Record of Decision and

Approved Resource Management Plan

Amendments for the Rocky Mountain Region,

Including the Greater Sage-Grouse Sub-Regions

of

Prepared by:

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Washington, DC

September 2015

Billings

Buffalo

Cody

HiLine

Miles City

Pompeys Pillar National Monument

South Dakota

Worland

and the Approved Resource Management Plans

for

Lewistown

North Dakota

Northwest Colorado

Wyoming
BLM/WY/PL-15/020+1610
Dear Reader: 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

http://www.blm.gov 

SEP 1 8 2015 

Enclosed are the Bureau of Land 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 

(RMPAs) 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 

of the sagebrush landscapes of the American West and the declining population of the 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 of the 

broader, landscape-level National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy (Strategy). 

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

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

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

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

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

management and research. 

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

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

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

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

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

and RMP As, 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 of the 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 of the I 5 Draft EISs - that associated with the Lander RMP Revision - in 2011. 
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 of the 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. Of those, 120 letters contained valid protest 

issues, in accordance with 43 Code of Federal 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 of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior and I have signed the attached ROD, approving the RMP As and RMPs. These plans will 

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

Greater Sage-Grouse and more than 350 other species of wildlife 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 BLMmanaged 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 of the species. 

Copies of the 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 of whom contributed 

significantly to the completion of these plans. Your participation informed and improved the 

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

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

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

Enclosure: 

Neil Kornze 

Director 

1. Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments and 

Approved Resource Management Plans 

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

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary 

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] 

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

 

 

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
 

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

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

Chapter Page 

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
 

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

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

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

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued) Full Phrase 

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 

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

This page intentionally left blank. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

1-2 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 1-3 

Billings and Pompeys 

Pillar National 

Monument RMP/EIS 

Miles City 

RMP/EIS 

Wyoming 

GRSG LUPA/EIS 

South 

Dakota 

RMP/EIS 

SD 

--

NE 

-- - ------, 

Northwest 

Colorado 

GRSG LUPA/EIS 

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

N 

September 2015 0 25 50 

--====---•Miles 

100 

W~. · ·-··E 

~ s 

~ V No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management {BLM). The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data is not guaranteed. 

i 

I 

i ' t ----·------... --

! 

i KS 

I 

; 

,_.~...._ Map Area }. a WA ·1 -----

1 \...__f/ l MT --T- ~D 

'- OR \ , __ ,. ___ ,-- - -

r-...__ ,o I ' s o 1 r~- --I WY i--- -,-

\-\ \ NV / U~,-}-t. : CA \ t ___ , 1 KS V ,-----L __ _ _ ," ) ! r-·1 OK 'L-/ AZ/, NM Jrx\..,.. "--- ___ ] ~ 
1. Introduction 

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

·---~~---..-~..,. .. ~-----... 

,.~ Billings.and Pompe~s -

Pillar National , 

Monument RMP/EIS 

Miles City 

RMP/EIS 

Wyomi~g 

GRSG Ll)PA/EIS 

,, 

South 

Dakota 

RMP/EIS 

NE 

s~ 

-... -.. -------------... , 

Northwest 

Colorado 

GRSG LUPA/EIS 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

National Park Service (NPS) 

Department of Defense (DOD) / '' r ''\, . ~ V 

Other Federal ~ ~ w , E 

State/Local ~·· , s 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) c::J Private/Other 

Indian Reservation (BIA) c::J Planning Area Boundary 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) c...=~J State Boundary 

--===---•Miles 0 25 50 100 

September 2015 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of land Management (SLM). The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data is not guaranteed. 

I 

I 

i 

i 

/----------------- / 

I KS 

! 

i 

f-;--l;; , M_:~~~a -

-··7' L MT -i L ND : 

{ OR \.1-._, } --,.._ ID ' I so ( / -...__ ---/ WY /--- ... 

~ \

1 

NV I l--,-• ...l_ NE 

'i I U T I co ~- - -

\ CA \ ,.J----.1..._ ____ L KS 

:::- "1 I 1=-c:,- f\__ ( AZ { NM , ~K 

,~ __ / _ ._J TX ··~-
1. Introduction 

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 434,1542 782,102 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). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

1-6 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 1-7 

NE 

- ----·-··-··-··-·1 

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

Management Areas (BLM Administered Lands*) 

Legend 

- Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) 

-

Priority Habitat Management 

Areas (PHMAs) 

General Habitat Management 

Areas (GHMAs) 

-

Additional Habitat Management 

Categorizations 

D Planning Area Boundary 

,--·--, l_ _ _J State Boundary 

*For Subsurface information see the ARM PA 

" w~r. \WI s 

--====---•Miles 

0 25 50 100 

September 2015 

No warranty 1s made by the Bureau of land Management (SLM). The accuracy, reti abihty, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data ,snot guaranteed. 

I 

i 

I 

I r-·-------------

i 

i 

! 

I 

KS 

,.,_,··-- Map Area f'wA ·----. 

I '-·--1./ MT 1· ~~] 

/-j. _ l~~-:-1. so 

~/ NV , - --- NE r \ UT CO t· ·- \CA\ / 

'i:::.,.,, fr·-1-·--r~=:;-~ .. L ( IU I NM l .OK "'-......_ • TX "-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

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

AZ 

,,,.._...,__.1 ; 

I 

I 

I NE i ______ _.., ; ___ .. ______ l 

i 

; 

t·· 

I 

i 

i 

I 

i 

! --------------I -•-..........I .. _ _ _ _ 

; ! ---- ; TX 

Figure 1-4: Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas for Conservation, Populations and WAFWA Management Zones 

Legend 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

(::3 WAFWA Sage-grouse Management Zones 

9' Greater Sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC) 

~ WAFWA Revised Sage-Grouse Populations 2015 

Dakotas 10a Strawberry Valley 

Northern Montana 10b Carbon 

Powder River Basin 11 Sheeprock Mountains 

Yellowstone Watershed 12-13a Parker Mountain-Emery 

Eagle/S Routt CO 13b Panguitch 

Middle Park CO 13c Bald Hills 

Laramie WY 14 NW-Interior NV 

Jackson Hole WY 15 Southern Great Basin 

9a Wyoming Basin 16 Quinn Canyon Range NV 

9d North Park 17 Baker OR 

18 

19-22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

E-Central ID 

SW Montana 

Snake, Salmon, & 

Beaverhead 

Belt Mountains MT 

Weiser ID 

Northern Great Basin 

Sawtooth ID 

Central OR 

Klamath OR/CA 

30 

31 

34 

35 

40 

41 

42 

43 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data is not guaranteed. 

••-==::::JMiles 

0 50 100 

September 2015 

Warm Springs Valley NV 

Western Great Basin 

Parachute Piceance Roan 

Meeker - White River 

Anthro Mountain 

S White River 

W Tavaputs 

E Tavaputs Plateau 
 

1. Introduction 

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.
 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

1-12 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 1-13
 

..,...,~ ...... "'·-·--· 

NE 

-·--.. ----- , 

i 

i 

1 

~--------

/ 

; 

: 

! 

i KS 

; 

I 

I 

i ·--.. ..,._ _______ r----L ______ __ _ 

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

Management Areas (BLM Administered Lands) 

Legend 

• Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) 

• Priority Habitat Management 

Areas (PHMAs) 

• Additional Habitat Management 

Categorizations 

D Planning Area Boundary 

• General Habitat Management [_=J State Boundary 

Areas (GHMAs) 

*For Subsurface information see the ARM PA 

- Miles 

0 25 50 100 

September 2015 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The accuracy, reliability, or completeness of t hese data for individual use or aggregate use with other data is not guaranteed 

f----------·----

i 

i 

i 

! 

Map Area 

TX 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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) 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

 

1. Introduction 

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” 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

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

development—solar for solar energy development under any conditions). 

energy 



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

with special stipulations). 

RHMAs—Exclusion or avoidance areas. 

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

rights-of-ways with special stipulations). 

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

ROWs with special stipulations). 

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

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. 

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

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). 

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

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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  Retain most GRSG habitat Federal management unless disposal (including 

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

exurban development (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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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, 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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, 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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, 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

	 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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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: 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

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. 

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

 

 

 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

	 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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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). 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

	 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.” 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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, 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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.” 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

	 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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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. 

2-10	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

	 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. 

2-12	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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. 

2-14	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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.
 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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 

2-16	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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 

2-18	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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
 

2-20 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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
 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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
 

2-22 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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
 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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
 

2-24 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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
 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

 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 

2-26 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

2. Decision 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 2-27 
2. Decision 

This page intentionally left blank. 

2-28 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

 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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

3-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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, 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

3-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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). 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

3-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

3-10 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

3-12 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

3-14 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

3-16 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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. 

3-18 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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 

3-20 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

 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
 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Alternatives 

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
 

3-22 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
3. Alternatives 

 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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 3-23 
3. Alternatives 

This page intentionally left blank. 

3-24 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-1 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Apply restrictions to sensitive, special The ARMP would provide more specific 

Wildlife status, and threatened and endangered 

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

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 Allow pre-commercial thinning in Allow pre-commercial thinning when 

Woodland overstocked areas and regenerated timber trees reach the 10- to 20-year age class 

Products sale areas when trees in those areas reach 

the 20- to 30-year age class. 

or when the regenerated trees are 5- to 

15-feet tall. 

4-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 115,905 acres are available for disposal; 66,363 acres are available for disposal; 

Realty 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 

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 Soils—Apply guidelines and appropriate Soils—Same as prior management 

Water 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. 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-3 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Manage 1,638 acres as the Nez Perce Manage 15,816 acres as the Nez Perce 

Designations 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. 

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 1,311 acres managed as open to OHV use; 5,885 acres managed as open to OHV 

Transportation 3,112,973 acres managed as limited to use; 3,115,500 acres managed as limited 

Management OHV use (limited to existing and 

designated roads and trails); 68,115 acres 

managed as closed to OHV use. 

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 7141,127 acres managed as VRM Class I; 141,127 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

Resources 340,784 acres managed as VRM Class II; 731,812 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

Management 890,482 acres managed as VRM Class III; 738,531 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

1,815,043 acres managed as VRM Class IV. 1,580,470 acres managed as VRM Class 

IV. 

4-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Manage the Fifteenmile Herd Management Same as prior management direction. 

and Burro Area for an initial AML of 70 to 160 wild 

Management 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. 

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 Apply restrictions to sensitive, special The ARMP would provide more specific 

Wildlife status, and threatened and endangered 

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

direction to protect resources and 

manage resource uses than prior 

management. Under the ARMP, 

additional protections would not be 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-5 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 7,463 acres available for disposal, with an 264 acres available for disposal; ROW 

Realty 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. 

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 1,855 acres are withdrawn from mineral 1,855 acres are withdrawn from mineral 

Minerals entry, and an additional 39,709 acres are 

recommended for closure to the mining 

laws. 

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 The BLM responds to proposals for BLM-administered surface open to 

Energy 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. 

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. 

4-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Nine ACECs would be retained, totaling Nine ACECs would be retained and two 

Designations 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. 

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 TMAs are not delineated in the decision TMAs are delineated in the decision 

Management 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. 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-7 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Provides sufficient habitat for fish and Alternative D emphasizes protection of 

Wildlife wildlife. 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 Balances forest and woodland health with Offers commodity production while 

Woodland other resource uses, such as commercial managing for long-term ecological health 

Products 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. 

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 Acres avoided and excluded from 321,149 acres would be managed as 

Realty ROWs—Not applicable under prior 

management direction; 351,133 acres 

would be designated as utility corridors; 

ROW avoidance areas; 79,777 acres 

would be managed as ROW exclusion 

areas; 29,126 acres would be designated 

4-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 3,319,248 acres open to mineral material 2,725,060 acres open to mineral material 

Materials development. Mineral material sales 

prohibited within the three WSAs’ 28,931 

acres. 

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 No ACECs, byways, or wild and scenic Two ACECs, totaling 2,847 acres; no 

Designations rivers; three WSAs, totaling 28,931 acres; 

one eligible wild and scenic river, totaling 

262,664 acres. 

byways or wild and scenic rivers; three 

WSAs, totaling 28,931 acres; one eligible 

wild and scenic river, totaling 262,664 

acres. 

Travel and 3,650 acres closed to OHV use; 37,646 37,389 acres closed to OHV use; 81,948 

Transportation acres seasonally closed to OHV use; acres seasonally closed to OHV use; 

Management 737,166 acres limited to designated roads 

and trails. 

661,726 acres limited to designated 

roads and trails. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-9 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 0 acres managed as VRM Class I; 0 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

Resources 127,594 acres managed as VRM Class II; 112,329 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

Management 65,583 acres managed as VRM Class III; 379,429 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

559,674 acres managed as VRM Class IV. 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 The Little Rocky Mountain Traditional The Little Rocky Mountain Traditional 

Resources 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. 

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 Apply restrictions to sensitive, special Species-specific direction to protect 

Wildlife status, and threatened and endangered 

species habitat. See resource uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

resources and manage resource uses is 

provided. Additional protections would 

not be limited to oil and gas production; 

4-10 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 The ASQ would not exceed 350 million The Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) of 

Woodland board feet per year. timber is 664 million board feet per year, 

Products along with 4,000 tons of biomass per 

year. 

Lands and 90,114 acres would be managed as 297,559 acres would be managed as 

Realty Category 2 and 3 for disposal. One 4.5­

mile-wide designated utility corridor, two 

ROW exclusion areas, and two ROW 

avoidance areas. 

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 Livestock would continue to be allocated Same as prior management decisions. 

Grazing 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. 

Mineral 

Materials 

74,506 acres would be closed to mineral 

material development. 

1,666,720 acres would be closed to 

mineral material development. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-11 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 2,248,366 acres would be open to wind 33,119 acres would be open to wind 

Energy 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. 

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. 

4-12 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Seven ACECs are retained. Several routes Six ACECs are retained. Four new 

Designations would be considered for backcountry 

byway status. No segments would be 

recommended for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

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 124 acres managed as open to OHV use; 165 acres managed as open to OHV use; 

Transportation 2,429,930 acres managed as limited to 2,429,889 acres managed as limited to 

Management 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. 

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 74,506 acres managed as VRM Class I; 74,506 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

Resources 342,828 acres managed as VRM Class II; 841,087 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

Management 58,213 acres managed as VRM Class III; 521,868 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

1,961,928 acres managed as VRM Class IV. 1,000,013 acres managed as VRM Class 

IV. 

Wilderness 0 acres managed for lands with wilderness The BLM would manage three areas 

Characteristics characteristics. (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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-13 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Surface-disturbing activities would be The BLM would manage oil and gas 

Resources allowed within the Planning Area. 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 Apply restrictions to sensitive, special The ARMP would provide more specific 

Wildlife status, and threatened and endangered 

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

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. 

4-14 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Forestlands in the Planning Area with 10 Forestlands would be managed to 

Woodland percent or more canopy cover per acre enhance the health and resiliency of 

Products would be managed for the enhancement of 

other resources, not for the production of 

forest products or saw timber. 

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 35,830 acres would be ROW avoidance 83,659 acres would be minor and major 

Realty 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. 

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 2,700,000 acres and an estimated 546,508 2,700,000 acres and an estimated 

Grazing AUMs would be available for livestock 

grazing. Livestock grazing would be 

unavailable on approximately 240 acres (62 

AUMs). 

546,496 AUMS would be available for 

livestock grazing. Livestock grazing 

would be unavailable on approximately 

140 (12 AUMs). 

Mineral 2,500,000 acres would be available to 1,521,869 acres would be available to 

Materials mineral material sales and permits; 236,000 

acres would not be allowed or closed to 

mineral material sales and permits. 

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 60,000 acres would be avoided to 1,400,514 acres would be avoided to 

Energy renewable energy ROWs; 125,700 acres 

would be excluded to renewable energy 

ROWs. 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-15 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Fifteen ACECs are retained. Sustain and Thirteen ACECs are retained and five 

Designations enhance the Lewis and Clark Trail to 

complement its status as a National 

Historic Trail. 

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 97,000 acres managed as VRM Class I; 83,000 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

Resources 400,000 acres managed as VRM Class II; 414,000 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

Management 375,000 acres managed as VRM Class III; 695,000 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

1,890,000 acres managed as VRM Class IV. 1,570,000 acres managed as VRM Class 

IV. 

4-16 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 Apply restrictions to cultural properties Same as prior management decisions, 

Resources 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. 

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 Apply restrictions to sensitive, special The ARMP would provide more specific 

Wildlife status, and threatened and endangered 

species habitat. See resources uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-17 
4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 All lands would be available for the sale, All lands would be available for the sale, 

Woodland use, and treatment of forest and woodland use, and treatment of forest and 

Products 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. 

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 Consider landownership adjustments on a Category 1—Retention area with no 

Realty 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. 

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 Livestock grazing would be allowed on Livestock grazing would be allowed on 

Grazing about 271,000 acres. The amount of forage 

available for permitted use on these lands 

would be about 73,400 AUMs. 

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 0 acres would be renewable energy ROWs 107,147 acres would be renewable 

Energy avoidance areas; 5,522 acres would be 

renewable energy ROWs exclusion areas. 

energy ROWs avoidance areas; 

146,240 acres would be renewable 

energy ROW exclusion areas. 

Soils and Apply restrictions to perennial or Same as prior management decisions, 

Water intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, 

reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, wetlands, 

and riparian areas. See resource uses for 

applicable allocation decisions that protect 

these areas. 

except acres of restrictive resource use 

allocations may vary. See resources uses 

for applicable allocation decisions that 

protect these areas. 

4-18 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 OHV use would be limited to existing Three TMAs would be developed. OHV 

Transportation roads and trails for the entire Planning use would be limited to existing roads 

Management Area. 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 0 acres managed as VRM Class I ; 0 acres managed as VRM Class I; 

Resources 1,231 acres managed as VRM Class II; 1,544 acres managed as VRM Class II; 

Management 4,993 acres managed as VRM Class III; 531 10,367 acres managed as VRM Class III; 

acres managed as VRM Class IV. 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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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 IM4-20	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

	 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. 

4-22	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

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: 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 4-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Management Considerations—Rationale for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

–		 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. 

4-24	 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 5-1 
5. Mitigation Measures for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

This page intentionally left blank. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: 

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

 

6. Plan Monitoring for ARMPs (Plan Revisions) 

 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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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 

7-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 7-3 
 

7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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 

7-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 7-5 
 

7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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 

7-6 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Public Involvement, Consultation, and Coordination 

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. 

7-8 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. References 

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. 

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

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. 

September 2015 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions 8-3 
8. References 

This page intentionally left blank. 

8-4 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
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, 2015, 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 

Date I 

201~ 

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 1610.5-

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

This page intentionally left blank. 

9-2 ROD and ARMPAs/ARMPs for the Rocky Mountain GRSG Sub-Regions September 2015 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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