA areas a high restoration 

priority.

MD VEG-3: (ADH) Require use of native plant seeds that are beneficial for GRSG for vegetation 

treatments based on availability, adaptation (site potential), probability for success (Richards et al. 1998), 

and the vegetation management objectives for the area covered by the treatment. Where probability of 

success or native seed availability is low, use species that meet soil stability and hydrologic function 

objectives as well as vegetation and GRSG habitat objectives (Pyke 2011).

MD VEG-4: (PHMA) Design post restoration management to ensure long-term persistence of seeded 

or pre-burn native plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild 

horse management, travel management, and other uses, to achieve and maintain the desired condition of 

emergency stabilization and rehabilitation (ESR) projects to benefit GRSG (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 

2006).

MD VEG-5: (ADH) Manage for a habitat objective that is primarily sagebrush with a mosaic of seral 

stages and sagebrush in all age classes. On a site-by-site basis, do not allow treatments that would 

adversely affect GRSG populations.

MD VEG-6: (ADH) Make reestablishment of sagebrush and desirable understory plant cover (relative 

to ecological site potential) the highest priority for restoration efforts. Consider GRSG habitat 

requirements in conjunction with all resource values managed by the BLM, and give preference to GRSG 

habitat unless site-specific circumstances warrant an exemption.

MD VEG-7: (ADH) Authorize local sagebrush seed collection to support local restoration efforts.

MD VEG-8: (ADH) Treat areas that contain Bromus tectorum and other invasive or noxious species 

to minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species.

Conifer Encroachment

MD VEG-8: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers tribal 

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

where juniper encroachment is phase 1 or phase 2. Use of site-specific analysis and principles like those 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-7

included in the Fire and Invasives Assessment Team report (Chambers et. al., 2014) and other ongoing 

modeling efforts to address conifer encroachment will help refine the location for specific priority areas 

to be treated. See Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management.

2.2.3 Fire and Fuels Management (FIRE)

Suppression (Fire Operations)

Objective FIRE-1: Manage fire to maintain and enhance large blocks of contiguous sagebrush.

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FIRE-1: (PHMA) The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities 

among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and 

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

human health and safety, and the costs of protection. Consider GRSG habitat requirements 

commensurate with all resource values at risk managed by the BLM.

MD FIRE-2: (GHMA) The protection of human life is the single, overriding priority. Setting priorities 

among protecting human communities and community infrastructure, other property and 

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

human health and safety, and the costs of protection. Consider GRSG habitat requirements 

commensurate with all resource values at risk managed by the BLM.

MD FIRE-3: (PHMA/GHMA) Temporary closures would be considered in accordance with 43 CFR 

subparts 8364, 8351, 6302 and 8341. Temporary closure or restriction orders under these authorities 

are enacted at the discretion of the authorized officer to resolve management conflicts and protect 

persons, property, and public lands and resources. Where an authorized officer determines that offhighway vehicles are causing or will cause considerable adverse effects upon soil, vegetation, wildlife, 

wildlife habitat, cultural resources, historical resources, threatened or endangered species, wilderness 

suitability, other authorized uses, or other resources, the affected areas shall be immediately closed to 

the type(s) of vehicle causing the adverse effect until the adverse effects are eliminated and measures 

implemented to prevent recurrence (43 CFR, Part 8341.2). A closure or restriction order should be 

considered only after other management strategies and alternatives have been explored. The duration of 

temporary closure or restriction orders should be limited to 24 months or less; however, certain 

situations may require longer closures and/or iterative temporary closures. This may include closure of 

routes or areas

Fuels Management

Objective FIRE-2: Manage the fuels program to avoid GRSG habitat loss and restore damaged habitat.

MD FIRE-4: (PHMA) Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15 percent (Connelly et al. 

2000; Hagen et al. 2007) in a project area unless a vegetation management objective requires additional 

reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic protection of GRSG PHMA and conserve habitat quality 

for the species, in consultation with the State of Colorado.

MD FIRE-5: (PHMA) Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing vegetation management 

treatments according to the type of seasonal habitats present in a Colorado management zone (MZ).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

MD FIRE-6: (PHMA) Allow no treatments in known winter range unless the treatments are designed 

to strategically reduce wildfire risk around or in the winter range and will maintain winter range habitat 

quality, unless in consultation with the State of Colorado it is deemed necessary to reduce risk to life 

and property.

MD FIRE-7: (ADH) Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12‐inch precipitation zones (e.g., 

Wyoming big sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species) (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007; Beck 

et al. 2009). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment opportunities have been explored, 

and site-specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire or natural ignition fire for fuels breaks that 

would disrupt fuel continuity or enhance land health could be considered where cheatgrass is deemed a 

minor threat.

If prescribed fire is used in GRSG habitat, the NEPA analysis for the burn plan will address:

 why alternative techniques were not selected as viable options

 how GRSG goals and objectives would be met by its use

 how the COT report objectives would be addressed and met

 a risk assessment to address how potential threats to GRSG habitat would be minimized

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

the burn plan has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Prescribed fire could be used to meet 

specific fuels objectives that would protect GRSG habitat in PHMA (e.g., creating fuel designed to 

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

habitat quality breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape in stands where annual 

invasive grasses are a minor component in the understory, burning slash piles from conifer-reduction 

treatments, or being used as a component with other treatment methods to combat annual grasses and 

restore native plant communities).

Prescribed fire in known winter range shall only be considered after the NEPA analysis for the burn plan 

has addressed the four bullets outlined above. Any prescribed fire in winter habitat would need to be 

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

winter range habitat quality.

MD FIRE-8: (ADH) Monitor and control invasive vegetation post treatment.

MD FIRE-9: (ADH) Require use of native plant seeds for vegetation treatments based on availability, 

adaptation (site potential), probability for success (Richards et al. 1998), and the vegetation management 

objectives for the area covered by the treatment. Where probability of success or native seed 

availability is low, use species that meet soil stability and hydrologic function objectives as well as 

vegetation and GRSG habitat objectives (Pyke 2011).

MD FIRE-10: (PHMA) Design post fuels management to ensure long-term persistence of seeded or 

pre-burn native plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing, wild horse 

management, travel management, and other uses, to achieve and maintain the desired condition of ESR 

projects to benefit GRSG (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006).
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-9

MD FIRE-11: (ADH) Design vegetation treatments in GRSG habitats to strategically facilitate firefighter 

safety, reduce wildfire threats, and extreme fire behavior. This may involve spatially arranging new 

vegetation treatments with past treatments, vegetation with fire-resistant serial stages, natural barriers, 

and roads in order to constrain fire spread and growth. This may require vegetation treatments to be 

implemented in a more linear versus block design (Launchbaugh et al. 2007).

MD FIRE-12: (PHMA) During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to 

strategically reduce fine fuels (Diamond at al. 2009), and implement grazing management that will 

accomplish this objective (Davies et al. 2011; Launchbaugh et al. 2007). Consult with ecologists to 

minimize impacts to native perennial grasses consistent with the objectives and conservation measures 

of the grazing section.

Post-Fire Management (Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation)

Objective FIRE-3: Use ESR to address post-wildfire threats to GRSG habitat. 

Management Decisions (MD)

MD FIRE-13: (ADH) Require use of native plant seeds that are beneficial for GRSG for vegetation 

treatments based on availability, adaptation (site potential), probability for success (Richards et al. 1998), 

and the vegetation management objectives for the area covered by the treatment. Where attempts to 

use native seeds have failed, or native seed availability is low, use species that meet soil stability and 

hydrologic function objectives, as well as vegetation and GRSG habitat objectives (Pyke 2011). 

MD FIRE-14: (ADH) Design post-fire ESR and Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation management to 

ensure long-term persistence of seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require temporary or longterm changes in livestock grazing, wild horse management, travel management, and other uses to 

achieve and maintain the desired condition of ESR and Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation projects to 

benefit GRSG (Eiswerth and Shonkwiler 2006). 

MD FIRE-15: (ADH) Rest burned areas from grazing for two full growing seasons unless vegetation 

recovery dictates otherwise (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2011). 

2.2.4 Range Management (RM)

Objective RM-1: GRSG objectives and well-managed livestock operations are compatible because 

forage availability for livestock and hiding cover for GRSG are both dependent on healthy plant 

communities. Agreements with partners that promote sustainable GRSG populations concurrent with 

sustainable ranch operations offer long-term stability. In the context of sustainable range operations, 

manage the range program to: 1) maintain or enhance vigorous and productive plant communities; 2) 

maintain residual herbaceous cover to reduce predation during GRSG nesting and early brood-rearing; 

3) avoid direct adverse impacts to GRSG-associated range project infrastructure; and 4) employ grazing 

management strategies that avoid concentrating animals on key GRSG habitats during key seasons. 

Management Decisions (MD)

MD RM-1: (ADH) Within ADH, incorporate GRSG habitat objectives and management considerations 

into all BLM grazing allotments through Allotment Management Plans.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-10 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

MD RM-2: (ADH) Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning within GRSG habitat. Develop 

management strategies that are seamless with respect to actions on public and private lands within BLM 

grazing allotments. 

MD RM-3: (PHMA) The BLM will prioritize: 

1. the review of grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if modification is necessary 

prior to renewal, and 

2. the processing of grazing permits/leases in PHMA. 

In setting workload priorities, precedence will be given to existing permits/leases in these areas not 

meeting Land Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, including wet meadows. 

The BLM may use other criteria for prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., 

fire) and legal obligations. 

MD RM-4: (ADH) Conduct land health assessments that include (at a minimum) indicators and 

measurements of vegetation structure/condition/composition specific to achieving GRSG habitat 

objectives (Doherty et al. 2011). If local/state seasonal habitat objectives are not available, use GRSG 

habitat recommendations from Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007. 

Implementing Management Actions after Land Health and Habitat Evaluations

MD RM-5: (ADH) Develop specific objectives—through NEPA analysis conducted in accordance with 

the permit/lease renewal process—to conserve, enhance, or restore GRSG habitat. Base benchmarks on 

Ecological Site/Range Site Descriptions. When existing on Ecological Site/Range Site Descriptions have 

not been developed, or are too general to serve adequately as benchmarks, identify and document local 

reference sites for areas of similar potential that exemplify achievement of GRSG habitat objectives and 

use these sites as the benchmark reference. Establish measurable objectives related to GRSG habitat 

from baseline monitoring data, ecological site descriptions, or land health assessments/evaluations, or 

other habitat and successional stage objectives. 

MD RM-6: (ADH) Manage for vegetation composition and structure consistent with ecological site 

potential and within the reference state subject to habitat objectives, including successional stages. 

MD RM-7: (ADH) Include terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that address disruptive 

activities that affect GRSG and assure plant growth requirements are met and residual forage remains 

available for GRSG hiding cover. 

Specify as necessary: 

1. Season or timing of use 

2. Numbers of livestock (include temporary non-use or livestock removal) 

3. Distributions of livestock use 

4. Intensity of use (utilization or stubble height objectives) 

5. Kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horse, llama, alpaca, and goat) 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-11

6. Class of livestock (e.g., yearlings versus cow/calf pairs) 

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

MD RM-8: (ADH) Develop drought contingency plans at the appropriate landscape unit that provide 

for a consistent/appropriate BLM response. Plans shall establish policy for addressing ongoing drought 

and post-drought recovery for GRSG habitat objectives. 

MD RM-9: The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of livestock grazing permits/leases that 

include lands within PHMA would include specific management thresholds based on Table 2.3 in the 

Proposed Plan, Land Health Standards (43 CFR, Part 4180.2), ecological site potential, and one or more 

defined responses that would allow the authorizing officer to make adjustments to livestock grazing that 

have already been subject to NEPA analysis.

MD RM-10: Allotments within PHMA, focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet 

meadows, would be prioritized for field checks to help ensure compliance with the terms and conditions 

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

supervision. 

Riparian Areas and Wet Meadows

MD RM-11: (ADH) Manage riparian areas and wet meadows for proper functioning condition within 

ADH. 

MD RM-12: (ADH) Within ADH, manage wet meadows to maintain diverse species richness, including 

a component of perennial forbs, relative to site potential (i.e., reference state). 

MD RM-13: (ADH) Establish permit/lease terms and conditions in conjunction with grazing strategies 

to ensure that the timing and level of utilization results in wet meadows with diverse species richness, 

including a component of perennial forbs, relative to site potential (i.e., reference state). 

MD RM-14: (ADH) Authorize new water development only after determining that the project will not 

adversely impact GRSG from habitat loss. Ensure that adequate long-term grazing management is in 

effect before authorizing water developments that may increase levels of use or change season of use. 

Give specific consideration to adjacent or downstream wetland habitat when a project entails a 

diversion from a spring or seep. 

MD RM-15: (ADH) Analyze springs, seeps and associated pipelines to determine if modifications are 

necessary to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area. If necessary to maintain GRSG 

populations or reverse a downward population trend caused by habitat loss, modify the project as 

necessary to restore the applicable wetland habitat. 

Treatments to Increase Forage for Livestock/Wild Ungulates

MD RM-16: (ADH) Manage for a habitat objective that is primarily sagebrush with a mosaic of seral 

stages and sagebrush in all age classes. On a site-by-site basis, do not allow treatments that would 

adversely affect GRSG populations. See Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive 

Management. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-12 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

MD RM-17: (PHMA) Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily 

introduced perennial grasses in and adjacent to GRSG PHMA to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for GRSG. If these seedings are part of an Allotment Management 

Plan/Conservation Plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of PHMA, then no 

restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of these seedings for GRSG habitat or as a 

component of a grazing system during the land health assessments (Davies et al. 2011). 

For example: Some introduced grass seedings are an integral part of a livestock management plan and 

reduce grazing pressure in important sagebrush habitats or serve as a strategic fuels management area. 

Structural Range Improvements and Livestock Management Tools

MD RM-18: (ADH) Design new range improvement projects to enhance livestock distribution and to 

control the timing and intensity of utilization. Examples of structural range improvement projects are 

cattle guards, fences, corrals, pipelines, troughs, storage tanks, windmills, ponds/reservoirs, solar panels, 

and spring developments. 

Include a plan to monitor and control invasive plant species following any related ground disturbance. 

Place mineral or salt supplements away from water sources and leks in locations that enhance livestock 

distribution. 

MD RM-19: (PHMA) Where conditions create the potential for impacts from West Nile virus from 

developments or modification of water developments, use preferred design features (PDFs)/RDFs to 

mitigate the potential impacts. See Appendix C (Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, 

and Suggested Design Features). 

MD RM-20: (PHMA) Evaluate existing structural range improvements to determine if modifications are 

necessary to maintain GRSG populations or reverse a downward population trend caused by habitat 

loss. Modify, relocate, or remove projects as necessary. 

Place mineral and salt supplements away from water sources and leks in locations that enhance livestock 

distribution. 

MD RM-21: (ADH) Mark fences in high risk areas (Christiansen 2009; Stevens 2011). 

(PHMA) Where marking fences does not reduce fence-related GRSG mortality, modify fences. Where 

modification does not reduce GRSG mortality and the fence-related mortality is sufficient to adversely 

affect GRSG populations, remove fences. 

MD RM-22: (ADH) Monitor for and treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements 

(Gelbard and Belnap 2003; Bergquist et al. 2007). 

Retirement of Grazing Privileges

MD RM-23: (ADH) 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 shall remain 

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

common allotments or fire breaks. This does not apply to or impact grazing preference transfers, which 

are addressed in 43 CFR, Part 4110.2-3.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-13

When a permittee or lessee voluntarily relinquishes grazing preference, consider conversion of the 

allotment to a reserve common allotment that will remain available for use on a temporary, 

nonrenewable basis for the benefit of GRSG habitat. Authorize temporary nonrenewal permits in 

Reserve Common Allotments to meet resource objectives elsewhere such as rest or deferment due to 

fire or vegetation treatments. Temporary use of reserve common allotments would not be allowed due 

to drought or overuse of customary allotments. 

2.2.5 Wild Horses and Burros (WHB)

Objective WHB-1: Manage wild horses in a manner designed to 1) avoid reductions in grass, forb, and 

shrub cover, and 2) avoid increasing unpalatable forbs and invasive plants such as Bromus tectorum. 

Management Decisions (MD)

MD WHB-1: (ADH) Manage wild horse population levels within established appropriate management 

levels. 

MD WHB-2: (ADH) Prioritize gathers in GRSG PHMA, unless removals are necessary in other areas 

to prevent catastrophic environmental issues, including herd health impacts. Consider GRSG habitat 

requirements in conjunction with all resource values managed by the BLM, and give preference to GRSG 

habitat unless site-specific circumstances warrant an exemption. 

MD WHB-3: (PHMA) Within PHMA, develop or amend BLM HMA plans to incorporate GRSG habitat 

objectives and management considerations for all BLM HMAs. When developing HMA plans, apply all 

appropriate conservation measures from the range program, including, but not limited to, utilization of 

forage and structural range improvements. 

MD WHB-4: (PHMA) For all BLM HMAs within PHMA, prioritize the evaluation of all appropriate 

management levels based on indicators that address vegetation structure/condition/composition and 

measurements specific to achieving GRSG habitat objectives. Consider GRSG habitat requirements in 

conjunction with all resource values managed by the BLM, and give preference to GRSG habitat unless 

site-specific circumstances warrant an exemption.

MD WHB-5: (ADH) Coordinate with other resources (range, wildlife, and riparian) to conduct land 

health assessments to determine existing vegetation structure/condition/composition within all BLM 

HMAs.

MD WHB-6: (PHMA) When conducting NEPA analysis for wild horse management activities, water 

developments, or other rangeland improvements for wild horses in PHMA, address the direct and 

indirect effects to GRSG populations and habitat. Implement any water developments or rangeland 

improvements using the criteria identified for domestic livestock identified above in PHMA.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-14 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

2.2.6 Minerals (MR)

Leasable Fluid Minerals1

Objective MR-1: Manage fluid minerals to avoid, minimize, and compensate for: 1) direct disturbance, 

displacement, or mortality of GRSG; 2) direct loss of habitat or loss of effective habitat through 

fragmentation; and 3) cumulative landscape-level impacts. Priority will be given to leasing and 

development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside PHMA and GHMA. When 

analyzing leasing and authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, in PHMA 

and GHMA, and subject to applicable stipulations for the conservation of GRSG, priority will be given to 

development in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat for GRSG. The 

implementation of these priorities will be subject to valid existing rights and any applicable law or 

regulation, including, but not limited to, 30 US Code 226(p) and 43 CFR, Part 3162.3-1(h).

Management Decisions (MD)

Unleased Fluid Minerals

MD MR-1: No new leasing 1 mile from active leks in ADH.

MD MR-2: No Surface Occupancy (NSO) without waiver or modification in PHMA. See Appendix 

G (Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations) for exceptions. The 

following stipulation would apply:

GRSG NSO-46e: See Appendix G, Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use 

Authorizations, for waiver, modification, and exception criteria.

MD MR-3: In GHMA, any new leases would include TL stipulations to protect GRSG and its habitat. 

The following stipulation would apply:

GRSG TL-46e: No activity associated with construction, drilling, or completions within 4 miles from 

active leks during lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15). Authorized Officer 

could grant an exception, modification, or waiver in consultation with the State of Colorado (Appendix 

G, Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations).

MD MR-4: No Surface Occupancy (NSO) within 2 miles of active leks in GHMA. Waivers, 

exceptions, and modification could be obtained under conditions described in Appendix G, Stipulations 

Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations.

MD MR-5: disturbance on new leases would be limited to 3 percent in PHMA (biologically significant 

unit) (see Appendix E, Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps) and would limited to 1

disturbance per 640 acres calculated by Colorado MZ. The following Lease Notice (LN) would apply:

GRSG LN-46e: Any lands leased in PHMA are subject to the restrictions of 1 disturbance per 640 

acres calculated by biologically significant unit (Colorado populations) and proposed project analysis area 

 

1 The Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS (March 2013) excludes from oil shale leasing all core/priority GRSG habitat 

(PHMA in Colorado). Note that in GHMA, the management actions for fluid minerals also pertain to oil shale resources 

through all alternatives. Decisions for leasable fluid minerals also apply to uranium.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-15

(Colorado MZ) to allow clustered development (Appendix G, Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral 

Leasing and Land Use Authorizations).

MD MR-6: No new leasing in PHMA if disturbance cap exceeds 3 percent calculated by biologically 

significant unit (Colorado populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ) or 1 

disturbance per 640 acres density is exceeded (see Appendix E, Methodology for Calculating 

Disturbance Caps).

MD MR-7: (PHMA) Allow geophysical exploration within PHMA to obtain information for existing 

federal fluid mineral leases or areas adjacent to state or fee lands within PHMA. Allow geophysical 

operations only using helicopter‐portable drilling, wheeled or tracked vehicles on existing roads, or 

other approved methods conducted in accordance with seasonal TLs and other restrictions that may 

apply. Geophysical exploration shall be subject to seasonal restrictions that preclude activities in 

breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats during their season of use by GRSG.

Leased Fluid Minerals

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

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

project proponents to avoid, reduce, and mitigate adverse impacts to the extent compatible with 

lessees’ rights to drill and produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM will work with the lessee, operator 

or project proponent in developing an Application for Permit to Drill for the lease to avoid, minimize, 

and compensate for impacts to GRSG or its habitat and will ensure that the best information about 

GRSG and its habitat informs and helps guide development of such federal leases.

MD MR-8: Within 1 mile of active leks, disturbance, disruptive activities, and occupancy are precluded.

If it is determined that this restriction would render the recovery of fluid minerals infeasible or 

uneconomic, considering the lease as a whole, or where development of existing leases requires that 

disturbance density exceeds 1 disturbance per 640 acres and/or the 3 percent disturbance cap (see 

Appendix E, Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps), use the criteria* below to site 

proposed lease activities to meet GRSG habitat objectives and require mitigation as described in 

Appendix F (Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Strategy).

MD MR-9: In PHMA and within 4 miles of an active lek, the criteria* below would be applied to guide 

development of the lease or unit that would result in the fewest impacts possible to GRSG.

MD MR-10: Based on site-specific conditions, prohibit construction, drilling, and completion within 

PHMA within 4 miles of a lek during lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15). In 

consultation with the State of Colorado, this TL may be adjusted based on application of the criteria 

below.

Criteria*:

 Location of proposed lease activities in relation to critical GRSG habitat areas as identified 

by factors, including, but not limited to, average male lek attendance and/or important 

seasonal habitat
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-16 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed lease activities that may affect the local 

population as compared to benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 

off-site mitigation 

 An evaluation of the proposed lease activities, including design features, in relation to the 

site-specific terrain and habitat features. For example, within 4 miles from a lek, local terrain 

features such as ridges and ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield nearby 

habitat from disruptive factors. This is particularly likely in Colorado MZ 17, which has an 

atypical GRSG habitat featuring benches with GRSG habitat interspersed with steep ravines

To authorize an activity based on the criteria above, the environmental record of review must show no 

significant direct disturbance, displacement, or mortality of GRSG.

MD MR-11: Within PHMA, operators would be encouraged to complete Master Development Plans in 

consultation with the State of Colorado, instead of single-well Applications for Permit to Drill for all but 

exploratory wells. (Notice to Lessees-54e: see Appendix G, Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral 

Leasing and Land Use Authorizations.)

MD MR-12: When necessary, conduct effective mitigation in 1) GRSG PHMA or—less preferably—2) 

GHMA (dependent upon the area-specific ability to increase GRSG populations and in consultation with 

the State of Colorado).

MD MR-13: Conduct effective compensatory mitigation first within PHMA in the same Colorado MZ 

where the impact is realized; if not possible, then conduct mitigation within the same population as the 

impact, or in other Colorado GRSG populations, in consultation with the State of Colorado.

MD MR-14: For future actions in ADH, require a full reclamation bond specific to the site in 

accordance with 43 CFR, Parts 3104.2, 3104.3, and 3104.5. Ensure bonds are sufficient for costs relative 

to reclamation (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007) that would result in full restoration of the lands 

to the condition it was found prior to disturbance. Base the reclamation costs on the assumption that 

contractors for the BLM will perform the work.

Locatable Minerals

Objective MR-3: Manage solid mineral programs to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse 

impacts to GRSG habitat to the extent practical under the law and BLM jurisdiction.

MD MR-15: (PHMA) In plans of operations required prior to any proposed surface-disturbing activities 

include as appropriate effective mitigation for conservation in accordance with existing policy (BLM 

Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-142).

MD MR-16: (PHMA) Where applicable to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation, apply seasonal 

restrictions if deemed necessary.

Saleable Minerals

Objective MR-4: Manage solid mineral programs to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse 

impacts to GRSG habitat to the extent practical under the law and BLM jurisdiction.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-17

MD MR-17: (PHMA) Close PHMA to new mineral material sales. However, these areas would remain 

open to free use permits and the expansion of existing active pits, only if the following criteria are met:

 The activity is within the biologically significant unit and the project area disturbance cap

 The activity is subject to the provisions set forth in the mitigation strategy (Appendix F)

 All applicable required/preferred design features are applied; and [if applicable] the activity is 

permissible under the regional screening criteria (Appendix H, Guidelines for 

Implementation and Adaptive Management).

MD MR-18: (ADH) Restore salable mineral pits no longer in use to meet GRSG habitat conservation 

objectives. Require reclamation/restoration of GRSG habitat as a viable long-term goal to improve the 

GRSG habitat (Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management)

Nonenergy Leasable Minerals

Objective MR-5: Manage solid mineral programs to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse 

impacts to GRSG habitat to the extent practical under the law and BLM jurisdiction.

MD MR-19: No new nonenergy mineral leasing in PHMA.

MD MR-20: Existing nonenergy mineral leases: Apply the following conservation measures as 

conditions of approval (COAs) where applicable and feasible: 

 Preclude new surface occupancy on existing leases within 1 mile of active leks (Blickley et al. 

2012; Harju et al. 2012). 

 If the lease is entirely within 1 mile of an active lek, require any development to be placed in 

the area of the lease least harmful to GRSG based on vegetation, topography, or other 

habitat features (Appendix G, Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land 

Use Authorizations). 

 Preclude new surface disturbance on existing leases within 2 miles of active leks within 

PHMA. If the lease is entirely within 2 miles of an active lek, require any development to be 

placed in the area of the lease least harmful to GRSG based on vegetation, topography, or 

other habitat features (Appendix G, Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and 

Land Use Authorizations). 

 Limit permitted disturbances to 1 disturbance per 640 acres average across the landscape in 

PHMA. Disturbances may not exceed 3 percent in PHMA (see Appendix E, Methodology 

for Calculating Disturbance Caps) in any biologically significant unit (Colorado populations) 

and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ). 

GRSG TL-47-51 – Based on site-specific conditions, prohibit surface occupancy or disturbance within 

PHMA within 4 miles of a lek during lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15).

Mineral Split-Estate

Objective MR-6: Utilize federal authority to protect GRSG habitat on split-estate lands to the extent 

provided by law.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-18 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

MD MR-21: (PHMA/GHMA) Where the federal government owns the mineral estate in PHMA and 

GHMA, and the surface is in nonfederal ownership, apply the same stipulations, COAs, and/or 

conservation measures and RDFs/PDFs applied if the mineral estate is developed on BLM-administered 

lands in that management area, to the maximum extent permissible under existing authorities, and in 

coordination with the landowner.

MD MR-22: (PHMA/GHMA) Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is 

in nonfederal ownership in PHMA and GHMA, apply appropriate surface use COAs, stipulations, and 

mineral RDFs/PDFs through ROW grants or other surface management instruments, to the maximum 

extent permissible under existing authorities, in coordination with the mineral estate owner/lessee.

Solid Minerals – Coal

Objective MR-7: Manage solid mineral programs to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse 

impacts to GRSG habitat to the extent practical under the law and BLM jurisdiction.

MD MR-23: (ADH) Existing Coal Leases: During the term of the lease, encourage the lessee to 

voluntarily follow PDFs (Appendix C, Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and 

Suggested Design Features) to reduce and mitigate any adverse impacts to GRSG. At the time an 

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

whether the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 

CFR, Part 3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria 

set forth at 43 CFR, Part 3461.5(o)(1).

To authorize expansion of existing leases, the environmental record of review must show no significant 

direct disturbance, displacement, or mortality of GRSG based on these criteria: 

 Important GRSG habitat areas as identified by factors, including, but not limited to, average 

male lek attendance and/or important seasonal habitat 

 An evaluation of the threats affecting the local population as compared to benefits that could 

be accomplished through compensatory or off-site mitigation 

 An evaluation of terrain and habitat features. For example, within 4 miles from a lek, local 

terrain features such as ridges and ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield 

nearby habitat from disruptive factors.

MD MR-24: No new surface coal mine leases would be allowed in PHMA. At the time an application 

for a new coal lease or lease modification is submitted to the BLM, the BLM would determine whether 

the lease application area is “unsuitable” for all or certain coal mining methods pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 

3461.5. PHMA is essential habitat for maintaining GRSG for purposes of the suitability criteria set forth 

at 43 CFR, Part 3461.5(o)(1).

MD MR-25: New Underground Coal Mine Leases would be subject to: Special Stipulations: 

 All surfaces disturbances will be placed more than 2 miles from active leks. 

 No surface disturbance on remainder of PHMA subject to the following conditions: 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-19

If, after consultation with the State of Colorado, and in consideration of the following criteria, there is 

no significant direct disturbance, displacement, or mortality of GRSG or impact to GRSG habitat; 

 3 percent disturbance cap in PHMA with disturbances limited to 1 disturbance per 640 acres 

density calculated by Colorado MZ and proposed project analysis area would apply to new 

lease activities 

 No new leasing in PHMA if disturbance cap exceeds 3 percent (see Appendix E,

Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps) for the biologically significant unit 

(Colorado populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ) or 1 disturbance 

per 640 acres is exceeded

MD MR-26: (ADH) Underground mining exemption criteria for new leases: 

1. Federal lands with coal deposits that would be mined by underground mining methods shall 

not be assessed as unsuitable where there would be no surface coal mining operations, as 

defined in 43 CFR, Part 3400.0-5(mm) of this title, on any lease, if issued. 

Where underground mining will include surface operations and surface impacts on federal 

lands to which a criterion applies, the lands shall be assessed as unsuitable unless the surface 

management agency find that a relevant exception or exemption applies. See 43 CFR, Part 

3461.1(b). Where practicable, limit permitted disturbances as defined in Appendix H, 

Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management, to 3 percent in any biologically 

significant unit (Colorado populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ). 

Where disturbance exceeds 3 percent in any biologically significant unit (Colorado 

populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ), make additional, effective 

mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of GRSG habitat.

MD MR-27: (PHMA) See 43 CFR, Part 3461.4 (a) and (b), Exploration. Authorized exploration 

activities may be conducted only if the Authorized Officer reviews any application for an exploration 

license on such lands to ensure that any exploration does not harm any value for which the area has 

been assessed as unsuitable and determines that the exploration will not adversely affect GRSG 

populations due to habitat loss or disruptive activities or that the impact can be fully mitigated. Where 

practicable, limit permitted disturbances as defined in Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation and 

Adaptive Management, to 3 percent in PHMA any biologically significant unit (Colorado populations) and 

proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ). Where disturbance exceeds 3 percent in any biologically 

significant unit (Colorado populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ), make 

additional, effective mitigation necessary to offset the resulting loss of GRSG habitat.

MD MR-28: (PHMA) Underground mining – lease renewals:

 Require that all surface mining appurtenant facilities for underground mining be located 

outside of PHMA (unless the lessee establishes that that such location is not technically 

feasible).

 If surface mining facilities must be located in PHMA, require the facilities be located in areas 

of existing disturbance and to have the smallest footprint possible utilizing design strategies 

to minimize disturbance, such as those identified in the PDF section of this table. 
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-20 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 Apply as conditions of lease renewal all appropriate conservation measures, PDFs, and 

mitigation designed to avoid or minimize impacts to GRSG. 

(ADH) Surface mining – lease renewals/readjustments: Apply as conditions of lease renewal all appropriate 

conservation measures, PDFs, and mitigation designed to avoid or minimize impacts to GRSG.

MD MR-29: (ADH) Recommend or require as appropriate during all relevant points of the coal leasing 

and authorization process, minimization of surface-disturbing or disrupting activities (including 

operations and maintenance) where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on important 

seasonal GRSG habitats. Apply these measures during activity-level planning (jurisdiction is managed by 

the State). The Office of Surface Mining or a delegated State Regulatory authority under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 authorizes surface-disturbing activities of active coal mining 

operations on federal mineral estate. The BLM coordinates with the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 in overseeing coal leasing and permitting on federal lands. The resource 

recovery and protection plan for which BLM recommends approval to the Secretary integrates the 

reclamation plan recommended by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 for active 

coal mines on federal mineral estate. Approval of coal mining plans on lands containing leased federal 

coal is reserved to the Secretary of the Interior (30 CFR, Part 740.4). BLM issues coal leases and 

exploration licenses for right of entry to promote development of minerals on federal lands. See the 

following in regards to BLM exploration: 43 CFR, Part 3461.4, Exploration. States with delegated 

authority on federal lands from the Office of Surface Mining may have their own GRSG guidance in 

association with state wildlife agencies and such guidance may differ from state to state.

MD MR-30: (ADH) (a) Assessment of any area as unsuitable for all or certain stipulated methods of 

coal mining operations pursuant to Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (30 US Code 1272) and the regulations of this subpart does not prohibit exploration of such area 

under 43 CFR, Parts 3410 and 3480, and 43 CFR, Part 3461.4(a)

MD MR-31: (ADH) (b) An application for an exploration license on any lands assessed as unsuitable for 

all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining shall be reviewed by the BLM to ensure that exploration 

does not harm any value for which the area has been assessed as unsuitable (43 CFR, Part 3461.4(b))

2.2.7 Renewable Energy (Wind and Solar) (RE)

Objective RE-1: Manage the Lands and Realty program to avoid, minimize, and compensate for the 

loss of habitat and habitat connectivity through the authorizations of ROWs, land tenure adjustments, 

proposed land withdrawals, agreements with partners, and incentive programs.

Wind Energy Development

MD RE-1: (PHMA) Manage PHMA as exclusion areas for wind energy development.

MD RE-2: (GHMA) Manage GHMA as avoidance areas for wind energy development.

Industrial Solar Development

MD RE-3: (PHMA) Manage PHMA as exclusion areas for industrial solar projects.

MD RE-4: (GHMA) Manage GHMA as avoidance areas for industrial solar projects.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-21

2.2.8 Lands and Realty (LR)

Objective LR-1: Manage the Lands and Realty program to avoid, minimize, and compensate for the 

loss of habitat and habitat connectivity through the authorizations of ROWs, land tenure adjustments, 

proposed land withdrawals, agreements with partners, and incentive programs.

Objective LR-2: Effects of infrastructure projects, including siting, will be minimized using the best 

available science, updated as monitoring information on current infrastructure projects becomes 

available.

Land Use Authorizations

MD LR-1: Manage areas within PHMA as avoidance areas* for BLM ROW permits. (See Appendix G, 

Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations.)

MD LR-2: Manage areas within GHMA as avoidance areas* for major (transmission lines greater than 

100 kilovolts and pipelines greater than 24 inches) and minor BLM ROW permits. (See Appendix G, 

Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations.)

MD LR-3: No new roads or above-ground structures would be authorized within 1 mile of an active 

lek.

Above-ground structures are defined as structures that are located on or above the surface of the 

ground, including but not limited to: roads, fences, communication towers, and/or any structure that 

would provide perches.

Above-ground structures would only be authorized if:

1. It is consistent with the overall objective of the RMP Amendment;

2. The effect on GRSG populations or habitat is nominal or incidental;

3. Allowing the exception prevents implementation of an alternative more detrimental to 

GRSG or similar environmental concern, and;

4. Rigid adherence to the restriction would be the only reason for denying the action.

MD LR-4: PHMA and GHMA are designated as avoidance areas for high-voltage transmission line 

ROWs, except for the transmission projects specifically identified below. All authorizations in these 

areas, other than the following identified projects, must comply with the conservation measures outlined 

in this ARMPA, including the RDFs and avoidance criteria presented in this document. The BLM is 

currently processing applications for the TransWest and Energy Gateway South Transmission Line 

projects, and the NEPA review for these projects is well underway. Conservation measures for GRSG 

are being analyzed through the projects’ NEPA review process, which should achieve a net conservation 

benefit for the GRSG.

*GRSG PHMA ROW Avoidance. ROWs may be issued after documenting that the ROWs would 

not adversely affect GRSG populations based on the following criteria:
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-22 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 Location of proposed activities in relation to critical GRSG habitat areas as identified by 

factors, including, but not limited to, average male lek attendance and/or important seasonal 

habitat.

 An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed activities that may affect the local 

population as compared to benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 

off-site mitigation

 An evaluation of the proposed activities in relation to the site-specific terrain and habitat 

features. For example, within 4 miles from a lek, local terrain features such as ridges and 

ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield nearby habitat from disruptive factors.

MD LR-5: Any new projects within PHMA would be subject to the 3 percent disturbance cap as 

described in Appendix E, Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps. If the 3 percent disturbance 

cap is exceeded in PHMA in any Colorado MZ, no new ROW would be authorized in PHMA within that 

biologically significant unit (Colorado populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ), 

unless site-specific analysis documents no impact to GRSG. 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 will be achieved. This exception is limited to 

projects which fulfill the use for which the corridors were designated (ex., transmission lines, pipelines) 

and the designated width of a corridor will not be exceeded as a result of any project co-location.

MD LR-6: Prohibit surface occupancy and surface-disturbing activities associated with BLM ROW 

within 4 miles from active leks during lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15). (See 

special stipulations applicable to GRSG PHMA ROW TL.)

MD LR-7: Construct new roads to the appropriate Gold Book standard and add the surface 

disturbance to the total disturbance in the PHMA.

MD LR-8: (PHMA) In PHMA, or within 4 miles of an active lek, for ROW renewals, where existing 

facilities cannot be removed, buried, or modified, require perch deterrents.

MD LR-9: (PHMA) Reclaim and restore ROWs considering GRSG habitat requirements.

MD LR-10: (PHMA) Designate new ROW corridors in GRSG PHMA only where there is a compelling 

reason to do so and location of the corridor within PHMA will not adversely affect GRSG populations 

due to habitat loss or disruptive activities.

MD LR-11: (PHMA) Consider the likelihood of development of not-yet-constructed surface-disturbing 

activities – as defined in Table D.2 of the Monitoring Framework (Appendix D)−under valid existing 

rights prior to authorizing new projects in PHMA.

Land Tenure Adjustment

MD LR-11: Retain public ownership of GRSG PHMA. Consider exceptions where:

It can be demonstrated that: 1) disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net 

conservation gain to the GRSG; or 2) the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will have no 

direct or indirect adverse impact on GRSG conservation.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 2-23

There is mixed ownership, and land exchanges would allow for additional or more contiguous federal 

ownership patterns within the GRSG PHMA.

MD LR-12: (PHMA) In isolated federal parcels, only allow tract disposals that are beneficial or neutral 

to long-term management of GRSG populations.

MD LR-13: (GHMA) For lands in GHMA that are identified for disposal, the BLM would only dispose of 

such lands consistent with the goals and objectives of this ARMPA, including, but not limited to, the 

ARMPA objective to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution.

MD LR-14: (ADH) Consider GRSG habitat values in acquisitions. For example: Identify key GRSG 

habitats on private or state land, adjacent to existing BLM land, where acquisition and protection by 

BLM could substantially benefit the local GRSG population. This could be accomplished via purchase, 

exchange, or donation to satisfy mitigation requirements.

2.2.9 Recreation (REC)

Objective REC-1: Manage recreation to avoid activities that 1) disrupt GRSG, 2) fragment GRSG 

habitat, or 3) spread noxious weeds.

MD REC-1: (PHMA) Do not allow special recreation permits with the potential to adversely affect 

GRSG or GRSG habitat.

2.2.10 Travel and Transportation (TTM)

Objective TTM-1: Manage travel and transportation to 1) reduce mortality from vehicle collisions, 2) 

limit change in GRSG behavior, 3) avoid, minimize, and compensate for habitat fragmentation, 4) limit 

the spread of noxious weeds, and 5) limit disruptive activity associated with human access.

MD TTM-1: (PHMA) Limit off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel to existing roads, primitive roads, and 

trails at a minimum. Special Zone Provision: Colorado MZ 13 – Manage the Wolford Mountain open 

OHV area.

MD TTM-2: (PHMA) Evaluate and consider permanent or seasonal road or area closures as needed to 

address a current threat.

MD TTM-3: (PHMA) Complete activity level travel plans as soon as possible, subject to funding. During 

activity level planning, where appropriate, designate routes with current administrative/agency purpose 

or need to administrative access only.

MD TTM-4: (PHMA) Complete activity level travel plans as soon as possible, subject to funding. Limit 

route construction to routes that will not adversely affect GRSG populations due to habitat loss or 

disruptive activities.

MD TTM-5: (PHMA) Use existing roads or realignments whenever possible. If it is necessary to build a 

new road, and the use of existing roads would cause adverse impacts to GRSG, construct new roads to 

the appropriate minimum Gold Book standard and add the surface disturbance to the total disturbance 

in the PHMA if it meets the criteria in Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive 

Management.
2. Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

2-24 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Construct no new roads if the biologically significant unit (Colorado populations) and proposed project 

analysis area (Colorado MZ) is over the 3 percent disturbance cap (see Appendix E, Methodology for 

Calculating Disturbance Caps), unless there is an immediate health and safety need, or to support valid 

existing rights that cannot be avoided. Evaluate and implement additional, effective mitigation necessary 

to offset the resulting loss of GRSG habitat.

MD TTM-6: (PHMA) Allow upgrades to existing routes after documenting that the upgrade will not 

adversely affect GRSG populations due to habitat loss or disruptive activities.

MD TTM-7: (PHMA) Conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel 

management plans. This also includes primitive route/roads that were not designated in wilderness study 

areas and within lands with wilderness characteristics that have been selected for protection in previous 

LUPs.

MD TTM-8: (PHMA) When reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails, use appropriate seed mixes and 

consider the use of transplanted sagebrush.
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 3-1

CHAPTER 3

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC 

INVOLVEMENT

The BLM land use planning activities are conducted in accordance with NEPA requirements, the Council 

on Environmental Quality regulations, and Department of the Interior and BLM policies and procedures 

implementing NEPA. NEPA and associated laws, regulations, and policies require the BLM to seek public 

involvement early in and throughout the planning process. Public involvement and agency consultation 

and coordination, which have been at the heart of the planning process leading to this ARMPA, were 

achieved through Federal Register notices, public and informal meetings, individual contacts, media 

releases, planning bulletins, and the Northwest Colorado GRSG website (http://www.blm.gov/

co/st/en/BLM_Programs/wildlife/sage-grouse.html).

3.1 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The BLM collaborated with numerous agencies, municipalities, and tribes throughout the preparation of 

this ARMPA. Its outreach and collaboration with cooperating agencies are described in Section 6.3 of 

the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Fifteen agencies2 accepted the offer to participate in the BLM planning 

process as cooperating agencies. The BLM formally invited the cooperating agencies to participate in 

developing the alternatives for the RMP Amendment and EIS and to provide data and other information 

related to their agency responsibilities, goals, mandates, and expertise.

3.1.1 Section 7 Consultation

Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies must consult with the USFWS when any action the agency 

carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect a listed endangered or threatened species. The BLM 

Northwest Colorado District initiated consultation by requesting a species list from the local USFWS 

office for federally listed, federally proposed, or current federal candidate species that may be present in 

the planning area. The BLM subsequently prepared biological assessments based on the species list in 

which a determination is made, in accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, that the Northwest Colorado 

 

2 Garfield County, Grand County, Jackson County, Mesa County, Moffat County, Rio Blanco County, Routt County, Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver Water Board, White River and Douglas Creek 

Conservation Districts, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service, and USFWS
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

3-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

ARMPA “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” federally listed, proposed, or candidate species.

Section 7 consultation was completed on July 20, 2015, when the USFWS provided the BLM with a 

letter concurring with their determination.

3.1.2 Native American Consultation

In accordance with FLPMA and BLM guidance, the BLM consulted with Native American representatives 

and coordinated with Native American tribes throughout the planning process. The BLM contacted all 

Native American tribes and organizations with interests in the planning area by mail and encouraged 

them to be cooperating agencies. Tribes have been participating in the RMP Amendment/EIS process 

through meetings and other contacts. The BLM requested a consultation and sent copies of the RMP to 

the following tribes and reservations on June 19, 2012: 

 Eastern Shoshone Tribe (Wind River Reservation)

 Northern Arapaho Tribe

 Northern Cheyenne Tribe

 Southern Ute Indian Tribe

 Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah and Ouray Reservation)

 Ute Mountain Ute Tribe

The BLM received no written comments from tribal agencies during the scoping period, during the 

public comment period on the Draft ARMPA/EIS, after the consultation initiation letters were sent, or 

after the Proposed Plan was provided to the tribes. Tribal concerns or issues typically have been 

presented orally. Government-to-government consultation will continue throughout the ARMPA

process to ensure that tribal groups’ concerns are considered.

As part of the NEPA scoping and consultation process and as an opportunity to provide comment, in 

accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the BLM notified the Colorado 

State Historic Preservation Officers seeking information on concerns with historic properties and land 

use planning direction in this ARMPA. 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.

3.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement process, consultation, and coordination conducted for the RMP are described in 

Chapter 6 of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. As required by regulation, public scoping meetings were 

conducted following the publication of the notice of intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on 

December 9, 2011.

A notice of availability for the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 

16, 2013, initiating a 90-day public comment period, which was extended to December 2, 2013. The 

BLM held public comment open houses in Colorado for the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS on October 22 

in Walden, October 23 in Lakewood, October 28 in Silt, and October 29 in Craig. All meetings were 

from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. The comments received on the Draft RMP Amendment and EIS and the BLM’s 

responses were summarized in Appendix P of the Proposed RMP Amendment and Final EIS.
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 3-3

The notice of availability for the Proposed RMP and Final EIS was published on May 29, 2015, initiating a 

30-day public protest period and a 60-day governor’s consistency review period. The 30-day protest 

period ended on June 29, 2015. The BLM received 25 protest letters.
3. Consultation, Coordination, and Public Involvement

3-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 4-1

CHAPTER 4

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

Implementation, after a BLM RMP or RMP amendment is approved, is a continuous and active process. 

Decisions presented as management decisions can be characterized as immediate or one-time future 

decisions.

Immediate decisions—These are the land use planning decisions that go into effect when the ROD is 

signed. They 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 areas designated for OHV use. These decisions require no additional analysis and guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions in the planning area. 

Proposals for future actions, such as oil and gas leasing, land adjustments, and other allocation-based 

actions will be reviewed against these LUP decisions to determine if the proposal conforms with the 

LUP.

One-time future decisions—These types of decisions are those 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:

 National BLM management direction

 Available resources

General implementation schedule of one-time decisions—Future decisions discussed in this ARMPA will 

be implemented over a period of years, depending on budget and staff availability. After issuing the 

ROD, the BLM will prepare implementation plans that establish tentative time frames for completing

one-time decisions identified in the ARMPA. These actions require additional site-specific decisionmaking and analysis. 
4. Plan Implementation

4-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This schedule will assist BLM managers and staff in preparing budget requests and in scheduling work. 

However, the proposed schedule must be considered tentative and will be affected by future funding, 

nondiscretionary workloads, and by partner and external public cooperation. Yearly review of the plan 

will provide consistent tracking of accomplishments and information that can be used to develop annual 

budget requests to continue implementation.

4.2 MAINTAINING THE PLAN

The ARMPA can be maintained as necessary to reflect minor changes in data. Plan maintenance is limited 

to further refining or documenting a previously approved decision incorporated in the plan or clarifying 

previously approved decisions. 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from field inventories and assessments, research, other 

agency studies, and other sources will update baseline data or support new management techniques, 

best management practices, and scientific principles. Where monitoring shows LUP actions or best 

management practices are not effective, plan maintenance or amendment may begin, as appropriate.

Plan maintenance will be documented in supporting records; it does not require formal public 

involvement, interagency coordination, or NEPA analysis for making new LUP decisions.

4.3 CHANGING THE PLAN

The ARMPA may be changed, should conditions warrant, through a plan amendment or plan revision. A 

plan amendment may become necessary if major changes are needed or to consider a proposal or 

action that is not in conformance with the plan. The results of monitoring, evaluation of new data, or 

policy changes and changing public needs might also provide a need for a plan amendment. If several 

areas of the plan become outdated or otherwise obsolete, a plan revision may become necessary. Plan 

amendments and revisions are accomplished with public input and the appropriate level of 

environmental analysis conducted according to the Council on Environmental Quality procedures for 

implementing NEPA.

Adjustments to PHMA or GHMA boundaries should be made if BLM biologists, in coordination with 

State of Colorado biologists and USFWS, determine, based on best available scientific information, that 

such changes would more accurately depict existing or potential GRSG habitat. The appropriate planning 

process (i.e., plan maintenance or plan amendment/revision) would be used, as determined on a case-bycase basis considering site-specific issues.

4.4 PLAN EVALUATION AND MONITORING

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring data are reviewed to see if management goals 

and objectives are being met and if management direction is sound. RMP evaluations determine if 

decisions are being implemented, if mitigation measures are satisfactory, if there are significant changes 

in the related plans of other entities, if there is new data of significance to the plan, and if decisions 

should be changed through amendment or revision. Monitoring data gathered over time is examined and 

used to draw conclusions on whether management actions are meeting stated objectives, and if not, why

not. Conclusions are then used to make recommendations on whether to continue current management 

or to identify what changes need to be made in management practices to meet objectives.
4. Plan Implementation

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 4-3

The BLM will use RMP evaluations to determine if the decisions in the RMP Amendment, supported by 

the accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid in light of new information and monitoring data.

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

or other appropriate guidance in effect at the time the evaluation is initiated. The monitoring framework 

for this ARMPA can be found in Appendix D.
4. Plan Implementation

4-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-1

CHAPTER 5

GLOSSARY

Adaptive management. A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part 

of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and evaluating 

applied strategies and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and 

practices.

All designated habitat. Includes PHMA, GHMA, and LCHMA.

Allotment. An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their livestock. Allotments 

generally consist of BLM-administered or National Forest System lands but may include other federally 

managed, state-owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. 

Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each allotment.

Allotment management plan (AMP). A concisely written program of livestock grazing 

management, including supportive measures if required, designed to attain specific, multiple-use 

management goals in a grazing allotment. An AMP is prepared in consultation with the permittees, 

lessees, and other affected interests. Livestock grazing is considered in relation to other uses of the 

range and to renewable resources, such as watersheds, vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP establishes 

seasons of use, the number of livestock to be permitted, the range improvements needed, and the 

grazing system.

Amendment. The process for considering or making changes in the terms, conditions, and decisions 

of approved resource management plans or management framework plans. Usually only one or two 

issues are considered that involve only a portion of the planning area.

Anthropogenic (human) disturbances. Features include paved highways, graded gravel roads, 

transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, geothermal wells and associated facilities, 

pipelines, landfills, agricultural conversion, homes, and mines.

Avoidance/avoidance area. These terms usually address mitigation of some resource use. 

Paraphrasing the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR, Part 1508.20), avoidance means to circumvent or bypass an 
5. Glossary

5-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Therefore, avoidance does not 

necessarily prohibit a proposed activity, but it may require relocating or totally redesigning an action to 

eliminate any potential impacts resulting from it.

Candidate species. Taxa for which the USFWS has sufficient information on their status and threats 

to propose the species for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but 

for which issuing a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing actions. Separate lists 

for plants, vertebrate animals, and invertebrate animals are published periodically in the Federal Register 

(BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Manual).

Closed area. Where one or more uses are prohibited, either temporarily or over the long term. Areas 

may be closed to such uses such as off-road vehicles, mineral leasing, mineral or vegetation collection, or 

target shooting. In areas closed to off-road vehicle use, motorized and mechanized off-road vehicle use 

is prohibited. Use of motorized and mechanized off-road vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for 

certain reasons; however, such use would be made only with the approval of the BLM Authorized 

Officer (43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5).

Compensatory mitigation. Compensating for the residual impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments (40 CFR, Part 1508.20).

Controlled surface use. Areas open to fluid mineral leasing, but the stipulation allows the BLM to 

require special operational constraints, or the activity can be shifted more than 656 feet to protect the 

specified resource or value.

Cooperating agency. Assists the lead federal agency in developing an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. This can be any agency with jurisdiction by law or special expertise for 

proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR, Part 1501.6). Any tribe or federal, state, or local government 

jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by agreement with the lead 

agency.

Decision area. Public lands and mineral estate managed by the United States Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and public lands managed by the United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National Forest, that are within the planning area and that are 

encompassed by all designated habitat, which includes PHMA, GHMA, and LCHMA.

Exclusion area. An area on the public lands where a certain activities are prohibited to ensure 

protection of other resource values on the site. The term is frequently used in reference to lands and 

realty actions and proposals (e.g., ROWs) but is not unique to them. This restriction is functionally 

analogous to no surface occupancy, which is used by the oil and gas program, and is applied as an 

absolute condition to those affected activities. The less restrictive analogous term is avoidance area. 

Also see right-of-way exclusion area.

Facility, Energy or Mining. Human-constructed assets designed and created to serve a particular 

function and to afford a particular convenience or service that is affixed to a specific locations, such as 

oil and gas well pads and associated infrastructure.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-3

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976, often 

referred to as the BLM’s Organic Act, which provides most of the BLM’s legislated authority, direction 

policy, and basic management guidance.

Federal mineral estate. Subsurface mineral estate owned by the United States and administered by 

the BLM. Federal mineral estate under BLM jurisdiction is composed of mineral estate underlying BLMadministered lands, private lands, and state-owned lands.

Fluid minerals. Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.

General habitat management areas. Areas of seasonal or year-round GRSG habitat outside of 

priority habitat. The BLM has identified these areas in coordination with respective state wildlife 

agencies.

Goal. A broad statement of a desired outcome, usually not quantifiable and may not have established 

time frames for achievement.

Grazing relinquishment. The voluntary and permanent surrender by an existing permittee or lessee 

(with concurrence of any base property lienholders) of their priority (preference) to use a livestock 

forage allocation on public land and their permission to use this forage. Relinquishments do not require 

the consent by or approval of BLM. The BLM’s receipt of a relinquishment is not a decision to close 

areas to livestock grazing.

Land tenure adjustments. Landownership or jurisdictional changes. To improve the manageability of 

BLM-administered lands and their usefulness to the public, the BLM has numerous authorities for 

repositioning lands into a more consolidated pattern, disposing of lands, and entering into cooperative 

management agreements. These land pattern improvements are completed primarily through the use of 

land exchanges but also through land sales, through jurisdictional transfers to other agencies, and 

through the use of cooperative management agreements and leases.

Land use plan. A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative 

area, as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land use plan-level 

decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR, Part 1600, regardless of the scale 

at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both RMPs and management framework plans 

(from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Land use plan decision. Establishes desired outcomes and actions needed to achieve them. Decisions 

are reached using the planning process in 43 CFR, Part 1600. When they are presented to the public as 

proposed decisions, they can be protested to the BLM Director. They are not appealable to Interior 

Board of Land Appeals.

Large transmission lines. The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group 

of lines and associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for 

delivery to customers or is delivered to other electrical systems. Transmission is considered to end 

when the energy is transformed for distribution to the customer. For purposes of this EIS, large 

transmission lines are considered to be 230 kilovolts or higher; 230-kilovolt lines generally require a 

larger disturbance footprint to accommodate larger infrastructure.
5. Glossary

5-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Late brood-rearing area. Habitat that includes mesic sagebrush and mixed shrub communities, wet 

meadows, and riparian habitats, as well as some agricultural lands (e.g., alfalfa fields).

Leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. These include energy-related mineral resources, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal, 

and some nonenergy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Geothermal resources 

are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.

Lease. Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 provides the BLM’s 

authority to issue leases for the use, occupancy, and development of public lands. Leases are issued for 

such purposes as commercial filming, advertising displays, commercial or noncommercial croplands, 

apiaries, livestock holding or feeding areas not related to grazing permits and leases, native or 

introduced species harvesting, temporary or permanent facilities for commercial purposes (does not 

include mining claims), residential occupancy, ski resorts, construction equipment storage sites, assembly 

yards, oil rig stacking sites, mining claim occupancy (if the residential structures are not incidental to the 

mining operation), and water pipelines and well pumps related to irrigation and non-irrigation facilities. 

The regulations establishing procedures for processing these leases and permits are found in 43 CFR, 

Part 2920.

Lease stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the time of 

the lease sale.

Lek. An arena where male GRSG display to gain breeding territories and attract females. These arenas 

are usually open areas with short vegetation within sagebrush habitats, usually on broad ridges, benches, 

or valley floors where visibility and hearing acuity are excellent. It is also called a “strutting ground” 

(Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Wildlife 2008a).

Lek, active. An open area that has been attended by more than two male GRSG for more than two of 

the previous five years (Connelly et al. 2000a). This definition is derived mainly from observations of leks 

in large stable populations and may not be appropriate for small populations with reduced numbers of 

males attending leks in fragmented sagebrush communities. Therefore, for smaller populations (e.g., 

Meeker – White River) that are isolated or disjunct from larger, more stable populations, an active lek is 

defined as an open area where one or more GRSG have been observed on more than one occasion 

engaging in courtship or breeding. An area used by displaying males in the last five years is considered an 

active lek (Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Wildlife 2008a).

Lek, inactive. Any lek where sufficient data suggests that there was no strutting activity throughout a 

strutting season. (Absence of strutting grouse during a single visit is insufficient documentation to 

establish that a lek is inactive.) This designation requires documentation of an absence of GRSG on the 

lek during at least two ground surveys separated by at least seven days. These surveys must be 

conducted under ideal conditions (April 1 to May 7 or other appropriate date, based on local conditions, 

no precipitation, light or no wind, a half‐hour before sunrise to one hour after sunrise). Alternatively, a 

ground check of the exact known lek site must be made late in the strutting season (after April 15) and

fails to find any sign (tracks, droppings, or feathers) of strutting activity. Data collected by aerial surveys 

should not be used to designate inactive status because the aerial survey may actually disrupt activities.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-5

Lek complex. A lek or group of leks within 1.5 miles of each other, between which male GRSG may 

interchange from one day to the next. Fidelity to leks has been well documented. Visits to multiple leks 

are most common among yearlings and less frequent for adult males, suggesting an age-related period of 

establishment (Connelly et al. 2004).

Lek, occupied. A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the past 10 years.

Lek, unoccupied. A lek that has either been destroyed or abandoned.

Lek, destroyed. A formerly active lek site and surrounding sagebrush habitat that has been destroyed 

and is no longer suitable for GRSG breeding.

Lek, abandoned. A lek in otherwise suitable habitat that has not been active for 10 consecutive years. 

To be designated abandoned, a lek must be inactive (see above) in at least four nonconsecutive strutting 

seasons spanning 10 years. The site of an abandoned lek should be surveyed at least once every 10 years 

to determine whether it has been reoccupied.

Linkage/connectivity habitat management areas (linkage/connectivity areas, linkages). 

Areas that have been identified as broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement 

of GRSG and to maintain ecological processes.

Locatable minerals. Minerals subject to exploration, development, and disposal by staking mining 

claims as authorized by the Mining Act of 1872, as amended. This includes deposits of gold, silver, and 

other uncommon minerals not subject to lease or sale.

Management zone. Two types of management zones are addressed:

 Colorado Management Zones—21 GRSG management zones, comprised of PHMA, 

GHMA, and LCHMA in order to manage disturbance caps and be able to identify specific 

habitat areas.

 WAFWA Management Zones—7 GRSG management zones established based on 

populations across the entire range of the GRSG. Northwest Colorado falls into WAFWA 

Management Zones II and VII. WAFWA management zones will be used to identify and 

address cross-state issues, such as regional mitigation and adaptive management monitoring 

response, through WAFWA Management Zone GRSG Conservation Teams (Teams). These 

Teams will convene and respond to issues at the appropriate scale, and will utilize existing 

coordination and management structures to the extent possible

Mineral entry. The filing of a claim on public land to obtain the right to any locatable minerals it may 

contain.

Mineral estate. The ownership of minerals, including rights necessary for access, exploration, 

development, mining, ore dressing, and transportation operations.

Mining claim. A parcel of land that a miner takes and holds for mining, having acquired the right of 

possession by complying with the Mining Law of 1872 and local laws and rules. A mining claim may 
5. Glossary

5-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

contain as many adjoining locations as the locator may make or buy. There are four categories of mining 

claims: lode, placer, mill site, and tunnel site.

Mining Law of 1872. Provides for claiming and gaining title to locatable minerals on public lands. Also 

referred to as the General Mining Law or Mining Law.

Mitigation. Includes specific means, measures, or practices that could reduce, avoid, or eliminate 

adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or 

parts of an action, minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its 

implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring the affected environment, 

reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life 

of the action, and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments.

Modification. A change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either temporarily or for the term of 

the lease. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may or may not apply to all sites within 

the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria are applied.

Monitoring (plan monitoring). The process of tracking the implementation of land use plan 

decisions and collecting and assessing data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of land use planning 

decisions.

Motorized vehicles or uses. Vehicles that are motorized, including jeeps, all-terrain vehicles (such as 

four-wheelers and three-wheelers), trail motorcycles or dirt bikes, and aircraft.

Multiple-use. The management of public lands and their various resource values so that they are used 

in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people; making the 

most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large 

enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to changing needs and conditions; 

the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource 

uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable 

resources, including recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, 

scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources

without permanent impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination 

of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (FLPMA; BLM Manual 

6840, Special Status Species Manual).

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Public Law 91-190. Establishes 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other stipulations, NEPA requires federal agencies to 

consider environmental values in decision-making processes.

Nonenergy leasable minerals. Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920. Nonenergy minerals include such resources as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and 

sulfur.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-7

No surface occupancy (NSO). A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land surface for 

fluid mineral exploration or development and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., 

truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of 

wells or pads) are prohibited to protect identified resource values. Areas identified as NSO are open to 

fluid mineral leasing, but surface occupancy or surface-disturbing activities associated with fluid mineral 

leasing cannot be conducted on the surface of the land. Access to fluid mineral deposits would require 

horizontal drilling from outside the boundaries of the NSO area.

Noxious weeds. A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally possessing one or more 

of the following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious 

insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the United States.

Objective. A description of a desired outcome for a resource. Objectives can be quantified and 

measured and, where possible, have established time frames for achievement.

Off-highway vehicle. Any motorized vehicle capable of or designated for travel on or immediately 

over land, water, or other natural terrain. It excludes the following:

 Any non-amphibious registered motorboat

 Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency 

purposes

 Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM Authorized Officer or otherwise 

officially approved

 Vehicles in official use

 Any combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense emergencies (43 

CFR, Part 8340.0-5)

Open. Generally denotes that an area is available for a particular use or uses. Refer to specific program 

definitions found in law, regulations, or policy guidance for application to individual programs. For 

example, 43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5, defines the specific meaning as it relates to OHV use.

Permitted use. The forage allocated by or under the guidance of an applicable land use plan for 

livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and expressed in AUMs (43 CFR, Part 4100.0-

5; from H-4180-1, BLM Rangeland Health Standards Manual).

Permittee. A person or company permitted to graze livestock on public land.

Plan of operations. Required for all mining exploration on greater than five acres or surface 

disturbance greater than casual use on certain special category lands. Special category lands are 

described under 43 CFR, Part 3809.11(c), and include such lands as designated areas of critical 

environmental concern, lands in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and areas closed to off‐

road vehicles, among others. In addition, a plan of operations is required for activity greater than casual 

use on lands patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act with federal minerals where the operator 

does not have the written consent of the surface owner (43 CFR, Part 3814). The plan of operations 

needs to be filed in the BLM field office with jurisdiction over the land involved. It does not need to be 
5. Glossary

5-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

on a particular form but must address the information required by 43 CFR, Part 3809.401(b). It is 

required for all mining conducted under the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, if the proposed 

operations will likely significantly disturb surface resources. The plan of operations describes the type of 

operations proposed and how they would be conducted, the type and standard of existing and proposed 

roads or access routes, the means of transportation to be used, the period during which the proposed 

activity will take place, and measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental 

protection (36 CFR, Part 228.4).

Planning area. The geographical area for which resource management plans are developed and 

maintained. The Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA/EIS planning area boundary 

encompasses approximately 15 million acres in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Jackson, Larimer, Mesa, Moffat, 

Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit Counties. The planning area includes approximately 8.5 million acres of 

public lands managed by the Colorado River Valley, Grand Junction, Kremmling, Little Snake, and White 

River Field Offices and the Routt National Forest and approximately 7 million acres of National Park 

Service, US Department of Defense, USFWS, State of Colorado, County, City, and private lands.

Planning criteria. The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary 

teams for their use in forming judgments about decision-making, analysis, and data collection during 

planning. Planning criteria streamlines and simplifies the resource management planning actions.

Planning issues. Concerns, conflicts, and problems with the existing management of public lands. 

Frequently, issues are based on how land uses affect resources. Some issues are concerned with how 

land uses can affect other land uses or how the protection of resources affects land uses.

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA). Areas that have been identified as having the 

highest conservation value to maintaining sustainable GRSG populations. they include breeding, late 

brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas. The BLM has identified these areas in coordination with 

respective state wildlife agencies.

Project area. Encompasses the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Northwest Colorado District boundary, including all lands, regardless of ownership.

Public land. Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of 

the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired ownership, except 

lands on the Outer Continental Shelf and lands held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos (H1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Range improvement. Any activity, structure or program on or relating to rangelands that is designed 

to improve production of forage, to change vegetative composition, to control patterns of use, to 

provide water, to stabilize soil and water conditions, and provide habitat for livestock and wildlife. The 

term includes structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical means to accomplish the desired 

results.

Range improvement project. An authorized physical modification or treatment designed to improve 

production of forage, to change vegetation composition, to control patterns of use, to provide water, to

stabilize soil and water conditions, to restore, protect, and improve the condition of rangeland 

ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. This definition includes 
5. Glossary

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-9

structures, treatment projects and use of mechanical devices, or modifications achieved through 

mechanical means.

Reclamation. The suite of actions taken within an area affected by human disturbance, the outcome of 

which is intended to change the condition of the disturbed area to meet predetermined objectives or to 

make it acceptable for certain defined resources, such as wildlife habitat, grazing, and ecosystem 

function.

Renewable energy. Energy resources that constantly renew themselves or that are regarded as 

practically inexhaustible. These include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and biomass. Although particular 

geothermal formations can be depleted, the natural heat in the Earth is a virtually inexhaustible reserve 

of potential energy.

Required design features (RDFs). These are required for certain activities in all GRSG habitat. RDFs 

establish the minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the 

applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project begins, when 

the project location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not 

apply to some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations 

(e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs will require that at least one of the 

following be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project or activity:

 A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project or activity (e.g., due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable.

 An alternative RDF, state-implemented conservation measure, or plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat.

 A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

Reserve common allotment. An area designated in a land use plan as available for livestock grazing 

but reserved for use as an alternative to grazing in another allotment to facilitate rangeland restoration 

treatments and recovery from natural disturbances, such as drought or wildfire. The reserve common 

allotment would provide needed flexibility that would help the agency apply temporary rest from grazing 

where vegetation treatments or management would be most effective.

Resource management plan. A land use plan as prescribed by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act that establishes, for a given area of land, land use allocations, coordination guidelines 

for multiple use, objectives, and actions to be achieved.

Restore/restoration. Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and 

structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species over 

the long term. The long‐term goal is to create functional high quality habitat that is occupied by GRSG. 

The short‐term goals may be to restore the landform, soils, and hydrology and to increase the 

percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, or treatment of undesired species.
5. Glossary

5-10 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Restriction/restricted use. A limitation or constraint on public land uses and operations. Restrictions 

can be of any kind, but they most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, temporal or spatial 

constraints, or certain authorizations.

Right-of-way (ROW). Public lands authorized to be used or occupied for specific purposes, pursuant 

to a right-of-way grant, which are in the public interest and require ROWs over, on, under, or through 

such lands.

Right-of-way avoidance area. An area identified through resource management planning to be 

avoided but may be available for ROW location with special stipulations.

Right-of-way exclusion area. An area identified through resource management planning that is not 

available for ROW location under any conditions.

Road. A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles having 

four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.

Routes. Multiple roads, trails, and primitive roads; a group or set of roads, trails, and primitive roads 

that represents less than 100 percent of the BLM transportation system. Generically, components of the 

transportation system are described as routes.

Scoping process. An early and open public participation process for determining the scope of issues 

to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action.

Seeding. Seeding is a vegetation treatment that applies grass, forb, or shrub seed, either by air or on

the ground. In areas of gentle terrain, seed is often applied with a rangeland drill. Seeding allows the 

establishment of native species or placeholder species and restoration of disturbed areas to a perennialdominated cover type, thereby decreasing the risk of subsequent invasion by exotic plant species. 

Seeding would be used primarily as a follow-up treatment in areas where disturbance or the previously 

described treatments have removed exotic plant species and their residue.

Special status species. BLM special status species are those listed, candidate, or proposed for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act and those requiring special management consideration to promote 

their conservation and to reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the Endangered Species 

Act that are designated as BLM sensitive by the BLM State Director. All federally listed candidate 

species, proposed species, and delisted species in the five years following delisting are conserved as BLM 

sensitive species.

Split-estate. This is the circumstance where the surface of a particular parcel of land is owned by a 

different party than the one that owns the minerals underlying the surface. Split-estates may have any 

combination of surface or subsurface owners: federal/state, federal/private, state/private, or percentage 

ownerships. When referring to the split-estate ownership on a particular parcel of land, it is generally 

necessary to describe the surface or subsurface ownership pattern of the parcel.

Standard lease terms and conditions. Areas may be open to leasing with no specific management 

decisions defined in a resource management plan; however, these areas are subject to lease terms and 
5. Glossary

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-11

conditions defined on the lease form (Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for Oil and Gas; and 

Form 3200-24, Offer to Lease and Lease for Geothermal Resources).

Stipulation (general). A term or condition in an agreement or contract.

Stipulation (oil and gas). A provision that modifies standard oil and gas lease terms and conditions in 

order to protect other resource values or land uses and is attached to and made a part of the lease. 

Typical lease stipulations include no surface occupancy, timing limitations, and controlled surface use. 

Lease stipulations are developed through the land use planning (RMP) process.

Surface disturbance. Suitable habitat is considered disturbed when it is removed and unavailable for 

immediate sage‐grouse use.

 Long‐term removal occurs when habitat is removed through activities that replace suitable 

habitat with long-term occupancy of unsuitable habitat, such as a roads, power lines, well 

pads, or active mines. Long‐term removal may also result from any activities that cause soil 

mixing, soil removal, and soil exposure to erosion.

 Short–term removal occurs when vegetation is removed in small areas but is restored to 

suitable habitat within fewer than five years of disturbance, such as a successfully reclaimed 

pipeline, or successfully reclaimed drill hole or pit.

 Suitable habitat rendered unusable due to numerous human disturbances.

 Human surface disturbance are surface disturbances meeting the above definitions that

result from human activities.

Surface-disturbing activities. An action that alters the vegetation, surface/near surface soil 

resources, or surface geologic features, beyond natural site conditions and on a scale that affects other 

public land values. Examples of surface-disturbing activities may include operation of heavy equipment to 

construct well pads, roads, pits and reservoirs; installation of pipelines and power lines; and the conduct 

of several types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed fire). Surface-disturbing activities may be 

either authorized or prohibited.

Surface use. This is all the various activities that may be present on the surface or near-surface, such 

as pipelines, of public lands. It does not refer to those subterranean activities, such as mining, occurring 

on the public lands or federal mineral estate. When administered as a use restriction (e.g., no surface 

use), this phrase prohibits all but specified resource uses and activities in a certain area to protect 

particular sensitive resource values and property. This designation typically applies to small acreage 

sensitive resource sites (e.g., plant community study exclosure) or administrative sites (e.g., government 

ware-yard) where only authorized agency personnel are admitted.

Timing limitation (TL). The TL stipulation, a moderate constraint, is applicable to fluid mineral 

leasing, all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical 

exploration equipment off designated routes, and construction of wells and pads), and other surfacedisturbing activities (those not related to fluid mineral leasing). Areas identified for TL are closed to fluid 

mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing activities, and intensive human activity during 

identified time frames. This stipulation does not apply to operation and basic maintenance activities, 

including associated vehicle travel, unless otherwise specified. Construction, drilling, completions, and 
5. Glossary

5-12 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

other operations considered to be intensive are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as work overs 

on wells, is not permitted. TLs can overlap spatially with NSO and CSU, as well as with areas that have 

no other restrictions.

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 receiving a grazing permit or lease. This priority is 

attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee.

Transmission. The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of lines and 

associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed for delivery to 

consumers or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered to end when the energy 

is transformed for distribution to the consumer.

Transmission line (large). An electrical utility line with a capacity greater than or equal to 100 

kilovolts or a natural gas, hydrogen, or water pipeline greater than or equal to 24 inches in diameter.

Travel management areas. Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been taken 

to classify areas as open, closed, or limited and where a network of roads, trails, ways, landing strips, 

and other routes have been identified or designated that provide for public access and travel across the 

planning area. All designated travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly 

identified need and purpose and clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and seasons or time 

frames for allowable access or other limitations (BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning 

Handbook).

Unitization. Operation of multiple leases as a single lease under a single operator.

Utility corridor. Tract of land varying in width forming passageway through which various 

commodities are transported, such as oil, gas, and electricity.

Valid existing rights. Documented legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or entity to 

use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include fee title ownership, 

mineral rights, rights-of-way, easements, permits, and licenses. Such rights may have been reserved, 

acquired, leased, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized over time.

Vegetation treatments. Management practices that change the vegetation structure to a different 

stage of development. Vegetation treatment methods include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, 

mechanical, and seeding.

Wildfire. Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires. Wildfires may be managed 

to meet one or more objectives as specified in the ARMPA and these objectives can change as the fire 

spreads across the landscape.

Wildfire suppression. An appropriate management response to wildfire, escaped wildland fire use or 

prescribed fire that results in curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified threats from the 

particular fire.
5. Glossary

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 5-13

Wildland fire. An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the 

objective is to put the fire out.

Wildland fire use. A term no longer used; these fires are now included in the “Wildfire” definition.

Withdrawal. An action that restricts the use of public land and segregates the land from the operation 

of some or all of the public land and mineral laws. Withdrawals are also used to transfer jurisdiction of 

management of public lands to other federal agencies.
5. Glossary

5-14 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 6-1

CHAPTER 6

REFERENCES

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, 

et al. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees. Biological Conservation. Internet website: 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713002917.

Beck, J. L., J. W. Connelly, and K. P. Reese. 2009. “Recovery of greater sage-grouse habitat features in 

Wyoming big sagebrush following prescribed fire.” Restoration Ecology 17: 393-403.

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. “Invasive species and coal bed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

128:381-394. 

Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012. In press. “Experimental evidence for the effects of 

chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of greater sage-grouse at leks.” Conservation Biology

26: 461-471.

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1990. Handbook H-1624-

1: Planning for Fluid Mineral Resources. BLM, Washington, DC. May 1990.

_____. 1997. White River Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, White River Field 

Office, Meeker, Colorado.

_____. 2005. Handbook H-1601-1: Land Use Planning Handbook. Rel. 1-1693, BLM, Washington, DC.

March 11, 2005. 

_____. 2008. Handbook H-1790-1: NEPA Handbook. Rel. 1-1710. BLM, Washington, DC. January 30, 

2008.

_____. 2011. Little Snake Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, Little Snake Field 

Office, Craig, Colorado.
6. References

6-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

_____. 2012. Geographic Information Systems data. Unpublished data. BLM, various district and field 

offices, Colorado.

_____. 2015a. Colorado River Valley Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, 

Colorado River Valley Field Office, Silt, Colorado.

_____. 2015b. Grand Junction Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, Grand 

Junction Field Office, Grand Junction, Colorado.

_____. 2015c. Kremmling Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, Kremmling Field 

Office, Kremmling, Colorado.

_____. 2015d. White River Oil and Gas Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of 

Decision. BLM, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colorado.

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management) and Forest Service 

(United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2015. Northwest Colorado Greater 

Sage-Grouse Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final EIS. BLM and Forest 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 

Chambers, J. C., D. A. Pyke, J. D. Maestas, M. Pellant, C. S. Boyd, S. B. Campbell, S. 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. Internet website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr326.html. 

Christiansen, T. 2009. Fence Marking to Reduce Greater Sage-Grouse Collisions and Mortality Near 

Farson, Wyoming—Summary of Interim Results. Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

unpublished interim report.

Coates, P. S., and D. J. Delehanty. 2004. The Effects of Raven Removal on Sage Grouse Nest Success.

University of California, Davis Press. Pp. 17-20.

Coates, P. S., J. W. Connelly, and D. J. Delehanty. 2008. “Predators of greater sage-grouse nests 

identified by video monitoring.” Journal of Field Ornithology 79:421-428.

Coates, P. S., and D. J. Delehanty. 2010. “Nest predation of greater sage-grouse in relation to 

microhabitat factors and predators.” Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (2):240-248.

Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. “Guidelines to manage sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1-19.
6. References

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment 6-3

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater Sage-Grouse Habitats 

and Populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, Moscow, 

Idaho.

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.

Davies, K. W., C. S. Boyde, J. L. Beck, J. D. Bates, T. J. Svejcar, and J. G. Gregg. 2011. “Saving the 

sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush.” Biological Conservation 

144:2573-2584.

Diamond, J. M., C. A. Call, and N. Devoe. 2009. “Effects of targeted cattle grazing on fire behavior of 

cheatgrass-dominated rangeland in the northern Great Basin, USA.” International Journal of 

Wildland Fire 18:944-950.

Doherty, M. K. 2008. “Sage-grouse and energy development: integrating science with conservation 

planning to reduce impacts.” Thesis, Dissertations, Professional Papers. Paper 855.

Doherty, K. E., D. E. Naugle, H. E. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2011. “Energy 

development and conservation tradeoffs: Systematic planning for greater sage-grouse in their 

eastern range.” In: “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and 

its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 38:505-516. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Eiswerth, M. E. and J. S. Shonkwiler. 2006. “Examining post-wildfire reseeding on arid rangeland: A 

multivariate tobit modeling approach.” Ecological Modeling 192:286-298.

Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. “Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.” 

Conservation Biology 17:420-432.

Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. “A meta-analysis for greater sage-grouse 

nesting and brood rearing habitats.” Wildlife Biology 13 (Supplement 1):42-50.

Harju, S. M., C. V. Olson, L. Foy-Martin, S. L. Webb, M. R Dzialak, J. B. Winstead, and L. D. HaydenWing. 2012. Occurrence and success of greater sage-grouse broods in relation to insectvegetation community gradients. Human-Wildlife Interactions.

Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. “Spatial distribution of greater sage-grouse nests in relatively 

contiguous sagebrush habitats.” Condor 107:742-752.

Launchbaugh, K., B. Brammer, M. L. Brooks, S. Bunting, P. Clark, J. Davison, M. Fleming, et al. 2007. 

Interactions among livestock grazing, vegetation type, and fire behavior in the Murphy Wildland 

Fire Complex in Idaho and Nevada, July 2007. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–

1214. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ofr/2008/1214.

NTT (Sage-Grouse National Technical Team). 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Measures. December 2011.
6. References

6-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Pyke, D. A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. In: “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats” (S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors). 

Studies in Avian Biology 38:531-548. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Richards, R. T., J. C. Chambers, and C. Ross. 1998. “Use of native plants on federal lands: Policy and 

practice.” Journal of Range Management 51:625-632.

Stevens, B. S. 2011. “Impacts of Fences on Greater Sage-Grouse in Idaho: Collision, Mitigation, and 

Spatial Ecology.” Master’s thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2014. Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool. BLM and Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 6710-1. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

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.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2010. 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the 

Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered: Notice of 12-

Month Petition Findings. Federal Register 75 13910. March 23, 2010.

_____. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. 

USFWS, Denver, Colorado. February 2013.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2011. Greater Sage-grouse core area protection Executive 

Order. Internet website: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/

SAGEGROUSE_EO_COREPROTECTION0000651.pdf.
Appendices

Appendix A

Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Approved RMP Amendment Maps

Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment
Appendix B

Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts on Leks

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment B-1

APPENDIX B

BUFFER DISTANCES AND EVALUATION OF 

IMPACTS ON LEKS

Evaluate impacts on leks from actions requiring NEPA analysis. In addition to any other relevant 

information determined to be appropriate (e.g., state wildlife agency plans), the BLM will assess and 

address impacts from the following activities using the lek buffer distances as identified in the United 

States Geological Survey’s (USGS) report, Conservation buffer distance estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse—

A review (Open File Report 2014-1239) (Manier et al. 2014). The BLM will apply the lek buffer distances 

specified as the lower end of the interpreted range in the report unless justifiable departures are 

determined to be appropriate (see below). The lower end of the interpreted range of the lek buffer 

distances is as follows:

 Linear features (roads) within 3.1 miles of leks

 Infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of leks

 Tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers and transmission lines) within 2 

miles of leks

 Low structures (e.g., fences and rangeland structures) within 1.2 miles of leks

 Surface disturbance (continuing human activities that alter or remove the natural vegetation) 

within 3.1 miles of leks

 Noise and related disruptive activities including those that do not result in habitat loss (e.g., 

motorized recreational events) at least 0.25-mile from leks

Justifiable departures to decrease or increase from these distances, based on local data, best available 

science, landscape features, and other existing protections (e.g., land use allocations and state 

regulations) may be appropriate for determining activity impacts. The USGS report recognized “that 

because of variation in populations, habitats, development patterns, social context, and other factors, for 

a particular disturbance type, there is no single distance that is an appropriate buffer for all populations 

and habitats across the sage-grouse range.” The USGS report also states that “various protection 

measures have been developed and implemented... [which have] the ability (alone or in concert with 
B. Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts on Leks

B-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

others) to protect important habitats, sustain populations, and support multiple-use demands for public 

lands.” All variations in lek buffer distances will require appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of 

activity authorization. 

In determining lek locations, the BLM will use the most recent active or occupied lek data available from 

the state wildlife agency.

B.1 FOR ACTIONS IN GENERAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS

The BLM will apply the lek buffer distances identified above as required conservation measures, such as 

Conditions of Approval, to fully address the impacts on leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. 

Impacts should first be avoided by locating the action outside of the applicable lek buffer distance(s) 

identified above.

The BLM may approve actions in General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA) that are within the 

applicable lek buffer distance identified above only if:

 Based on best available science, landscape features, and other existing protections, (e.g., land 

use allocations and state regulations), the BLM determines that a lek buffer distance other 

than the applicable distance identified above offers the same or a greater level of protection 

to GRSG and its habitat, including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed 

buffer area; or 

 The BLM determines that impacts on GRSG and its habitat are minimized such that the 

project will cause minor or no new disturbance (e.g., co-location with existing 

authorizations); and

 Any residual impacts within the lek buffer distances are addressed through compensatory 

mitigation measures sufficient to ensure a net conservation gain, as outlined in the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Mitigation Strategy (Appendix F).

B.2 FOR ACTIONS IN PRIORITY HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREAS (PHMA)

The BLM will apply the lek buffer distances identified above as required conservation measures, such as 

Conditions of Approval, to fully address the impacts on leks as identified in the NEPA analysis. Impacts 

should be avoided by locating the action outside of the applicable lek buffer distance(s) identified above. 

The BLM may approve actions in PHMA that are within the applicable lek buffer distance identified 

above only if: 

 The BLM, with input from the state fish and wildlife agency, determines, based on best available 

science, landscape features, and other existing protections, that a buffer distance other than the 

distance identified above offers the same or greater level of protection to GRSG and its habitat, 

including conservation of seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area. 

Range improvements that do not impact GRSG or range improvements that provide a conservation 

benefit to GRSG, such as fences for protecting important seasonal habitats, meet the lek buffer 

requirement.
B. Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts on Leks

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment B-3

The BLM will explain its justification for determining the approved buffer distances meet these 

conditions in its project decision.

B.3 REFERENCES

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. 
B. Buffer Distances and Evaluation of Impacts on Leks

B-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

Required Design Features, Preferred Design 

Features, and Suggested Design Features

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-1

APPENDIX C

REQUIRED DESIGN FEATURES, PREFERRED 

DESIGN FEATURES, AND SUGGESTED DESIGN 

FEATURES

Table C-1 provides a list of preferred design features (PDFs) and required design features (RDFs).

RDFs are required for certain activities in all Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) habitats. RDFs establish the 

minimum specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. However, the applicability 

and overall effectiveness of each RDF cannot be fully assessed until the project level when the project 

location and design are known. Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to 

some projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) or may require slight variations (e.g., a 

larger or smaller protective area). All variations in RDFs would require that at least one of the following 

be demonstrated in the NEPA analysis associated with the project or activity:

 A specific RDF is documented to not be applicable to the site-specific conditions of the 

project or activity (e.g., due to site limitations or engineering considerations). Economic 

considerations, such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be varied or 

rendered inapplicable.

 An alternative RDF, a state-implemented conservation measure, or a plan-level protection is 

determined to provide equal or better protection for GRSG or its habitat.

 A specific RDF would provide no additional protection to GRSG or its habitat.

PDFs are established guidelines followed by the BLM to be incorporated into management activities 

where necessary, appropriate, and/or technically feasible. “Necessary” refers to the need for the PDF 

given the specifics of a proposal (e.g., it is not “necessary” to apply dust abatement on roads when the 

soil is sandy and wet). “Appropriate” refers to the wisdom of apply the PDF (e.g., it may not be 

“appropriate” to locate man camps outside priority habitat management areas [PHMA] because the 

additional vehicle miles required by a more distant location could be more detrimental to GRSG). A 

PDF is “technically feasible” when it entails proven, or in some cases, emerging technology.
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

C-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Suggested design features (SDFs) apply to locatable minerals.

While the list of PDFs/RDFs/SDFs in Table C-1 is thorough, the list is not intended to be exhaustive; 

additional PDFs/RDFs/SDFs could be developed and implemented to help achieve resource objectives. 

PDFs/RDFs/SDFs include state-of-the-art measures applied on a site-specific basis to avoid, minimize,

reduce, rectify, or compensate for adverse environmental or social impacts. They are applied to 

management actions to help achieve desired outcomes for safe, environmentally responsible resource 

development by preventing, minimizing, or mitigating adverse impacts and reducing conflicts. Project 

applicants also can propose PDFs/RDFs/SDFs for activities on public lands (e.g., for gas drilling). 

PDFs/RDFs/SDFs not incorporated into the permit application by the applicant may be considered and 

evaluated through the environmental review process and incorporated into the use authorization as 

conditions of approval or ROW stipulations. Standard conditions of approval and ROW stipulations 

from each LUP would apply to site-specific analysis. Additional PDFs/RDFs/SDFs, conditions of approval, 

and ROW stipulations could be developed to meet resource objectives based on local conditions and 

resource specific concerns. 

Table C-1

Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features1

WEST NILE VIRUS

All Designated Habitat (ADH)

The following seven site modifications will minimize exploitation of coal bed natural gas ponds by 

Culex tarsalis:

1 RDF (ADH) Increase the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This 

will result in un‐vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid (De Szalay and Resh 2000). 

This modification may reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a 

vector of blue tongue disease, and should be used sparingly (Schmidtmann et al. 2000). Steep shorelines 

should be used in combination with this technique whenever possible (Knight et al. 2003).

PDF (ADH) When authorizing new ponds for watering livestock, evaluate the proposed design for features 

that reduce the potential for creating mosquito breeding habitat in conjunction with features that make the 

pond fit for the purpose for which it is intended.

FLUID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 

Fluid Mineral Roads

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA)

2 RDF (ADH) Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate the intended 

purpose.

3 PDF (PHMA) Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

4 RDF (PHMA) Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

5 PDF (PHMA) Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

6 PDF (PHMA) Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads 

to be driven at slower speeds.

7 PDF (PHMA) Establish trip restrictions (Lyon and Anderson 2003) or minimization through use of telemetry 

and remote well control (e.g., Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition).

8 PDF (PHMA) Coordinate with counties on transportation management related to GRSG habitat issues.

9 PDF (PHMA) Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (e.g., use signing

and gates).

10 PDF (PHMA) Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

11 PDF (PHMA) Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads.
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-3

Table C-1

Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features1

Fluid Mineral Operations

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA)

12 PDF (PHMA) Cluster disturbances, operations (e.g., fracture stimulation and liquids gathering), and facilities.

13 PDF (PHMA) Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

14 PDF (PHMA) Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

15 PDF (PHMA) Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to reduce vegetation 

disturbance and for roads between closely spaced wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure 

to increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

16 PDF (PHMA) Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

17 PDF (PHMA) Place liquid gathering facilities outside of PHMA. Have no tanks at well locations within PHMA

(minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck traffic). Pipelines must be 

under or immediately adjacent to the road (Bui et al. 2010).

18 PDF (PHMA)—Restrict the construction of facilities and fences to the minimum number and size necessary.

19 PDF (PHMA) Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

20 PDF (PHMA) Place new utility developments (e.g., power lines and pipelines) and transportation routes in 

existing utility or transportation corridors.

21 PDF (PHMA) Bury distribution power lines.

22 PDF (PHMA) Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to roads.

23 PDF (PHMA) Design or site permanent structures that create movement (e.g., a pump jack) to minimize impacts 

to GRSG.

24 PDF (PHMA)—Cover all drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size with netting or some other 

BLM-approved cover method.

25 PDF (PHMA) Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting 

of raptors and corvids.

26 PDF (PHMA)—Clean vehicles in a manner that prevents transport of weeds. 

27 PDF (PHMA) Use only closed‐loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve pits.

28 PDF (PHMA) Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile 

virus (Doherty 2007).

29 PDF (PHMA) Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile 

virus. If surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit 

favorable mosquito habitat:

 Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shorelines.

 Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

 Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas.

 Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

 Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

 Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface.

30 PDF (PHMA) Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20‐24 dBA) at sunrise at the 

perimeter of a lek during active lek season (Patricelli et al. 2010; Blickley et al. In preparation).

31 PDF (PHMA) Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season.

32 RDF (PHMA) Fit transmission towers with anti‐perch devices (Lammers and Collopy 2007).

33 PDF (PHMA) Require GRSG‐safe fences.

34 PDF (PHMA)—Locate new compressor stations outside PHMA.

RDF (PHMA)—Design compressor stations and other production equipment so that noise emitted or

measured in PHMA is no reduced to the extent possible.

35 RDF (PHMA) Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

36 PDF (PHMA) Locate man camps outside of PHMA.
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

C-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table C-1

Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features1

Fluid Minerals Reclamation

Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA)

37 RDF (PHMA) Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet GRSG habitat needs in reclamation 

practices/sites (Pyke 2011). Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and 

objectives are to protect and improve GRSG habitat needs. See Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation

38 PDF (PHMA) Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, top soiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

39 PDF (PHMA)—All disturbed areas will be contoured to the original contours or at least to blend with the 

natural topography. Blending is defined as reducing form, line, shape, and color contrast with the disturbing 

activity. In visually sensitive areas, all disturbed areas shall be contoured to match the original topography. 

Matching is defined as reproducing the original topography and eliminating form, line, shape, and color caused 

by the disturbance as much as possible. 

40 PDF (PHMA) Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings more quickly.

41 PDF (PHMA) Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils.

Fluid Minerals Roads

General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

42 RDF (ADH) Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their 

intended purpose.

43 RDF (ADH) Coordinate with counties on transportation management related to GRSG habitat issues.

44 PDF (ADH) Establish speed limits to reduce vehicle/wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

45 RDF (GHMA) Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

46 PDF (ADH) Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

47 PDF (ADH) Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

48 PDF (ADH) Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired 

vegetation.

Fluid Minerals Operations

General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

49 PDF (ADH) Cluster disturbances, operations (e.g., fracture stimulation and liquids gathering), and facilities.

50 PDF (ADH) Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

51 RDF (ADH) Clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010).

52 PDF (ADH)—Restrict the construction of facilities and fences to the minimum number and size necessary.

53 PDF (ADH)—Cover all drilling and production pits and tanks regardless of size with netting or some other 

BLM-approved cover method.

54 PDF (ADH) Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting 

of raptors and corvids.

55 PDF (ADH) Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the 

frequency of vehicle use.

56 PDF (ADH)—Clean vehicles in a manner that prevents transport of weeds.

57 PDF (ADH) Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate augmenting threats from 

West Nile virus (Doherty 2007).

Fluid Minerals Reclamation

General Habitat Management Areas (GHMA)

58 RDF (ADH) Include restoration objectives to meet GRSG habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites (Pyke 

2011). Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to 

enhance or restore GRSG habitat. See Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation.
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-5

Table C-1

Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features1

LOCATABLE MINERALS 

Locatable Minerals Roads

All Designated Habitat

59 SDF (ADH)—Request operators design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to 

accommodate their intended purpose; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

under 43 CFR 3809.

60 SDF (ADH)—Request operators locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats; require as necessary to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

61 SDF (ADH)—Request ROW holders coordinate road construction and use with other ROW holders; 

require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

62 SDF (ADH)—Request operators construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream 

crossings; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

63 SDF (ADH)—Request operators establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle/wildlife 

collisions or design roads to be driven at slower speeds; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

64 SDF (ADH)—Coordinate with counties on transportation management related to GRSG habitat issues.

65 SDF (ADH)—Request operators restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes 

(e.g., use signing and gates); require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 

3809.

66 SDF (ADH)—Request operators use dust abatement practices on roads and pads; require as necessary to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

67 SDF (ADH)—Request operators close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and 

establishing desired vegetation; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 

CFR 3809.

Locatable Minerals Operations

All Designated Habitat

68 SDF (ADH)—Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible; require as 

necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

69 SDF (ADH)—Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored; 

require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809. 

70 SDF (ADH)—Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount 

needed; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

71 SDF (ADH)—Site and/or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats; require as 

necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

72 SDF (ADH)—Request that operators place new utility developments (e.g., power lines and pipelines) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors; require as necessary to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

73 SDF (ADH)—Request that operators bury power lines; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or 

undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

74 SDF (ADH)—Request that operators cover all pits and tanks regardless of size using fine mesh netting or 

other effective techniques to reduce GRSG mortality; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

75 SDF (ADH)—Request operators equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that 

discourage nesting of raptors and corvids; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

under 43 CFR 3809.

76 SDF (ADH)—Request operators control the spread and effects of non‐native plant species (Gelbard and 

Belnap 2003; Bergquist et al. 2007); require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 

43 CFR 3809.

77 SDF (ADH)—Request operators restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats 

from West Nile virus (Doherty 2007); require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

under 43 CFR 3809.
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

C-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table C-1

Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features1

78 SDF (ADH)—Request that operators adhere to the PDF/RDF provisions in this table’s section on West Nile 

Virus; require adherence as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

79 SDF (ADH)—Request operators install GRSG ‐safe fences around sumps; require as necessary to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

80 SDF (ADH)—Require operators to clean up refuse (Bui et al. 2010) so as to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

81 SDF (ADH)—Request that operators locate man camps outside PHMA; require as necessary to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

Locatable Minerals Reclamation

All Designated Habitat

82 SDF (ADH)—Include restoration objectives to meet GRSG habitat needs in reclamation practices/sites. 

Address post reclamation management in reclamation plan such that goals and objectives are to protect and 

improve GRSG habitat needs. See Appendix H, Guidelines for Implementation

83 SDF (ADH) No similar action. (Interim Reclamation is a fluid mineral term that does not apply to locatable 

minerals.)

84 SDF (ADH)—Request operators’ reclamation plans to target pre‐disturbance landform and desired plant 

community vegetation; require as necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 

3809. 

85 (ADH) No similar action. (Interim Reclamation is a fluid mineral term that does not apply to locatable 

minerals.)

86 SDF (ADH)—Request operators use mulching techniques to expedite reclamation; require as necessary to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under 43 CFR 3809.

87 SDF (ADH)—Coordinate with counties on transportation management related to GRSG habitat issues.

FIRE MANAGEMENT

Fire Management—Fuels Management

All Designated Habitat

88 PDF (ADH)—Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, 

modify fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns to address other values-at-risk.

89 PDF (ADH) Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on GRSG biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of areas utilized locally.

90 PDF (ADH) Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize 

mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

91 RDF (ADH) Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM,

and/or state wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding 

GRSG seasonal habitats and landscape.

92 RDF (ADH) Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that 

promotes use by GRSG (Connelly et al. 2000).

93 RDF (ADH) Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design.

94 PDF (ADH) Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities prior to entering 

the area to minimize the introduction of undesirable and/or invasive plant species.

95 RDF (ADH) Design vegetation treatment in areas of high fire frequency to facilitate firefighter safety, reduce 

the risk of extreme fire behavior; reduce the potential of acres burned; and to reduce the fire risk to key 

GRSG habitats.

Additionally, develop maps for GRSG habitat that spatially display current fuels treatment opportunities for 

suppression resources. 

96 PDF (ADH) Give priority for implementing specific GRSG habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands 

first to sites which are adjacent to or surrounded by GRSG key habitats. Annual grasslands are second 

priority for restoration when the sites not adjacent to key habitat, but within 2 miles of key habitat. The third 

priority for annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are sites beyond 2 miles of key habitat. The intent is 

to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment C-7

Table C-1

Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features1

97 PDF (ADH)—Restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by perennial grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs.

98 PDF (ADH) Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that non‐native species may be necessary 

depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions.

99 PDF (ADH) Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied GRSG leks and 

other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites for avian 

predators, as appropriate, and resources permit.

100 RDF (ADH)—Prioritize suppression immediately after firefighter and public safety commensurate with the 

values-at-risk.

101 PDF (ADH)—Reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species by 

planting perennial vegetation (e.g., green‐strips) paralleling road ROW.

102 PDF (ADH) Strategically place and maintain pre‐treated strips/areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, and 

strictly managed grazed strips) to aid in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitats or 

important restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

Fire Management

All Designated Habitat

103 RDF (ADH)—Develop state‐specific GRSG reference and resource materials containing maps, a list of 

resource advisors, contact information, local guidance, and other relevant information. These state-specific 

GRSG reference and resource materials are for internal use only.

104 RDF (ADH) Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in 

prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.

105 PDF (ADH)—Prior to the fire season, provide training to GRSG resource advisors on wildfire suppression 

organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified individuals.

106 PDF (ADH)—Pre-position fire suppression resources based on all resource values-at-risk.

107 RDF (ADH) During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

108 PDF (ADH) Locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, staging areas, and 

heli‐bases) in areas where physical disturbance to GRSG habitat can be minimized. These include disturbed 

areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush 

cover. As appropriate, utilize existing fuel breaks, such as roads or discrete changes in fuel type, as control 

lines in order to minimize fire spread. 

109 PDF (ADH) Power‐wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, 

personnel vehicles, and ATVs prior to deploying in or near GRSG habitat areas to minimize noxious weed 

spread.

110 RDF (ADH)—Eliminate unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in GRSG habitat.

111 PDF (ADH) Minimize burnout operations in key GRSG habitat areas by constructing direct fire line whenever 

safe and practical to do so.

112 PDF (ADH) Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

113 PDF (ADH) As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other 

habitat features to minimize sagebrush loss.

1 All Designated Habitat (ADH) includes Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA), General Habitat Management Areas 

(GHMA), and Linkage/Connectivity Habitat Management Areas (LCHMA).
C. Required Design Features, Preferred Design Features, and Suggested Design Features

C-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

C.1 REFERENCES

Bergquist, E., P. Evangelista, T. J. Stohlgren, and N. Alley. 2007. Invasive species and coal bed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

128:381-394. 

Blickley, J. L., D. Blackwood, and G. L. Patricelli. 2012. In press. Experimental evidence for the effects of 

chronic anthropogenic noise on abundance of greater sage-grouse at leks. Conservation Biology 

26: 461-471.

Bui, T. D., J. M. Marzluff, and B. Bedrosian. 2010. Common raven activity in relation to land use in 

western Wyoming: Implications for greater sage-grouse reproductive success. Condor 112:65-

78.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1-19.

De Szalay, F. A., and V. H. Resh. 2000. Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal 

wetlands: Responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology. 45:295-308. 

Doherty, M. K. 2007. Mosquito populations in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: a comparison of 

natural, agricultural, and effluent coal‐bed natural gas aquatic habitats. Thesis. Montana State 

University, Bozeman, MT.

Gelbard, J. L., and J. Belnap. 2003. “Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.” 

Conservation Biology 17:420-432.

Knight, R. L., W. E. Walton, G. F. Measra, W. K. Riesen, and R. Wass. 2003. Strategies for effective 

mosquito control in constructed treatment wetlands. Ecological Engineering. 21:211-232.

Lammers, W. M., and M. W. Collopy. 2007. Effectiveness of avian predator perch deterrents on electric 

transmission lines. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2752-2758.

Lyon, A. G., and S. H. Anderson. 2003. Potential gas development impacts on sage grouse nest initiation 

and movement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 486-491.

Patricelli, G. L., J. L. Blickley, and S. Hooper. 2010. Incorporating the impacts of noise pollution into 

greater sage-grouse conservation planning. 27th Meeting of the Western Agencies Sage and 

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee Workshop. Twin Falls, ID.

Pyke, D. A. 2011. Restoring and rehabilitating sagebrush habitats. Pp. 531-548 in S. T. Knick and J. W. 

Connelly (editors). Greater sage-grouse: ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its 

habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 38. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Schmidtmann, E. T., R. J. Bobian, and R. P. Beldin. 2000. Soil chemistries define aquatic habitats with 

immature populations of the Culicoides variipennis complex (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Journal 

of Medical Entomology. 37:38-64.
Appendix D

Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-1

APPENDIX D

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE MONITORING 

FRAMEWORK

This framework was developed by the Interagency GRSG Disturbance and Monitoring Sub-Team.

D.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework 

(hereafter, monitoring framework) is to describe the methods to monitor habitats and evaluate the 

implementation and effectiveness of the BLM planning strategy (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-

044) to conserve the species and its habitat. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) require that 

land use plans establish intervals and standards, as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations, based on 

the sensitivity of the resource to the decisions involved. Therefore, BLM will use the methods described 

herein to collect monitoring data to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of the Greater SageGrouse (hereafter, sage-grouse) planning strategy and the conservation measures contained in land use

plans. The type of monitoring data to be collected at the land use plan scale will be described in the 

monitoring plan which will be developed after the signing of the ROD. (For a summary of the frequency 

of reporting, see Attachment A at the end of this appendix.) Adaptive management will be informed 

by data collected at any and all scales.

To ensure the BLM have the ability to make consistent assessments about sage-grouse habitats across the 

range of the species, This framework lays out the methodology for monitoring the implementation and 

evaluating the effectiveness of BLM actions to conserve the species and its habitat through monitoring 

that informs effectiveness at multiple scales. Monitoring efforts will include data for measurable 

quantitative indicators of sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and sagebrush 

conditions. Implementation monitoring results will provide information to allow the BLM to evaluate the 

extent that decisions from the BLM resource management plans (RMPs) to conserve sage-grouse and its 

habitat have been implemented. Population monitoring information will be collected by State fish and 

wildlife agencies and will be incorporated into effectiveness monitoring as it is made available.

This multi-scale monitoring approach is necessary as sage-grouse are a landscape species and 

conservation is scale-dependent whereby conservation actions are implemented within seasonal habitats 

to benefit populations. The four orders of habitat selection (Johnson 1980) used in this monitoring 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

framework are described by Connelly et al. (2003) and Stiver et al. (2014) as first order (broad scale), 

second order (mid-scale), third order (fine scale), and fourth order (site scale) to apply them to sagegrouse habitat selection. habitat selection and habitat use by sage-grouse occurs at multiple scales and is 

driven by multiple environmental and behavioral factors. Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats 

are complicated by the differences in habitat selection across the range and habitat utilization by 

individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the tendency to look at a single indicator of habitat 

suitability or only one scale limits the ability for managers to identify the threats to sage-grouse and to 

respond at the appropriate scale. For descriptions of these habitat suitability indicators for each scale, 

see the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (HAF; Stiver et al. 2014).

Monitoring methods and indicators in this monitoring framework are derived from the current peerreviewed science. Range wide best-available datasets for broad and mid-scale monitoring will be acquired. 

If these exiting datasets are not readily available or are inadequate, but are necessary to effectively inform 

the three measurable quantitative indicators (sagebrush availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and 

sagebrush conditions), the BLM will strive to develop datasets or obtain information to fill these data 

gaps. datasets that are not readily available to inform the fine and site scale indicators will be developed.

These data will be used to generate monitoring reports at the appropriate and applicable geographic 

scales, boundaries and analysis units: across the range of sage-grouse as defined by Schroeder et al. 

(2004), and clipped by Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Management Zone 

(MZ) (Stiver et al. 2006) boundaries and other areas as appropriate for size (e.g., populations based on 

Connelly et al. 2004; Figure D-1). This broad and mid-scale monitoring data and analysis will provide 

context for RMP/LMP areas; states; GRSG priority habitat management areas, general habitat 

management areas and other sage-grouse designated management areas such as linkage/connectivity 

habitat management areas; and priority areas for conservation (PACs) as defined in the Greater SageGrouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report (COT report) (USFWS 2013). Throughout the remainder 

of the document, all of these areas will be referred to as “sage-grouse areas.”

This monitoring framework is divided into two sections. The broad and mid-scale methods, described in 

Section D.2, provide a consistent approach across the range of the species to monitor implementation 

decisions and actions, mid-scale habitat attributes (e.g., sagebrush availability and habitat degradation), 

and population changes to determine the effectiveness of BLM planning strategy and management 

decisions (see Table D-1). For the sage-grouse habitat fine and site scales (Section D.3), this 

framework describes a consistent approach (e.g., indicators and methods) for monitoring sage-grouse 

seasonal habitats. Funding, support, and dedicated personnel for broad and mid-scale monitoring will be 

renewed annually through the normal budget process. For an overview of the BLM multi-scale 

monitoring commitments, see Attachment A at the end of this appendix.

D.2 BROAD AND MID SCALES 

First order habitat selection at the broad scale describes the physical or geographical range of a species. 

The first order habitat, the range of the species, is defined by populations of sage-grouse associated with 

sagebrush landscapes based on Schroeder et al. (2004), Connelly et al. (2004), and population surveys 

and local adjustments based on population or habitat surveys since 2004. There is an intermediate scale 

between the broad and mid scales that was delineated by WAFWA from floristic provinces, within 

which similar environmental factors influence vegetation communities. This scale is referred to as the 

WAFWA sage-grouse MZs. Although no indicators are specific to this scale, these MZs are biologically 

meaningful as reporting units. 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-3

Figure D-1. Map of sage-grouse range, populations, subpopulations and PACs as of 2013
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-1

Indicators for Monitoring Implementation of the Strategy, Decisions, Sage-Grouse Habitat, 

and Sage-Grouse Populations at the Broad and Mid Scales

Geographic 

Scales Implementation Habitat

Population 

(State Wildlife 

Agencies)

Availability Degradation Demographics

Broad scale: From 

the range of sagegrouse to WAFWA 

MZs

BLM planning 

strategy goal and 

objectives 

Distribution and 

amount of 

sagebrush within 

the range

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining, and 

infrastructure 

facilities

WAFWA MZ

population trend

Mid-scale: From 

WAFWA MZs to 

populations; PACs

RMP/LUP

decisions

Mid-scale habitat 

indicators (Stiver et 

al. 2014); Table 

D-2 (e.g., percent 

of sagebrush per 

unit area) 

Distribution and 

amount of energy, 

mining, and 

infrastructure 

facilities (Table 

D-2)

Individual 

population trend

Second-order habitat selection, the mid scale, includes sage-grouse populations and PACs. The second 

order includes at least 40 discrete populations and subpopulations (Connelly et al. 2004). Populations 

range in area from 150 to 60,000 square miles; PACs range from 20 to 20,400 square miles and are 

nested within population areas, and populations are nested within MZs.

Other mid-scale landscape indicators, such as patch size and number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, 

and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. 2014) will also be assessed. The methods used to 

calculate these metrics will be derived from existing literature (Knick et al. 2011; Leu and Hanser 2011; 

Knick and Hanser 2011).

D.2.1 Implementation (Decision) Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or the 

progress toward implementation) of land use plan decisions. The BLM will monitor implementation of 

project level and site-specific actions and authorizations with their associated conditions of 

approval/stipulations for sage-grouse spatially (as appropriate) within priority habitat, general habitat, and 

other sage-grouse designated management areas, at a minimum, for the Northwest Colorado GRSG 

ARMPA. These actions and authorizations and progress toward completing and implementing activitylevel plans will be monitored consistently across all planning units and reported to BLM headquarters 

annually, with a summary report every 5 years, for this Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA. 

The Implementation Monitoring Team will develop a national-level land use plan implementation 

monitoring and reporting structure (IMARS). It will describe how the BLM will consistently and 

systematically monitor and report implementation-level activity plans and implementation actions for all 

plans within the range of sage-grouse. The IMARS will be included in the record of decision 

(ROD)/approved plan. IMARS is a centralized tracking tool for collection, roll-up, and reporting of 

tabular and spatially explicit data. The BLM will provide data that can be integrated with other 

conservation efforts conducted by state and federal partners.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-5

D.2.2 Habitat Monitoring

In the USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for the sage-grouse, USFWS identified 18 threats contributing to 

the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the sage-grouse’s habitat or range (75 Federal Register

13910, March 23, 2010; USFWS 2010). The BLM will therefore monitor the relative extent of these 

threats that remove sagebrush (Table D-2), both spatially and temporally, on all lands within an analysis 

area, and to report on amount, pattern and condition at the appropriate and applicable geographic scales 

and boundaries. These 18 threats have been aggregated into three broad and mid-scale measures to 

account for whether the threat predominantly removes sagebrush or degrades habitat. The three 

measures are:

 Measure 1: Sagebrush availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

 Measure 2: Habitat degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

 Measure 3: Density of energy and mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Table D-2

Relationship Between the 18 Threats and the Three Habitat Disturbance Measures for 

Monitoring1

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Density of 

Energy and 

Mining

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments)

X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights of ways X

1Data availability may preclude specific analysis of individual layers; see the detailed method for more information.

These three habitat disturbance measures will evaluate disturbance on all lands regardless of land 

ownership. The direct area of influence will be assessed with the goal to account for actual removal of 

sagebrush upon which sage-grouse depend (Connelly et al. 2000) and for habitat degradation as a 

surrogate for human activity. Measure 1 examines where disturbances have removed plant communities 

that support sagebrush (or have broadly removed sagebrush from the landscape), and therefore 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

monitors the change in sagebrush availability, or specifically where and how much of the sagebrush 

community is available within the range of sage-grouse. The sagebrush community is defined as the 

ecological systems that have the capability to support sagebrush vegetation and seasonal sage-grouse

habitats within the range of sage-grouse (see Sagebrush Availability, below).

Measures 2 and 3 (see Habitat Degradation, below) focus on where habitat degradation is occurring 

using the footprint/area of direct disturbance and the number of facilities at the mid-scale to identify the 

relative amount of degradation per geographic unit of interest and in areas that have the capability to 

support sagebrush and seasonal sage-grouse use. Measure 2 is not only a quantification of footprint/area 

of direct disturbance but also a surrogate for those threats most likely to have ongoing activity. In 

addition, energy development and mining activities are typically the most intensive activities in sagebrush 

habitat. Therefore, Measure 3, the density of active energy development, production, and mining sites 

will be monitored to help identify areas of particular concern for factors such as noise, dust, and traffic

that degrade sage-grouse habitat.

The methods to monitor disturbance found herein differ slightly from methods used in the Sage-Grouse 

Baseline Environmental Report (BER; Manier et al. 2013) that provided a baseline of datasets of 

disturbance across jurisdictions. One difference is that, for some threats, the data in the BER were for 

federal lands only. In addition, threats were assessed individually in that report, using different 

assumptions from those in this monitoring framework about how to quantify the location and magnitude 

of threats. The methodology herein builds on the BER methodology and identifies datasets and 

procedures to utilize the best available data across the range of the sage-grouse and to formulate a 

consistent approach to quantify impact of the threats through time. This methodology also describes an 

approach to combine the threats and calculate the three measures.

D.2.2.1 Sagebrush Availability (Measure 1)

Sage-grouse populations have been found to be more resilient where a percentage of the landscape is 

maintained in sagebrush (Knick and Connelly 2011), which will be determined by sagebrush availability.

This measure has been divided into two sub-measures to describe sagebrush availability on the 

landscape: 

 Measure 1a) the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest and 

 Measure 1b) the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared to the amount 

of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. 

Measure 1a (the current amount of sagebrush on the landscape) will be calculated using this formula:

[the existing updated sagebrush layer] divided by [the geographic unit of interest]. The appropriate 

geographic units of interest for sagebrush availability include the species’ range, WAFWA Management 

Zones, populations, and PACs. In some cases these sage-grouse areas will need to be aggregated to 

provide an estimate of sagebrush availability with an acceptable level of accuracy. 

Measure 1b (the amount of sagebrush for context within the area of interest) will be calculated using 

this formula: [the existing updated sagebrush layer (EVT)] divided by [pre Euro-American geographic 

extent of lands that could have supported sagebrush (BpS)]. This will provide information during 

evaluations of monitoring data to set the context for a given geographic unit of interest. That 

information could also be used for management options for restoration or mitigation.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-7

The sagebrush base layer for the sagebrush availability measure will be based on geospatial vegetation 

data adjusted for the threats listed in Table D-2. The following sub-sections of this monitoring 

framework describe the methodology to determine both the current availability of sagebrush on the 

landscape and the context of the amount of sagebrush on the landscape at the broad and mid-scales.

Establishing the Sagebrush Base Layer 

The current geographic extent of sagebrush vegetation within the range wide distribution of sage-grouse 

populations will be ascertained using the most recent version of the EVT layer in LANDFIRE (2010).

LANDFIRE EVT was selected to serve as the sagebrush base layer for five reasons, as follows:

 It is the only nationally consistent vegetation layer that has been updated multiple times 

since 2001.

 The ecological systems classification within LANDFIRE EVT include multiple sagebrush type 

classes that, when aggregated, provide a more accurate (compared with individual classes) 

and seamless sagebrush base layer across jurisdictional boundaries.

 LANDFIRE performed a rigorous accuracy assessment from which to derive the range-wide 

uncertainty of the sagebrush base layer.

 LANDFIRE is consistently used in several recent analyses of sagebrush habitats (Knick et al. 

2011; Leu and Hanser 2011; Knick and Hanser 2011).

 LANDFIRE EVT can be compared against the geographic extent of lands that are believed to 

have had the capability to support sagebrush vegetation BpS. 

This fifth reason provides a reference point for understanding how much sagebrush currently remains in 

a defined geographic area compared with how much sagebrush existed historically (Measure 1b). 

Therefore, BLM have determined that LANDFIRE provides the best available data at broad and midscales to serve as a sagebrush base layer for monitoring changes in the geographic extent of sagebrush. 

Along with aggregating the sagebrush types into the sagebrush base layer, BLM will aggregate the 

accuracy assessment reports from LANDFIRE to document the cumulative accuracy for the sagebrush 

base layer. For the long-term, BLM through its Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Program 

and specifically the BLM’S Landscape Monitoring Framework (Taylor et al. In press) will provide field 

data to the LANDFIRE program to support continuous quality improvements in their products 

specifically for rangeland systems to improve the LANDFIRE EVT layer. 

Within the BLM, forest-wide and field office-wide existing vegetation classification mapping and 

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

Where available, these finer scale products are useful for additional and complimentary mid-scale 

indicators and local scale analyses (see Section D.3, Fine and Site Scales). The fact that these products 

are not available everywhere limits their utility for monitoring at the broad and mid-scale where 

consistency of data products is necessary across broader geographies.

The sagebrush layer based on LANDFIRE EVT will allow for the mid-scale estimation of existing percent 

sagebrush across a variety of reporting units. This sagebrush base layer will be adjusted by changes in 

land cover and successful restoration for future calculations of sagebrush availability (Measures 1a and 

1b). 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This layer will be used to determine the trend in other landscape indicators, such as patch size and 

number, patch connectivity, linkage areas, and landscape matrix and edge effects (Stiver et al. 2014).

In the future, changes in sagebrush availability, generated bi-annually, will be included in the sagebrush 

base layer. The landscape metrics will be recalculated to examine changes in pattern and abundance of 

sagebrush at the various geographic boundaries. This information will be included in effectiveness 

monitoring (see Section D.2.4, Effectiveness Monitoring).

Data Sources to Establish and Monitor Sagebrush Availability

In much the same manner as how the LANDFIRE data was selected as the data source, described above, 

the criteria for selecting the datasets (Table D-3) for establishing and monitoring the change in 

sagebrush availability, Measure 1, were threefold:

 Nationally consistent dataset available across the range

 Known level of confidence or accuracy in the dataset

 Dataset is continually maintained with a known update interval

Table D-3

Datasets for Establishing and Monitoring Changes in Sagebrush Availability

Dataset Source Update 

Interval

Most Recent 

Version Year Use

BpS v1.1 LANDFIRE Static 2008 Denominator for 

sagebrush availability (1b.)

EVT v1.2 LANDFIRE Static 2010 Numerator for sagebrush 

availability

Cropland data layer 

(CDL)

National 

Agricultural 

Statistics Service 

(NASS)

Annual 2012 Agricultural updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of sagebrush 

availability

National Land Cover 

Dataset (NLCD) 

percent 

imperviousness

Multi-Resolution 

Land 

Characteristics 

Consortium 

(MRLC)

5 years 2011, made

available in 

March 2014

Urban area updates; 

removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of sagebrush 

availability

Fire perimeters GeoMac Annual 2013 < 1,000 acres fire 

updates; removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of sagebrush 

availability

Burn severity Monitoring 

Trends in Burn 

Severity (MTBS)

Annual 2012, made

available in April 

2014

> 1,000 acres fire 

updates; removes existing 

sagebrush from 

numerator of sagebrush 

availability, except for 

unburned sagebrush 

islands
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-9

LANDFIRE EVT Version 1.2

LANDFIRE EVT represents existing vegetation types on the landscape derived from remote sensing 

data. Initial mapping was conducted using imagery collected in approximately 2001. Since the initial 

mapping, there have been two update efforts: version 1.1 represents changes up to 2008 and version 1.2 

reflects changes on the landscape up to 2010. Version 1.2 will be used as the starting point to develop 

the sagebrush base layer. 

Ecological systems from the LANDFIRE EVT to be used in the sagebrush base layer were determined by 

sage-grouse subject matter experts through the identification of the ecological systems that have the 

capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide suitable seasonal habitat for the sagegrouse (Table D-4). Two additional vegetation types that are not ecological systems were added to the 

EVT and are Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. 

These alliances have species composition directly related to the Rocky Mountain Lower MontaneFoothill Shrubland ecological system and the Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland 

ecological system, both of which are ecological systems in LANDFIRE BpS. However, in LANDFIRE EVT 

in some map zones, the Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill Shrubland ecological system and the 

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed Montane Shrubland ecological system were named Artemisia

tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. 

Table D-4

Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological 

System has the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Mixed Low Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia nova

Artemisia frigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Columbia Plateau Scabland Shrubland Artemisia rigida

Great Basin Xeric Mixed Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longicaulis

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert 

Scrub

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia spinescens

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush 

Shrubland and Steppe

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tripartita ssp. rupicola

Columbia Plateau Low Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba

Artemisia nova
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-10 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-4

Ecological Systems in BpS and EVT Capable of Supporting Sagebrush Vegetation and 

Could Provide Suitable Seasonal Habitat for Greater Sage-Grouse

Ecological System Sagebrush Vegetation that the Ecological 

System has the Capability to Produce

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. xericensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tripartita ssp. tripartita

Artemisia frigida

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush 

Steppe

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia nova

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. spiciformis

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed grass 

Prairie

Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia frigida

Northwestern Great Plains Shrubland Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Western Great Plains Sand Prairie Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Western Great Plains Floodplain Systems Artemisia cana ssp. cana

Columbia Plateau Steppe and Grassland Artemisia spp.

Inter-Mountain Basins Semi-Desert ShrubSteppeArtemisia tridentata

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Rocky Mountain Lower Montane-Foothill 

Shrubland

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia frigida

Rocky Mountain Gambel Oak-Mixed 

Montane Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-Leaf Mountain 

Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Shrubland Alliance (EVT only)

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance (EVT 

only)

Artemisia tridentata

Accuracy and Appropriate Use of LANDFIRE Datasets

Because of concerns over the thematic accuracy of individual classes mapped by LANDFIRE, all 

ecological systems listed in Table D-4 will be merged into one value that represents the sagebrush base 

layer. By aggregating all ecological systems, the combined accuracy of the sagebrush base layer (EVT) is 

much greater than if all categories were treated separately.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-11

LANDFIRE performed the original accuracy assessment of their EVT product on a map zone basis.

There are 20 LANDFIRE map zones that cover the historic range of sage-grouse as defined by 

Schroeder et al. (2004). Attachment C at the end of this appendix lists the user and producer 

accuracies for the aggregated ecological systems that make up the sagebrush base layer and also defines 

user and producer accuracies. The aggregated sagebrush base layer for monitoring had producer 

accuracies ranging from 56.7 to 100 percent and user accuracies ranging from 57.1 to 85.7 percent. 

LANDFIRE EVT data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the percent sagebrush statistic 

for the various reporting units (Measure 1a), the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as 

the size of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2

resolution of raster data) for any reporting. The smallest geographic extent use of the data for this 

purpose is at the PAC level and for the smallest PACs the initial percent sagebrush estimate will have 

greater uncertainties compared with the much larger PACs. 

Agricultural Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The dataset for the geographic extent of agricultural lands will come from the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL) 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/Release/index.htm). CDL data are generated on an annual 

basis with “estimated producer accuracies for large row crops from the mid 80 to mid-90 percent” 

depending on the state (http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/sarsfaqs2.htm#Section3_18.0).

Readers are referred to the NASS metadata website for specific information on accuracy 

(http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/metadata/meta.htm). CDL provided the only dataset that 

matches the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for 

use in this monitoring framework and represents the best available agricultural lands mapping product. 

The CDL data contain both agricultural classes as well as non-agricultural classes. For this effort, as was 

also done in the Baseline Environmental Report (Manier et al. 2013), non-agricultural classes were 

removed from the original dataset. The excluded classes are:

 Barren (65 & 131)

 Deciduous Forest (141)

 Developed/High Intensity (124)

 Developed/Low Intensity (122)

 Developed/Med Intensity (123)

 Developed/Open Space (121)

 Evergreen Forest (142)

 Grassland Herbaceous (171)

 Herbaceous Wetlands (195)

 Mixed Forest (143)

 Open Water (83 and 111)

 Other Hay/Non-Alfalfa (37)
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-12 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

 Pasture/Hay (181)

 Pasture/Grass (62)

 Perennial Ice/Snow (112)

 Shrubland (64 and 152)

 Woody Wetlands (190)

The rule set for adjusting the sagebrush base layer for agricultural lands is that, once an area is classified 

as agriculture in any year of the CDL, those pixels will remain out of the sagebrush base layer, even if a 

new version of CDL classifies that pixel as one of the non-agricultural classes listed above. The 

assumption is that even though individual pixels may get classified as a non-agricultural class in any given 

year, the pixel has not necessarily been restored to a natural sagebrush community that would be 

included in Table D-4. It is further assumed that once an area has moved into agricultural use, it is 

unlikely that it would be restored to sagebrush, however, should that occur, the method and criteria for 

adding pixels back into the sagebrush base layer would follow those found in the Restoration Updates

section of this framework.

Urban Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

The NLCD Percent Imperviousness was selected as the best available dataset to be used for urban 

updates. These data are generated on a 5-year cycle and specifically designed to support monitoring 

efforts. Other datasets were evaluated and lacked the spatial specificity that was captured in the NLCD 

product. Any new impervious pixel will be removed from the sagebrush base layer during the update 

process. 

Although the impervious surface layer includes a number of impervious pixels outside of urban areas, 

there are two reasons why this is acceptable for this process. First, an evaluation of national urban area 

datasets did not reveal a layer that could be confidently used in conjunction with the NLCD product to 

screen impervious pixels outside of urban zones because unincorporated urban areas were not being 

included thus leaving large chunks of urban pixels unaccounted for in this rule set. Secondly, 

experimentation with setting a threshold on the percent imperviousness layer that would isolate rural 

features proved to be unsuccessful. No combination of values could be identified that would result in 

the consistent ability to limit impervious pixels outside urban areas. Therefore, to ensure consistency in 

the monitoring estimates, it was determined to include all impervious pixels.

Fire Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

Two datasets were selected for performing fire updates: GeoMac fire perimeters and Monitoring Trends 

in Burn Severity (MTBS). An existing data standard in the BLM requires all fires with sizes greater than 

10 acres to be reported to GeoMac, therefore there will be many small fires less than 10 acres in size 

that will not be accounted for in the fire updates. In the update process using fire perimeters from 

GeoMac, all sagebrush pixels falling within the perimeter of fires less than 1000 acres in size will be used 

to update the sagebrush layer.

MTBS was selected for use as a means to account for unburned sagebrush islands during the update 

process of the sagebrush base layer. The MTBS program (http://www.mtbs.gov) is an on-going multi-year 

project to consistently map fire severity and fire perimeters across the US For lands in the Western US, 

MTBS only maps burn severity for fires greater than 1,000 acres in size. One of the burn severity classes 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-13

within MTBS is an unburned to low severity class. This burn severity class will be used to represent 

unburned islands of sagebrush within the fire perimeter that will be retained in the sagebrush base layer.

Areas within the other severity classes within the fire perimeter will be removed from the base 

sagebrush layer during the update process. However, not all wildfires have the same impact on the

recovery of sagebrush habitat depending largely on soil moisture and temperature regimes. For example, 

cooler, moister sagebrush habitat has a higher potential for recovery or, if needed restoration, than the 

warmer, dryer sagebrush habitat. These areas will likely be detected as sagebrush in future updates to 

LANDFIRE.

Conifer Encroachment Adjustment for the Sagebrush Base Layer

Conifer encroachment into sagebrush vegetation reduces the spatial extent of greater sage-grouse 

habitat (Davies et al. 2011; Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Conifer species that show propensity for 

encroaching into sagebrush vegetation which results in sage-grouse habitat loss include various juniper 

species, as follows (Gruell et al. 1986; Grove et al. 2005; Davies et al. 2011):

 Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)

 Western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis)

 Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum)

 Pinyon species (singleleaf pinyon [Pinus monophylla] and pinyon pine [P. edulis], ponderosa 

pine [P. ponderosa], lodgepole pine [P. contorta], and Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii])

A rule set for conifer encroachment was developed to be used for determining the existing sagebrush 

base layer. To capture the geographic extent of sagebrush that is likely to experience conifer 

encroachment, ecological systems within LANDFIRE EVT version 1.2 (NatureServe 2011) were 

identified if they have the capability of supporting the conifer species (listed above) and have the 

capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation. Those ecological systems (Table D-5) were deemed to 

be the plant communities with conifers most likely to encroach into sagebrush vegetation. Sagebrush 

vegetation was defined as including sagebrush species (Attachment B at the end of this appendix) that 

provide habitat for the greater sage-grouse and are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment 

Framework (Stiver et al. 2014). An adjacency analysis was conducted to identify all sagebrush pixels that 

were directly adjacent to these conifer ecological systems and these immediately adjacent sagebrush 

pixels were removed from the sagebrush base layer.

Invasive Annual Grasses Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

There are no invasive species datasets from 2010 to present (beyond the LANDFIRE data) that meet 

our 3 criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, and periodically updated) for use in the 

determination of the sagebrush base layer. For a description of how invasive species land cover will be 

incorporated in the sagebrush base layer in the future, see Monitoring Sagebrush Availability, below.

Sagebrush Restoration Adjustments for the Sagebrush Base Layer

There are no datasets from 2010 to present that could provide additions to the sagebrush base layer 

from restoration treatments that meet the three criteria (nationally consistent, known level of accuracy, 

and periodically updated) therefore, no adjustments were made to the sagebrush base layer calculated 

from the LANDFIRE EVT (Version 1.2) due to restoration activities since 2010. Successful restoration 

treatments prior to 2010 are assumed to have been captured in the LANDFIRE refresh.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-14 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-5

Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush 

Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability to Produce

Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus edulis

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia pygmaea

Columbia Plateau Western Juniper Woodland and 

Savanna

Juniperus occidentalis

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia rigida

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

East Cascades Oak-Ponderosa Pine Forest and 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia nova

Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Pinus monophylla

Juniperus osteosperma

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and Savanna

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper 

Woodland

Juniperus osteosperma

Juniperus scopulorum

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Rocky Mountain Poor-Site Lodgepole Pine Forest Pinus contorta

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus ponderosa

Artemisia tridentata

Southern Rocky Mountain Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodland

Pinus edulis

Juniperus monosperma

Artemisia bigelovii

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis

Artemisia tridentata ssp.vaseyana
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-15

Table D-5

Ecological Systems with Conifers Most Likely to Encroach into Sagebrush Vegetation

EVT Ecological Systems

Coniferous Species and Sagebrush 

Vegetation that the Ecological System has 

the Capability to Produce

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland

Pinus ponderosa

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Pinus edulis

Pinus contorta

Juniperus spp.

Artemisia nova

Artemisia tridentata

Artemisia arbuscula

Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability

Updating the Sagebrush Availability Sagebrush Base Layer

Sagebrush availability will be updated annually by incorporating changes to the sagebrush base layer 

attributable to agriculture, urbanization, and wildfire. The monitoring schedule for the existing sagebrush 

base layer updates is as follows:

2010 Existing Sagebrush Base Layer = [Sagebrush EVT] minus [2006 Imperviousness Layer] 

minus [2009 and 2010 CDL] minus [2009/10 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [2009/10 

MTBS Fires excluding unburned sagebrush islands] minus [Conifer Encroachment Layer] 

2012 Existing Sagebrush Update = [Base 2010 Existing Sagebrush Layer] minus [2011 

Imperviousness Layer] minus [2011 and 2012 CDL] minus [2011/12 GeoMac Fires < 1,000 

acres] minus [2011/12 MTBS Fires that are greater than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned 

sagebrush islands within the perimeter]

2013 and beyond Existing Sagebrush Updates = [Previous Existing Sagebrush Update Layer] 

minus [Imperviousness Layer (if new data are available)] minus [Next 2 years of CDL] minus 

[Next 2 years of GeoMac Fires < 1,000 acres] minus [Next 2 years MTBS Fires that are greater 

than 1,000 acres, excluding unburned sagebrush islands within the perimeter] plus 

[restoration/monitoring data provided by the field]

Sagebrush Restoration Updates

restoration after fire, after agricultural conversion, after seedings of introduced grasses, or after 

treatments of pinyon pine and/or juniper, are examples of updates to the sagebrush base layer that can 

add sagebrush vegetation back in. When restoration has been determined to be successful through 

range wide, consistent, interagency fine and site-scale monitoring, the polygonal data will be used to add 

sagebrush pixels back into the broad and mid-scale sagebrush base layer. 

Measure 1b – Context for the change in the amount of sagebrush in a landscape of interest

Measure 1b describes the amount of sagebrush on the landscape of interest compared with the amount 

of sagebrush the landscape of interest could ecologically support. Areas with the potential to support 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-16 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

sagebrush were derived from the BpS data layer that describes sagebrush pre Euro-American settlement 

(BpS v1.2 of LANDFIRE). This measure (1b) will provide information during evaluations of monitoring 

data to set the context for a given geographic area of interest. The information could also be used to 

inform management options for restoration, mitigation and inform effectiveness monitoring.

The identification and spatial locations of natural plant communities (vegetation) that are believed to 

have existed on the landscape (BpS) were constructed based on an approximation of the historical (pre

Euro-American settlement) disturbance regime and how the historical disturbance regime operated on 

the current biophysical environment. BpS is composed of map units, which are based on NatureServe’s 

(2011) terrestrial ecological systems classification.

The ecological systems within BpS used for this monitoring framework are those ecological systems that 

have the capability of supporting sagebrush vegetation and could provide seasonal habitat for the sagegrouse. These ecological systems are listed in Table D-4, with the exception of the Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana Shrubland Alliance and the Quercus gambelii Shrubland Alliance. Ecological 

systems selected included sagebrush species or subspecies that are included in the Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2014) and are found in Attachment B at the end of this appendix.

Attributable to the lack of any reference data, the BpS layer does not have an associated accuracy 

assessment. Visual inspection, however, of the BpS data reveals inconsistencies in the labeling of pixels 

among LANDFIRE map zones. The reason for these inconsistencies between map zones are the decision 

rules used to map a given ecological system will vary between map zones based on different physical, 

biological, disturbance, and atmospheric regimes of the region. This can result in artificial edges in the 

map that are an artifact of the mapping process. However, metrics will be calculated at broad spatial 

scales using BpS potential vegetation type, not small groupings or individual pixels; therefore, the 

magnitude of these observable errors in the BpS layer is minor compared with the size of the reporting 

units. Therefore, since BpS will be used to identify broad landscape patterns of dominant vegetation, 

these inconsistencies will have only a minor impact on the percent sagebrush availability calculation.

LANDFIRE BpS data are not designed to be used at a local level. In reporting the percent sagebrush 

statistic for the various reporting units, the uncertainty of the percent sagebrush will increase as the size 

of the reporting unit gets smaller. LANDFIRE data should never be used at the pixel level (30m2) for any

reporting. The smallest geographic extent use of the data for this purpose is at the PAC level and for 

the smallest PACs the initial percent sagebrush remaining estimate will have greater uncertainties,

compared with the much larger PACs. 

Tracking

The BLM will analyze and monitor sagebrush availability (Measure 1) on a bi-annual basis and it will be 

used to inform effectiveness monitoring and initiate adaptive management actions as necessary. The 

2010 estimate of sagebrush availability will serve as the base year, and an updated estimate for 2012 will 

be reported in 2014 after all datasets become available. The 2012 estimate will capture changes 

attributable to fire, agriculture, and urban development. Subsequent updates will always include new fire 

and agricultural data and new urban data when available.

Restoration data that meets the criteria of adding sagebrush areas back into the sagebrush base layer 

will begin to be factored in as data allows. Attributable to data availability, there will be a two-year lag 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-17

(approximately) between when the estimate is generated and when the data used for the estimate 

becomes available (e.g., the 2014 sagebrush availability will be included in the 2016 estimate).

Future Plans

Geospatial data used to generate the sagebrush base layer will be available through the BLM’s EGIS Web 

Portal and Geospatial Gateway or through the authoritative data source. Legacy datasets will be 

preserved so that trends may be calculated. Additionally, accuracy assessment data for all source 

datasets will be provided on the portal either spatially, where applicable, or through the metadata.

Accuracy assessment information was deemed vital to share to help users understand the limitation of 

the sagebrush estimates and will be summarized spatially by map zone and included in the portal.

LANDFIRE plans to begin a remapping effort in 2015. This remapping has the potential to greatly 

improve overall quality of the data products primarily through the use of higher quality remote sensing 

datasets. Additionally, BLM and the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) are 

working to improve the accuracy of vegetation map products for broad and mid-scale analyses through 

the grass/shrub mapping effort in partnership with the MRLC. The grass/shrub mapping effort applies the 

Wyoming multi-scale sagebrush habitat methodology (Homer et al. 2009) to spatially depict fractional 

percent cover estimates for five components range and West-wide. These five components are percent 

cover of sagebrush vegetation, percent bare ground, percent herbaceous vegetation (grass and forbs 

combined), annual vegetation, and percent shrubs. One of the benefits of the design of these fractional 

cover maps is that they facilitate monitoring “with-in” class variation (e.g., examination of declining trend 

in sagebrush cover for individual pixels). This “with-in” class variation can serve as one indicator of 

sagebrush quality that cannot be derived from LANDFIRE’s EVT information. The grass/shrub effort is 

not a substitute for fine scale monitoring, but will leverage fine scale data to support the validation of the 

mapping products. An evaluation will be conducted to determine if either dataset is of great enough 

quality to warrant replacing the existing sagebrush layers. The earliest possible date for this evaluation 

will not occur until 2018 or 2019 depending on data availability.

D.2.2.2 Habitat Degradation Monitoring (Measure 2)

The measure of habitat degradation will be calculated by combining the footprints of threats identified in 

Table D-2. The footprint is defined as the direct area of influence of “active” energy and infrastructure 

and is used as a surrogate for human activity. Thus, the footprint of habitat degradation per sage-grouse 

area will be calculated. Although these analyses will try to summarize results at the aforementioned 

meaningful landscape units, some may be too small to appropriately report the metrics and may be 

combined (e.g., smaller populations and PACs within a population). Data sources for each threat are 

found in Table D-6. Specific assumptions (e.g., inclusion criteria for data and width/area assumptions for 

point and line features) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure are detailed below.

All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad and mid-scale year-to-year changes and to 

calculate trends in habitat degradation to inform adaptive management. A 5-year summary report will be 

available to USFWS.

Habitat Degradation Datasets and Assumptions:

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

This dataset will be a compilation of two oil and gas well databases: the proprietary IHS Enerdeq 

database and the BLM Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS) database (AFMSS data will be 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-18 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table D-6

Geospatial Data Sources for Habitat Degradation (Measure 2)

FWS Listing Decision Threat Data Source Direct Area of 

Influence 

Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics 

Service

Polygon area

Urbanization USGS Percent Imperviousness Polygon area

Wildfire Geospatial Multi-Agency 

Coordination Group; Monitoring 

Trends in Burn Severity

Polygon area

Conifer encroachment LANDFIRE Polygon area

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities)

IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5 acres (2.0

hectares)

Energy (reclaimed site degradation) IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 3 acres (1.2

hectares)

Energy (coal mines) BLM and Forest Service data; 

Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement

Polygon area

Energy (wind towers) Federal Aviation Administration 3 acres (1.2

hectares)

Energy (solar fields) Argonne National Laboratory Polygon area

Energy (geothermal) Argonne National Laboratory Polygon area or 5

acres (2.0 hectares)

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and salable 

developments)

InfoMine Polygon area or 5

acres (2.0 hectares)

Infrastructure (roads) ESRI StreetMap Premium 40.7-240.2 feet 

(12.4-73.2 meters)

Infrastructure (railroads) Federal Railroad Administration 30.8 feet (9.4

meters)

Infrastructure (power lines) Platts Transmission Lines 100-250 feet 

(30.5-76.2 meters)

Infrastructure (communication towers) Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5 acres (1.0

hectares)

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) Federal Aviation Administration 2.5 acres (1.0

hectares)

used to supplement the IHS data). Point data from wells active within the last ten years from IHS and 

producing wells from AFMSS will be considered as a 5-acre (2.0-hectare) footprint (BLM WO 2014) 

centered on the well point. Plugged and abandoned wells will be removed, though only if the date of 

well abandonment was prior to the first day of the reporting year (i.e., for the 2010 reporting year, a 

well must be plugged and abandoned by December 31, 2009, to be removed). 

Additional Measure: Reclaimed Energy-related Degradation 

This dataset will include those wells that have been plugged and abandoned in an effort to measure 

energy-related degradation that has been reclaimed but not necessary fully restored to sage-grouse 

habitat. This measure will establish a baseline by using wells that have been plugged and abandoned 

within the last ten years from the IHS and AFMSS datasets. 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-19

Time lags for lek attendance in response to infrastructure have been documented to be delayed by 2 to 

10 years from energy development activities (Harju et al. 2010), while reclamation actions may require 

two or more years from the final abandonment notice. Sagebrush seedling establishment may take six or 

more years from the point of seeding, depending on variables such as annual precipitation, annual 

temperature, and soil type and depth (Pyke 2011). This ten-year period is conservative, assuming some 

level of habitat improvement ten years after plugging. However, research by Hemstrom et al. (2002) 

proposes an even longer period of greater than 100 years for recovery of sagebrush habitats even with 

active restoration approaches. direct area of influence will be considered 3 acres (1.2 hectares1). This 

additional layer/measure could be used at the broad- and mid-scale to identify areas where sagebrush 

habitat and/or potential sagebrush habitat is likely still degraded and where further investigation at the 

fine or site-scale would be warranted to: (1) quantify the level of reclamation already conducted, and (2) 

evaluate the amount of restoration still required (for sagebrush habitat recovery). At a particular level 

(e.g., population or PACs), these areas and the reclamation efforts/success could be used to inform 

reclamation standards associated with future developments. Once these areas have transitioned from 

reclamation standards to meeting restoration standards, they can be added back into the sagebrush 

availability layer using the same methodology as described for adding restoration treatment areas lost to 

fire and agriculture conversion (see the Sagebrush Restoration Updates section). This dataset will be 

updated annually with new plugged and abandoned well from the IHS dataset.

Energy (coal mines)

Currently there is no comprehensive dataset available that identifies the footprint of active coal mining 

across all jurisdictions. Therefore, point and polygon datasets will be used each year to identify coal 

mining locations. Data sources will be identified and evaluated annually and will include at a minimum: 

BLM coal lease polygons, US Energy Information Administration mine occurrence points, US Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) coal mining permit polygons (as available), and 

USGS Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS) mine occurrence points. These data will inform where

active coal mining may be occurring. Aerial imagery will then be used to manually digitize active coal 

mining surface disturbance in or near these known occurrence areas. While the date of aerial imagery 

varies by scale, the most current data available from ESRI and/or Google will be utilized to locate 

(generally at 1:50,000 and below) and digitize (generally at 1:10,000 and below) active coal mine 

footprints. Coal mine location data source and imagery date will be documented for each digitized coal 

footprint polygon at the time of creation. Sub-surface facility locations (polygon or point location as 

available) will also be collected, if available, and included in density calculations, and added to the active 

surface activity layer as appropriate (if actual footprint can be located).

Energy (wind energy facilities)

This dataset will be a subset of the Federal Aviation Administration Digital Obstacles point file to include 

points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL.” Direct area of influence of these point features will be measured 

by converting to a polygon dataset of 3 acres (1.2 hectares) centered on each tower point (BLM Wind 

Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 2005). Additionally, the BLM will use Platts 

Power Plants and Generating Units database for transformer stations associated with wind energy sites.

 

1J. Perry, BLM, Washington Office, personal communication via e-mail with Frank Quamen, BLM, National Operations Center, 

regarding reclaimed energy monitoring, February 12, 2014.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-20 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Energy (solar energy facilities)

This dataset will include solar plants in existence or under construction, as compiled with the 

proprietary Platts in the Power Plants and Generating Units database. The point data will be buffered to 

represent a 3-acre (1.2-hectare) direct area of influence.

Energy (geothermal energy facilities)

This dataset will include geothermal plants in existence or under construction as compiled with the 

proprietary I.H.S and Platts Power Plants and Generating Units databases. The point data will be 

buffered to represent a 3-acre (1.2-hectare) direct area of influence.

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, saleable)

This dataset will include active mining locations as compiled with the proprietary InfoMine database. 

Other data sources will be evaluated as they are identified or become available. The point data will be 

buffered to represent a 5-acre (2.0-hectare) direct area of influence, unless actual surface disturbance is 

available.

Infrastructure (roads)

This dataset will be compiled from the proprietary ESRI StreetMap Premium for ArcGIS. Dataset 

features that will be used are interstates, major roads, and surface streets to capture most paved and 

“crowned and ditched” roads, while not including “two-track” and 4-wheel-drive routes. These minor 

roads, while not included in the broad- and mid-scale monitoring, may support a volume of traffic that 

can have deleterious effects on sage-grouse leks. 

It may be appropriate to consider the frequency and type of use of roads in a NEPA analysis for a 

proposed project. This fine-/project-scale analysis will require more site-specific data than is identified in 

this monitoring framework. The direct influence area for roads will be represented by 240.2 feet, 84.0

feet, and 40.7 feet (73.2 meters, 25.6 meters, and 12.4 meters) total widths, centered on the line feature 

for interstates, major roads, and surface streets, respectively (Knick et al. 2011). The most current 

dataset will be used for each monitoring update.2

Infrastructure (railroads)

This dataset will be a compilation of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Rail Lines of the USA 

dataset. Non-abandoned rail lines will be used; abandoned rail lines will not be used. The direct influence 

area for railroads will be represented by a 30.8-foot (9.4-meter) total width (Knick et al. 2011) centered 

on non-abandoned railroad line feature. 

Infrastructure (power lines)

This line dataset will be a compilation from EV Energy Map, Platts/Global Energy of transmission lines, 

substations, electric power generation plants, and energy distribution control facilities. Linear features in 

the dataset attributed as “buried” will be removed from the disturbance calculation. Only “in service” 

lines will be used, not “proposed” lines. direct area of influence will be determined by the kV 

designation: 1 to 199 kV (100 feet/30.5 meters), 200 to 399 kV (150 feet/45.7 meters), 500 to 699 kV 

 

2 This is a related but different dataset as was used in the Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies That Influence 

the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Manier et al. 2013). Individual BLM planning units may utilize different 

roads layers for fine- and site-scale monitoring.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-21

(200 feet/61.0 meters), and 700 or greater kV (250 feet/76.2 meters), based on average ROW and 

structure widths.

Infrastructure (communication towers)

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

communication towers point file; all duplicate points will be removed. It will be converted to a polygon 

dataset by using a direct area of influence of 2.47 acres (1.0 hectare) centered on each communication 

tower point (Knick et al. 2011).

Infrastructure (other vertical structures)

This point dataset will be compiled from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Digital Obstacles 

point file. Points where “Type_” = “WINDMILL” will be removed. Duplicate points from the FCC 

communication towers point file will be removed. Remaining features will be converted to a polygon 

dataset using a direct area of influence of 2.47 acres (1.0 hectare), centered on each vertical structure 

point (Knick et al. 2011).

Other developed rights-of-ways

Currently no additional data sources for other rights-of-ways have been identified; roads, power lines, 

railroads, pipelines, and other known linear features are represented in categories above. Our newly 

purchased IHS data does contain pipeline information, but further investigation is needed to determine if 

the dataset is comprehensive. If additional features representing human activities are identified, they will 

be added to monitoring reports using similar assumptions to the threats above.

Habitat Degradation Threat Combination and Calculation

The threats targeted for measuring human activity from Table D-2 will be converted to direct area of 

influence polygons, as described for each threat above. These threat polygon layers will be combined 

and features dissolved to create one overall polygon layer representing footprints of human activity in 

the range of sage-grouse. However, individual datasets will be preserved to ascertain which types of 

threats may be contributing to overall habitat degradation. Percentages will be calculated as follows (this 

measure has been divided into three sub-measures to describe habitat degradation on the landscape):

 Measure 2a) Footprint by landscape unit—Divide area of the active/direct footprint within a 

sage-grouse area by the total area of the sage-grouse area (percent disturbance in landscape 

unit)

 Measure 2b) Active/direct footprint by historic sagebrush potential—Divide area of the 

active footprint that coincides with areas of historic sagebrush potential (BpS calculation 

from habitat availability) within a given landscape unit by the total area with sagebrush 

potential within the landscape unit (percent disturbance on potential historic sagebrush in 

landscape unit)

 Measure 2c) Active/direct footprint by current sagebrush—Divide area of the active 

footprint that coincides with areas of existing sagebrush (EVT calculation from habitat 

availability) within a given landscape unit by the total area that is current sagebrush within 

the landscape unit. (percent disturbance on current sagebrush in landscape unit)
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-22 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

D.2.2.3 Density of Energy and Mining (Measure 3)

The measure of density of energy and mining will be calculated by combining the locations of threats 

identified in Table D-2. This will provide an estimate of intensity of human activity or intensity of 

habitat degradation. The number energy facilities and mining locations will be summed and divided by 

the area of meaningful landscape units to calculate density of these activities. Data sources for each 

threat are found in Table D-6. Specific assumptions (e.g., inclusion criteria for data and width/area 

assumptions for point and line features) and methodology for each threat, and the combined measure 

are detailed below. All datasets will be updated annually to monitor broad and mid-scale year-to-year 

changes and 5-year (or longer) trends in habitat degradation.

Density of Energy and Mining Datasets and Assumptions:

Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities) 

[See Section D.2]

Energy (coal mines)

[See Section D.2]

Energy (wind towers)

[See Section D.2]

Energy (solar energy facilities)

[See Section D.2]

Energy (geothermal energy facilities)

[See Section D.2]

Mining (active developments; locatable, leasable, salable)

[See Section D.2]

Density of Energy and Mining Threat Combination and Calculation:

Datasets for energy and mining will be collected in two primary forms: point locations (e.g., wells) and 

polygon areas (e.g., surface coal mining). The following rule set will be used to calculate density for 

meaningful landscape units including standard grids and per polygon:

1) Point locations will be preserved; no additional points will be removed beyond the 

methodology described above. Energy facilities in close proximity (an oil well close to a wind 

tower) will be retained.

2) Polygons will not be merged, nor features further dissolved. thus, overlapping facilities will 

be retained, such that each individual threat will be a separate polygon data input for the 

density calculation. 

3) The analysis unit (polygon or 640 acre section in a grid) will be the basis for counting the 

number of mining or energy facilities per unit area. Within the analysis unit all point features 

will be summed, and any individual polygons will be counted as one (e.g.; a coal mine will be 

counted as one facility within population). Where polygon features overlap multiple units 

(polygons or pixels), the facility will be counted as one in each unit where the polygon 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-23

occurs (e.g., a polygon crossing multiple 640 acre sections would be counted as 1 in each 

640-acre section for a density per 640-acre section calculation).

4) In methodologies with different sized units (e.g., MZs and populations), raw counts will be 

converted to densities by dividing by the total area of the unit. Typically this will be 

measured as facilities per 640 acres.

5) For uniform grids, raw facility counts will be reported. Typically this number will also be 

converted to facilities per 640 acres.

6) Reporting may include summaries beyond the simple ones above. Zonal statistics may be 

used to smooth smaller grids to help with display and conveying information about areas 

within meaningful landscape units that have high energy and/or mining activity. 

7) Additional statistics for each defined unit may also include adjusting the area to only include 

area with the historic potential for sagebrush (BpS) or areas currently sagebrush (EVT).

Key habitat degradation individual datasets and threat combination datasets will be available through 

BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and Geospatial Gateway. Legacy datasets will be preserved, so that trends may 

be calculated. 

D.2.3 Population (Demographics) Monitoring

State wildlife management agencies are responsible for monitoring sage-grouse populations within their 

respective states. WAFWA will coordinate this collection of annual population data by state agencies.

These data will be made available to BLM through the Sage-Grouse Implementation Memorandum of 

Understanding (2013) signed by WAFWA, BLM, Forest Service, NRCS, USGS, Farm Service Agency, and

USFWS.

An amendment to the MOU (2014) will outline a process, timeline, and responsibilities for regular data 

sharing of sage-grouse population and/or habitat information. The Landscape Conservation Management 

and Analysis Portal (LC MAP) will be used as the instrument for state wildlife agencies to annually 

submit population data and analyses that will be accessed by the BLM through a data sharing agreement. 

Population areas were refined from the Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Objectives: Final Report 

(COT) report by individual state wildlife agencies to create a consistent naming nomenclature for future 

data analyses. These population data will be used for analysis at the applicable scale to supplement 

habitat effectiveness monitoring of management actions and inform the adaptive management responses. 

D.2.4 Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring will provide the information to evaluate BLM actions to reach the objective of 

the planning strategy (BLM Instruction Memorandum 2012-044), to conserve sage-grouse populations 

and its habitat, and the objectives in this Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA. Effectiveness monitoring 

methods described here will encompass multiple larger scales, from areas as large as the WAFWA MZ 

to the scale of this ARMPA. Effectiveness information used for these larger scale evaluations includes all

lands in the area of interest regardless of surface ownership/management and will help inform where 

finer scale evaluations are needed, such as population areas smaller than an RMP or PACs within an RMP

(described in Section D.2). The information will also include the trend of disturbance within these 

areas of interest, which informs the need to initiate adaptive management responses as described in this 

Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-24 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Effectiveness monitoring reported for these larger areas provides the context to then conduct 

effectiveness monitoring at finer scales and helps focus scarce resources to areas experiencing habitat 

loss, degradation, or population declines. These large area evaluations would not exclude the need for 

concurrent finer scale evaluations where habitat or population anomalies have been identified through 

some other means.

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse planning strategy, the BLM will evaluate the answers 

to the following questions and will prepare a broad- and mid-scale effectiveness report:

1. Sagebrush Availability and Condition:

a. What is the amount of sagebrush availability and the change in the amount and 

condition of sagebrush?

b. What is the existing amount of sagebrush on the landscape and the change in the 

amount relative to the pre Euro-American historical distribution of sagebrush (BpS)?

c. What is the trend and condition of the indicators describing sagebrush 

characteristics important to sage-grouse?

2. Habitat Degradation and Intensity of Activities:

a. What is the amount of habitat degradation and the change in that amount?

b. What is the intensity of activities and the change in the intensity?

c. What is the amount of reclaimed energy-related degradation and the change in the 

amount?

3. What is the population estimation of sage-grouse and the change in the population 

estimation?

4. How is the BLM contributing to changes in the amount of sagebrush?

5. How is the BLM contributing to disturbance?

The compilation of broad and mid-scale data (and population trends as available) into an effectiveness 

monitoring report will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule, which may be accelerated to respond to 

critical emerging issues (in consultation with USFWS and state wildlife agencies). In addition, 

effectiveness monitoring results will be used to identify emerging issues and research needs and will be 

consistent with and inform the BLM adaptive management strategy (see “Adaptive Management” section 

of the EIS).

To determine the effectiveness of the sage-grouse objectives of this Northwest Colorado GRSG 

ARMPA, the BLM will evaluate the answers to the following questions and prepare a plan effectiveness 

report:

1. Is this plan meeting the sage-grouse habitat objectives?

2. Are sage-grouse areas within the land use plan meeting, or making progress towards 

meeting, land health standards, including the special status species/wildlife habitat standard?

3. Is the plan meeting the disturbance objectives within sage-grouse areas?
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-25

4. Are the sage-grouse populations within this plan boundary and within the sage-grouse areas 

increasing, stable, or declining?

The effectiveness monitoring report for this ARMPA will occur on a 5-year reporting schedule (see 

Attachment A at the end of this appendix), or more often if habitat or population anomalies identify 

the need for an evaluation to facilitate adaptive management or respond to critical emerging issues. Data 

will be made available through the BLM’s EGIS Web Portal and the Geospatial Gateway.

Methods: At the broad and mid- biological scales (PACs and above) the BLM will summarize the 

vegetation, disturbance, and population data (when available). Although the analysis will try to 

summarize results for PACs within each sage-grouse population, some populations may be too small to 

appropriately report the metrics and may need to be combined to provide an estimate with an 

acceptable level of accuracy or they will be flagged for more intensive monitoring by the appropriate 

landowner or agency. The BLM will then analyze monitoring data to detect the trend in the amount of 

sagebrush; the condition of the vegetation in the sage-grouse areas (MacKinnon et al. 2011); The trend 

in the amount of disturbance; The change in disturbed areas due to successful restoration; and The 

amount of new disturbance the BLM has permitted. This information could be supplemented with 

population data to understand the correlation between habitat and PACs within a population when 

population data are available. This overall effectiveness evaluation must consider the lag effect response 

of populations to habitat changes (Garton et al. 2011).

Calculating Question 1, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of sagebrush available in the large area 

of interest will utilize the information from Measure 1a (Section D.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability) and 

calculate the change from the 2012 baseline to the end date of the reporting period. To calculate the 

change in the amount of sagebrush on the landscape to compare with the historical areas with potential 

to support sagebrush, the information from Measure 1b (Section D.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability) will 

be utilized. To calculate the trend in the condition of sagebrush at the mid-scale, 3 sources of data will 

be utilized: the BLM Grass/ Shrub mapping effort (Section D.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability [Measure 1], 

Monitoring Sagebrush Availability, Future Plans); the results from the calculation of the landscape 

indicators such as patch size (described below); and the BLM Landscape Monitoring Framework (LMF) 

and sage-grouse intensification effort (also described below). The LMF and sage-grouse intensification 

effort data is collected in a statistical sampling framework that allows calculation of indicator values at 

multiple scales.

Beyond the importance of sagebrush availability to sage-grouse, the mix of sagebrush patches on the 

landscape at the broad and mid-scale provides the life requisite of space for sage-grouse dispersal needs 

(see the Habitat Assessment Framework [Stiver et al. 2014]). The configuration of sagebrush habitat 

patches and the land cover or land use between the habitat patches at the broad and mid scales also 

defines suitability. There are three significant habitat indicators that influence habitat use, dispersal, and 

movement across populations: the size and number of habitat patches, the connectivity of habitat 

patches (linkage areas), and habitat fragmentation (scope of unsuitable and non-habitats between habitat 

patches). The most appropriate commercial software to measure patch dynamics, connectivity, and 

fragmentation at the broad and mid scales will be utilized, using the same data layers derived for 

sagebrush availability.

The BLM initiated the LMF in 2011 in cooperation with NRCS. The objective of the LMF effort is to 

provide non-biased estimates of vegetation and soil condition and trend using a statistically balanced 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-26 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

sample design across BLM-administered lands. Recognizing that sage-grouse populations are more 

resilient where the sagebrush plant community has certain characteristics unique to a particular life stage 

of sage-grouse (Knick and Connelly 2011; Stiver et al. 2014), a group of sage-grouse habitat and 

sagebrush plant community subject matter experts identified those vegetation indicators collected at 

LMF sampling points that inform sage-grouse habitat needs. The experts represented BLM, USFWS, 

WAFWA, NRCS, ARS, state wildlife agencies, and academia. The common indicators that were 

identified include: species composition, foliar cover, height of the tallest sagebrush and herbaceous plant, 

intercanopy gap, percent of invasive species, sagebrush shape, and bare ground. To increase the 

precision of estimates of sagebrush conditions within the range of sage-grouse, additional plot locations 

in occupied sage-grouse habitat (sage-grouse intensification) were added in 2013. The common 

indicators are also collected on sampling locations in the NRCS Rangeland Monitoring Survey. 

The sage-grouse intensification baseline data will be collected over a 5-year period, and an annual sagegrouse intensification report will be prepared describing the status of the indicators. Beginning in year 6, 

the annual status report will be accompanied with a trend report, which will be available on an annual 

basis thereafter contingent upon continuation of the current monitoring budget. This information, in 

combination with the Grass/ Shrub mapping information, the mid-scale habitat suitability indicator 

measures, and the sagebrush availability information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Planning 

Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The amount of habitat degradation and the intensity 

of the activities in the area of interest will utilize the information from Measures 2 and 3 (Section 

D.2.2.2, Habitat Degradation Monitoring [Measure 2]). The amount of reclaimed energy-related 

degradation will be collected by the Field Office on plugged and abandoned and oil/gas well sites. The 

data will demonstrate that the reclaimed sites have yet to meet the habitat restoration objectives for 

sage-grouse habitat. This information, in combination with the amount of habitat degradation, will be 

used to answer Question 2 of the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The change in sage-grouse estimated populations will 

be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available. This population data 

(Section D.2.3, Population [Demographics] Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 3 of the 

Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 4, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by the BLM to the 

change in the amount of sagebrush in the area of interest will utilize the information from Measure 1a 

(Section D.2.2.1, Sagebrush Availability).This measure is derived from the national data sets that 

remove sagebrush (Sagebrush Availability, Table D-2). To determine the relative contribution of the 

BLM management, the current Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will be used to 

differentiate the amount of change for each management agency for this measure in area of interest. This 

information will be used to answer Question 4 of the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report. 

Calculating Question 5, Planning Strategy Effectiveness: The estimated contribution by the BLM to the 

change in the amount of disturbance in the area of interest will utilize the information from Measure 2a 

(Section D.2.2.2, Habitat Degradation Monitoring [Measure 2], Habitat Degradation Threat 

Combination and Calculation) and Measure 3 (Section D.2.2.3, Density of Energy and Mining [Measure 

3]). These measures are all derived from the national disturbance data sets that degrade habitat (Habitat 

Degradation, Table D-2). To determine the relative contribution of the BLM management, the current 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-27

Surface Management Agency geospatial data layer will be used to differentiate the amount of change for 

each management agency for these two measures in area of interests. This information will be used to 

answer Question 5 of the Planning Strategy Effectiveness Report.

Answering the 5 questions that determine the effectiveness of the BLM planning strategy will identify 

areas that appear to be meeting the objectives of the strategy and will facilitate identification of 

population areas for more detailed analysis. Conceptually, if the broad scale monitoring identifies 

increasing sagebrush availability and improving vegetation conditions, decreasing disturbance, and a 

stable or increasing population for the area of interest, there is evidence the objectives of the planning 

strategy to maintain populations and their habitats have been met. Conversely, where information 

indicates sagebrush is decreasing and vegetation conditions are degrading, disturbance in sage-grouse 

areas is increasing, and populations are declining relative to the baseline, there is evidence the objectives 

of the planning strategy are not being achieved. This would likely result in a more detailed analysis and 

could be the basis for implementing more restrictive adaptive management measures.

At the ARMPA area, the BLM will summarize the vegetation, disturbance, and population data to 

determine if the ARMPA is meeting the plan objectives. Effectiveness information used for these 

evaluations includes BLM surface management areas and will help inform where finer scale evaluations 

are needed, such as seasonal habitats, corridors, or linkage areas. The information should also include 

the trend of disturbance within the sage-grouse areas, which informs the need to initiate adaptive 

management responses, as described in this Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA.

Calculating Question 1, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The condition of vegetation and the allotments meeting

land health standards in sage-grouse areas will both be used as part of the determination of the 

effectiveness of the ARMPA in meeting the vegetation objectives in sage-grouse habitat set forth in this 

ARMPA. The collection of this data will be the responsibility of the BLM Field Office or Forest Service 

Ranger District. In order for this data to be consistent and comparable, common indicators, consistent 

methods, and a, unbiased sampling framework should be implemented, following the principles in the 

AIM Strategy (Toevs et al. 2011; MacKinnon et al. 2011), in the BLM Technical Reference Interpreting 

Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005), and the Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al.

2014), or other approved WAFWA MZ consistent guidance to measure and monitor sage-grouse 

habitats. The analysis of this information will be used to answer Question 1 of the Land Use Plan 

Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 2, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The amount of habitat disturbance in sage-grouse areas 

identified in this LUP will be used as part of the determination of the effectiveness of the LUP in meeting 

the disturbance objectives set forth in this LUP. National data sets can be used to calculate the amount 

of disturbance, but BLM Field Office data will likely increase the accuracy of this estimate. This 

information will be used to answer Question 2 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Calculating Question 3, Land Use Plan Effectiveness: The change in estimated sage-grouse populations will 

be calculated from data provided by the state wildlife agencies, when available and will part of the 

determination of effectiveness. This population data (Section D.2.3, Population [Demographics] 

Monitoring) will be used to answer Question 3 of the Land Use Plan Effectiveness Report.

Results of the effectiveness monitoring process for the land use plan will be used to inform the need for 

finer scales investigations, initiate adaptive management actions as described in Chapter 2, Section 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-28 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

2.6.1 of the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Adaptive Management, initiate causation determination, and/ 

or determine if changes to management decisions are warranted. The measures used at the broad and 

mid-scales will provide a suite of characteristics from which the effectiveness of the adaptive 

management strategy will be evaluated. 

D.3 FINE AND SITE SCALES 

Fine scale (third order) habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the physical and geographic area 

within home ranges including breeding, summer, and winter periods. At this level, habitat suitability 

monitoring should address factors that affect sage-grouse use of, and movements between, seasonal use 

areas. The habitat monitoring at fine and site scale (fourth order) should focus on indicators to describe 

seasonal home ranges for sage-grouse associated with a lek, or lek group within a population or 

subpopulation area. Fine and site scale monitoring should inform LUP effectiveness monitoring (see 

Section D.2.4, Effectiveness Monitoring) and the hard and soft triggers identified in the adaptive 

management section of the land use plan. 

Site-scale habitat selected by sage-grouse is described as the more detailed vegetation characteristics of 

seasonal habitats. Habitat suitability characteristics include canopy cover and height of sagebrush and the 

associated understory vegetation as well as vegetation associated with riparian areas, wet meadows, and 

other mesic habitats adjacent to sagebrush that may support sage-grouse habitat needs during different 

stages in their annual cycle.

As described in the conclusion (Section D.4, below), details and application of monitoring at the fine 

and site scales will be described in the implementation-level monitoring plan of the Northwest Colorado 

GRSG ARMPA. The need for fine and site-scale specific habitat monitoring will vary by area depending 

on proposed projects, existing conditions, habitat variability, threats, and land health. Examples of fine 

and site-scale monitoring include: habitat vegetation monitoring to assess current habitat conditions; 

monitoring and evaluating the success of projects targeting sage-grouse habitat enhancement and/or 

restoration; and habitat disturbance monitoring to provide localized disturbance measures to inform 

proposed project review and potential mitigation for project impacts. Monitoring plans should 

incorporate the principles outlined in the BLM AIM Strategy (Toevs et al. 2011) and AIM-Monitoring: A 

Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy (Taylor, et al. In press). Approved 

monitoring methods are: 

 BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods (MacKinnon et al. 2011) 

 BLM Technical Reference Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005)

 Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2014)

Other state-specific disturbance tracking models are the BLM Wyoming Density and Disturbance 

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

(WRDMS), in development with the USGS.

Population monitoring data (in cooperation with state wildlife agencies) should be included during 

evaluation of the effectiveness of actions taken at the fine and site scales. 

Fine- and site-scale sage-grouse habitat suitability indicators for seasonal habitats are identified in the 

Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2014). It has incorporated the Connelly et al. (2000) sage-
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-29

grouse guidelines and many of the core indicators in the assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM) 

strategy (Toevs et al. 2011). There may be a need to develop adjustments to height and cover or other 

site suitability values described in the Habitat Assessment Framework and any such adjustments should 

be ecologically defensible. However, to foster consistency, adjustments to site suitability values at the 

local scale should be avoided, unless there is a strong scientific justification for doing so and that 

justification should be provided. WAFWA MZ adjustments must be supported by regional plant 

productivity and habitat data for the floristic province. If adjustments are made to the site-scale 

indicators, they must be made using data from the appropriate seasonal habitat designation 

(breeding/nesting, brood-rearing, winter) collected from sage-grouse studies found in the relevant area 

and peer reviewed by the appropriate wildlife management agencies and researchers.

When conducting land heath assessments, at a minimum, the BLM should follow Interpreting Indicators 

of Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005) and the BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods, 

(MacKinnon et al. 2011). If the assessment is being conducted in sage-grouse areas, the BLM should 

collect additional data to inform the Habitat Assessment Framework indicators that have not been 

collected using the above methods. Implementation of the principles outlined in the AIM strategy will 

allow the data to be used to generate unbiased estimates of condition across the area of interest. It will

facilitate consistent data collection and roll-up analysis among management units, will be useful to 

provide consistent data to inform the classification and interpretation of imagery, and will provide 

condition and trend of the indicators describing sagebrush characteristics important to sage-grouse

habitat (see Section D.2.4, Effectiveness Monitoring).

D.4 CONCLUSION

This Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework was developed for all of the final environmental 

impact statements involved in sage-grouse planning. As such, it describes the monitoring activities at the 

broad and mid-scales and sets the stage for BLM to collaborate with partners/other agencies to develop 

the Northwest Colorado GRSG ARMPA Monitoring Plan using this Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring 

Framework as a guide.

D.5 THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTURBANCE AND MONITORING SUB-TEAM 

MEMBERSHIP

Gordon Toevs (BLM -WO) 

Duane Dippon (BLM-WO) 

Frank Quamen (BLM-NOC) 

David Wood (BLM-NOC) 

Vicki Herren (BLM-NOC) 

Matt Bobo (BLM-NOC) 

Michael “Sherm” Karl (BLM-NOC) 

Emily Kachergis (BLM-NOC) 

Doug Havlina (BLM-NIFC) 

Mike Pellant (BLM-GBRI) 

John Carlson (BLM-MT) 

Jenny Morton (BLM -WY) 

Robin Sell (BLM-CO) 

Paul Makela (BLM-ID) 

Renee Chi (BLM-UT) 

Sandra Brewer (BLM-NV) 

Glenn Frederick (BLM-OR) 

Robert Skorkowsky (Forest Service) 

Dalinda Damm (Forest Service) 

Rob Mickelsen (Forest Service) 

Tim Love (Forest Service) 

Pam Bode (Forest Service)

Lief Wiechman (USFWS) 

Lara Juliusson (USFWS) 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-30 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

D.6 REFERENCES

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, 

et al. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees. Biological Conservation. Internet website: 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713002917.

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2004. Bureau of Land 

Management national sage-grouse habitat conservation strategy. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

_____. 2011. BLM Memorandum of Understanding Washington Office 220-2011-02. BLM Washington 

Office, Washington DC.

Davies, K. W., C. S. Boyde, J. L. Beck, J. D. Bates, T. J. Svejcar, and J. G. Gregg. 2011. “Saving the 

sagebrush sea: An ecosystem conservation plan for big sagebrush.” Biological Conservation

144:2573-2584.

Fry, J., G. Xian, S. Jin, J. Dewitz, C. Homer, L. Yang, C. Barnes, N. Herold, and J. Wickham.

2011. “Completion of the 2006 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United 

States.” PE&RS 77(9):858-864.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. “Guidelines to manage sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1-19.

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of greater sage-grouse habitats and 

populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, Moscow, 

Idaho.

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.

Garton, E. O., J. W. Connelly, J. S. Horne, C. A. Hagen, A. Moser, and M. Schroeder. 2011. “Greater 

sage-grouse population dynamics and probability of persistence.” Pp. 293 – 382 In: Greater sagegrouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats.” Studies in Avian Biology 

38:293-382. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Grove, A. J., C. L. Wambolt, and M. R. Frisina. 2005. “Douglas-fir’s effect on mountain big sagebrush 

wildlife habitats.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:74-80. 

Gruell, G. E., J. K. Brown, and C. L. Bushey. 1986. Prescribed Fire Opportunities in Grasslands Invaded 

by Douglas-Fir: State-of-the-Art Guidelines. General Technical Report INT-198. US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Hemstrom, M. A., M. J. Wisdom, M. M. Rowland, B. Wales, W. J. Hann, and R. A. Gravenmier. 2002. 

“Sagebrush-steppe vegetation dynamics and potential for restoration in the Interior Columbia 

Basin, USA.” Conservation Biology 16:1243-1255. 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-31

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

Rangeland Habitat Modeling in Southwest Wyoming. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2008-1027.

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

preference.” Ecology 61:65-71.

Knick, S. T., and J. W. Connelly (editors). 2011. “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a 

landscape species and its habitats” (S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors). Studies in Avian 

Biology Series 38, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Knick, S. T., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. “Connecting pattern and process in greater sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush landscapes.” In: “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and conservation of a landscape 

species and its habitats” (S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors). Studies in Avian Biology 38:383-

405. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Knick, S. T., S. E. Hanser, R. F. Miller, D. A. Pyke, M. J. Wisdom, S. P. Finn, E. T. Rinkes, and C. J. Henny. 

2011. “Ecological influence and pathways of land use in sagebrush.” In: “Greater sage-grouse: 

Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats” (S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, 

editors). Studies in Avian Biology 38:203-251. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

LANDFIRE. 2006. National existing vegetation type layer. USDI Geological Survey. Internet website: 

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

Leu, M., and S. E. Hanser. 2011. Influences of the human footprint on sagebrush landscape patterns: 

implications for sage-grouse conservation.”, pages 253-271In: “Greater sage-grouse: Ecology and 

conservation of a landscape species and its habitats” (S. T, Knick and J. W. Connelly, editors).

Studies in Avian Biology38:253-271. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

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

2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Range-Wide

Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). US Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2013-1098. Ft. Collins, Colorado.

MacKinnon, W. C., J. W. Karl, G. R. Toevs, J. J. Taylor, M. Karl, C. S. Spurrier, and J. E. Herrick. 2011. 

BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators and Methods. Tech Note 440. US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado. 

NatureServe. 2011. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. 

NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia. Data current as of July 31, 2011.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. A. Pyke, and J. E. Herrick. 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/ST00/001+1734/REV05.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-32 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

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

2004. “Distribution of sage-grouse in North America.” Condor 106:363-376.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2014. Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool. BLM and Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 6710-1. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.

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

McCarthy, and M. A. Schroeder. 2006. Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive Conservation 

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

Wyoming.

Taylor, J., E. J. Kachergis, G. Toevs, J. Karl, M. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C. Spurrier. In press. AIMMonitoring: A Component of the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. US 

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

Colorado.

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

Management Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: For integrated renewable 

resources management. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National 

Operations Center, Denver, Colorado.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. 2014. Published crop-specific data 

layer. Internet website: http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/. USDA-NASS, Washington, 

DC.USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. USFWS, Denver, Colorado. February 

2013.
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-33

APPENDIX D, ATTACHMENT A – AN OVERVIEW OF MONITORING COMMITMENTS

Broad and Mid Scales

Fine and Site 

Implementation Scales Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation Population Effectiveness

How will 

the data

be used?

Tracking and 

documenting 

implementation of 

land use plan 

decisions and 

inform adaptive 

management

Tracking 

changes in 

land cover 

(sagebrush) 

and inform 

adaptive 

management

Tracking 

changes in 

disturbance 

(threats) to 

sage-grouse 

habitat and 

inform adaptive 

management

Tracking trends 

in sage-grouse 

populations 

(and/or leks; as 

determined by 

state wildlife 

agencies) and 

inform adaptive 

management

Characterizing 

the relationship 

among 

disturbance, 

implementation 

actions, and 

sagebrush 

metrics and 

inform adaptive 

management

Measuring 

seasonal habitat, 

connectivity at 

the fine scale, and 

habitat conditions 

at the site scale, 

calculating 

disturbance and 

inform adaptive 

management

Who is 

collecting 

the data?

BLM FO and FS 

Forest

NOC and 

NIFC

National data 

sets (NOC), 

BLM FOs and FS 

Forests as 

applicable

State wildlife 

agencies 

through 

WAFWA

Comes from 

other broad and 

mid-scale 

monitoring 

types, analyzed 

by the NOC

BLM FO and SO, 

FS Forests and 

RO (with 

partners) 

including 

disturbance

How 

often are 

the data 

collected, 

reported 

and made 

available 

to FWS?

Collected and 

reported annually; 

summary every 5 

years

Updated and 

changes 

reported 

annually; 

summary

reports every 

5 years

Collected and 

changes 

reported 

annually;

summary 

reports every 5 

years

State data 

reported 

annually per 

WAFWA 

MOU; 

summary 

reports every 5 

years

Collected and 

reported every 

5 years 

(coincident with 

LUP evaluations)

Collection and 

trend analysis 

ongoing, reported 

every 5 years or 

as needed to 

inform adaptive 

management

What is 

the spatial 

scale?

Summarized by 

LUP with 

flexibility for 

reporting by other 

units

Summarized 

by PACs (size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) with 

flexibility for 

reporting by 

other units

Summarized by 

PACs (size 

dependent) 

with flexibility 

for reporting 

by other units

Summarized by 

MZ, and LUP 

with flexibility 

for reporting by 

other units (e.g., 

PAC)

Variable (e.g., 

projects and 

seasonal habitats)

What are 

the 

potential 

personnel 

and 

budget 

impacts?

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; 

data mgmt.

cost are TBD

At a minimum, 

current skills 

and capacity 

must be 

maintained; data 

mgmt. and data 

layer purchase 

cost are TBD

No additional 

personnel or 

budget impacts 

for BLM

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

Additional 

capacity or reprioritization of 

ongoing 

monitoring work 

and budget 

realignment

Who has 

primary 

and 

secondary 

responsibil

ities for 

reporting?

1) BLM FO & 

SO; FS Forest 

& RO

2) BLM & FS 

Planning

1) NOC

2) WO

1) NOC

2) BLM SO, FS 

RO & 

appropriate 

programs

1) WAFWA 

& state 

wildlife 

agencies

2) BLM SO, 

FS RO, 

NOC

1) Broad and

mid-scale at 

the NOC, 

LUP at BLM 

SO

1) BLM FO & FS 

Forests

2) BLM SO & FS 

RO

What new 

processes/ 

tools are 

needed?

National 

implementation 

data sets and 

analysis tools

Updates to 

national land 

cover data

Data standards 

and roll-up 

methods for 

these data

Standards in 

population 

monitoring 

(WAFWA)

Reporting 

methodologies

Data standards 

data storage; and 

reporting
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-34 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

APPENDIX D, ATTACHMENT B – LIST OF ALL SAGEBRUSH SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES 

INCLUDED IN THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR BUILDING THE EVT AND BPS LAYERS

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longicaulis

 Artemisia arbuscula subspecies longiloba

 Artemisia bigelovii

 Artemisia nova

 Artemisia papposa

 Artemisia pygmaea

 Artemisia rigida

 Artemisia spinescens

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies rupicola

 Artemisia tripartita subspecies tripartita

 Tanacetum nuttallii

 Artemisia cana subspecies bolanderi

 Artemisia cana subspecies cana

 Artemisia cana subspecies viscidula

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies wyomingensis

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies tridentata

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies vaseyana

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies spiciformis

 Artemisia tridentata subspecies xericensis

 Artemisia tridentata variety pauciflora

 Artemisia frigida

 Artemisia pedatifida 
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment D-35

APPENDIX D, ATTACHMENT C – USER AND PRODUCER ACCURACIES FOR AGGREGATED 

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS WITHIN LANDFIRE MAP ZONES

LANDFIRE Map Zone Name User 

Accuracy

Producer 

Accuracy

% of Map Zone 

within Historic 

Schroeder

Wyoming Basin 76.9% 90.9% 98.5%

Snake River Plain 68.8% 85.2% 98.4%

Missouri River Plateau 57.7% 100.0% 91.3%

Grand Coulee Basin of the Columbia Plateau 80.0% 80.0% 89.3%

Wyoming Highlands 75.3% 85.9% 88.1%

Western Great Basin 69.3% 75.4% 72.9%

Blue Mountain Region of the Columbia Plateau 85.7% 88.7% 72.7%

Eastern Great Basin 62.7% 80.0% 62.8%

Northwestern Great Plains 76.5% 92.9% 46.3%

Northern Rocky Mountains 72.5% 89.2% 42.5%

Utah High Plateaus 81.8% 78.3% 41.5%

Colorado Plateau 65.3% 76.2% 28.8%

Middle Rocky Mountains 78.6% 73.3% 26.4%

Cascade Mountain Range 57.1% 88.9% 17.3%

Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 0.0% 0.0% 12.3%

Northwestern Rocky Mountains 66.7% 60.0% 7.3%

Southern Rocky Mountains 58.6% 56.7% 7.0%

Northern Cascades 75.0% 75.0% 2.6%

Mogollon Rim 66.7% 100.0% 1.7%

Death Valley Basin 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

There are two anomalous map zones with 0% user and producer accuracies attributable to no available 

reference data for the ecological systems of interest.

Producer's accuracy is a reference-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the predictions 

produced for a class and determining the percentage of correct predictions. In other words, if I know 

that a particular area is sagebrush (I've been out on the ground to check), what is the probability that 

the digital map will correctly identify that pixel as sagebrush? Omission Error equates to excluding a 

pixel that should have been included in the class (i.e., omission error = 1 - producers accuracy).

User’s accuracy is a map-based accuracy that is computed by looking at the reference data for a class 

and determining the percentage of correct predictions for these samples. For example, if I select any 

sagebrush pixel on the classified map, what is the probability that I'll be standing in a sagebrush stand 

when I visit that pixel location in the field? Commission Error equates to including a pixel in a class 

when it should have been excluded (i.e., commission error = 1 – user’s accuracy).
D. Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework

D-36 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix E

Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-1

APPENDIX E

METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DISTURBANCE CAPS

In USFWS’s 2010 listing decision for Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG), the USFWS identified 18 threats 

contributing to the destruction, modification, or curtailment of GRSG habitat or range (75 FR 13910 

2010). The 18 threats have been aggregated into 3 measures:

 Sagebrush Availability (percent of sagebrush per unit area)

 Habitat Degradation (percent of human activity per unit area) 

 Density of Energy and Mining (facilities and locations per unit area)

Habitat Degradation and Density of Energy and Mining will be evaluated under the Disturbance Cap and 

Density Cap respectively and are further described in this appendix. The three measures, in conjunction 

with other information, will be considered during the NEPA process for projects authorized or 

undertaken by the BLM.

E.1 DISTURBANCE CAP

This land use plan has incorporated a 3 percent disturbance cap within GRSG Priority Habitat 

Management Areas (PHMA) and the subsequent land use planning actions if the cap is met: 

If the 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership) 

within GRSG Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) in any given Biologically Significant Unit, then 

no further discrete anthropogenic disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the 

General Mining Law of 1872 and valid existing rights) will be permitted by BLM within GRSG PHMA in 

any given Biologically Significant Unit until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

If the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land ownership) within a 

proposed project analysis area in a PHMA, then no further anthropogenic disturbance will be permitted 

by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been reduced to maintain the area 

under the cap (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 1872 and 

valid existing rights).
E. Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps

E-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

The disturbance cap applies to the PHMA within both the Biologically Significant Units and at the project 

authorization scale (Colorado MZ). For the Biologically Significant Units, west-wide habitat degradation 

(disturbance) data layers (Table E-1) will be used at a minimum to calculate the amount of disturbance 

and to determine if the disturbance cap has been exceeded as the land use plans (LUP) are being 

implemented. Locally collected disturbance data will be used to determine if the disturbance cap has 

been exceeded for project authorizations, and may also be used to calculate the amount of disturbance 

in the Biologically Significant Units. 

Although locatable mine sites are included in the degradation calculation, mining activities under the 

1872 mining law may not be subject to the 3 percent disturbance cap. Details about locatable mining 

activities will be fully disclosed and analyzed in the NEPA process to assess impacts on GRSG and their 

habitat as well as to BLM goals and objectives, and other BLM programs and activities.

Formulas for calculations of the amount of disturbance in the PHMA in a Biologically Significant Unit and 

in a proposed project area are as follows:

 For the Biologically Significant Units: 

Percent Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats1) ÷ 

(acres of all lands within the PHMA in a Biologically Significant Unit) x 100. 

 For the Project Analysis Area: 

Percent Degradation Disturbance = (combined acres of the 12 degradation threats3 plus 

the 7 site scale threats4) ÷ (acres of all lands within the PHMA in the project analysis 

area) x 100. 

The denominator in the disturbance calculation formula consists of all acres of lands classified as PHMA 

within the analysis area (Biologically Significant Unit or project area). Areas that are not GRSG seasonal 

habitats, or are not currently supporting sagebrush cover (e.g., due to wildfire), are not excluded from 

the acres of PHMA in the denominator of the formula. Information regarding GRSG seasonal habitats, 

sagebrush availability, and areas with the potential to support GRSG populations will be considered 

along with other local conditions that may affect GRSG during the analysis of the proposed project area. 

E.2 DENSITY CAP

This land use plan has also incorporated a cap on the density of energy and mining facilities at an average 

of 1 facility per 640 acres in the PHMA in a project authorization area. If the disturbance density in the 

PHMA in a proposed project area is on average less than 1 facility per 640 acres, the analysis will 

proceed through the NEPA process incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. If the 

disturbance density is greater than an average of 1 facility per 640 acres, the proposed project will either 

be deferred until the density of energy and mining facilities is less than the cap or co-located it into 

existing disturbed area (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 

1872 and valid existing rights). Facilities included in the density calculation (Table E-3) are:

 Energy (oil and gas wells and development facilities)

 Energy (coal mines)

 

3 See Table E-1

4 See Table E-2
E. Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-3

 Energy (wind towers)

 Energy (solar fields)

 Energy (geothermal)

 Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable developments)

E.3 PROJECT ANALYSIS AREA METHOD FOR PERMITTING SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

ACTIVITIES

 Determine potentially affected occupied leks by placing a four mile boundary around the 

proposed area of physical disturbance related to the project. All occupied leks located 

within the four mile project boundary and within PHMA will be considered affected by the 

project. 

 Next, place a four mile boundary around each of the affected occupied leks. 

 The PHMA within the four mile lek boundary and the four mile project boundary creates 

the project analysis area for each individual project. If there are no occupied leks within the 

four-mile project boundary, the project analysis area will be that portion of the four-mile 

project boundary within the PHMA.

 Digitize all existing anthropogenic disturbances identified in Table E-1 and the 7 additional 

features that are considered threats to GRSG (Table E-2). Using 1 meter resolution NAIP 

imagery is recommended. Use existing local data if available. 

 Calculate percent existing disturbance using the formula above. If existing disturbance is less 

than 3 percent, proceed to next step. If existing disturbance is greater than 3 percent, defer 

the project.

 Add proposed project disturbance footprint area and recalculate the percent disturbance. If 

disturbance is less than 3 percent, proceed to next step. If disturbance is greater than 3 

percent, defer project.

 Calculate the disturbance density of energy and mining facilities (listed above). If the 

disturbance density is less than 1 facility per 640 acres, averaged across project analysis area, 

proceed to the NEPA analysis incorporating mitigation measures into an alternative. If the 

disturbance density is greater than 1 facility per 640 acres, averaged across the project

analysis area, either defer the proposed project or co-locate it into existing disturbed area.

 If a project that would exceed the degradation cap or density cap cannot be deferred due to 

valid existing rights or other existing laws and regulations, fully disclose the local and 

regional impacts of the proposed action in the associated NEPA.
E. Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps

E-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table E-1

Anthropogenic Disturbance Types for Disturbance Calculations

Data Sources are Described for the West-Wide Habitat Degradation Estimates

Degradation Type Subcategory1 Data Source Direct Area 

of Influence1 Area Source

Energy (oil and 

gas)

Wells IHS; BLM (AFMSS) 5.0 acres (2.0

hectares)

BLM WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 5.0 acres (2.0

hectares)

BLM WO-300

Energy (coal) Mines BLM; USFS; Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement; USGS Mineral 

Resources Data System

Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri/Google 

Imagery

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Energy (wind) Wind Turbines Federal Aviation 

Administration

3.0 acres (1.2

hectares) 

BLM WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) 3.0 acres (1.2

hectares) 

BLM WO-300

Energy (solar) Fields/Power 

Plants

Platts (power plants) 7.3 acres (3.0

hectares)/MW 

National

Renewable 

Energy 

Laboratory

Energy 

(geothermal)

Wells IHS 3.0 acres (1.2

hectares) 

BLM WO-300

Power Plants Platts (power plants) Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Mining Locatable 

Developments

InfoMine Polygon area 

(digitized)

Esri Imagery

Infrastructure 

(roads)

Surface Streets 

(Minor Roads)

Esri StreetMap Premium 40.7 feet (12.4

meters) 

USGS

Major Roads Esri StreetMap Premium 84.0 feet (25.6

meters) 

USGS

Interstate 

Highways

Esri StreetMap Premium 240.2 feet 

(73.2 meters) 

USGS

Infrastructure 

(railroads)

Active Lines Federal Railroad 

Administration

30.8 feet (9.4

meters)

USGS

Infrastructure 

(power lines)

1-199 kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 100 feet (30.5

meters)

BLM WO-300

200-399 kV 

Lines

Platts (transmission lines) 150 feet (45.7

meters)

BLM WO-300

400-699 kV 

Lines

Platts (transmission lines) 200 feet (61.0

meters)

BLM WO-300

700+ kV Lines Platts (transmission lines) 250 feet (76.2

meters)

BLM WO-300

Infrastructure 

(communication) 

Towers Federal Communications 

Commission

2.5 acres (1.0

hectares)

BLM WO-300

1 kV=kilovolts; ac=acre; ha=hectare; ft=feet; m=meters; MW=megawatts

Table copied from the GRSG Monitoring Framework
E. Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment E-5

Table E-2

The Seven Site Scale Features Considered Threats to GRSG Included in the Disturbance 

Calculation for Project Authorizations

1. Coal Bed Methane Ponds

2. Meteorological Towers

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure

5. Military Range Facilities and Infrastructure

6. Hydroelectric Plants

7. Recreation Areas Facilities and Infrastructure

Definitions:

1. Coal Bed Methane and other Energy-related Retention Ponds – The footprint boundary 

will follow the fence line and includes the area within the fence line surrounding the impoundment. If 

the pond is not fenced, the impoundment itself is the footprint. Other infrastructure associated with 

the containment ponds (e.g., roads and well pads) will be captured in other disturbance categories.

2. Meteorological Towers – This feature includes long-term weather monitoring and temporary 

meteorological towers associated with short-term wind testing. The footprint boundary includes the 

area underneath the guy wires.

3. Nuclear Energy Facilities – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (e.g., fence and road) 

and undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

4. Airport Facilities and Infrastructure (public and private) –The footprint boundary of will 

follow the boundary of the airport or heliport and includes mowed areas, parking lots, hangers, 

taxiways, driveways, terminals, maintenance facilities, beacons and related features. Indicators of the 

boundary, such as distinct land cover changes, fences and perimeter roads, will be used to 

encompass the entire airport or heliport.

5. Military Range Facilities and Infrastructure – The footprint boundary will follow the outer 

edge of the disturbed areas around buildings and includes undisturbed areas within the facility’s 

perimeter.

6. Hydroelectric Plants – The footprint boundary includes visible facilities (e.g., fence and road) and 

undisturbed areas within the facility’s perimeter.

7. Recreation Areas and Facilities – This feature includes all sites/facilities larger than 0.25-acre in 

size. The footprint boundary will include any undisturbed areas within the site/facility.
E. Methodology for Calculating Disturbance Caps

E-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table E-3

Relationship Between the 18 Threats and the 3 Habitat Disturbance Measures for 

Monitoring and Disturbance Calculations

USFWS Listing Decision Threat Sagebrush 

Availability

Habitat 

Degradation

Energy and 

Mining 

Density

Agriculture X

Urbanization X

Wildfire X

Conifer encroachment X

Treatments X

Invasive Species X

Energy (oil and gas wells and development 

facilities)

X X

Energy (coal mines) X X

Energy (wind towers) X X

Energy (solar fields) X X

Energy (geothermal) X X

Mining (active locatable, leasable, and saleable 

developments)

X X

Infrastructure (roads) X

Infrastructure (railroads) X

Infrastructure (power lines) X

Infrastructure (communication towers) X

Infrastructure (other vertical structures) X

Other developed rights-of-way X
Appendix F

Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Strategy

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-1

APPENDIX F

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE MITIGATION STRATEGY

F.1 GENERAL

In undertaking BLM management actions, and consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, in 

authorizing third-party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, the BLM will require and 

assure mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the species, including accounting for any 

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

for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions. Mitigation will follow the regulations from the 

Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter 

referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM management actions and authorized thirdparty actions that result in habitat loss and degradation remain after applying avoidance and minimization 

measures (i.e., residual impacts), then compensatory mitigation projects will be used to provide a net 

conservation gain to the species. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and in addition to 

that which would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation (see Glossary).

Actions that result in habitat loss and degradation include those identified as threats that contribute to 

Greater Sage-Grouse disturbance as identified by US Fish and Wildlife Service in its 2010 listing decision 

(75 Federal Register 13910, March 23, 2010) and shown in Table D-2 in the Monitoring Framework 

(Appendix D).

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy that will inform the NEPA decision-making 

process, including the application of the mitigation hierarchy for BLM management actions and thirdparty actions that result in habitat loss and degradation. A robust and transparent Regional Mitigation 

Strategy will contribute to GRSG habitat conservation by reducing, eliminating, or minimizing threats 

and compensating for residual impacts to GRSG and its habitat.

The BLM’s Regional Mitigation Manual, MS-1794, serves as a framework for developing and 

implementing a Regional Mitigation Strategy. The following sections provide additional guidance specific 

to the development and implementation of a WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy.
F. Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation Strategy

F-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

F.2 DEVELOPING A WAFWA MANAGEMENT ZONE REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY

The BLM, via the WAFWA Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team, will develop a 

WAFWA Management Zone Regional Mitigation Strategy to guide the application of the mitigation 

hierarchy for BLM management actions and third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation. The Regional Mitigation Strategy should consider any state-level GRSG mitigation guidance 

that is consistent with the requirements identified in this appendix. The Regional Mitigation Strategy 

should be developed in a transparent manner, based on the best science available and standardized 

metrics. 

As described in Chapter 2 of the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, the BLM will establish a WAFWA 

Management Zone Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the 

conservation of GRSG, within 90 days of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The Regional 

Mitigation Strategy will be developed within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision.

The Regional Mitigation Strategy should include mitigation guidance on avoidance, minimization, and 

compensation, as follows:

 Avoidance

– Include avoidance areas (e.g., right-of-way avoidance/exclusion areas, no surface 

occupancy areas) already included in laws, regulations, policies, and/or land use plans 

(e.g., Resource Management Plans, Forest Plans, and State Plans); and

– Include any potential, additional avoidance actions (e.g., additional avoidance best 

management practices).

 Minimization

– Include minimization actions (e.g., required design features and best management 

practices) already included in laws, regulations, policies, land use plans, and/or landuse authorizations; and

– Include any potential, additional minimization actions (e.g., additional minimization 

best management practices).

 Compensation

– Include discussion of impact/project valuation, compensatory mitigation options, 

siting, compensatory project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and funds 

administration. Each of these topics is discussed in more detail below.

 Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

o A standardized method should be identified for estimating residual 

impacts and valuing compensatory mitigation projects. 

o This method should consider the quality of habitat, scarcity of the 

habitat, and the size of the impact/project.

o For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability 

(see glossary) and timelines (see glossary) may require adjustment 

of the valuation.
F. Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation Strategy

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment F-3

 Compensatory Mitigation Options

o Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be 

identified, such as: 

 Utilizing certified mitigation/conservation bank or credit 

exchanges

 Contributing to an existing mitigation/conservation fund

 Authorized-user conducted mitigation projects

 Compensatory Mitigation Siting

o Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield the greatest 

conservation benefit to the GRSG, regardless of land ownership. 

o Sites should be sufficiently durable (see glossary). 

o Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (e.g., fire restoration 

plans, invasive species strategies, and healthy land focal areas) should 

be considered, if those sites have the potential to yield the greatest 

benefit to GRSG and are durable. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

o Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to GRSG 

(e.g., protection, conservation, and restoration projects). 

o Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives. 

o Expected costs for these project types, within the WAFWA 

Management Zone, should be identified, including the costs to 

monitor and maintain the project for the duration of the impact. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

o Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure they are 

implemented as designed, and if not, there should be methods to 

enforce compliance. 

o Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals 

and objectives are met and that the benefits are effective for the 

duration of the impact. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

o Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically defensible 

reporting requirements should be identified for mitigation projects. 

o Reports should be compiled, summarized, and reviewed in the 

WAFWA Management Zone in order to determine if GRSG 

conservation has been achieved and/or to support adaptive 

management recommendations. 

 Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines
F. Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation Strategy

F-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

o Guidelines for implementing the state-level compensatory mitigation 

program should include holding and applying compensatory 

mitigation funds, operating a transparent and credible accounting 

system, certifying mitigation credits, and managing reporting 

requirements. 

F.3 INCORPORATING THE REGIONAL MITIGATION STRATEGY INTO NEPA ANALYSES

The BLM will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory recommendations from the 

Regional Mitigation Strategy in one or more of the NEPA analysis’ alternatives for BLM management 

actions and third-party actions that result in habitat loss and degradation, and the appropriate mitigation 

actions will be carried forward into the decision.

F.4 IMPLEMENTING A COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM

The BLM need to ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to provide a net 

conservation gain to the species, as identified in the Regional Mitigation Strategy. In order to align with 

existing compensatory mitigation efforts, this compensatory mitigation program will be managed at a 

state level (as opposed to a WAFWA Management Zone, a Field Office, or a Forest), in collaboration 

with our partners (e.g., federal, tribal, and state agencies). 

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, the BLM will 

enter into a contract or agreement with a third party to help manage the state-level compensatory 

mitigation funds, within one year of the issuance of the Record of Decision. The selection of the thirdparty compensatory mitigation administrator will conform to all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. 

The BLM will remain responsible for making decisions that affect federal lands.
Appendix G

Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and 

Land Use Authorizations

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-1

APPENDIX G

STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO FLUID MINERAL 

LEASING AND LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS

This appendix lists the stipulations for fluid mineral leasing (e.g., oil, gas, and geothermal) referred to 

throughout this ARMPA. Stipulations outlined in this appendix also apply to fluid mineral leasing on lands 

overlying federal mineral estate, which includes federal mineral estate underlying BLM lands, privately 

owned lands, and state-owned lands.

Upon completion of the EIS and ARMPA, the list of stipulations that are included in the decision would 

supersede the relevant stipulations attached to the existing LUPs. Those program areas/stipulations that 

are not considered in this ARMPA (not relevant to GRSG and GRSG habitat) would continue in full 

force and effect where they apply (within individual BLM field offices or the Routt National Forest). The 

stipulations would not apply to activities and uses where they are contrary to laws, regulations, or 

specific program guidance.

G.1 DESCRIPTION OF STIPULATIONS

Three types of stipulations could be applied to leasing authorizations and would also be applied as terms 

and conditions for land use authorizations: 1) No Surface Occupancy (NSO); 2) Controlled Surface Use 

(CSU); and 3) Timing Limitations (TL). Notice to Lessees (NTLs), Lease Notices (LNs) and Conditions 

of Approval (COAs), which are applied to existing leases, are also described below. 

G.1.1 No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 

Use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is prohibited to 

protect GRSG and GRSG habitat. In areas open to fluid mineral leasing with NSO stipulations, fluid 

mineral leasing activities are permitted, but surface-disturbing activities cannot be conducted on the 

surface of the land unless an exception, modification, or waiver is granted. Access to fluid mineral 

deposits would require drilling from outside the boundaries of the NSO stipulation. 

G.1.2 Controlled Surface Use (CSU)

A CSU stipulation is a category of moderate constraint that allows some use and occupancy of public 

land while protecting identified resources or values. A CSU stipulation allows the BLM to require 
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

G-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

additional conditions be met to protect a specified resource or value in addition to standard lease terms 

and conditions.

G.1.3 Timing Limitations (TL) 

Areas identified for TLs, a moderate constraint, are closed to fluid mineral exploration and development 

during identified time frames. Construction, drilling, completions, and other operations considered to be 

intensive in nature are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as work overs on wells, is not 

permitted. Administrative activities are allowed at the discretion of the BLM Authorized Officer. 

G.1.4 Notice to Lessees (NTL)

A notice to lessee is a written notice issued by the BLM Authorized Officer. Notices to lessees 

implement regulations and operating orders, and serve as instructions on specific item(s) of importance 

within a state, district, or area. 

G.1.5 Lease Notice (LN)

A Lease Notice provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in law, lease 

terms, regulations or operational orders. An LN also addresses special items that the lessee should 

consider when planning operations.

G.1.6 Condition of Approval (COA)

Conditions of Approval are enforceable conditions or provisions under which an Application for Permit 

to Drill (APD) is approved. 

G.2 EXCEPTIONS, MODIFICATIONS, AND WAIVERS 

An exception exempts the holder of the lease from the stipulation on a one-time basis. A modification 

changes the language or provisions of a stipulation due to changed conditions or new information either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. A modification may or may not apply to all other sites within 

the leasehold. A waiver permanently exempts the surface stipulation for a specific lease, planning area, 

or resource based on absence of need, such as a determination that protection of winter use is 

unnecessary for maintenance or recovery of a species.

G.2.1 Exception, Modification, or Waiver Process

An exception, modification, or waiver may be granted at the discretion of the BLM Authorized Officer if 

the specific criteria described below are met. In order to implement an action that would not normally 

be allowed because of a stipulation, the proponent must submit a written request for an exception, 

modification, or waiver and provide the data necessary to demonstrate that specific criteria have been 

met. Prior to any modification or waiver of a lease stipulation, a 30-day public notice and comment 

period may be required.

G.3 STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS

Restrictions on land use authorizations (e.g., rights-of-way [ROWs]) are administered through the 

identification of exclusion and avoidance areas. Exclusion areas are unavailable for location of ROWs 

under any conditions. Avoidance areas are to be avoided when practicable due to identified resource 

values but may be available with special stipulations. Those ROW terms and conditions that would be 

attached to authorizations sited in areas identified as avoidance areas are described below. 
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-3

Management Action #46 Stipulation Type: No Surface Occupancy (NSO)

Objective: Manage fluid minerals to avoid, minimize, and compensate for: 1) direct disturbance, 

displacement, or mortality of GRSG; 2) direct loss of habitat, or loss of effective habitat through 

fragmentation; and 3) cumulative landscape-level impacts.

Management Action No Surface Occupancy in PHMA

Stipulation Description Apply NSO-46e(1) stipulation to leases in PHMA.

Include the following notification for limits on surface disturbance and 

disruption:

This lease is subject to NSO and does not guarantee the lessee the right to 

occupy the surface of the lease for the purpose of producing oil and natural 

gas. In areas open to fluid mineral leasing with NSO stipulations, fluid 

mineral leasing activities are permitted, but surface-disturbing activities 

cannot be conducted on the surface of the land unless an exception, 

modification, or waiver is granted. 

Surface occupancy or use will be restricted to no more than 1 disruptive 

facility per 640 acres, and the cumulative value of all applicable surface 

disturbances, existing or future, must not result in greater than 3 percent 

loss of the sagebrush habitat within PHMA (as measured by Colorado 

Management Zone).

Waivers, modifications, and exceptions:

No waivers or modifications to fluid mineral lease NSO stipulation 

will be granted. The BLM Authorized Officer may grant an exception 

to this NSO stipulation only where the proposed action: 

(i) Would not have direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on 

GRSG or its habitat; or

(ii) Is proposed to be undertaken as an alternative to a similar 

action occurring on a nearby parcel, and would provide a 

clear conservation gain to GRSG.

Exceptions based on conservation gain (ii) may only be considered in: 

(a) PHMA of mixed ownership where federal minerals underlie less 

than 50 percent of the total surface; or (b) areas of BLM-administered 

lands where the proposed exception is an alternative to an action 

occurring on a nearby parcel subject to a valid federal fluid mineral 

lease existing as of the date of this RMP [revision or amendment]. 

Exceptions based on conservation gain must also include measures, 

such as enforceable institutional controls and buffers, sufficient to 

allow the BLM to conclude that such benefits will endure for the 

duration of the proposed action’s impacts. 

The BLM Authorized Officer may approve any exceptions to this 

lease stipulation only with the concurrence of the BLM State 

Director. The BLM Authorized Officer may not grant an exception 

unless the applicable state wildlife agency, USFWS, and BLM 

unanimously find that the proposed action satisfies (i) or (ii). A team 

of one field biologist or other GRSG expert shall initially make such 
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

G-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

finding from each respective agency. In the event the initial finding is 

not unanimous, the finding may be elevated to the appropriate BLM 

State Director, USFWS State Ecological Services Director, and state 

wildlife agency head for final resolution. In the event their finding is 

not unanimous, the exception will not be granted. Approved 

exceptions will be made publically available at least quarterly.

Management Action No Surface Occupancy within 2 miles of active leks in GHMA

Stipulation Description Apply NSO-46e(2) stipulation within 2 miles of active leks in GHMA

Waivers, modifications, and exceptions:

Waiver: No waivers are authorized unless the area or resource 

mapped as possessing the attributes protected by the stipulation is 

determined during collaboration with the State of Colorado to lack 

those attributes or potential attributes. A 30-day public notice and 

comment period is required before waiver of a stipulation. Waivers 

would require BLM State Director approval.

Exception: In consultation with the State of Colorado, an exception 

to occupancy of the surface associated with GRSG NSO-46e(2) in 

GHMA could be granted on a one-time basis (any occupancy must 

be removed within 1 year of approval) based on an analysis of the 

following factors:

Location of proposed lease activities in relation to critical 

GRSG habitat areas as identified by factors including, but not 

limited to, average male lek attendance and/or important 

seasonal habitat

An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed lease 

activities that may affect the local population as compared to 

benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 

off-site mitigation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3 of the 

Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Regional Mitigation)

An evaluation of the proposed lease activities in relation to 

the site-specific terrain and habitat features. For example, in 

the vicinity of leks, local terrain features such as ridges and 

ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield nearby 

habitat from disruptive factors.

Modification: In consultation with the State of Colorado, a 

modification (changes to the stipulation either temporarily or for the 

term of either part of or the entire lease) to GRSG NSO-46e(2)

could be granted based on an analysis of the following factors:

Location of proposed lease activities in relation to critical 

GRSG habitat areas as identified by factors including, but not 

limited to, average male lek attendance and/or important 

seasonal habitat

An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed lease 

activities that may affect the local population as compared to 

benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-5

off-site mitigation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3 of the 

Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Regional Mitigation)

An evaluation of the proposed lease activities in relation to 

the site-specific terrain and habitat features. For example, in 

the vicinity of leks, local terrain features such as ridges and 

ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield nearby 

habitat from disruptive factors.

Management Action Limit surface disturbance to 3 percent of PHMA

Limit density of infrastructure to 1 per 640 acres

Stipulation Description Apply Lease Notice (GRSG LN-46e) for leases in PHMA:

Include the following notification for limits on surface disturbance and 

disruption:

This lease is subject to NSO and does not guarantee the lessee the right to 

occupy the surface of the lease for the purpose of producing oil and natural 

gas. In areas open to fluid mineral leasing with NSO stipulations, fluid 

mineral leasing activities are permitted, but surface-disturbing activities 

cannot be conducted on the surface of the land unless an exception, 

modification, or waiver is granted. 

Surface occupancy or use will be restricted to no more than 1 disruptive 

facility per 640 acres, and the cumulative value of all applicable surface 

disturbances, existing or future, must not result in greater than 3 percent 

loss of the sagebrush habitat within PHMA (as measured by Colorado 

Management Zone). 

Management Action #46 Stipulation Type: Timing Limitation

Management Action No activity associated with construction, drilling, or completions 

within 4 miles from active leks during lekking, nesting, and early 

brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15)

Purpose Manage fluid minerals to avoid, minimize, and compensate for direct 

disturbance, displacement, or mortality of GRSG during lekking, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing

Stipulation Description Apply Timing Limitation (GRSG TL-46e) within 4 miles of 

active leks during lekking, nesting, and early brood-rearing 

(March 1 to July15).

Waiver: No waivers are authorized unless the area or resource 

mapped as possessing the attributes protected by the stipulation are 

determined during collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to 

lack those attributes or potential attributes. A 30-day public notice 

and comment period is required before waiver of a stipulation. 

Waivers would require BLM State Director approval.

Exception/Modification: In consultation with the State of 

Colorado, a modification or an exception to GRSG TL-46 could be 

granted based on an analysis of the following factors:

Location of proposed lease activities in relation to critical 
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

G-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

GRSG habitat areas as identified by factors including, but not 

limited to, average male lek attendance and/or important 

seasonal habitat

An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed lease 

activities that may affect the local population as compared to 

benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 

off-site mitigation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3 of the 

Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Regional Mitigation)

An evaluation of the proposed lease activities in relation to 

the site-specific terrain and habitat features. For example, 

within 4 miles of a lek, local terrain features such as ridges 

and ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield 

nearby habitat from disruptive factors

Management Action #47 Stipulation Type: Condition of Approval 

Management Action On existing leases within 1 mile of active leks, disturbance, disruptive 

activities, and occupancy are precluded.

If it is determined that this restriction would render the recovery of 

fluid minerals infeasible or uneconomic, considering the lease as a 

whole, or where development of existing leases requires that 

disturbance density exceeds 1 disruptive facility per 640 acres, and/or 

3 percent disturbance cap, use the criteria below to site proposed 

lease activities to meet GRSG habitat objectives and require 

mitigation as described in Appendix F (Greater Sage-Grouse 

Mitigation Strategy).

In PHMAs and within 4 miles of an active lek, the criteria below 

would be applied to guide development of the lease or unit that 

would result in the fewest impacts possible to GRSG. 

Based on site-specific conditions, prohibit construction, drilling, and 

completion within PHMA within 4 miles of a lek during lekking, 

nesting, and early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15). In consultation 

with the State of Colorado, this timing limitation may be adjusted 

based on application of the criteria below.

Criteria (see Chapter 2 of the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS for 

additional detail on these criteria):

Location of proposed lease activities in relation to critical 

GRSG habitat areas as identified by factors including, but not 

limited to, average male lek attendance and/or important 

seasonal habitat

An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed lease 

activities that may affect the local population as compared to 

benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 

off-site mitigation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3 of the 

Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Regional Mitigation)

An evaluation of the proposed lease activities, including design 

features, in relation to the site-specific terrain and habitat 
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment G-7

features. For example, within 4 miles of a lek, local terrain 

features such as ridges and ravines may reduce the habitat 

importance and shield nearby habitat from disruptive factors. 

This is particularly likely in Colorado Management Zone 17, 

which has an atypical GRSG habitat featuring benches with 

GRSG habitat interspersed with steep ravines.

To authorize an activity based on the criteria above, the 

environmental record of review must show no significant direct 

disturbance, displacement, or mortality of GRSG.

Management Action #10 Avoidance criteria

GRSG PHMA ROW Avoidance In GRSG PHMA or GHMA managed as avoidance, ROWs/Special Use 

Authorizations may be issued after documenting that the 

ROWs/Special Use Authorizations would not adversely affect GRSG 

populations based on the following criteria:

Location of proposed activities in relation to critical GRSG 

habitat areas as identified by factors including, but not limited 

to, average male lek attendance and/or important seasonal 

habitat

An evaluation of the potential threats from proposed 

activities that may affect the local population as compared to 

benefits that could be accomplished through compensatory or 

off-site mitigation (see Chapter 2, Section 2.6.3 of the 

Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Regional Mitigation)

An evaluation of the proposed activities in relation to the 

site-specific terrain and habitat features. For example, within 

4 of from a lek, local terrain features such as ridges and 

ravines may reduce the habitat importance and shield nearby 

habitat from disruptive factors.

Any new projects within PHMA would be subject to the 3 percent 

disturbance cap as described in Appendix H, Guidelines for 

Implementation. If the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded in 

PHMA in any Colorado Management Zone, no new ROW would be 

authorized in PHMA within that Colorado Management Zone, unless 

site-specific analysis documents no impact on GRSG.
G. Stipulations Applicable to Fluid Mineral Leasing and Land Use Authorizations

G-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix H

Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-1

APPENDIX H

GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

H.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides guidelines for the implementation of the Northwest Colorado ARMPA, including 

Adaptive Management. The goals and objectives of the ARMPA address threats to GRSG and GRSG 

habitat and include management actions designed to maintain and enhance populations and distribution 

of GRSG. The specific management actions provide details by resource program. BLM programs include 

objectives designed to avoid direct disturbance of GRSG habitat or displacement of GRSG, and 

conditions under which it is necessary to minimize and mitigate the loss of habitat and habitat 

connectivity. To implement the ARMPA, the BLM would assess all proposed land uses or activities in 

PHMA and GHMA that potentially could result in direct habitat disturbance. 

The following steps identify the screening process by which the BLM will review proposed activities or 

projects in PHMA and GHMA. This process will provide a consistent approach and ensure that 

authorization of these projects, if granted, will appropriately mitigate impacts and be consistent with the 

ARMPA goals and objectives for GRSG. The following steps provide for a sequential screening of 

proposals. However, Steps 2 through 6 can be done concurrently.

The screening process is meant to apply to externally generated projects that would cause discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances. See Section H.3, Restoration/Reclamation of Landscape-Scale 

Disturbances – Objectives for GRSG Habitat, for guidelines regarding landscape-scale disturbances such 

as wildfire and habitat restoration.

H.2 SCREENING PROCESS

H.2.1 Step 1 – Determine Proposal Adequacy

This screening process is initiated upon formal submittal of a proposal for authorization for use of BLM 

lands to the field office/ranger district. The actual documentation of the proposal would include, at a 

minimum, a description of the location, scale of the project, and timing of the disturbance. The 

acceptance of the proposal(s) for review would be consistent with existing protocol and procedures for 
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

H-2 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

each type of use. Upon a determination that the proposed project would affect GRSG or GRSG habitat, 

the District Sage-Grouse Coordinator would be notified.

H.2.2 Step 2 – Evaluate Proposal Consistency with LUPA 

The District Sage-Grouse Coordinator and the field office interdisciplinary team would evaluate whether 

the proposal would be allowed as prescribed in the ARMPA. For example, some activities or types of 

development are prohibited in PHMA or GHMA. Evaluation of projects will also include an assessment 

of the current state of the adaptive management hard and soft triggers (see Adaptive Management, 

below). If the proposal is for an activity that is specifically prohibited, the applicant should be informed 

that the application is being rejected since it would not be an allowable use, regardless of the design of 

the project. 

H.2.3 Step 3 – Determine if GRSG Habitat Can be Avoided 

If the project can be relocated so that it would not have an impact on GRSG and GRSG habitat and still 

achieve objectives of the proposal, relocate the proposed activity and proceed with the appropriate 

process for review, decision, and implementation (NEPA and decision record). 

H.2.4 Step 4 – Determine Proposal Consistency with Density and Disturbance Limitations

If the proposed activity occurs within a PHMA, the District Sage-Grouse Coordinator would evaluate 

whether the disturbance from the activity exceeds 3 percent in the Colorado Management Zone using 

the Disturbance Analysis and Reclamation Tracking System database or a local disturbance database (see 

Disturbance Cap Guidance, below). If current disturbance within the activity area or the anticipated 

disturbance from the proposed activity exceeds this threshold (see Adaptive Management, Disturbance 

Cap Trigger, below), the project would be deferred until such time as the amount of disturbance within 

the area has been reduced below the threshold (see Section H.3, Restoration/Reclamation of 

Landscape-Scale Disturbances – Objectives for GRSG Habitat, for description of reclamation criteria), 

redesigned so as to not result in any additional surface disturbance (collocation), or redesigned to move 

it outside of PHMA. 

The Northwest Colorado BLM has completed an inventory of all PHMA by Colorado Management 

Zone and would track actual disturbance using a local data management system and/or Disturbance 

Analysis and Reclamation Tracking System. The data management system would be used to inventory, 

prioritize, and track disturbance data within the decision area, including those projects that cross field 

office boundaries. The data would be used to determine the actual disturbance by Colorado 

Management Zone. Data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, local working groups, and BLM would be 

used in conjunction with the disturbance inventory to determine future management actions. 

Disturbance Cap Guidance

For a detailed description of calculating the disturbance cap, see Appendix E (Methodology for 

Calculating Disturbance Caps). 

In Northwest Colorado, the disturbance cap would be defined as habitat loss and/or degradation 

measured as the 3 percent disturbance cap in PHMAs calculated by Colorado Management Zone. 

Additionally, density of development would be limited to 1 per 640 acres calculated by Colorado 

Management Zone. In Colorado, Management Zones were developed in cooperation with Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife, USFWS, and Forest Service and represent biologically significant units based on the 

six identified Colorado populations, lek complexes, and associated seasonal habitat use.
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-3

The ARMPA disturbance cap would apply to anthropogenic disturbance in priority habitat management 

areas. Anthropogenic disturbance refers to physical removal of habitat, including, but not limited to, 

paved highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells, 

pipelines, and mines.

Percentages would be calculated for each Colorado GRSG Management Zone, subject to the criteria 

listed below that describes the types of projects that would count toward the disturbance cap. Only 

physical disturbance would be inventoried for the 3 percent disturbance cap. Disruptive impacts, such as 

wildfire, would be considered in the site-specific analysis when surface-disturbing proposals are being 

considered.

Types of anthropogenic disturbance that would be counted toward the disturbance cap under the 

ARMPA include the following:

 Any anthropogenic disturbance on BLM surface lands

 Projects on private land in the public record because they entail a federal nexus due to 

funding or authorizations. Specifically included would be energy development, rights-of-way, 

or range projects approved by the BLM because they have components on both public and 

private land. Also included would be anthropogenic disturbance on private surface 

attributable to the authorized recovery of federal minerals

 Industrial operations on any surface ownership with a readily apparent impact on GRSG 

habitat

 Any disturbance data volunteered by private land owners

Types of projects that would not be counted toward the disturbance cap under the ARMPA include the 

following:

 Disturbance on individual sites such as stands of pinyon/juniper determined lacking in GRSG 

habitat potential

 Disturbance on private lands other than what has been described above. The BLM would 

not inventory or evaluate private property not linked to a specific project with a federal 

nexus. Private residences would not be inventoried or evaluated. Infrastructure on private 

land associated with family farm or ranch operations would not constitute “an industrial 

operation with a readily apparent impact on GRSG habitat.” Base property associated with 

grazing permits would not be considered a federal nexus in this context. Conservation 

easements would not trigger a federal nexus, and be cause for inventory of private lands. 

Conservation-oriented activities associated with US Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service would also not be counted. 

The disturbance cap is an important component of the ARMPA adaptive management plan. If the 3 

percent cap is exceeded in a Colorado Management Zone, more restrictive measures would be in effect 

(see Chapter 2, Section 2.6.1 of the Proposed LUPA/Final EIS, Adaptive Management,

Disturbance Cap Trigger).
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

H-4 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Reclamation Criteria for Anthropogenic Disturbances

In order for disturbance to be considered reclaimed and no longer counted against the Northwest 

Colorado disturbance cap, the following requirements would be insisted upon: 

 Reclamation requirements would be consistent with the existing Northwest Colorado land 

use decisions and regulations.

 Reclamation success criteria in GRSG habitat would be contingent on evidence of successful 

establishment of desired forbs and sagebrush. Reclaimed acreage would be expected to 

progress without further intervention to a state that meets GRSG cover and forage needs 

(see Table H-1) based on site capability and seasonal habitat, as described in the Colorado 

Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan (Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering 

Committee 2008).

 Depending on site condition, the BLM may require a specific seed component and/or 

sagebrush (i.e., material collected on site or seed propagated from “local” collections) 

where appropriate to accelerate the redevelopment of sagebrush. 

H.2.5 Step 5 – Determine Projected Sage-Grouse Population and Habitat Impacts

If it is determined that the proposed project may move forward, based on Steps 1 through 3, above, 

then the BLM would analyze whether the project would have a direct or indirect impact on GRSG 

populations or habitat within PHMA or GHMA. The analysis would include an evaluation of the 

following:

 Review of GRSG Habitat delineation maps

 Use of the US Geological Survey report Conservation Buffer Distance Estimates for Greater 

Sage-Grouse—A Review (Manier et al. 2014) to assess potential project impacts based upon 

the distance to the nearest lek, using the most recent active lek (as defined by Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife; see Glossary) data available from the state wildlife agency. This 

assessment would be based upon the buffers identified below for the following types of 

projects:

– Linear features within 3.1 miles of leks

– Infrastructure related to energy development within 3.1 miles of leks

– Tall structures (e.g., communication or transmission towers and transmission lines) 

within 2 miles of leks

– Low structures (e.g., rangeland improvements) within 1.2 miles of leks

– All other surface disturbance not associated with linear features, energy 

development, tall structures, or low structures within 3.1 miles of leks

– Noise and related disruption activities (including those that do not result in habitat 

loss) at least 0.25-mile from leks

 Review and application of current science recommendations

 Reviewing the Baseline Environment Report (Manier et al. 2013), which identifies areas of 

direct and indirect effects for various anthropogenic activities
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-5

 Consultation with agency or state wildlife agency biologist

 Evaluating consistency with (at a minimum) state GRSG regulations

 Other methods needed to provide an accurate assessment of impacts

 If the proposal will not have a direct or indirect impact on either the habitat or population, 

document the findings in the NEPA analysis and proceed with the appropriate process for 

review, decision, and implementation of the project.

H.2.6 Step 6 – Determine Minimization Measures

If impacts on GRSG or GRSG habitat cannot be avoided by relocating the project, then consider the 

tools above to apply appropriate minimization measures. Minimization measures could include timing 

limitations, noise restrictions, and design modifications. 

H.2.7 Step 7 – Apply Compensatory Mitigation or Reject / Defer Proposal

If screening of the proposal (Steps 1 through 6) has determined that direct and indirect impacts cannot 

be eliminated through avoidance or minimization, evaluate the proposal to determine if compensatory 

mitigation can be used to offset the remaining adverse impacts and achieve GRSG goals and objectives 

(see Appendix F, Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Strategy). If the impacts cannot be effectively 

mitigated, the project would be rejected or deferred.

H.3 RESTORATION/RECLAMATION OF LANDSCAPE-SCALE DISTURBANCES –

OBJECTIVES FOR GRSG HABITAT 

For landscape-scale disturbances, including wildfire, livestock grazing, and habitat treatments, the 

objective is to maintain a minimum of 70 percent of lands capable of producing sagebrush with a 

minimum of 15% sagebrush canopy cover, or a similar standard consistent with specific ecological site 

conditions in PHMA. See Table H-1. 

Table H-1

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse

ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS DESIRED CONDTION

BREEDING AND NESTING 1,2,3 (Seasonal Use Period March 1-June 15) 

Apply 4 miles from active leks. 15

Lek Security Proximity of trees 4 Trees or other tall structures are none to 

uncommon within 1.86 miles of leks 5,6

Proximity of sagebrush to leks 5 Adjacent protective sagebrush cover within 

328 feet of lek5

Cover Seasonal habitat extent 6 >80% of the breeding and nesting habitat

Sagebrush canopy cover 5,6,7,17

Arid sites

Mesic sites

15 to 30%

20 to 30%17

Sagebrush height 6, 17

Arid sites 5,6,9

Mesic sites 5,6,10

11.8 to 31.5 inches (30-80 cm)

15.7 to 31.5 inches (40-80 cm)

Predominant sagebrush shape 5 >50% in spreading 11

Perennial grass canopy cover 5,6, 17

Arid sites 6,9

Mesic sites 6,10,17

>10%

>20%17
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

H-6 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Table H-1

Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-Grouse

ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS DESIRED CONDTION

Perennial grass and forb height 5,6,7 >6 inches6, 16, 17

Perennial forb canopy cover 5,6,7

Arid sites 9

Mesic sites 10

>5%5,6,17

>15%5,6,17

BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1(Seasonal Use Period June 16-October 31) 

Cover Seasonal habitat extent 6 >40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat

Sagebrush canopy cover 5, 6,7, 17

Arid sites

Mesic sites

10 to 25%

10 to 25%

Sagebrush height 6,7, 17

Arid sites

Mesic sites

11.8 to 31.5 inches (30 to 80 cm)

13.8 to 31.5 inches (35 to 80 cm)

Perennial grass canopy cover and forbs 6,7,17

Arid sites

Mesic sites

>15%17

>25%17

Riparian areas (both lentic and lotic 

systems)

Proper Functioning Condition 13

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability 5,6

Preferred forbs are common with several 

preferred species present 12

WINTER1(Seasonal Use Period November 1-February 28)

Cover and Food Seasonal habitat extent 5,6,7 >80% of the winter habitat

Sagebrush canopy cover above snow 5,6,7,17 >20% Arid, 25% Mesic17

Sagebrush height above snow 5,6,7 >10 inches 14

1 Seasonal dates can be adjusted; that is, start and end dates may be shifted either earlier or later, but the amount of days 

cannot be shortened or lengthened by the local unit.

2 Doherty 2008

3 Holloran and Anderson. 2005

4 Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013

5 Stiver et. al. 2014

6 Connelly et al. 2000

7 Connelly et al. 2003

9 10–12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver 

et. al. 2014).

10 >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et. 

al. 2014).

11 Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more tree- or 

columnar shaped (Stiver et. al. 2014).

12 Preferred forbs are listed in Habitat Assessment Framework Table III-2 (Stiver et. al. 2014). Overall, total forb cover may be 

greater than that of preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred in Table III-2.

13 Existing land management plan desired conditions for riparian areas/wet meadows (spring seeps) may be used in place of 

properly functioning conditions, if appropriate for meeting greater sage-grouse habitat requirements.

14 The height of sagebrush remaining above the snow depends upon snow depth in a particular year. Intent is to manage for tall, 

healthy, sagebrush stands.

15 Buffer distance may be changed only if 3 out of 5 years of telemetry studies indicate the 4 miles is not appropriate.

16Measured as “droop height”; the highest naturally growing portion of the plant.

17 Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee 2008
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-7

These habitat objectives in Table H-1 summarize the characteristics that research has found represent 

the seasonal habitat needs for GRSG. The specific seasonal components identified in the table were 

adjusted based on local science and monitoring data to define the range of characteristics used in this 

sub-region. Thus, the habitat objectives provide the broad vegetative conditions the BLM strive to 

obtain across the landscape that indicate the seasonal habitats used by GRSG. These habitat indicators 

are consistent with the rangeland health indicators used by the BLM.

The habitat objectives will be part of the GRSG habitat assessment to be used during land health 

evaluations (see Appendix D, Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework). These habitat objectives 

are not obtainable on every acre within the designated GRSG habitat management areas. Therefore, the 

determination of whether the objectives have been met will be based on the specific site’s ecological 

ability to meet the desired condition identified in Table H-1. 

All BLM use authorizations will contain terms and conditions regarding the actions needed to meet or 

progress toward meeting the habitat objectives. If monitoring data show the habitat objectives have not 

been met nor progress being made towards meeting them, there will be an evaluation and a 

determination made as to the cause. If it is determined that the authorized use is a cause, the use will be 

adjusted by the response specified in the instrument that authorized the use.

H.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management is a decision process that promotes flexible resource management decision 

making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and 

other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific 

understanding and helps with adjusting resource management directions as part of an iterative learning 

process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to 

ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning 

while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more 

effective decisions and enhanced benefits.

In relation to the BLM’s National Greater Sage-grouse Planning Strategy, adaptive management would 

help identify if GRSG conservation measures presented in this EIS contain the needed level of certainty 

for effectiveness. Principles of adaptive management are incorporated into the conservation measures in 

the LUPA to ameliorate threats to a species, thereby increasing the likelihood that the conservation 

measure and LUPA would be effective in reducing threats to that species. The following provides the 

BLM’s adaptive management strategy for the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse LUPA. In 

making amendments to this LUP, the BLM and will coordinate with USFWS as the BLM continues to 

meet their objective of conserving, enhancing, and restoring GRSG habitat by reducing, minimizing, or 

eliminating threats to that habitat.

H.4.1 Adaptive Management and Monitoring

This EIS contains a monitoring framework (Appendix D, Greater Sage-grouse Monitoring Framework) 

that includes an effectiveness monitoring component. The agencies intend to use the data collected from 

the effectiveness monitoring to identify any changes in habitat conditions related to the goals and 

objectives of the LUPA and other range-wide conservation strategies (US Department of the Interior 

2004; Stiver et al. 2006; USFWS 2013). The information collected through the monitoring framework 

would be used by the BLM to determine when adaptive management hard and soft triggers (discussed 

below) are met.
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

H-8 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Adjustments to PHMA or GHMA boundaries should be made if BLM biologists, in coordination with 

state of Colorado biologists, determine site-specific conditions warrant such changes to more accurately 

depict existing or potential GRSG habitat. The appropriate planning process (i.e., plan maintenance or 

plan amendment) would be used, as determined on a case-by-case basis considering site-specific issues.

H.4.2 Adaptive Management Triggers

Soft Triggers

Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the 

project/implementation level to address habitat and population losses. If a soft trigger is identified, the 

BLM would apply more conservative or restrictive implementation conservation measures to mitigate 

for the specific causal factor in the decline of populations and/or habitats, with consideration of local 

knowledge and conditions. For example, monitoring data within an already federally authorized project 

area within a given GRSG population area indicates that there has been a slight decrease in GRSG 

numbers in this area. Data also suggest the decline may be attributed to GRSG collisions with 

monitoring tower guy-wires from this federally authorized project. The BLM then receives an application 

for a new tower within the same GRSG population area. The response would be to require the new 

authorization’s tower guy-wires to be flagged. Monitoring data then show the decline is curtailed. The

adaptive management soft trigger response is to require future applications to flag for guy-wires. These 

types of adjustments would be made to preclude tripping a “hard” trigger (which signals more severe 

habitat loss or population declines). While there should be no expectation of hitting a hard trigger, if 

unforeseen circumstances occur that trip either a habitat or population hard trigger, more restrictive 

management would be required.

Hard Triggers

Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe 

deviation from GRSG conservation objectives as set forth in the BLM ARMPA. The hard trigger and the 

proposed management response to this trigger are presented below.

The hard and soft trigger data will be analyzed as soon as it becomes available after the signing of the 

ROD and then at a minimum, analyzed annually thereafter.

H.4.3 Northwest Colorado Adaptive Management Plan

The Northwest Colorado Adaptive Management Plan includes an overarching adaptive management 

strategy consistent with national policy that includes soft and hard triggers for specific populations and 

an approach for developing responses. These triggers are not specific to any particular project, but 

identify habitat and population thresholds. The BLM in cooperation with USFWS and the State of 

Colorado, have identified appropriate triggers. Triggers would be based on the two key metrics that 

would be monitored: habitat loss and/or population declines.

Soft Triggers

Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the 

LUPA implementation level to address habitat or population losses. If a soft trigger is tripped, the BLM 

would change management to a more conservative or restrictive implementation conservation measure 

to mitigate for the specific causal factor in the decline of populations and/or habitats, with consideration 

of local knowledge and conditions. These adjustments should be made to preclude tripping a “hard” 

trigger (which signals more severe habitat loss or population declines).
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-9

During implementation of this LUPA, population trends would be monitored by the Northwest 

Colorado Sage-Grouse Statewide Implementation Team, which would be made up of existing local 

population GRSG working groups (e.g., Northwest Colorado, Parachute-Piceance-Roan, Middle Park, 

and North Park), BLM biologists, and Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Wildlife

biologists. This group would meet annually and would evaluate the health of each population and make 

recommendations to the BLM on any changes to fine site management. This statewide implementation 

team would also evaluate the effects to GRSG habitat and populations due to BLM permitted activities 

throughout the previous year(s) and make recommendations for changes in management or locations 

that should be avoided, for example. This group would also evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation and 

make recommendations on alternative mitigation strategies and locations, such as the Colorado Habitat 

Exchange. This team would also evaluate important locations each year, such as lek sites.

Restrictive management prescriptions would help ensure a greater degree of certainty of effectiveness in 

ameliorating a targeted threat so that there is less of a need to prescribe a detailed adaptive 

management decision strategy within the ARMPA to demonstrate certainty of effectiveness. The 

Northwest Colorado LUPA includes conditions under which activities could be permitted in GRSG 

habitat and criteria for granting exceptions, modifications, or waivers for lease stipulations. Soft triggers 

for restrictive management actions would include evaluation of the effectiveness of the minimization, 

mitigation, and location of permitted activities in the context of the PAC.

Disturbance Cap Trigger

The disturbance cap trigger represents a threshold indicating that more restrictive action is necessary to 

prevent further degradation of GRSG habitat.

In Northwest Colorado, the disturbance cap trigger would be defined as habitat loss and/or degradation 

measured as the 3 percent disturbance cap in PHMA calculated by biologically significant unit (Colorado 

populations) and proposed project analysis area (Colorado MZ).

If the 3 percent anthropogenic disturbance cap is exceeded on lands (regardless of land ownership) 

within PHMA in any given biologically significant unit, then no further discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 1872 and 

valid existing rights) would be permitted by BLM within PHMA in any given biologically significant unit 

until the disturbance has been reduced to less than the cap.

If the 3 percent disturbance cap is exceeded on all lands (regardless of land ownership) within a 

proposed project analysis area in a PHMA, then no further anthropogenic disturbance would be 

permitted by BLM until disturbance in the proposed project analysis area has been reduced to maintain 

the area under the cap (subject to applicable laws and regulations, such as the General Mining Law of 

1872 and valid existing rights).

Habitat disturbance would be monitored by the BLM and if the disturbance cap thresholds are exceeded 

in any PAC or Colorado MZ, more restrictive management would be implemented. The BLM would not 

grant modifications, exceptions, or waivers for existing lease stipulations if the intermediate trigger has 

been met. In addition, the BLM would defer new leasing in the Colorado MZ/PAC until the habitat is 

reclaimed and back under the disturbance cap.
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

H-10 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

Hard Trigger

In the event that soft triggers and disturbance caps prove to be ineffective, the hard trigger represents a 

threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe deviation from GRSG 

conservation objectives. The hard trigger is intentionally set at or below the normal range of variation to 

provide a threshold of last resort should either chronic degradation or a catastrophic event occur. The 

hard trigger is not intended to be an on-again/off-again toggle that would be exceeded periodically

throughout the life of the LUPA. Colorado GRSG occur in six distinct populations. Two of these 

populations (Northwest Colorado and North Park) account for about 88 percent of the males in 

Colorado. Northwest Colorado includes Colorado MZs 1 through 10. North Park includes Colorado 

MZ 11. The remaining four populations are smaller by an order of magnitude, and, even in the aggregate, 

do not provide the significant numbers of GRSG necessary to contribute meaningfully to the hard 

trigger, and, in some cases, lack the long-term population trend information necessary to support trigger 

implementation. All six populations are important to GRSG conservation in Colorado; however, only 

the Northwest Colorado and North Park populations are large enough to reliably indicate the level of 

severe decline intended by this hard trigger. While the hard triggers focus on the two largest 

populations, all six populations should be rigorously managed via the soft triggers. If soft triggers work as 

intended, a hard trigger should never be breached.

Development of the Hard Trigger

The hard trigger is based on two metrics: GRSG lek (high male) counts and habitat loss.

Lek Counts. The lek count threshold is determined from the 25 percent quartile of the high male count in 

each of the Northwest Colorado and North Park populations over the period of years for which 

consistent lek counts are available: 17 years from 1998 to 2014 for Northwest Colorado and 41 years 

from 1974 to 2014 for North Park. The 25 percent quartiles were determined using the annual high 

male counts rather than the 3-year running average to ensure that normal variation in lek counts is 

above the threshold. The hard trigger for Northwest Colorado is 1,575 counted males, and for North 

Park is 670 counted males.

Habitat Loss. The habitat loss threshold is determined by 30 percent cumulative loss of PHMA, measured 

independently in Northwest Colorado and North Park. For the purpose of the hard trigger, habitat loss 

will be measured from the date of the ROD on this LUPA. Hard trigger habitat loss includes both 

anthropogenic (i.e., the disturbance cap) and non-anthropogenic forms of habitat loss (e.g., wildfire). The 

30 percent habitat loss calculation is limited to loss of PHMA in each of Northwest Colorado and North 

Park populations; GHMA and any habitat loss in the other four populations are not included in the hard 

trigger. Restored or recovered habitat is not considered in this threshold, although it is tracked and 

summarized by the BLM’s data management system.

Breaching the Hard Trigger

In order for the hard trigger to be breached, both the lek count (1,575 males in Northwest Colorado 

and 670 males in North Park) and habitat loss thresholds must be breached in both the Northwest 

Colorado and North Park populations simultaneously. In any other set of circumstances (e.g., when a 

threshold is violated in a single population), the management response will be as described in the Soft 

Trigger section, above.

Lek Counts. The lek count threshold is compared to the 3-year running average of the high male count in 

Northwest Colorado and North Park, measured independently. The 3-year running average value is 
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

September 2015 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment H-11

used because it is considered to be more indicative of the population trend than annual high male 

counts. The 3-year running average in Northwest Colorado and North Park must fall below the 

threshold concurrently for this portion of the hard trigger to be breached. The Colorado Department 

of Natural Resources, Parks and Wildlife will conduct lek counts and provide this information annually 

to the statewide implementation team as described in the Soft Trigger section, above.

Habitat Loss. The habitat loss threshold is measured by 30 percent cumulative loss of PHMA, beginning 

when the ROD on this LUPA is signed. The loss will be measured independently in Northwest Colorado 

and North Park. The BLM will track anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic habitat loss. The statewide 

implementation team as described in the Soft Trigger section, above, will review summary information, 

above.

Hard Trigger Response

Upon determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the BLM will immediately defer issuance of 

discretionary authorizations for new actions for a period of 90 days. In addition, within 14 days of a 

determination that a hard trigger has been tripped, the Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse 

Statewide Implementation Team will convene to develop an interim response strategy and initiate an 

assessment to determine the causal factor or factors (hereafter the “causal factor assessment”).
H. Guidelines for Implementation and Adaptive Management

H-12 Northwest Colorado Greater Sage-Grouse Approved RMP Amendment September 2015

H.5 REFERENCES 

Baruch-Mordo, S., J. S. Evans, J. P. Severson, D. E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J. M. Kiesecker, M. J. Falkowski, 

C. A. Hagen, and K. P. Reece. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees. Biological Conservation. 

Internet website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713002917.

Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering Committee. 2008. Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Conservation 

Plan. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO.

Connelly, J. W., M. A. Schroeder, A. R. Sands, and C. E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1-19.

Connelly, J. W., K. P. Reese, and M. A. Schroeder. 2003. Monitoring of greater sage-grouse habitats and 

populations. Station Bulletin 80. College of Natural Resources Experiment Station, Moscow, ID.

Doherty, M. K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with Conservation 

Planning to Reduce Impacts. Thesis, Dissertations, Professional Papers. Paper 855.

Holloran, M. J., and S. H. Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in relatively 

contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 107:742-752.

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

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

Activities, Programs and Policies that Influence the Range-Wide Conservation of Greater SageGrouse (Centrocerus urophasianus). US Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013-1098. Ft. 

Collins, CO.

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.

Stiver, S. J., E. T. Rinkes, D. E. Naugle, P. D. Makela, D. A. Nance, and J. W. Karl. 2014. Sage-Grouse 

Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multi-scale Habitat Assessment Tool. BLM and Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Technical Reference 6710-1. US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.